# Do you think engineers are on the way to becoming “cheaper by the dozen”?



## 1SmartEngineer (Jan 18, 2010)

The Engineering Daily Community Forum has for long been an insightful discussion portal for engineers to voice their opinions on issues that affect us all. One particular topic has gathered a wide spectrum of responses, providing a deeper perspective into perhaps the prevailing attitude about the engineering field. One respondent to the topic titled, Have you lost your job? How are you surviving?, voiced his dissatisfaction with engineering by proclaiming that the “reason that so many engineers are out of work and for longer periods than in the past is that there are so many more of them in the work force.”

Badger, the respondent, lost his job in August, 2009 and as of his last post he was still searching for a job. His obvious dissatisfaction with engineering is further reinforced in the rest of his comment:



> The ironic thing about education is that the more people have access to it, the less value it has. Having a BS or MS in any engineering field is not exactly a rarity anywhere. Engineers are almost on the way to becoming cheaper by the dozen. I am fed up with the seemingly eternal battle for survival, where losing a job means a year or two years out of work. I did not go to university for four years to get an expensive hobby, but that is what is happening. Based on what I have experienced in 30 years, I would never touch engineering and would also stay away from university as well. A more hands-on career such as plumbing, HVAC or locksmithing would have worked out better for me. Now it is too late, I wish I had dropped out of engineering before I graduated. It is simply not worth the effort I put into it.


As job losses become a reality for most engineers, do Badger’s sentiments echo a serious issue in our profession? In his own words, do you think “engineers are on the way to becoming cheaper by the dozen”?

Article Source: www.engineeringdaily.net


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Jan 18, 2010)

I guess I disagree, to a point. Gone are the days when you could get a job and stick with it for years without ever changing fields or companies.

I think engineers must continually look at their background/experience and ensure they are cultivating skills that are needed in the job market.

Just being really really knowledgeable at a particular type of engineering job isn't good enough to keep you employed forever.

As for their being "too many engineers" I don't believe that to really be true, maybe in certain fields, and particular locations.

Listen every market in the country is hurting right now, what makes engineers believe they should be immune to the economy as well? Because we took 7 terms of calculus?


----------



## z06dustin (Jan 18, 2010)

Kephart P.E. said:


> Listen every market in the country is hurting right now, what makes engineers believe they should be immune to the economy as well? Because we took 7 terms of calculus?


Well that and our curricula were ABET certified. That makes us immune, right?


----------



## JoeBoone82 (Jan 19, 2010)

I guess it just seems confusing when you hear about how there is a vast shortage of engineers, yet you have so many who have lost their jobs and cannot find another. I wonder what the statistic is for engineers who have lost their job or are unemployed, compared to the overall national average which includes all types of work.

I can see his side of the story... that the more college is available for everyone, the less weight a college degree will hold. Puts more people on a level playing field, which is not bad... but also creates more supply and less demand.


----------



## EnvEngineer (Jan 19, 2010)

I have been doing engineering for 30 years and I have never been unemployed more than a couple of months. The odd thing is I came from the background that he thinks is the answere to all his ills. Just like engineers there are plumbers, carpenters and locksmiths that have sucessful careers and there are those who do not. Is it luck, skill, karma,  I think its all three.

In my case its has been all three, my family guided my karma and kept me positive even in difficult times, I was lucky to get some jobs that built my career when others were not hired, and my wife pressed me to continue my education making me more vaulable. Could I have done this in the trades, maybe but I really enjoy engineering and appreciate the professionals I work with and enjoy my clients so I feel fortunant.

Remember that those graduating from college following you do not have your experience, if you dont build on your career with experience then you will be competing with some lower paid engineers. You gotta move forward or prepare to move back.

Foreign competition, automation, and economic changes will put engineering jobs at risk but there are not jobs that are immune to these forces. I am glad I choose engineering and plan to stick to it.


----------



## YoungEngineerOnline (Feb 16, 2010)

I agree with Kephart P.E. But to add to the discussion....

Looking from an expat perspective (im in Norway atm) could this be just a US thing?

The general feel in the norway oil &amp; gas sector right now is once again positive and the local papers are filled with job listings each saturday. And again, I know from friends in Perth that say the engineering companies are again looking to grow and hence employ.

It could be me being naive.... but could it be a case of too many engineers in some locations not willing to move and hence the industry becomes overpopulated in certain favorable areas?


----------



## HornTootinEE (Mar 19, 2010)

Well, where I work I'm an electrical engineer at a utility with 3 years expeirience. I do design, system studies, etc. Then 3/4 of the time I do design and project supervision. The guys I supervise are trade type folks, and It will be at least another 4 -5 years at my company before I catch up to them on straight-wage, not counting the fact they get paid overtime and I get nothing for overtime. So had I went to one or two years of trade school, I'd have been making their wage 6 years ago instead of 4 years from now. Then we wonder why people don't want to be engineers


----------



## Dark Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

When a company fills Lead Engineer positions with people that do not have engineering degrees, that makes you think if we are cheaper by the dozen. When a company has engineers without EIT(or FE) supervising engineers with PE licenses, that causes you to second guess yourself. You do not see lawyers or medicine doctors in that situation. Do you?

We have a manager here with an engineering degree(cool), not an EIT, of course not a PE and with no idea about the field he is working, 8 years of experience total, supervising two engineers(one an EIT and one a PE) with 18 and 25 years of experience respectively. Is there something wrong with that picture?

One of the engineering units has two out of three Lead Engineers without engineering degrees. The other one is a PE. I guess that it is easier when your MO is to copy and paste other designs.

State Boards do not give a darn hoot... and NCEES??? We all know what the god$$$ at the mountain are looking for.

Is there any state that requires at least the EIT for someone to occupy an engineer position? A PE to be able to supervise other engineers? I do not think so.

Yes, we are becoming cheaper by the dozen.


----------



## chaosiscash (Mar 22, 2010)

DK,

I'm just wondering, are you in an exempt industry? I think I remember you changing jobs some time back, but I can't remember.


----------



## Dark Knight (Mar 22, 2010)

chaosiscash said:


> DK,
> I'm just wondering, are you in an exempt industry? I think I remember you changing jobs some time back, but I can't remember.


That is the case


----------



## JavaJim (Apr 22, 2010)

I'm a little late to the discussion but this thread is interesting. To answer the question, I do not think engineers are getting cheaper by the dozen. Not in the least. The real issue we have to keep in mind is that companies can dole out titles to whomever they wish. It's a private company, not a democracy or a meritocracy. Titles and positions of influence go to those who are liked best by management. It's not all about skill and credentials. If it were, there would be strict standards about who could hold a responsible engineering position and about who can supervise projects.

Management just needs to make sure that qualified engineers are doing the design work but when they hold meetings, they want to sit around the table with a guy that they like, even if he isn't fully qualified to do the work. He only needs to know enough to report out on what the qualified engineers are doing.

As long as products need to be designed and manufactured, buildings need to be erected and technology needs to be advanced, degreed and licensed engineers will be in demand. Don't be fooled by the way some companies operate. If you as a PE are being paid less than tradespeople, it's probably because they are members of a strong union and nobody is representing you. You may want to set your sights toward starting your own firm after you have built up enough experience.

Let's face it. Many people _want _to be engineers but for one reason or another, they realize that they don't have what it takes to earn an engineering degree and they still end up working in or around engineering doing work that is not very technical. Engineering theory and design are things that some people just can't handle. People who can handle this work are not cheaper by the dozen althought it might appear that way when you look into certain companies. I think engineers need to focus on working in companies that value our unique contributions. Since most of us are exempt and don't receive overtime, we really need to enjoy what we are doing in order to justify the commitment.

It is easy to end up playing somebody else's game where the work is set up to emphasize the strengths of tradespeople or others who are not degreed or licensed engineers. I have worked in environments like that. I decided to make the move to a place where engineers are at the top of the food chain and we are valued because we are engineers. I'll admit that it isn't always easy to do.


----------



## HornTootinEE (Apr 23, 2010)

JavaJim said:


> I'm a little late to the discussion but this thread is interesting. To answer the question, I do not think engineers are getting cheaper by the dozen. Not in the least. The real issue we have to keep in mind is that companies can dole out titles to whomever they wish. It's a private company, not a democracy or a meritocracy. Titles and positions of influence go to those who are liked best by management. It's not all about skill and credentials. If it were, there would be strict standards about who could hold a responsible engineering position and about who can supervise projects.
> Management just needs to make sure that qualified engineers are doing the design work but when they hold meetings, they want to sit around the table with a guy that they like, even if he isn't fully qualified to do the work. He only needs to know enough to report out on what the qualified engineers are doing.
> 
> As long as products need to be designed and manufactured, buildings need to be erected and technology needs to be advanced, degreed and licensed engineers will be in demand. Don't be fooled by the way some companies operate. If you as a PE are being paid less than tradespeople, it's probably because they are members of a strong union and nobody is representing you. You may want to set your sights toward starting your own firm after you have built up enough experience.
> ...



So how does one find a place where engineers are nearer to the top of the food chain??


----------



## jfusilloPE (Apr 23, 2010)

The biggest issue that I see is the fact that most clients are going to the cheaper as opposed to possibly the better. In my former company, cream of the crop was always hired (as still holds true today), but it is hard to compete with "mom and pop" firms that take the same amount (or even more) time to perform the same at a rate of half of what a national firm could do it for. Most clients (municipalities) are trying to save a buck or two and go with a less qualified, or maybe just cheaper firm because of the bottom line.

It is almost impossible for me to compete when I have to charge $200 an hour to do the same work as someone who has no overhead and charges only $100 per hour.

Is this fair? Is this what is best for society on the whole? The world may never know, but have you ever negotiated an attorney's rate?


----------



## JavaJim (Apr 24, 2010)

djohnson.ee said:


> So how does one find a place where engineers are nearer to the top of the food chain??


As I said in my previous post, this is not an easy thing to do. The basic idea is to work for a company that really needs engineers to do engineering. Many companies post engineering degree requirements in their job postings because they really just want a smart person to do their middle management work. They farm out the engineering because they don't have a need for engineering services every day.



jfusilloPE said:


> ...
> It is almost impossible for me to compete when I have to charge $200 an hour to do the same work as someone who has no overhead and charges only $100 per hour.
> 
> Is this fair? Is this what is best for society on the whole? The world may never know, but have you ever negotiated an attorney's rate?


You're right. This is a tough business and it's not fair. I have rarely felt that my work environment is fair. I have negotiated the fees for my attorney and my CPA. When I need services, I tend to shop around for pros who are willing to tailor their fees to my needs. The higher priced pro isn't necessarily the best one for you. My experience has been that the interpersonal chemistry and rapport between people is more important than the certificates hanging on the wall. As long as the attorney is qualified for the services I need, the most important factor is how he understands my needs and how he caters to those needs. If the attorney doesn't work for a big downtown firm with a $10,000/month rent bill, that's better for me. I'd rather be one of the most important clients to a smaller attorney rather than a nuisance to a high roller lawyer who feels his time is too valuable to be bother with my little problems.


----------



## HornTootinEE (Apr 25, 2010)

JavaJim, your earlier post about tradespeople vs. PE, etc. is pretty much where I am at right now... Engineers are like you say, just need smart people to cover the middle-manager jobs.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Apr 26, 2010)

jfusilloPE said:


> The biggest issue that I see is the fact that most clients are going to the cheaper as opposed to possibly the better. In my former company, cream of the crop was always hired (as still holds true today), but it is hard to compete with "mom and pop" firms that take the same amount (or even more) time to perform the same at a rate of half of what a national firm could do it for. Most clients (municipalities) are trying to save a buck or two and go with a less qualified, or maybe just cheaper firm because of the bottom line.
> It is almost impossible for me to compete when I have to charge $200 an hour to do the same work as someone who has no overhead and charges only $100 per hour.
> 
> Is this fair? Is this what is best for society on the whole? The world may never know, but have you ever negotiated an attorney's rate?





$200 an hour is excessive IMHO. But it depends on what exactly you are doing. If you are doing general consulting work that lots of other companies are capable of doing, but you charge 2x as much maybe your company is the one with the problem not these "Mom and Pop" places.

If they take longer to do a job but charge less maybe to be competative your company needs to do the same thing.


----------



## audioaddict (Apr 27, 2010)

Kephart P.E. said:


> jfusilloPE said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest issue that I see is the fact that most clients are going to the cheaper as opposed to possibly the better. In my former company, cream of the crop was always hired (as still holds true today), but it is hard to compete with "mom and pop" firms that take the same amount (or even more) time to perform the same at a rate of half of what a national firm could do it for. Most clients (municipalities) are trying to save a buck or two and go with a less qualified, or maybe just cheaper firm because of the bottom line.
> ...


Come on Kephart....get outta here with $200/hr being excessive. In the grand scheme of things for the value Engineers bring (let alone a PE), $200/hr is cheap...

And when you look at the sliding scale rates for attorneys and the like, $200/hr is their entry level.

It's a tough problem to deal with since Engineers have pegged their rates awhile ago....how do you raise them across the board in a unified matter? And then how do you do it without it raising red flags of collusion? 

Time to step up and have some pride in the profession. The root of the problem is that owners of Engineering companies have lost touch of what it is to be an Engineer, either because of ignorance or in some cases, they aren't an Engineer (e.g. General Electric or some major organization).

As much as we may be annoyed at lawyers and doctors, you have to hand it to them in that these are complete non issues to them. They run their professions properly, and we can learn from them.

These are deep rooted issues where my father &amp; I have a lot of experience dealing with, and while the path to higher ground is feasible, execution will be challenging.

The biggest issue REALLY is the lay public's complete IGNORANCE of what it is we do. Engineering for the most part is an anonymous profession....most people don't know that Engineers design everything: a car from GM comes from the Engineers at GM, not "GM".....an ipod comes from the engineers at apple, not apple.

Further compounding the issue is that many other professions have 1 to 1 dealings with the lay public: You need your taxes done, you call an accountant. You don't feel good, you call a doctor. You need to sue someone, you call a lawyer. You need work done around the house, you call your electrician/plumber/etc. When was the last time John Doe called up an Engineer for anything? lol.

Before we can get into the whole supply/demand thing (which is BS to begin with), there are bigger issues we need to deal with.


----------



## audioaddict (Apr 27, 2010)

BTW, another issue we have is that PEs aren't valued as much by the owners of Engineering firms.

There's a disgusting attitude about cheap labor and it comes straight from the top. Many firm owners would rather get by with minimal quality Engineers at a high rate than keep quality guys who know what they are doing.

They look at it too much as dollars &amp; cents and don't see the bigger picture.

I've done many case studies during my MBA program, and none of the successful startups that you see today were the result of this inhibited ideology.


----------



## Santiagj (Apr 28, 2010)

I blame the bean counters!


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Apr 28, 2010)

audioaddict said:


> Kephart P.E. said:
> 
> 
> > jfusilloPE said:
> ...


And all those other professions REQUIRE LICENSING. A long long time ago corporations got their exemptions and it is holding down much of the profession. And I bet 90% of the engineers have lower billing rates than $200 an hour, so I guess your company is the only one that has got it correct. But hey if you have clients that are willing to pay your rate charge whatever you like. These days however for the really technical analysis stuff we farm out I usually see about $174 and hour. This is in the Petro Chem field so it isn't low ball.


----------



## Kephart P.E. (Apr 28, 2010)

Not to mention if you have water leaking in your basement, being sued in court, or contract a nasty disease you are much more willing to pay whatever it takes.

Much of what Engineers do best is preventative, which is more difficult to justify your rates for things that will not happen for months and years.


----------



## Dark Knight (Apr 29, 2010)

ironman said:


> I wonder if it would be possible for engineers to unionize and lobby to make licensing (PE/EIT/etc) required for buisnesses. Also they could lobby further to ensure that engineering work could not be outsourced due to these licensing requirements. I wonder if engineers could join with existing unions like the IBEW, pipe fitters, etc to accomplish this goal.


It is in some places. You would be surprised. I know a place, or territory, that if you do not have a degree in engineering and the EIT test, you cannot fill an engnieer's position and cannot do any design work.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Apr 29, 2010)

ironman said:


> I wonder if it would be possible for engineers to unionize and lobby to make licensing (PE/EIT/etc) required for buisnesses. Also they could lobby further to ensure that engineering work could not be outsourced due to these licensing requirements. I wonder if engineers could join with existing unions like the IBEW, pipe fitters, etc to accomplish this goal.



Beware the unintended consequences. I know a couple of places where engineering is part of the IBEW. They aren't any better off now than they were before. The only difference is that now they are paying union dues.

My own view on unionization is that I neither want nor need the "assistance" of collective bargaining. I cut my own deals.


----------



## EM_PS (Apr 29, 2010)

No professional occupation has any business 'unionizing' - Cripes, imagine if doctors &amp; lawyers unionized! your knowledge is your commodity and what you serve the public with, not some ability to fly a plane or run a stamping machine. Because this knowledge is not easy to come by, attempting to unionize with others having that knowlege results in an ethical dilemma when the lay public could be considered at the mercy of this organized labor conglomerate of knowledged (difficult-to-come-by) professionals.


----------



## Flyer_PE (Apr 30, 2010)

^Union or not, you are only worth what the market will bear for your given skill set. All unionizing does is increase the height from which you fall when the job evaporates. Have you considered changing industries? There's a lot of work going on in nuclear power these days.


----------



## EM_PS (Apr 30, 2010)

ironman said:


> From what I have seen the ratio of applicants to job openings does not tell me that people with "this knowlage" you speak of is very hard to come by.


Its called a recession dude, lots of people out of work.

my point was that there are certain things that are of a necessity (providing a needed service) to the public that can only by law be accomplished by a P.E. (exempt industries aside), or a P.S., or a lawyer, or an M.D. ... so now ironman (rrpearso), imagine if these professionals became unionized - I'm looking at it from John Q. Public's eye, not my own - but organized labor for professionals who are the only ones by law able to accomplish certain necessary public services pretty much flys in the face of most ethical canons out there. It serves primarily to protect the most basest member (the bottom of the barrel) of collective bargaining units, while ignoring the exceptional. You want fatty cash, become a roller operator on prevailing wage project, just know that a chimpanzee could do your job for you.


----------



## benbo (May 1, 2010)

Welcome back, ironhead.


----------



## Paul S (May 1, 2010)

Sweet, welcome back ironman!


----------



## JavaJim (May 3, 2010)

Some good points were made by ironman. Still, the medical profession has its problems. I have some MDs in my family and it is not as rosey as it seems. They get treated like the UPS guy and they are given only three minutes per patient in the clinical setting. That's three minutes to examine, diagnose and prescribe. If they don't make their patient quotas each six months, they get a pay cut. If that continues for two consecutive periods, they are fired. Sure, they have relatively high salaries compared to most people and their profession is protected from oversupply by placement of arbitrary limits on the number of seats in U.S. medical schools. Now that conglomerates have bought most hospitals and clinics, medical practice is like assembly line work in most clinics. Notwithstanding this, upwardly mobile engineering managers and corporate executives typically earn higher salaries than most physicians.

The medical profession is under fire from nurses and medical technologists who have earned the right to treat patients and to prescribe certain medications. These professions require only a bachelor degree and the passing of an exam. Nurses and med techs are used in many clinics because management knows that they can get many services for far less pay than a physician would want. There will typically be two nurses and two med techs for each physician. The MD will oversee and sign off the work of nurses and techs just as the PE will oversee and seal the work of nondegree and/or unlicensed technical people.

Any qualified student can get a seat in an ABET accredited engineering school and the only thing that matters is whether he/she can do the work and pay the tuition. By contrast, thousands of qualified medical students are turned away each year simply because the medical board limits the number of medical schools and the number of seats in those schools. When you apply to medical school, you are applying to a centralized service, not just to one school. The whole thing is set up to limit competition and to enhance the demand and salaries of physicians.

There is no doubt that the engineering profession is run more like a trade than a profession. It is relative easy to get into the profession provided that you have the math and analytical skills and a strong interest in technical work. Once you get your degree, you are in demand to a certain extent but you will basically fend for yourself on the job. There are few really good on-the-job training programs for engineers. The medical profession is more like a club where on-the-job training is stressed and the training is very relevant to the practice of the profession.

The $64k question is: What should be done about this? I don't have the answers but for starters, I think engineers need a stronger lobby presence at the state and federal government levels.


----------



## MGX (May 3, 2010)

Cheaper by the dozen? Hiring a dozen engineers would give me a volume discount?


----------



## chaosiscash (May 3, 2010)

JavaJim said:


> The medical profession is under fire from nurses and medical technologists who have earned the right to treat patients and to prescribe certain medications. These professions require only a bachelor degree and the passing of an exam.


I'm not sure about "medical technologists" (did you mean physician's assistants?), but I'm pretty sure for a nurse to prescribe medicine, they have to be a licensed nurse practitioner, which requires an advanced degree (masters), not just a bachelor degree and the passing of an exam. I could be wrong, but that's the way I understand it from my wife, the RN.


----------



## Chucktown PE (May 3, 2010)

ironman,

just wondering but have you considered applying for a position in the lower 48. I would think salaries are much better down here than they are in Alaska, lol.


----------



## JavaJim (May 3, 2010)

chaosiscash said:


> JavaJim said:
> 
> 
> > The medical profession is under fire from nurses and medical technologists who have earned the right to treat patients and to prescribe certain medications. These professions require only a bachelor degree and the passing of an exam.
> ...


Yep. I did mean physician's assistants. But the degree for a physician's assistant is called Medical Technology at some schools. At my clinic, some nurses do almost all the patient care and simply get a sign-off from the doctor. Those are mainly nurse practitioners but some are RNs. Some states have nurse anesthetists and that requires specialty hospital training but not necessarily a master's degree although the master's is common.


----------



## Road Guy (May 3, 2010)

Trick Question:

Nurses are told they are to administer drugs prescribed by doctors, and if a nurse doesnt catch one of the doctors screw ups and gives something to a patient they shouldnt have(that the doctor shouldnt have prescribed) , guess who gets fired; the Doctor or the Nurse?


----------



## chaosiscash (May 4, 2010)

The nurse, of course. They are much cheaper and easier to replace than the doctor.


----------



## Fudgey (May 4, 2010)

Chucktown PE said:


> ironman,just wondering but have you considered applying for a position in the lower 48. I would think salaries are much better down here than they are in Alaska, lol.


I hear the therapy options for anal sex addiction is better down here as well...


----------



## Chucktown PE (May 4, 2010)

Fudgey,

Why don't you tell us a good story? I'm kind of suprised you don't have that fettish seeing as how you spend so much time dealing with gastrointestinal issues. Of course maybe you do have that fettish and you've been silent on the issue.


----------



## JavaJim (May 4, 2010)

OMG! With that avatar and a name like Fudgey, I find the combination disturbing. Snap out of it and get some help.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (May 4, 2010)

Might I suggest reading some of his prose floating around the site.


----------



## Chucktown PE (May 4, 2010)

JavaJim said:


> OMG! With that avatar and a name like Fudgey, I find the combination disturbing. Snap out of it and get some help.


You don't know the half of it.


----------



## Santiagj (May 20, 2010)

Brining this thread back on track. In Maryland they allow 4 different professionals to stamp site development plans which include SWM plans, Sediment and Erosion Control, Grading Plans etc.. The 4 stamps they allow are PE, PS, RLA, and Architect. I think this leads directly to the de-valueing of the engineering profession since the state is allowing 3 other professions to do the same thing. (btw I'm a structures/geotech guy not site work) I'm kind of okay with professional surveyors stamping the drawings because their professional exams are similar to what PE's go through. However, why is a landscape architect or a regular architect allowed to stamp packages for permit? How difficult are their exams? I really get upset at the landscape architects it seems that its the easiest route to get into the land development field.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 20, 2010)

The Kentucky engineering board doesn't allow anybody except licensed engineers stamp civil plans like that. In fact, they have been cracking down on RLAs stamping plans lately. My current firm has an RLA that knows what he is doing, but all of his work gets reviewed and stamped by a civil PE before it goes out the door.


----------



## MechGuy (May 20, 2010)

Santiagj said:


> However, why is a landscape architect or a regular architect allowed to stamp packages for permit? How difficult are their exams?


Not sure about the landscape architect, but regular architects have pretty difficult exams to pass in order to become an RA. I think they are on par with the PE exam, or possibly even harder from what I've been told by some of my friends who are RAs.


----------



## Santiagj (May 20, 2010)

MechGuy said:


> Santiagj said:
> 
> 
> > However, why is a landscape architect or a regular architect allowed to stamp packages for permit? How difficult are their exams?
> ...



What topics are RAs tested on?


----------



## pelaw (May 20, 2010)

Santiagj said:


> What topics are RAs tested on?



I think you can research that from AIA or Board's website. RA is more difficult than PE imo. RAs must pass a multi part exam, like 6 or 7 parts. Some have to do with structures, some with esthetics, some with project management, and they can pass parts one at a time.

The good thing is that RAs don't have to labor for 4 to 100 years before being allowed to sit for exam.


----------



## Santiagj (May 20, 2010)

I'm trying to find out what topics or modules they are tested on similar to how PEs are tested. I fail to see how an architect who has no educational background in hydrology or fluid dynamics is allowed to stamp a site development package in my state.


----------



## pelaw (May 20, 2010)

It does not matter whether RAs are tested on engineering topics. All that matters is whether the law allows them to stamp the plans. This, you can find out about from statutes and rules pertaining to architects and engineers in your state.


----------



## kevo_55 (May 20, 2010)

RA's in IL have limited structural authority.

I hear that their exam is just as a bitch as the SE1 + SE2.

:2cents:


----------



## MechGuy (May 20, 2010)

Santiagj said:


> I'm trying to find out what topics or modules they are tested on similar to how PEs are tested. I fail to see how an architect who has no educational background in hydrology or fluid dynamics is allowed to stamp a site development package in my state.



I wasn't trying to say RAs should be allowed to stamp civil drawings. They should only be allowed to stamp their own architectural plans. I was simply commenting on your question "how hard are their exams?"

From what I hear, they're pretty rigorous. I think they have to take something like 7 different exams? Some states have even an additional exam beyond those 7.

no personal experience, just from what my RA friends have told me when comparing notes about licensure when I was taking the PE exam.


----------



## EM_PS (May 20, 2010)

Santiagj said:


> Brining this thread back on track. In Maryland they allow 4 different professionals to stamp site development plans which include SWM plans, Sediment and Erosion Control, Grading Plans etc.. The 4 stamps they allow are PE, PS, RLA, and Architect. I think this leads directly to the de-valueing of the engineering profession since the state is allowing 3 other professions to do the same thing. (btw I'm a structures/geotech guy not site work) I'm kind of okay with professional surveyors stamping the drawings because their professional exams are similar to what PE's go through. However, why is a landscape architect or a regular architect allowed to stamp packages for permit? How difficult are their exams? I really get upset at the landscape architects it seems that its the easiest route to get into the land development field.


In MI, the three items mentioned above would only be stamped by PE - we find more infractions of PE's trying to play PS than vice-versa.


----------



## Chucktown PE (May 20, 2010)

I think trying to compare the RA exam to the PE exam is pretty pointless. Their exam covers very subjective material mentioned above (aesthetics, massing, site placement, context, different vernaculars, etc.). I don't think one is more rigorous than the other, it's apples and oranges.


----------



## Dleg (May 25, 2010)

I agree. A physician's board examinations are tougher than the PE exam, I would guess, but I doubt an MD would be qualified to certify hydrologic designs and calcs. I know several architects, and I have talked to them on occasion about this very issue, and none claim any education or expertise in site drainage design.

And yes I understand that some state laws allow this, and after seeing the workings of my state's board, I am not surprised. Greedy board members selling out the engineering profession for their own business interests. Engineers should do something, but it's often tough to take a stand against the people who renew your license every year, since architects, LAs and PSs also comprise our boards. I suppose that's what the engineering societies are for. So that begs the question, what is NPSE and ASCE doing in these states where this has occurred?


----------



## soobs (Jun 30, 2010)

Short answer to the original question is: yes.

I would say that licensed engineers still have an edge over "BS degreed engineers" in this ever commoditizing world.

Private companies can now outsource ENGINEERING to India, China or elsewhere where they can design anything for a third of a price of US engineers. Its not just customer service they are outsourcing.

If you hate lawyers, we can try to make an army of robot lawyers that only need ONE lawyer to review and sign off their work.

If you try to make robot engineers, i will have my robot-engineer-killing robot ready.


----------



## ironman (Jul 2, 2010)

The wages that engineers get is going to go way down, save your money while you can. If engineers dont form a union and force legislation separate from ASPE then the american dream attained through engineering will not be there, engineering will be just a job to pay the bills and put a roof over your head and nothing more.


----------

