# Question about required experience for PE exam



## shuusin (May 4, 2016)

I didn't take the FE out of college (stupid, I know), and have been working 7 years in my field now. If I pass the FE and become an EIT, do I have to work an additional 4 years to meet the professional experience requirement or would my previous years qualify? Put another way, could I take the FE and PE exams in about a year or so?


----------



## snickerd3 (May 4, 2016)

depends on the state


----------



## snickerd3 (May 4, 2016)

in IL as long as the experience meets the specs, you could take both tests the same weekend and if passed both you could get your # right away.


----------



## shuusin (May 4, 2016)

snickerd3 said:


> depends on the state


Virginia, if that helps. I couldn't find anything precise looking at my VA's website.


----------



## Def (May 4, 2016)

shuusin said:


> I didn't take the FE out of college (stupid, I know), and have been working 7 years in my field now. If I pass the FE and become an EIT, do I have to work an additional 4 years to meet the professional experience requirement or would my previous years qualify? Put another way, could I take the FE and PE exams in about a year or so?


I'm in a similar situation in TX and didn't need to wait. It was over 10 years from graduation of undergrad to when I took and passed the FE, then was approved to sit for the PE the next time the test was offered.

The language in TX just mentions "years experience as an engineer." The key is not that it requires one to be an EIT while acquiring those years experience.


----------



## TWJ PE (May 4, 2016)

Def said:


> I'm in a similar situation in TX and didn't need to wait. It was over 10 years from graduation of undergrad to when I took and passed the FE, then was approved to sit for the PE the next time the test was offered.
> 
> The language in TX just mentions "years experience as an engineer." The key is not that it requires one to be an EIT while acquiring those years experience.


In Texas, starting with the October 2016 exam, you don't need 4 years experience to sit for the exam. So you could take both the FE then the PE within a year starting now. However, like other states, you will need to gain your experience before they grant your license.


----------



## Doyee5 (May 10, 2016)

If you have the references you can take them back to back.


----------



## starquest (May 11, 2016)

Doyee5 said:


> If you have the references you can take them back to back.


Not in PA!  

https://www.pcshq.com/?page=PAFE


----------



## Def (May 13, 2016)

W9TWJ said:


> In Texas, starting with the October 2016 exam, you don't need 4 years experience to sit for the exam. So you could take both the FE then the PE within a year starting now. However, like other states, you will need to gain your experience before they grant your license.


I'm aware of the change, but don't really think it's a good idea. If the pass rate stays the same, all it says is that the test is absolutely not indicative that actual engineering experience is needed. I'd say it's probably true, since it's much more of an academic test than focusing on practical engineering judgement. But it just reinforces that it should probably be tailored a bit more to reflect useful engineering experience and judgement gained in a typical engineering job performing engineering calculations in that field.


----------



## Tim - formerly @ NCEES (May 13, 2016)

Def said:


> I'm aware of the change, but don't really think it's a good idea. If the pass rate stays the same, all it says is that the test is absolutely not indicative that actual engineering experience is needed. I'd say it's probably true, since it's much more of an academic test than focusing on practical engineering judgement. But it just reinforces that it should probably be tailored a bit more to reflect useful engineering experience and judgement gained in a typical engineering job performing engineering calculations in that field.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (May 13, 2016)

I believe in WA you're required to work 4 years as an EIT before being eligible to sit for the PE.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (May 13, 2016)

Still don't agree with the decoupling at all. Book smart does not equate to good engineer. Never has, never will.


----------



## SE_FL (May 15, 2016)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> Still don't agree with the decoupling at all. Book smart does not equate to good engineer. Never has, never will.


In Florida you have to pass the Engineering Rules and Ethics online quiz before being approved to sit for the PE. Passing the multiple choice ethics portion guarantees that you are an ethical person and will continue to be ethical for the rest of your career. Thank goodness for that.


----------



## GatorGrad13 (May 15, 2016)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> Still don't agree with the decoupling at all. Book smart does not equate to good engineer. Never has, never will.


Neither does passing a test. I've met my fair share of PEs that certainly don't qualify as "good engineers". 

I support the decoupling because it allows examinees to have more flexibility in when they decided to sit for the exam. However, I would recommend working for at least a year before taking it. Based on the NCEES graph, it seems the 3-5 yr range is the ideal time.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (May 15, 2016)

GatorGrad13 said:


> > On May 13, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Ken PE 3.0 said: Still don't agree with the decoupling at all. Book smart does not equate to good engineer. Never has, never will.
> 
> 
> Neither does passing a test. I've met my fair share of PEs that certainly don't qualify as "good engineers". I support the decoupling because it allows examinees to have more flexibility in when they decided to sit for the exam. However, I would recommend working for at least a year before taking it. Based on the NCEES graph, it seems the 3-5 yr range is the ideal time.


To each their own. At least, for now, I don't have to worry about any of the 'early' test takers practicing in my state.

Although, not sure how taking a test early equates to flexibility. I could see that argument for the computer based testing.


----------



## GatorGrad13 (May 15, 2016)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> To each their own. At least, for now, I don't have to worry about any of the 'early' test takers practicing in my state.
> 
> Although, not sure how taking a test early equates to flexibility. I could see that argument for the computer based testing.


Well the 'early takers' cannot practice until they fulfill the experience requirement anyway. 

The current system forces you to take the exam after your 4th year of experience. Decoupling allows you take it earlier, and likely at a more convienent time. For example, my wife is in medical school and was studying for her board exams this spring, so I went ahead and registered to take the exam since it was a good time for me. Under the traditional system, I would have had wait till next year, when we will likely be moving for her residency.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (May 15, 2016)

The test is supposed to reflect real world knowledge. If the pass rate is high for less experience, the test is nothing more than fe 2.0

I have and always will maintain that all requirements, no matter what they are, should be the same for all PE's.


----------



## GatorGrad13 (May 16, 2016)

Ah, I see. Yes, the test is suppose to be geared toward more practical knowledge/practices. Whether it actually is or not is another matter. It will be interesting to see how the pass rate is affected going forward.

Yes, the requirements for PEs should be the same. The requirements are still the same (BS, FE, experience, PE). The only thing that has changed is the PE doesn't have to be tacked on at the end.


----------



## JHW 3d (May 16, 2016)

Tim @ NCEES said:


> > 1 hour ago, Def said: I'm aware of the change, but don't really think it's a good idea. If the pass rate stays the same, all it says is that the test is absolutely not indicative that actual engineering experience is needed. I'd say it's probably true, since it's much more of an academic test than focusing on practical engineering judgement. But it just reinforces that it should probably be tailored a bit more to reflect useful engineering experience and judgement gained in a typical engineering job performing engineering calculations in that field.


  

/monthly_2016_05/5735e198e1ce1_PEpassvsexp.thumb.jpg.e8d460e49ea1ba73dcc3a7bed4543ae3.jpg

Looks like the best chance happens when you... Read the chart correctly before posting


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (May 16, 2016)

JHW 3d said:


> /monthly_2016_05/5735e198e1ce1_PEpassvsexp.thumb.jpg.e8d460e49ea1ba73dcc3a7bed4543ae3.jpg
> 
> Looks like the best chance happens when you... Read the chart correctly before posting


so, the test is designed for 4 years experience, and as you get further away from that the pass rate goes down.  Prior, likely because you don't have enough experience.  Beyond, because you're going too far away from academic experience (i.e. how to study for exams, recall of info from academic years, etc.)  Makes perfect sense.  Glad I was an anomaly on that chart.


----------



## JHW 3d (May 16, 2016)

Audi I was referring to my own idiocy by stating "just wait til you have 11+ years -- pass rates are great then!"

I didn't look closely enough at the chart legend.

I have since edited my original post.


----------



## RBHeadge PE (May 16, 2016)

shuusin said:


> Virginia, if that helps. I couldn't find anything precise looking at my VA's website.


Virginia's rules are little wonky. http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title18/agency10/chapter20/section210/  implies that the professional experience requirement does not have to be after the EIT. Note that the type of undergrad degree and who awarded it will affect the amount of expereicned required to sit for the PE exam

The Virginia code found (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+reg+18VAC10-20-160), doesn't define when the experience occurs. It defines:

"Qualifying engineering experience" means a record of progressive experience on engineering work during which the applicant has made a practical utilization of acquired knowledge and has demonstrated progressive improvement, growth, and development through the utilization of that knowledge as revealed in the complexity and technical detail of the applicant's work product or work record. The applicant must show progressive assumption of greater individual responsibility for the work product over the relevant period. The progressive experience on engineering work shall be of a grade and character that indicates to the board that the applicant is minimally competent to practice engineering. Qualifying engineering experience shall be progressive in complexity and based on a knowledge of engineering mathematics, physical and applied sciences, properties of materials, and fundamental principles of engineering design.

Also see the table at: http://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title18/agency10/chapter20/section240/ which outlines different types of qualifying and non-qualifying engineering experience. It too is silent on when the experience should be gained.

All this, plus in talking with Virginia colleagues who are currently pursuing a PE that the experience can happen prior to the EIT. You should check with the Commonwealth Board to be sure.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, yes Pennsylvania requires 4 years of experience after passing the EIT and prior to applying to sit for the PE exam. Which for many years, meant that one couldn't actually take the test until 4.5-5 years after graduation.


----------



## Def (May 17, 2016)

Tim @ NCEES said:


> View attachment 8180


Yikes, that's an even worse drop off than I imagined.

Not to say an engineer at 4 years isn't "experienced," but given that the pass rate halves between 4 years and 10 years of engineering experience, do you (in your own "not officially endorsed by NCEES" opinion) feel that the test is perhaps a poor reflection of mastery of engineering?

Or do you feel it's a symptom of the selection bias of the population of more experienced engineers taking it. As in, they're either more likely to not be doing technical engineering work, and/or they are attempting to get a PE as a "resume bullet point" and are maybe light on actually using it at the time? Just throwing out some possible cases as I see it as talking points, but I'd personally be a bit alarmed at that result if I were creating a test to show "sufficient mastery of practical engineering skillset and knowledge."


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (May 17, 2016)

Def said:


> Yikes, that's an even worse drop off than I imagined.
> 
> Not to say an engineer at 4 years isn't "experienced," but given that the pass rate halves between 4 years and 10 years of engineering experience, do you (in your own "not officially endorsed by NCEES" opinion) feel that the test is perhaps a poor reflection of mastery of engineering?
> 
> Or do you feel it's a symptom of the selection bias of the population of more experienced engineers taking it. As in, they're either more likely to not be doing technical engineering work, and/or they are attempting to get a PE as a "resume bullet point" and are maybe light on actually using it at the time? Just throwing out some possible cases as I see it as talking points, but I'd personally be a bit alarmed at that result if I were creating a test to show "sufficient mastery of practical engineering skillset and knowledge."


Like I said above, I think it's reflective of not being in the habit of, nor remembering how to study for an exam of this type.


----------



## scatsob (May 17, 2016)

For anyone that cares, NC will allow pre EIT experience to count. I took the EIT in May 2015 and was approved for and took the April 2016 PE.


----------



## JHW 3d (May 17, 2016)

I would assume there is some selection bias in the data as Def says.

10 years out. You're not taking the test for the same reason as someone desperate to gain the qualification. I am in the former pool. I happen to have passed first time, but I do not use the PE license day to day at my job - and if I didn't pass first time it wouldn't have been a death blow to my career. My motivations were more for the future - consulting work and potentially owning my own firm.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (May 17, 2016)

JHW 3d said:


> I would assume there is some selection bias in the data as Def says. 10 years out. You're not taking the test for the same reason as someone desperate to gain the qualification. I am in the former pool. I happen to have passed first time, but I do not use the PE license day to day at my job - and if I didn't pass first time it wouldn't have been a death blow to my career. My motivations were more for the future - consulting work and potentially owning my own firm.


Wouldn't a first time taker 10 years out be solely for promotion purposes?


----------



## JHW 3d (May 17, 2016)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> > I would assume there is some selection bias in the data as Def says. 10 years out. You're not taking the test for the same reason as someone desperate to gain the qualification. I am in the former pool. I happen to have passed first time, but I do not use the PE license day to day at my job - and if I didn't pass first time it wouldn't have been a death blow to my career. My motivations were more for the future - consulting work and potentially owning my own firm.
> 
> 
> Wouldn't a first time taker 10 years out be solely for promotion purposes?


Yes, but when you pass and don't get a promotion it transitions to a resume padding purpose.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (May 17, 2016)

JHW 3d said:


> > > I would assume there is some selection bias in the data as Def says. 10 years out. You're not taking the test for the same reason as someone desperate to gain the qualification. I am in the former pool. I happen to have passed first time, but I do not use the PE license day to day at my job - and if I didn't pass first time it wouldn't have been a death blow to my career. My motivations were more for the future - consulting work and potentially owning my own firm.
> >
> >
> > Wouldn't a first time taker 10 years out be solely for promotion purposes?
> ...


True, I would think the potential for advancement would be the motivation behind taking the test. Awful lot of work for padding a resume. I'd rather sit through a seminar for that.


----------



## RBHeadge PE (May 17, 2016)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> Wouldn't a first time taker 10 years out be solely for promotion purposes?


Often, but not always. They measure test takers in time since undergraduate graduation, not post-graduate graduation. Someone could spend 3-5+ years in grad school then join the workforce, gain the relevant state-specific professional experience (*cough* antiquated Pennsylvania discipline specific rules *cough*) and then attempt to take the test. And some tests are only offered once a year. In that example its easy to see how a taker could take the exam as quickly as possible while still approaching the 10 year mark.

I didn't first sit for the PE until 8.5 years after undergrad graduation. And that was with taking it at the earliest opportunity given the state which I resided/worked.


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (May 18, 2016)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> Wouldn't a first time taker 10 years out be solely for promotion purposes?


Seeing how I fit into the category... no.  I did it to make a viable side business.  There is/was no promotion potential at my place of employ.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (May 18, 2016)

Audi driver said:


> > 20 hours ago, Ken PE 3.0 said: Wouldn't a first time taker 10 years out be solely for promotion purposes?
> 
> 
> Seeing how I fit into the category... no.  I did it to make a viable side business.  There is/was no promotion potential at my place of employ.


I know every case is unique, but I would think most would fall in this category.

Hell, I work with 2 guys that have been out of school for a number of years and still haven't gotten around to taking the FE. Maybe they never will, but if they do, they will definitely be approaching the 10+ year mark and it will be strictly because of laziness.


----------



## knight1fox3 (May 18, 2016)

Unless one works in engineering consulting or something similar where a PE license is utilized, it shouldn't necessarily be expected that an employer automatically provide some sort of pay raise or promotion (not saying anyone here indicated this, just pointing it out).  However, I pursued becoming a PE to build my portfolio and to also have another proverbial "ace in the hole".  I had no qualms about jumping ship with my at the time present employer.  I knew having a PE license would provide a higher level of visibility and differentiation in a very competitive private industry market.  As such, once I did have my PE license, I did feel it was of value to my employer to a certain degree and negotiated for a raise but provided corresponding justifications for such.

On a side note, with some of the employer/salary research I conducted, on average it was suggested that after a person is with a particular employer for 6-7 years or more, their industry marketability tends to go down since they become very focused in a particular engineering role.  I also took this into consideration when I started looking around.  But all things considered, I'm glad I made the jumps I did because I am in what I consider to be a prestigious role at this stage of my career.


----------

