# P.E. -- Past, Present, & Future?



## GT ME

P.E. Past, Present, &amp; Future?

It was not long ago when anyone with a non-engineering degree could obtain a P.E. that was based on subjective pass-fail criteria and, as a result, the profession today has an inappropriate amount of P.Es with unqualified credentials.

Now, we have improved licensing requirements, but we have peripheral P.E. designations such as Environmental, Metallurgical, Mining &amp; Mineral, Naval Architecture &amp; Marine, Nuclear, &amp; Petroleum P.E. designation. All of these were, not long ago, under the Mechanical Engineering umbrella.

And, omg, we now have an Industrial Engineering (Professors &amp; Students referred that discipline as Imaginary Engineering) P.E. And another omg, Agricultural P.E.

Where are we going???

I remember Industrial Engineering students struggling with Thermodynamics; moreover, Civil Engineers took courses such as Mechanics of Materials and Mechanical Behavior of Materials as seniors, but in ME, we took those courses in our freshman &amp; sophomore years.

In some ways the P.E designation has improved, but in others, I believe it is increasingly becoming a “so-what” designation.

Arguments please.


----------



## benbo

I don't get your point. What arguments are you looking for. Obviously, most everyone here thinks the designation is of value or we wouldn't have gone through the process, and likely wouldn't be reading this website. I assume you have sufficient experience to evaulate the value of a PE designation in your career. If you think it is a "so-what" designation, don't bother with the test and do something else that day. I doubt that you are going to read anything here that changes any of your present conceptions. But, maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## GT ME

My point is that, unlike the past, there is a lot of peripheral P.E. designations today. And quite frankly, some of these designations aren't engineering at all.

The P.E. benefits me because I own a multi-million dollar business in the HVACR industry. In addition, I graduated with Highest Honors from a top 3 engineering school; moreover, I obtained National Honors &amp; National Dean's List.

What are your credentials benbo?



benbo said:


> I don't get your point. What arguments are you looking for. Obviously, most everyone here thinks the designation is of value or we wouldn't have gone through the process, and likely wouldn't be reading this website. I assume you have sufficient experience to evaulate the value of a PE designation in your career. If you think it is a "so-what" designation, don't bother with the test and do something else that day. I doubt that you are going to read anything here that changes any of your present conceptions. But, maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## benbo

GT ME said:


> My point is that, unlike the past, there is a lot of peripheral P.E. designations today. And quite frankly, some of these designations aren't engineering at all.
> The P.E. benefits me because I own a multi-million dollar business in the HVACR industry. In addition, I graduated with Highest Honors from a top 3 engineering school; moreover, I obtained National Honors &amp; National Dean's List.
> 
> What are your credentials benbo?


My specific credentials wouldn't interest you. It appears that the only thing that interests you are your own credentials. I have some humility, which obviously you lack. Since you are so anxious to share information, what is your name and the name of your business? Or is that you Tom McKeon?


----------



## IlPadrino

GT ME,

I understand your point... for those (most, right?) States that designate all P.E.s as just "Registered Professional Engineer", there is no way of showing the difference between disciplines. And I'm sure everyone will agree there are some harder disciplines than others. I'd put Civil certainly in the middle 80%, but Structural and Agriculture are probably on opposite ends.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

GT, Welcome aboard.

Your topic is a valid one and should definitely be discussed, but Shoot the Breeze is generally a place for non-PE/technical/work topics to blow off some steam.

Beaming to General Engineering...


----------



## benbo

I'm an Electrical Engineer, so my discipline didn't get insulted outright. Maybe he just forgot. But I would hope that somebody else with a PE in Environmental, Nuclear, Industrial , Biological or (omg) Agricultural engineering would respond to this guy. Heck, he basically implies that Freshman MEs know about as much as graduating civil engineers. Sheesh. I wouldn't think that was a good way to build popularity around here.


----------



## Guest

GT ME said:


> Arguments please.


Your premise, at face value is argumentative at best. How do you judge someone's 'qualfication' by the discipline of thier profession without looking at the underlying coursework or experience? You are making sweeping generalizations without any support other than the hubris that MEs are superior to other engineering disciplines. Your only vague support is ... the way things used to be ?

The only thing that I can see in your presentation is the beginning of a beat-off blister - it looks like you are well on your way to achieving that goal. :jerkit: :leghump:

If you want to engage in a serious discussion of the progression of our profession, I would recommend providing FACTUAL STATEMENTS rather than conjecture and perhaps try to apply a modicum of humility. Not all of us fit the :burgerking: role as well as you do.

:2cents:

JR


----------



## slates

IMHO P.E. peripheral designations exist due to ever developing technology and the increasingly stringent guidlines set forth by various agencies. It only makes sense that people specialize in certain areas, this allows for these people to concentrate on the most efficient means of design with the current technology that meets the required standards. Would you go to a M.E. that primarily deals with HVAC to design a ship for you because it falls under his umbrella? I wouldn't even he did graduate from a top 3 engineering school. What is the sense of being a jack of all trades and master of none?


----------



## maryannette

Geeez! I haven't been around an engineer with that much ego in a long time. It's just so unnecessary. Engineering credentials do not make the person.


----------



## Road Guy

A mentor of mine once said to me "You can be a PE and still be a dumbass"


----------



## maryannette

^^ So true. The stupidest engineer I've ever known is a PE. When I found out, I didn't believe it, so I went to the state website and saw his name. Just goes to prove that credentials are not the best indication of talent.


----------



## slates

GT ME said:


> I remember Industrial Engineering students struggling with Thermodynamics; moreover, Civil Engineers took courses such as Mechanics of Materials and Mechanical Behavior of Materials as seniors, but in ME, we took those courses in our freshman &amp; sophomore years.
> Arguments please.


They must have had to condense the schedule to concentrate on Arrogance in Jr &amp; Sr years


----------



## Road Guy

I took Mechanics of Materials in my freshman / sophmore years. for the most part that course is required prior to taking Structural Analysis, Steel Design, &amp; Reinforced Concrete Design. It would be almost impossible to wait until your senior year to take all of that.


----------



## Dark Knight

GT

I saw your post Friday night and I thought you were just bragging about MEs being better than Civils or everybody else. That was the direction of your post. I felt the need to reply and ask exactly what Benbo did but decided not to do it since I was concerned about missunderstanding your post. Now I feel better because I know I did not.

As an EE I did not have to take Mech of Materials since my department decided that the class was irrelevant for us. Before you start to question my college accreditations let me tell you that is an ABET college so I do not have to explain more. Maybe is not like your _top 3_ but is as good as any other engineering college. Your argument is at least vague and confrontational and that is why you had all this reactions.

We are not used here to somebody coming and bragging about his credentials or his multi-million dollar company. We are normal mortals. When you asked Benbo about his credentials you crossed the line. You know it and did it on purpose. Being a graduated from a_ top 3_ engineering college you are smart and knew exactly what you did. That is not the spririt of this Board. We are here to help others to pass the test and after that have some technical discussions, good time, share opinions and other advices.

If you can leave your higher place and come here in that spirit, willing to share opinions with respect to others, you are more than welcome. If not I think you might be better somewhere else. Your superior attitude would not be a good fit here.


----------



## benbo

Thanks Luis. My first inclination was that this fellow (or gal) was actually some high schooler trolling the board. It was hard to believe a professional could be so boorish and obnoxious. Now my inclination is to believe that he may be well qualified but actually worried about passing the test. His first question didn't seem to be the sort of thing some engineering genius would have trouble with. But, that's besides the point. My educational and professional credentials would stack up fine next to his, but what's the point? This is the internet. I could make up anythig I wanted to, so why get hooked into dropping my pants for a measuring conmtest with a clod.


----------



## mudpuppy

slates said:


> IMHO P.E. peripheral designations exist due to ever developing technology and the increasingly stringent guidlines set forth by various agencies.


I completely agree. And to go further, this is also what's happening in education. A couple years before I started my BSEE (in '96), the EE students had to take mechanics of materials, but by the time I got there we didn't. We did have to take statics, dynamics and "baby thermo". But four years later, the dynamics and thermo requirements were also dropped for EE's.

Does this mean the EE grads are worse engineers? Well, it certainly means we're worse _mechanical_ engineers, but that's not what we were shooting for anyway. But the time that used to be spent on engineering mechanics is now spent on more EE studying, which in theory leads to better _electrical_ engineers. And I've never needed to know statics, dynamics or thermo to perform my electrical engineering job--some of the stuff is handy to know in understanding how electrical-related things like power plants or motors work, but the relevant basics can be learned OJT.

Back to GT's topic; I too graduated Summa Cum Laude, plus I was a National Merit Scholar and I have an MS degree and all that crap. I'm not trying to stroke my ego here; my point is that even with those credentials, I'm not qualified as a Fire Protection engineer or to design a bridge or an HVAC system or an industrial process. And like Sapper says, I have no desire to do any of those things, and further, I'd rather not have those responsibilites weighing down my license (assuming the MI board approves my license application--6 weeks and counting since I got my PE exam passing results).

Ok, so maybe I'm being too extreme here; obviously an electrical engineer shouldn't be designing bridges. Perhaps this is more relevant: I've seen there is a Control Systems PE now, and controls has (at least partially) traditonally been under the EE umbrella. Does it bother me that ME's or IE's might be sniping controls from us EE's? No, not really. I might be qualified to do controls engineering, but I don't. And further, I'm _not_ qualified to design computers, even though computer engineering falls under EE as well--though there is no specific Computer PE (yet). I also don't care if the person who designed my computer was qualified to design an electric utility system. So if someone wants to specialize in one of these areas, more power to them, I say. We hear about a shortage of engineers in this country and all about H1B visas; if we require every PE to know everything about every discipline or even every specialization within their own discipline, we're just erecting false barriers that are going to come back to bite us.


----------



## mudpuppy

SapperPE said:


> the bottom line is not whether or not you have another credential, the bottom line is, can you competently practice engineering in the field that you have chosen as your profession?


Good point, Sapper. I meant to make this point in my post, but it got so long I forgot! Credentials may help get you in the door on a job, but it's your perfomance that counts--and there are plenty of sloppy or lazy, well-credentialed people, and plenty of hard working, good-performing people without all the credentials. This is what bothers me about seniority-based pay scales, but that's a topic of different rant.


----------



## IlPadrino

The original post said "In some ways the P.E designation has improved, but in others, I believe it is increasingly becoming a “so-what” designation."

Getting past personalities and (perhaps) egos, I think this is a statement that can be intelligently argued. It isn't an insult to all Agricultural Engineers and it isn't a compliment to all Structural Engineers.


----------



## Undertaker

GT ME said:


> My point is that, unlike the past, there is a lot of peripheral P.E. designations today. And quite frankly, some of these designations aren't engineering at all.
> The P.E. benefits me because I own a multi-million dollar business in the HVACR industry. In addition, I graduated with Highest Honors from a top 3 engineering school; moreover, I obtained National Honors &amp; National Dean's List.
> 
> What are your credentials benbo?


Wao.I have so much to learn.Didn't expext to read this kind of posts here but that shows the great variety of engineers in this place. I mean there are engineers and there are ENGINEERS. The guy has a point in some way but his arrogance just eclipsed the idea of the post. What a shame. It would be a hell of a topic under other cirmustances.To make my contribution to the discussion I don't really think your credetials are a help in the real world.Other than the fact that it can open doors when you are fresh out of college credentials do a shit. 20 years from now tell me who will care if you were Magna Cum Laude, National Super Star or the Engineer of the Year. What will tell about you is the quality of your work and your clients and trust me, clients give a damn about your college credentials. Just my opinion or :2cents: (like to use that emoticon). Ease a little bit GT ME. It is always good to know someone who owns millions but remember that here you are a minority or as a matter of fact the only million dollar man.


----------



## cement

No doubt that GT_ME is a horse's ass, or at least he plays one here, but a beast of burden can be a usefull tool. Even an ace tin knocker from a top 2 school would be commiting malpractice if he placed a large air handler without consulting a Structural PE. We specialize in our fields, but gain some general knowlege in peripheral studies. We know our limits and don't practice outside our license. His statement of "so what" is unfounded and unsupported and is so much spam merely set to stir up the floc tank. The license is a benchmark standard that is required by agencies and industry alike.

What this discussion brings forth for me is the proposed new licensing requirements that are on the horizon of advanced degrees. While I know that the MS gives a person a better understanding and depth of knowledge, does it make you a better engineer? And while a license is a requirement for the work I do, an advance degree would do little more than add to my personal growth and a CM certificate would be more applicable.


----------



## Road Guy

I always looked at degree's like this.

A college degree gives you only the _opportunity_ to a better job, lifestyle, etc.

You still have to do some work along the way, you can graduate at the top of your class, but you cant "learn" a work ethic, and you cant study leadership in a classroom. You need both to succeed in any career.

So a college degree in engineering gives you the opprtunity to be an engineer, passing the PE gives you the opportunity to be a "great engineer" you can have both, in any field and still be a f'tard.

I think alot of "top tier" engineering graduates, some from Georgia Tech, think that getting their degree was the hard part, and the rest of their career is all down hill from there (in terms of difficulty)

I still vote no on a Masters in Engineering in order for licensure, it wont bring forth the $$$$ and respect that people think it will (i.e. see nursing, accountants, speech therapists, etc) all proffessions who lean towards a masters degree as a beacon to be equated to doctor / lawyer status


----------



## benbo

IlPadrino said:


> The original post said "In some ways the P.E designation has improved, but in others, I believe it is increasingly becoming a “so-what” designation."Getting past personalities and (perhaps) egos, I think this is a statement that can be intelligently argued. It isn't an insult to all Agricultural Engineers and it isn't a compliment to all Structural Engineers.


Please make the argument. I still don't get what the guy is talking about, except to put himself on some sort of pedestal. And I don't notice any compliment to Structural Engineers here either. The guy probably thinks they are morons as well.

Maybe I went overboard with this guy, but if a person thinks the PE is a "so what" designation, why are they studying for it? This guy is supposedly studying for it, despite his millions and his ranking as one of the top engineers in the universe. I sure wouldn't put out the effort to do this if I hadn't figured out at first if it was of value.

I shouldn't have called the fellow names, but he irks me.

Moreover, the guy spent half his posts bragging about himself and denigrating other people.

This is what he said -

"And, omg, we now have an Industrial Engineering (Professors &amp; Students referred that discipline as Imaginary Engineering) P.E. And another omg, Agricultural P.E.

Where are we going???"

You must not be an Industrial or Agricultural Engineer (neither am I, but I know some real competent Industrial Engineers, and real decent people as well, like John Price who used to post at the other board). I don't see any other way to look at this than as an insult. How would you like it if someone called your profession "Imaginary Engineering". It is probably going to come as a shock to the students at the UC Berkeley department of Industrial Engineering that they are studying an imaginary technology. But then, Berkely is only in the top 10, not the top 3, whatever that means.


----------



## Desert Engineer

I've read some of GT_ME's previous posts and I think he has what I’ve heard referred to as the (pardon the language) "my cock is too large to ride my bicycle" problem; I use the word “cock” as a metaphor. If you’ve on a construction site long enough, you’ll meet these guys. They usually come up to you when you’re minding your own business; and tell you how much of a problem it is to own too many awesome cars/trucks/boats, how much trouble it is to own an extremely large house, or how horrible it is paying taxes on the X amount of homes/properties they own, you name it, they have a problem with it. They ramble on, trying to impress you with what they have by trying to make it sound like a bourdon, just so they can mention it to as many people as possible. Then after they are thoroughly convinced they have proved themselves better than you, they move on to the next person and repeat. Leaving you wondering: “why the hell did this guy, that I’ve just met, come up to me and give me all of this information, about something I don’t care to know about, pertaining to something that doesn’t’ really sound like a problem”.

Anyways, I’m not sure what the psychology is behind this, but it definitely there.


----------



## maryannette

I didn't finish my degree. I was academically eligible to return, but not financially able at the time. When I was financially able, the time was wrong. BUT, my certificate says that I am a Professional Engineer licensed in North Carolina. There are a lot of differences in people and everybody travels a different road. It takes all kinds. There are plenty of friends at this site, but I'm sure there will be the unfriendly type appear occasionally.


----------



## IlPadrino

benbo said:


> Please make the argument. I still don't get what the guy is talking about, except to put himself on some sort of pedestal. And I don't notice any compliment to Structural Engineers here either. The guy probably thinks they are morons as well.


Let me ask you this... if you needed a PE stamp (regardless the reason - but you needed it by Christmas) and your State board said could sit for *any* PE exam, which exam would you choose to sit for? Sure... you'd choose the exam you feel you're best prepared to take. But after that, I'm sure you'd agree some are harder than others.

And when someone thinks of an "Engineer", assuming they get past the guy that drives trains, who comes to mind? A Civil Engineer or a guy who designs software? I don't think it's impossible that Software Engineers will some day join the ranks of PEs. Do you think this is good or bad for your profession?

I agree completely with maryannette that diversity is important to any organization. I personally don't who you are or where you came from - so long as your competent there's a place for you on my team. And I don't judge Engineers by their PE certificate (whether they even have one or what discipline they took the test in).

For a while I considered taking the Control Systems discipline. I looked at the study material available (there's nothing like the CERM!) and bought a few recommended books. I've got to tell you - it didn't seem that hard. But the fact that it's only offered once a year made my particular timeline too tight.

So... bottom line (for me, anyway): there's an argument to be made. It may not be convincing, but I think it's interesting to discuss.


----------



## benbo

I agree this may be interesting to discuss, but I do not believe the fellow who brought it up meant to do anything but denigrate fellow engineers. Remember, this is the mechanical engineer who basically was already smarter than most civil engineers by his freshman year. Second, you say you do not judge a person by their credentials, but it sure comes across that way. It appears you don't have much regard for software engineers or control systems engineers.



IlPadrino said:


> And when someone thinks of an "Engineer", assuming they get past the guy that drives trains, who comes to mind? A Civil Engineer or a guy who designs software? I don't think it's impossible that Software Engineers will some day join the ranks of PEs. Do you think this is good or bad for your profession?


This is all subjective.

Although in many places around the country, people think of civil and structural engineers, when I worked in the Silicon Valley, and down here in Southern California, working for various defense contractors, when the word "Engineer" is mentioned, a software engineer comes to mind far faster than a guy who designs buildings (probably people first think about electrical engineers of various stripes). I certainly believe the people who program satellite communcations, defense guidance systems, and other very high tech equipment are very sharp engineers. If it was so easy I'm sure a lot more people would be doing it because they all make six figures plus. I have respect for software engineers, and wouldn't really care if there was a PE for that. Is your implication that software engineers are stupid, because basically that is what a lot of the new economy is built on, people like the fellows from Google and other high tech companies.

I will grant this much - by my way of thinking if they are going to make a special PE for software people they should make it siginifcantly more specialized than the general EE exam. Much like the structural test. Structural is technically a part of civil but the exam is really showing a specialty. Same with Geotechnical - which they have in Cali for obvious reasons. To be a geotech PE in California (not a civil geotech but pure geotech) is pretty tough.


----------



## Guest

In order to really make this a meaningful discussion (less the derogatory remarks towards any single profession or discipilne), I think it is helpful to go back to the beginning as to why the profession is regulated. Professional engineering is regulated, according to the statutes of my state, because the legislature deemed it necessary in the interest of public health and safety. *PERIOD* !!!!

In my state, "Engineering" includes the term "professional engineering" and means any service or creative work, the adequate performance of which requires engineering education, training, and experience in the application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to such services or creative work as consultation, investigation, evaluation, planning, and design of engineering works and systems, planning the use of land and water, teaching of the principles and methods of engineering design, engineering surveys, and the inspection of construction for the purpose of determining in general if the work is proceeding in compliance with drawings and specifications, any of which embraces such services or work, either public or private, in connection with any utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, work systems, projects, and industrial or consumer products or equipment of a mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, or thermal nature, insofar as they involve safeguarding life, health, or property; and includes such other professional services as may be necessary to the planning, progress, and completion of any engineering services. A person who practices any branch of engineering; who, by verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, or card, or in any other way, represents himself or herself to be an engineer or, through the use of some other title, implies that he or she is an engineer or that he or she is licensed under this chapter; or who holds himself or herself out as able to perform, or does perform, any engineering service or work or any other service designated by the practitioner which is recognized as engineering shall be construed to practice or offer to practice engineering within the meaning and intent of this chapter.

That is the statutory premise of establishing 'engineering' and 'professional engineering' as a profession regulated by the state.

If you go to the rules governing engineering, they provide duties that are specific to all engineers and then duties specific to disciplines of engineering, set forth as follows:

CHAPTER 61G15-30 RESPONSIBILITY RULES COMMON TO ALL ENGINEERS

CHAPTER 61G15-31 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

CHAPTER 61G15-32 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-33 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-34 MECHANICAL SYSTEMS

CHAPTER 61G15-35 RESPONSIBILITY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS PROVIDING THRESHOLD BUILDING INSPECTION

CHAPTER 61G15-36 PRODUCT EVALUATION

In these cases, it has been deemed that competent individuals are responsible for the engineering work to practice within these areas because it is in the public's interest that they do so. I believe as our society expands and begins to develop more diverse needs, you may very well see the number of engineering designations expand to include those other non-traditional disciplines (_e.g._ software engineering) if it is deemed necessary in order to protect the public welfare.

I would gladly discuss and argue the benefits or limitations/injury this can cause to our profession. However, I urge everyone to present it within context instead of grossly mischaracterizing or marginalizing anyone's education, background, or profession.

JR


----------



## kevo_55

Ok, I think I'll weigh in on this one.

With the Minnesota seal (it's simply text!!) an engineer in any disipline could dishonestly seal ANY set of engineering plans/calculations. The laws in MN simply state that you can seal and practice what you are proficient in.

I for one would love to have a diffrent disipline seal for each type of PE. I do not agree at all that having a diffrent seal for diffrent PE classifications will somehow make the profesion something "less" than what it is.

The biggest beef that I have in the debate is actually concerning the licensure of many Minneota DOT bridge engineers. Word is on the street is when it's time to get licensed these DOT employees take the PE: Civil (transpo). Granted I know what this exam actually has within it, I just do not agree that it is fair that people who pass this exam can seal calculations for a bridge. :deadhorse:

It's just my :2cents:

OK, back to :winko: for me.


----------



## benbo

I've beat a dead horse on this one with my opinion for a while, sorry. I believe we have a lot of competent, qualified engineers of all types here on the board, who have passed the exam in all the disciplines, and should be fully respected.

And JR is right - the reason for the certification is not to give us another notch on our belts, but to show we are competent to protect the public welfare. Heck, talk about specialized, there is a PE for Fire Protection, and from the pure definition of the reason for the seal, this one seems to me to be one of the most important. And I've heard it is a pretty difficult exam.


----------



## Road Guy

would have to vote no on software engineers, unless someone could die from bad software.


----------



## benbo

Road Guy said:


> would have to vote no on software engineers, unless someone could die from bad software.


Just ask the PEs who are now in jail for reprogramming the traffic patterns in Los Angeles. Or the people that program airplane control software, or the software at air traffic control stations, or on the Space Shuttle, to name a few.

Or the people that program the safety systems in the power grid, or thh Digital Control System at a nuclear or fossil power station.


----------



## Guest

^^^ I was thinking along the same lines benbo when I made my statement about software engineers. I have seen the market for PLC-controlled remedial action systems go through the roof (literally). I know that I have to rely on those persons to make sure logic is right in terms of controlling the systems, redundancies, and emergency shutdown and venting. Some of the systems I work with can be VERY DANGEROUS (high power demands, high temperatures generally leading to high energy steam and vapor, high chemical concentrations, etc.). The PLC operations have immensely improved the remediation operations at numerious contaminated sites. Add wireless telemetry and it makes for a very efficient operation. :true:

I don't want to pretend that I can see or predict what branches of non-traditional engineering may yield. I simply would be open to an 'argument' to be made for how it relates to protecting the safety and welfare of the public.

:2cents:

JR


----------



## Road Guy

I dont think the people that design the space shuttle are even PE's if I recall some reading. But they are "rocket scientist"

I know most of the engineers I have met from Lockheed Martin in Marietta are not licensed.

How can you reprogram a traffic pattern? Brainwash people into taking a different route to work every second tuesday? Yeah I know you probably meant traffic signal timing ,something most jurisdictions require PE's to do around here.


----------



## IlPadrino

benbo said:


> Just ask the PEs who are now in jail for reprogramming the traffic patterns in Los Angeles. Or the people that program airplane control software, or the software at air traffic control stations, or on the Space Shuttle, to name a few.
> Or the people that program the safety systems in the power grid, or thh Digital Control System at a nuclear or fossil power station.


That sounds a lot like Control Systems Engineering... not software engineering. We could start a new thread on the merits of software engineering but I think it will be difficult to be convincing that, in general, writing software (an art, not a science!) has in inherent element of public safety.

jrengieng wrote it well: "However, I urge everyone to present it within context instead of grossly mischaracterizing or marginalizing anyone's education, background, or profession." And I agree the element of public safety is the overarching concern. But this makes we wonder about PLS... where's the registration interest there? And, please, don't think I'm denigrating Land Surveyors (my father is one of them!).

kevo_55 gave a good example of my perspective: "Word is on the street is when it's time to get licensed these DOT employees take the PE: Civil (transpo). Granted I know what this exam actually has within it, I just do not agree that it is fair that people who pass this exam can seal calculations for a bridge." We might all feel the same way if an Agricultural Engineer was performing inspection of construction and relied on his PE registration to do so.

There's been some good discussion here and I've learned a few things. Thanks for the discourse.


----------



## Road Guy

for Kev's example, they wouldnt be able to get away with that in most states, I know in GA, you submit your paperwork (experience) to the board and they decide if you take the SE I or the Civil exam.

If people really do that then they are practicing out of their discipline and breaking the law anyways.

But I think engineering licensure should be for professions that impact a large percent of the general population. Or people who are trusting for things within a system to work, large football stadium for example.

Maybe if you fly an F-22 for a living your accepting a higher amount of risk than a guy riding in an elevator at a mall. Even if the F-22 crashes its likely to not effect that many people, compared to designing a bridge on an interstate that has an average daily traffic of 250,000 cars/day.

Also Surveyors are Surveyors and engineers are engineers, there is a different purpose for each, both are of great importance to "society as a whole"

And keep in mind the lady working at Supercuts is also licensed by the state.

But I would hate to be a computer engineer taking a test on scantron!


----------



## GT ME

I never was a humble one : )

In all industries, the most competent engineers, unequivocally, come from the floor, like I. What I mean by that is that I'm not only a technician but also hold Associates in both Applied Science &amp; Physical Science before becoming a top engineering recruit.

Without a solid a foundation, even the tallest buildings can crumble. And I'm confident my superior foundation has given me engineering skills that you will never obtain.



benbo said:


> My specific credentials wouldn't interest you. It appears that the only thing that interests you are your own credentials. I have some humility, which obviously you lack. Since you are so anxious to share information, what is your name and the name of your business? Or is that you Tom McKeon?


----------



## GT ME

Actually, I think the Civil P.E. makes the most since today due to the liability requirements.

Even then, I think it's unfortunate that Civil P.E. designation has been further watered down by subordinate designations.

It's a risk reward situation -- so for you Civil P.Es, I envy your risk-reward potential -- just be careful and don't let the "lowlife" lawyers bite you in the arse.



IlPadrino said:


> GT ME,
> I understand your point... for those (most, right?) States that designate all P.E.s as just "Registered Professional Engineer", there is no way of showing the difference between disciplines. And I'm sure everyone will agree there are some harder disciplines than others. I'd put Civil certainly in the middle 80%, but Structural and Agriculture are probably on opposite ends.


----------



## GT ME

I wouldn't say ME is superior, but as I stated, most of today's P.E. designations where under the ME umbrella.

The SAT scores, however, for the mainstream engineering disciplines from top schools are significantly higher.

the post above said this is a topic for venting of steam -- well hell -- this is venting of steam...lol



jregieng said:


> Your premise, at face value is argumentative at best. How do you judge someone's 'qualfication' by the discipline of thier profession without looking at the underlying coursework or experience? You are making sweeping generalizations without any support other than the hubris that MEs are superior to other engineering disciplines. Your only vague support is ... the way things used to be ?
> The only thing that I can see in your presentation is the beginning of a beat-off blister - it looks like you are well on your way to achieving that goal. :jerkit: :leghump:
> 
> If you want to engage in a serious discussion of the progression of our profession, I would recommend providing FACTUAL STATEMENTS rather than conjecture and perhaps try to apply a modicum of humility. Not all of us fit the :burgerking: role as well as you do.
> 
> :2cents:
> 
> JR


----------



## GT ME

Those pics are funny : )

I am now. I was recruited by NASA &amp; offered an engineering mgmt position at GM before becoming a top mgmt consultant for a Fortune 10 firm.

Owning a business &amp; becoming a P.E. will enable me to do what I love -- engineering &amp; business.



jregieng said:


> Your premise, at face value is argumentative at best. How do you judge someone's 'qualfication' by the discipline of thier profession without looking at the underlying coursework or experience? You are making sweeping generalizations without any support other than the hubris that MEs are superior to other engineering disciplines. Your only vague support is ... the way things used to be ?
> The only thing that I can see in your presentation is the beginning of a beat-off blister - it looks like you are well on your way to achieving that goal. :jerkit: :leghump:
> 
> If you want to engage in a serious discussion of the progression of our profession, I would recommend providing FACTUAL STATEMENTS rather than conjecture and perhaps try to apply a modicum of humility. Not all of us fit the :burgerking: role as well as you do.
> 
> :2cents:
> 
> JR


----------



## GT ME

Actually, HVAC P.E. designation didn't exist until after I graduated in 2000 and, quite frankly, HVAC is a watered-downed version of Fluid &amp; Thermal Systems P.E. designation -- maybe they'll get it right some day.



slates said:


> IMHO P.E. peripheral designations exist due to ever developing technology and the increasingly stringent guidlines set forth by various agencies. It only makes sense that people specialize in certain areas, this allows for these people to concentrate on the most efficient means of design with the current technology that meets the required standards. Would you go to a M.E. that primarily deals with HVAC to design a ship for you because it falls under his umbrella? I wouldn't even he did graduate from a top 3 engineering school. What is the sense of being a jack of all trades and master of none?


----------



## GT ME

Unlike most paper engineers, I'm a real engineer build from a strong foundation -- as a technician.

I started out as a technician for a Fortune 500 firm, and I remembered that the engineers always said I wasn't smart enough to be an engineer -- I was the one that actually solved the problems for those paper engineers but, more importantly, it later turned out, after several years, that I had superior academic intelligence as well.



maryannette said:


> Geeez! I haven't been around an engineer with that much ego in a long time. It's just so unnecessary. Engineering credentials do not make the person.


----------



## GT ME

: )

There's a thin line between arrogance &amp; confidence.



slates said:


> They must have had to condense the schedule to concentrate on Arrogance in Jr &amp; Sr years


----------



## GT ME

As I said earlier, the Civil P.E designation, today, probably makes the most since.

After all, there's probably as many Civil P.E. taking the test than all the others combined?

Stormwater runoff is a piping and pumping issue -- cleary ME to deal with the fundamental Fluid &amp; Thermodynamics tthat accrue in the design -- Civil Engineering doesn't have that foundation.

I think HVACR should be dropped &amp; incorporated in the Fluid &amp; Themal System P.E. designation.



SapperPE said:


> Well, lets see, where to begin. I guess I will start by saying that mechanical engineers take materials in the early years of their education because that is where it best fit into the curriculum, not because mechanical engineer majors have a more capable mind at that age (which also doesn't apply since many engineer students aren't in freshman and sophomore classes at age 18 and 19, but more like 30 and 31 depending on what life choices they have made prior to getting their degree). I would also say that just because as a civil engineer I took mechanics of materials in my junior year of college doesn't mean that it was among the most difficult of courses that I took and I probably could have understood the material just as quickly in my freshman year, but as others have stated, that isn't factually based, that is my perception. However, I must also state that civil engineering works better for me. I am more of a roads and bridges kind of guy, that is how I think. I don't think much about car engines or HVAC systems or electrical circuits or anything else. I would venture a guess that an HVAC engineer probably couldn't even begin to explain to me the process for managing stormwater runoff because they simply don't care about it, that isn't their focus and they could give more than a couple of shits less about anything to do with civil engineering, but it doesn't mean that the civil engineering profession doesn't need qualified, licensed, and regulated people designing the roads and bridges that you drive across to take your multi-millions and massive ego to the bank.


----------



## GT ME

yep. that course is taken by Civil Engineering students with MEs at top schools.

I had a Civil Engineer for my Dynamics class -- awesome dude, and I got an A because he like my practicle experience &amp; questions I asked : )



Road Guy said:


> I took Mechanics of Materials in my freshman / sophmore years. for the most part that course is required prior to taking Structural Analysis, Steel Design, &amp; Reinforced Concrete Design. It would be almost impossible to wait until your senior year to take all of that.


----------



## GT ME

I don't think I'm smart, although a lot of educated people say that and I get offended.

I'm just poor white trash that was a technician with an AS in Applied Science(you have to have an AS in Physical Science of engineering) that become a top engineer -- extremely rare people.

I wouldn't get too offended if you thought I was crossing the line, it's argument. It was unlikely benbo had my engineering credentials..lol

Hopefully, those P.E. candidates will get motivated by this because there is know doubt in my mind that it's their effort, and not education, that will enable a passing grade(don't memorize, learn concepts).



Luis said:


> GT
> I saw your post Friday night and I thought you were just bragging about MEs being better than Civils or everybody else. That was the direction of your post. I felt the need to reply and ask exactly what Benbo did but decided not to do it since I was concerned about missunderstanding your post. Now I feel better because I know I did not.
> 
> As an EE I did not have to take Mech of Materials since my department decided that the class was irrelevant for us. Before you start to question my college accreditations let me tell you that is an ABET college so I do not have to explain more. Maybe is not like your _top 3_ but is as good as any other engineering college. Your argument is at least vague and confrontational and that is why you had all this reactions.
> 
> We are not used here to somebody coming and bragging about his credentials or his multi-million dollar company. We are normal mortals. When you asked Benbo about his credentials you crossed the line. You know it and did it on purpose. Being a graduated from a_ top 3_ engineering college you are smart and knew exactly what you did. That is not the spririt of this Board. We are here to help others to pass the test and after that have some technical discussions, good time, share opinions and other advices.
> 
> If you can leave your higher place and come here in that spirit, willing to share opinions with respect to others, you are more than welcome. If not I think you might be better somewhere else. Your superior attitude would not be a good fit here.


----------



## GT ME

Actually Controll Engineering was under the ME umbrella.

It's obvious that Civil &amp; ME is getting carved up into peripheral P.E. designations while, interestingly, EE hasn't seen that much branching out.

There is no doubt in my mind that Civil &amp; Mechanical is getting carved up like a turkey into peripheral PE designations, while EE is basically remaining intact -- it's all due to Liability.



mudpuppy said:


> I completely agree. And to go further, this is also what's happening in education. A couple years before I started my BSEE (in '96), the EE students had to take mechanics of materials, but by the time I got there we didn't. We did have to take statics, dynamics and "baby thermo". But four years later, the dynamics and thermo requirements were also dropped for EE's.
> Does this mean the EE grads are worse engineers? Well, it certainly means we're worse _mechanical_ engineers, but that's not what we were shooting for anyway. But the time that used to be spent on engineering mechanics is now spent on more EE studying, which in theory leads to better _electrical_ engineers. And I've never needed to know statics, dynamics or thermo to perform my electrical engineering job--some of the stuff is handy to know in understanding how electrical-related things like power plants or motors work, but the relevant basics can be learned OJT.
> 
> Back to GT's topic; I too graduated Summa Cum Laude, plus I was a National Merit Scholar and I have an MS degree and all that crap. I'm not trying to stroke my ego here; my point is that even with those credentials, I'm not qualified as a Fire Protection engineer or to design a bridge or an HVAC system or an industrial process. And like Sapper says, I have no desire to do any of those things, and further, I'd rather not have those responsibilites weighing down my license (assuming the MI board approves my license application--6 weeks and counting since I got my PE exam passing results).
> 
> Ok, so maybe I'm being too extreme here; obviously an electrical engineer shouldn't be designing bridges. Perhaps this is more relevant: I've seen there is a Control Systems PE now, and controls has (at least partially) traditonally been under the EE umbrella. Does it bother me that ME's or IE's might be sniping controls from us EE's? No, not really. I might be qualified to do controls engineering, but I don't. And further, I'm _not_ qualified to design computers, even though computer engineering falls under EE as well--though there is no specific Computer PE (yet). I also don't care if the person who designed my computer was qualified to design an electric utility system. So if someone wants to specialize in one of these areas, more power to them, I say. We hear about a shortage of engineers in this country and all about H1B visas; if we require every PE to know everything about every discipline or even every specialization within their own discipline, we're just erecting false barriers that are going to come back to bite us.


----------



## benbo

IlPadrino said:


> That sounds a lot like Control Systems Engineering... not software engineering. We could start a new thread on the merits of software engineering but I think it will be difficult to be convincing that, in general, writing software (an art, not a science!) has in inherent element of public safety.


If you're talking about the algorithms maybe that is control. The coding is software. Although some of the PLC programming, or even some SCADA programming maybe that is not technically software.

But lot's of safety related industriual programming is done in C++, assembly and other languages. The automated safety measures on the power grid are programmed into remediation systems by software engineers (called RAS systems here in CA). THere is advanced coding behind and networking involved in lots of industries. Not only that, but the programmers have to make sure that the systems are not vulnerable to hackers. THat is why this is such a worry to homeland security. And remember that software engineers program all those computerized analytical design tools that other engineers use to design things.


----------



## GT ME

I would hope the hard workers would advance while the well-credentialed engineers become their subordinates...lol

it's not always like this, but we don't live in a perfect world. For example, I'm also a 6 figure mgmt consultant for a Fortune 10 firm, but most of upper-level mgmt are poorly educated people that advanced through politics &amp; family ties.



mudpuppy said:


> Good point, Sapper. I meant to make this point in my post, but it got so long I forgot! Credentials may help get you in the door on a job, but it's your perfomance that counts--and there are plenty of sloppy or lazy, well-credentialed people, and plenty of hard working, good-performing people without all the credentials. This is what bothers me about seniority-based pay scales, but that's a topic of different rant.


----------



## GT ME

Unless you were someone that came up from the floor as a technician with world-class engineering credentials, it's unlikely you will ever be half the engineer I am benbo. You shouldn't take offense.

I think the responsibility of being a CEO is daunting, but i'm confident my superior experience &amp; education will shine.

I worry more about the plethora of unqualified P.Es out there.



benbo said:


> Thanks Luis. My first inclination was that this fellow (or gal) was actually some high schooler trolling the board. It was hard to believe a professional could be so boorish and obnoxious. Now my inclination is to believe that he may be well qualified but actually worried about passing the test. His first question didn't seem to be the sort of thing some engineering genius would have trouble with. But, that's besides the point. My educational and professional credentials would stack up fine next to his, but what's the point? This is the internet. I could make up anythig I wanted to, so why get hooked into dropping my pants for a measuring conmtest with a clod.


----------



## GT ME

Actually this statement is incorrect.

In the profession, we work of Archeticural Drawings that get revised by engineers such as myself.

Structural Engineers don't enter into the equation.



cement said:


> No doubt that GT_ME is a horse's ass, or at least he plays one here, but a beast of burden can be a usefull tool. Even an ace tin knocker from a top 2 school would be commiting malpractice if he placed a large air handler without consulting a Structural PE. We specialize in our fields, but gain some general knowlege in peripheral studies. We know our limits and don't practice outside our license. His statement of "so what" is unfounded and unsupported and is so much spam merely set to stir up the floc tank. The license is a benchmark standard that is required by agencies and industry alike.
> What this discussion brings forth for me is the proposed new licensing requirements that are on the horizon of advanced degrees. While I know that the MS gives a person a better understanding and depth of knowledge, does it make you a better engineer? And while a license is a requirement for the work I do, an advance degree would do little more than add to my personal growth and a CM certificate would be more applicable.


----------



## Guest

GT ME said:


> I think the responsibility of being a CEO is daunting, but i'm confident my superior experience &amp; education will shine.


It must be or else why would you be trolling an engineering forum board at midnight on a Saturday night?



GT ME said:


> I worry more about the plethora of unqualified P.Es out there.


So, in your admittedly not-so-humble opinion, who is unqualified to be a P.E. ??

JR


----------



## GT ME

Yep, it is a little unsulting, expecially since I went to the top Civil Engineering School in the country -- uh oh -- you guys might fiqure out where I went....lol

I honestly thought IEs where dumb since I had first hand knowledge of IE performance in Thermodynamics, MEs carved IEs up like turkeys. In addition, I wasn't impressed with IEs in Engineering Economy as well.

The fact is there was never an IE P.E. designation until recently and, quite frankly, IEs are not engineers.



benbo said:


> Please make the argument. I still don't get what the guy is talking about, except to put himself on some sort of pedestal. And I don't notice any compliment to Structural Engineers here either. The guy probably thinks they are morons as well.
> Maybe I went overboard with this guy, but if a person thinks the PE is a "so what" designation, why are they studying for it? This guy is supposedly studying for it, despite his millions and his ranking as one of the top engineers in the universe. I sure wouldn't put out the effort to do this if I hadn't figured out at first if it was of value.
> 
> I shouldn't have called the fellow names, but he irks me.
> 
> Moreover, the guy spent half his posts bragging about himself and denigrating other people.
> 
> This is what he said -
> 
> "And, omg, we now have an Industrial Engineering (Professors &amp; Students referred that discipline as Imaginary Engineering) P.E. And another omg, Agricultural P.E.
> 
> Where are we going???"
> 
> You must not be an Industrial or Agricultural Engineer (neither am I, but I know some real competent Industrial Engineers, and real decent people as well, like John Price who used to post at the other board). I don't see any other way to look at this than as an insult. How would you like it if someone called your profession "Imaginary Engineering". It is probably going to come as a shock to the students at the UC Berkeley department of Industrial Engineering that they are studying an imaginary technology. But then, Berkely is only in the top 10, not the top 3, whatever that means.


----------



## benbo

GT ME said:


> Unless you were someone that came up from the floor as a technician with world-class engineering credentials, it's unlikely you will ever be half the engineer I am benbo. You shouldn't take offense.
> I think the responsibility of being a CEO is daunting, but i'm confident my superior experience &amp; education will shine.
> 
> I worry more about the plethora of unqualified P.Es out there.


I'm glad you are an engineering genius, because you sure can't write. But don't worry, I never take offense from the bleatings of a jackass. But that's because you refuse to tell us enough about yourself.

I'm sure you are a god, but you still haven't given us the details of your multimillion dollar business, along with your name, and the name of that famous top 3 school you graced.

Please, favor us oh mighty god, with more information so we may worship you more fully and appropriately. I'm sure you can look some lie up before daddy gets home.


----------



## GT ME

Those P.Es out there that got grandfathered in as a PE when you didn't have to have an engineering degree.

These dinosaurs are slowly becoming extinct, and a new breed of more qualified P.Es are emerging, but not yet.

It was nice to ruffle a few feathers here -- sometimes a kick in the butt is needed to get motivated...lol

Honestly, I'm also desturbed by individual states licensing requirements for P.Es -- I think this is the true disgrace.

As an engineer, Civil &amp; Mechanical Engineering is getting carved up and, to be honest, a CE or ME is quite capable of beforming the other perpherial PE designations.



jregieng said:


> It must be or else why would you be trolling an engineering forum board at midnight on a Saturday night?So, in your admittedly not-so-humble opinion, who is unqualified to be a P.E. ??
> 
> JR


----------



## GT ME

OK - I tried to answer all of your comments the best I could....lol

I shall be more careful when posting again :deadhorse:


----------



## Guest

Would you consider someone who doesn't know the answer to this question PE Question unqualified to be a P.E. after going through and ABET accredited education?

JR


----------



## benbo

Sometimes it is hard to tell whether a troll is for real, or intentionally trying to appear as obnoxious as possible to stir things up. At some point, most trolls "jump the shark," and become such incredible dickheads it's almost impossible to believe they are for real. I am really curious if this overbearing turd really tries to conduct business with an attitude like this, or is, as I suspect, an unruly 6th grader who got to stay up late while his parents are out.

Well, I'm done feeding this troll.


----------



## GT ME

I tell you what....

Send me your fax #, and I'll send you an offer I recieved from the worlds' largest corporation for an engineering management position BEFORE graduating from undergrad -- 6 figure offer.

Then you can post it on this site, and we'll see who the real troll is -- deal?

Either way, you'll never be half the engineer I am.



benbo said:


> Sometimes it is hard to tell whether a troll is for real, or intentionally trying to appear as obnoxious as possible to stir things up. At some point, most trolls "jump the shark," and become such incredible dickheads it's almost impossible to believe they are for real. I am really curious if this overbearing turd really tries to conduct business with an attitude like this, or is, as I suspect, an unruly 6th grader who got to stay up late while his parents are out.
> Well, I'm done feeding this troll.


----------



## mudpuppy

Ok, this has been, ummm, interesting. I do have a question though. What exactly _is_ a software engineer? My understanding has always been that a person that designs computer hardware (and firmware) systems is a Computer Engineer (usually with an electrical engineering degree), and a person that creates software is a computer programmer (usually with a computer science degree). Are my definitions off (I'll admit right now that I could be completely wrong)? Where does Software Engineer fit in?


----------



## Dark Knight

After reading the additionals posts by GT there are three options:

a) He is another alias from the Mods(i.e. Sapper) and he is just messing with us. No way somebody can be so arrogant

B) He is TMcK. He is playing it perfectly.

c) He is God undercover as an engineer.


----------



## IlPadrino

mudpuppy said:


> Ok, this has been, ummm, interesting. I do have a question though. What exactly _is_ a software engineer? My understanding has always been that a person that designs computer hardware (and firmware) systems is a Computer Engineer (usually with an electrical engineering degree), and a person that creates software is a computer programmer (usually with a computer science degree). Are my definitions off (I'll admit right now that I could be completely wrong)? Where does Software Engineer fit in?



Computer or Computer and Systems Engineering has a foundation of programming but it's the applications that make it engineering. I could have easily been a EE (the difference was only about five courses) but I liked the systems approach part of CSYS. At my school all three (EE, Computer, and Systems) are under the same department.

I think programmers have created the term software engineer and I don't particularly like it. I think software is an ART, not a SCIENCE - so I don't know that I even like the term "computer scientist". Still, I guess it's clear they're more scientist and artist.

For me, the acid test for calling yourself an Engineer is a) do you drive a train? or B) is there a clear and distinguished path for earning a PE? That's why I started responding to this thread... I see the increased number of ways to earn a PE as diluting the clarity of what an Engineer really means; you can easily get around the education and the experience requirements and then sit for an exam that in some cases is easier than others.

I like the talk of health and public safety. I apologize for what may be my ignorance, but how does an Agricultural Engineer address health or safety other than pesticides and fertilizers?


----------



## IlPadrino

benbo said:


> Well, I'm done feeding this troll.


I'm not convinced he's a troll (though I wouldn't bet a case of beer against it, either)... I just think he's got an enormous ego that has been inadvertently fed by calling attention to it. I can separate his deficient (well... maybe that's not the best word) personality from the subject at hand.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

I just gave this guy 5 days to review the "I play nicely with others manual"



> Either way, you'll never be half the engineer I am.


True, many of us are already twice that, which wouldn't take much.


----------



## maryannette

:true: I work with an engineer who has been a friend and coworker for many years. We have some very good non-engineering discussions. You know--LIFE topics. In a discussion about family, I talked about my brother who is mentally disabled. My friend told me that he is the least educated person in his family, except for his mother. All of his brothers and his father have doctorate degrees. We decided that higher degrees, certifications, big titles, lots of money, etc. do not make you happy. We compared his father and my brother. One, highly educated, rich, and unable to function in society. He has no friends and doesn't even spend time with family. The other didn't finish high school, has almost enough money to live on, but lives a good life and enjoys the blessings he has. Just something to think about.


----------



## Desert Engineer

VTEnviro,

Maybe you should send GT the link to TMcKeon's E...trades.com board. I think the two of them would get along very well. They could have some interesting conversations about how each is better than the other. just imagine that...


----------



## Guest

^^^ I like the way you think !! :thumbs:

JR


----------



## Road Guy

(okay I admit I posted this before reading the last couple of posts)

one thing I do agree on is that the more engineering keeps getting sub-divided I think the worse we will be as a proffession. Sort of like the old saying, together we stand, divided we fall, or something like that... sorry, having a GW moment...

We always strive to be similar to Doctors &amp; Lawyers, and they seem to rarely add new "specialties" whereas we seem to add new programs at colleges every year.

In Civil, people can rarely do more than one discipline, We have people who do only drainage that have never layed out a road &amp; vice versa. How many Geotech people could do a set of signing and marking plans? &amp; once you go down the ENV road, you can almost never go back. While there are exceptions, it does seem that Civil is becoming like wal-mart in some ways, sorry thats not my department.


----------



## Guest

Road Guy said:


> ... sorry, having a GW moment...


Hmmm .. I think I can see a new bumper sticker in your future 









JR


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

> We always strive to be similar to Doctors &amp; Lawyers, and they seem to rarely add new "specialties" whereas we seem to add new programs at colleges every year.
> How many Geotech people could do a set of signing and marking plans? &amp; once you go down the ENV road, you can almost never go back.


Well I imagine its similar in the medical and law professions. If you do patent law, you probably aren't going to work a personal injury case and if you are a dermatologist you probably aren't going to check someone's kidneys.

That's why you have project teams. Most people know the general practice and have a specialty skill in one or two areas. I'm pretty good at stormwater design but if you want me to design a new highway interchange you're outta luck.


----------



## Dark Knight

^^^^I agree with that.

But when you were a top engineer recruit in the nation, from a top 3 engineering college, and own a multi-million dollar business there is nothing you can't do. The PE status is just like the Tonka truck we always wanted once, got it, and after a few months was left on the playground until it was taken to the Salvation Army boot.


----------



## cement

GT ME said:


> I tell you what....
> Send me your fax #, and I'll send you an offer I recieved from the worlds' largest corporation for an engineering management position BEFORE graduating from undergrad -- 6 figure offer.
> 
> Then you can post it on this site, and we'll see who the real troll is -- deal?
> 
> Either way, you'll never be half the engineer I am.


It's OK, I've got a word processor and photoshop and I can make my own offer. Heck, I know a gut who makes 140k part time!


----------



## Dark Knight

GT ME said:


> I tell you what....
> Send me your fax #, and I'll send you an offer I recieved from the worlds' largest corporation for an engineering management position BEFORE graduating from undergrad -- 6 figure offer.
> 
> Then you can post it on this site, and we'll see who the real troll is -- deal?
> 
> Either way, you'll never be half the engineer I am.


I miss Tom so much now.......


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

> Heck, I know a *gut* who makes 140k part time!


Wow, what does the rest of his body make?


----------



## chaosiscash

If this guy is for real (which I doubt), I can see why he has his own company. I can't imagine anyone that would actually be willing to work WITH him.


----------



## jroyce

Wow... I just came back from a long vacation (ok only 4 days) and back to the information and "connected" world to read this guys crap.

I'll tell you that I wasn't going to comment on the blithering rambles of a pompous jackass who thinks he is God's gift to the engineering world but then I had to.

I would take the "Grandfathered" engineer who has 30-50 years of experience before I would take a graduate of a top 3 engineer school and Fortune 500 blah blah blah. My dad and grandfather were both grandfathered in because of their work experience and those guys both taught me more then what GT has probably taught anyone. Thats the problem with some people who think they are the world. Once you take that last trip and are no longer around, what do you have to show for yourself. Who have you helped? What have you shared with any younger so called less of an engineer that would help make the world a better place? I'm guessing nothing because you are so arrogant that you wouldn't share any of your professed exceptional knowledge.

Nevermind this even worth it.


----------



## JoeBoone82

GT ME said:


> I wouldn't say ME is superior, but as I stated, most of today's P.E. designations where under the ME umbrella.



"A civil engineer is a person who practices civil engineering, one of the many engineering professions. Originally a civil engineer worked on public works projects and was contrasted with the military engineer, who worked on armaments and defenses. Over time, various branches of engineering have become recognized as distinct from civil engineering, including chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering, while much of military engineering has been absorbed by civil engineering."

Looks like ME was once under the CE "umbrella" as well.


----------



## Dleg

I just read this thread now. Interesting discussion topic. Too bad GT_ME had to muck it up.

I agree that there is a danger to the profesion in splitting it up too much. I recall reading several articles, several years back, by NSPE and NCEES about trying to attract more engineers into licensing. I seem to recall that was one of their main justifications for adding the new specialties - just to get more members.

Also, speaking as someone who graduated as an ME, and moved into the "useless" field of environmental engineering (you can never go back!), I can say, with authority, that there is plenty of stuff in civil that an ME simply does not know, and it isn't that easy to learn. MEs are no better than Civils, no matter how much harder the subjects may _seem_ during school. But then, with all his background in the real world, I figured GT_ME would have realized that by now.

Another interesting subject was the recent (last year?) article by NCEES about requiring more course work beyond the BS in order to qualify for licensing. 5 years seems like the figure they mentioned ... and I can agree to that, especially for civil engineers, whose work covers such a broad range of subjects. Broader than ME.


----------



## JohnNevets

Since this thread is so far off topic already, I figured I'd throw in my take as well.

The most important thing I (and I feel most engineers) got out of my bachelor degree was learning how to be a good problem solver. This starts with the basics of math and science, and evolves all the way to as seniors most folks have open ended design projects. Is this to say that the experience that one gains doing the specifics of there discipline of choice doesn't matter, NO. But I think once you have a good solid basis for solving problems, and analyzing solutions to problems (a bit more difficult and a bit more important), you are much better prepared for what ever job you end up at. Some folks can do this naturally without any formal schooling, and many others have learned to do it with many years of experience, but getting an engineering degree is another way to learn this.

Undergrad schooling gives you basic tools not a finished set of them, your future employer will probably want to "mold" you anyway. We are talking about engineering schools not community colleges and tech schools where the important thing is to put employees for the local companies.

By the way I'm an ME who has been working as a structural, and is about to go into broadcasting, and one of the things that my future employer likes about me is I have an engineering way of looking at things.

Had to have a rant on my last day as a formal engineer  ,

John


----------



## DVINNY

WOW. I just now saw this thread.

Great read.

I passed Civil PE and have an ME degree, am I the ultimate smarty fella?


----------



## cement

better than a farty smella, for sure. :thumbs:


----------



## Guest

DVINNY said:


> I passed Civil PE and have an ME degree, am I the ultimate smarty fella?









It's okay DV ... you are still okay in my book lusone: :bananalama:

JR


----------



## DVINNY

cement said:


> better than a farty smella, for sure. :thumbs:


I laid the bait out there, was hoping someone would bite. LOL.

I figured someone would refer to someone else as the Ultimate Farty Smella


----------



## Dark Knight

DVINNY said:


> WOW. I just now saw this thread.
> Great read.
> 
> I passed Civil PE and have an ME degree, am I the ultimate smarty fella?


Nobody is perfect DV. Even you.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro




----------



## jfusilloPE

I wonder what GT_ME would think of me.

I have a BSAS in Civil Engineering Technology, and I'm a licensed PE in 4 States.


----------



## benbo

Now I feel it is safe to comment on this unemotionally.

First, I actually believe this fellow GT about his credentials. That is all well and good and he should be proud. But what I can't believe is all the bragging, and more than that, putting other people down. We all have credentials in various areas (educational, athletic, military, financial, whatever) but unless it is really germaine to the topic most of us realize that nobody really wants to hear us bragging about ourselves (except bragging about good looking wives, provided pictures are available &lt;g&gt. Plus this is the internet, anybody could make anything up.

As far as the topic of all the new PE exams. I really have little opinion on that. I am happy I passed and mainly I needed the license to get decent pay. Before working in gov't I never really thought about the license. I realize some exams might be easier than others, but I've only taken one, so I can't be sure. Where I work I know there are people who can't pass the civil exam and take the Traffic Exam (yes, we have traffic in CA). But I don't think these people are lesser or stupid - there are lot's of reasons people have for failing the exam.

In reality, the PE is a public safety license. In CA it is listed at the Dept of Consumer affairs with all the other licenses -real estate, cosmetology, whatever. We take some pride in it because it is a hard exam, but it not meant primarily as a bragging right. Now I will disappear again on this topic.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro

> We all have credentials in various areas (educational, athletic, military, financial, whatever) but unless it is really germaine to the topic most of us realize that nobody really wants to hear us bragging about ourselves


What if you're hung like a breadbox? Can you brag about that?


----------



## benbo

VTEnviro said:


> What if you're hung like a breadbox? Can you brag about that?


It's futile to try to stop people from bragging about that. But for the sake of all that's good and holy, no pictures please.


----------



## cement

I heard that GT_ME has his pants tailored with THREE legs. rlyflag:


----------



## Undertaker

That GT ME guy is a piece of art. I feel so unworthy. Hell.He had 6 figures offers as an udergraduate. Damn it. What did they teach you in that school man? Was that MIT? Georgia Tech? Tennessee Tech? They were able to teach you to be an engineer but they forgot to teach how not to be a jerk. Dude you can't go thru life insulting and putting others down without paying the price. You might be the best damn engineer in the world but as a person???? I am not writing that here.


----------



## Guest

Undertaker said:


> I am not writing that here.


Don't worry ... we know the score. 

I remember one time in my first engineering job, one of the big guys used to shoot off at the mouth a lot. It turned out that his sister was the Chief-of-Staff for two previous governors and he as considered a blue blood in social circles. :true: However, you couldn't tell that by the way he belittled others either by undermining thier authority or just making petty, demeaning comments.

Well .. in this meeting, Mr. Blue Blood decided to show his true colors yet again. He began berating a subordinate over some picayune detail of some do nothing TPS-like report. You could totally tell he was getting off on it too.

Word got back around to the administrator who had a little chat with Mr. Blue Blood's sister and finally called Mr. Blue Blood into his office for a counseling session. While he was being taken to the wood shed he was told to repeat after the administrator ... "It is nice to be important, but it is more important to be nice." That became the new mantra ... and actually provided some humility to an otherwise unlikeable fella.

Only other thing about personalities - my dad used to say this world wouldn't be the place that it is without the people that it has living in it. It takes all kinds and sometimes you just have to weather the small stuff.

As far as Mr. GT goes, I wish him well in his examination and business practice. No hard feelings - just don't be a complete blowhard.

JR


----------



## DVINNY

Luis said:


> Nobody is perfect DV. Even you.


Been talking to my wife? LOL


----------



## bcse

Hmm, why hasn't JR made a douchebag emoticon? Seems appropriate for GT.

I also wonder what this top 3 school is teaching about writing...

Sorry I am not really adding anything of substance to this topic.


----------



## DVINNY

Ah, take it easy on the guy,

I see it like this: I never saw in his posts where he said he WAS a P.E. That tells me that he isn't going to make excuses for failing it, he is going to make excuses for why he doesn't need to pass it.

1. It's "watered down"

2. He is a top recruit anyway

3. HVAC is a joke, he doesn't need a P.E. to do that stuff, a monkey can

4. Industrial isn't engineering, so it makes a P.E. less valuable

5. etc. etc. etc.

Sounds like the classic case of a non-P.E. trying to justify to himself to not feel inferior to the P.E.'s at work that got promoted above him through family ties or politics. No biggie.

FWIW, a P.E. isn't any better than a Non-P.E., they just have a registration to demonstrate they are minimally competent. A non P.E. has to convince themselves and anonymous internet surfers that they are competent.


----------



## cement

^^ :bowdown:

A sense of calm returns to the room. Thank you, Master DV for showing us the light shining thru a storm cloud ridden thread.


----------



## Guest

bcse said:


> Hmm, why hasn't JR made a douchebag emoticon? Seems appropriate for GT.


I actually have been preoccupied with some work items, so I haven't been as involved with the board for the past few days.

How about his one ---&gt; 





JR


----------



## benbo

jregieng said:


> I actually have been preoccupied with some work items, so I haven't been as involved with the board for the past few days.
> JR


Shame on you! Where are your priorities?


----------



## maryannette

DVINNY said:


> Sounds like the classic case of a non-P.E. trying to justify to himself to not feel inferior to the P.E.'s at work that got promoted above him through family ties or politics. No biggie.


Sounds like a classic case of mine's bigger than yours. I'm glad I don't play that game.


----------



## newton

Folks,

I wouldn't take GT_ME too seriously. If you look at his/her claims, my guess is this is simply meant as an irritant. Why would a CEO/Mngmt Consultant waste their time trying to impress folks like us? Breaktime is over GT_ME. It's time to get back to the drive-thru window.

"I swear by the nipples of Vishnu, I got a 6 figure offer from the largest company in the world! Just give me your FAX number so I can prove it to you"

Horseapples!

Whoever they are, they do have a great imagination. My guess is this is closer to CAD jockey than CEO.

Take care,


----------



## Hill William

newton said:


> Folks,
> "I swear by the nipples of Vishnu, I got a 6 figure offer from the largest company in the world! Just give me your FAX number so I can prove it to you"
> 
> Horseapples!
> 
> Take care,



He was probably looking to send out resumes.


----------



## Slugger926

IlPadrino said:


> GT ME,
> I understand your point... for those (most, right?) States that designate all P.E.s as just "Registered Professional Engineer", there is no way of showing the difference between disciplines. And I'm sure everyone will agree there are some harder disciplines than others. I'd put Civil certainly in the middle 80%, but Structural and Agriculture are probably on opposite ends.


I don't know, I think they are all pretty hard. You may be right with Agricultural being the toughest and Structural being the easiest. How hard can it be to engineer stuff not to move?

I know Agricultural (aka biosystems) has to be proffecient in Chemical, Civil, Sturctural, Environmental, Electrical and Mechanical while maintaining a strong knowlege in Biology and biological processes. The Agricultural test is impossible to study for. Many who fail will pass with flying colors in Mechanical or Civil where they can concentrate their efforts on one subject.

Each field has thier value, and the ones that cross the lines between multiple fields can help communicate issues of other disiplines when working on cross disciplinary teams.

Each company that I have worked at, I have used an array of engineering disiplines. At a digital scale company, I used EE stuff for the electronics; then used Structural and Geotechnical for the bridge and foundation designs (railroad scales); and Mech Eng skilles for hoppers, grain drying, HVAC, hydrolics (imagine a scale tipping up to dump recycables into a bin), and so forth.....

Each disipline is valuable. You wouldn't want to go to a General doctor for a heart surgery, or a heart surgeon for a Lasiks procedure. You would go to a General doctor for common sports injuries or the common cold. The same is true in Engineering.


----------



## Slugger926

IlPadrino said:


> Let me ask you this... if you needed a PE stamp (regardless the reason - but you needed it by Christmas) and your State board said could sit for *any* PE exam, which exam would you choose to sit for? Sure... you'd choose the exam you feel you're best prepared to take. But after that, I'm sure you'd agree some are harder than others.


Yeah, that is why a lot of Agricultural/Biosystem engineers sit for the Civil or Mechanical exams (especially the second time around).


----------



## IlPadrino

Slugger926 said:


> Yeah, that is why a lot of Agricultural/Biosystem engineers sit for the Civil or Mechanical exams (especially the second time around).


OK... I wrote the first thing that came to my mind, which just happened to start with an "a"... how about we look at some of the latest data:

Examination, First-time takers, Repeat takers

---------------------------------------------------

PE Architectural, 66%, 26%

PE Chemical, 81%, 27%

PE Civil, 67%, 34%

PE Electrical and Computer, 66%, 27%

PE Environmental, 73%, 35%

PE Mechanical, 64%, 30%

PE Naval Architecture/Marine, 89%, 100%

PE Structural I, 38%, 25%

PE Structural II, 51%, 37%

PE Agricultural, 75%, 44%

PE Control Systems, 80%, 49%

PE Fire Protection, 42%, 34%

PE Industrial, 69%, 40%

PE Metallurgical, 55%, 54%

PE Mining and Mineral, 84%, 35%

PE Nuclear, 80%, 80%

PE Petroleum, 93%, 33%

Can we agree that maybe there's a correlation between exam discipline and difficulty? Can we agree structural and petroleum or naval architecture/marine are on opposite ends of the pass-rate spectrum? Does someone want to look at a larger data set?

Or would you have me believe that, on average, people who take the structural exam are just not as smart as the average naval architecture/marine engineer?

Please don't misunderstand me... I'm just trying to suggest that some disciplines are harder than others. And states that designate as "Professional Engineer" make it difficult to assess capabilities. Still, with a good argument, I'm sure I can be convinced I'm wrong.


----------



## EdinNO

I haven't read the entire string, but I have to say there are elements of GT's OP with which I agree.

I certainly wish the PE designation were more exclusive and more necessary for most positions and engineering activities.

I certainly wish that any controls technician in the HVAC controls industry who has pulled a little little wire and maybe did some logic programming on PLCs (or DDC controls for those in the HVAC industry) couldn't just arbitrarily start calling themselves an "engineer". To me, that's almost blasphemy. I think it should be to everyone of us who has earned an engineering degree.

As for Industrial Engineers, I don't have a whole lot of exposure. I do work in a bit of an IE industry / role and some of my coworkers are IEs. To me, just in their general knowledge, I have not really seen a whole lot of evidence that they have been through as intense of an education and training as some of the other disciplines. But that could just be a factor pertaining to the individuals who I know.

Overall, it appears to me that the engineering profession has been totally watered down and is becoming commoditized (is that a word?). Look at the IT guys out there. Even after the bust in the maket in recent years, they are still making big bucks and can often get into it with little or no formal education. I have seen this first hand with friends and coworkers in the field.

I believe something has to be done about the profession of engineering. Its gotten out of hand. But what can we do? Is it too late? How to we overcome nations like India diluting the value even more?

Ed


----------



## Slugger926

IlPadrino said:


> OK... I wrote the first thing that came to my mind, which just happened to start with an "a"... how about we look at some of the latest data:
> Can we agree that maybe there's a correlation between exam discipline and difficulty? Can we agree structural and petroleum or naval architecture/marine are on opposite ends of the pass-rate spectrum? Does someone want to look at a larger data set?
> 
> Or would you have me believe that, on average, people who take the structural exam are just not as smart as the average naval architecture/marine engineer?
> 
> Please don't misunderstand me... I'm just trying to suggest that some disciplines are harder than others. And states that designate as "Professional Engineer" make it difficult to assess capabilities. Still, with a good argument, I'm sure I can be convinced I'm wrong.


It is all realative to the engineer, their experience, school, test, and statistics. Some of the fringe egnineering disciplines may only have 50 people sitting for each test, and their pass rates may vary greatly from test to test.

Some of the disiplines seem like a repeat of others (Mechanical, Civil, ect...). There doesn't seem to be a true general engineering PE exam these days.

Also on some of the main disiplines, a bright individual with the proper study guides can pass each one of them. I know one Engineer that has passed Civil, Electrical, Mechanical, and the Chemical engineering exams because he thought ethically he should be proficient as an engineer manager of those groups he manages in a general engineering firm.

The unlicensed engineers that are copying drawings, and forgetting about strutural loads while designing electrical systems are the ones that are hurting our industry.

Each field if utilized properly has their importance. The problem I see in corporations is that those that come from the business schools don't understand what engineers can be used for. They sometimes tend to put engineers in positions of changing lightbulbs, and then decide later that they can replace the engineers with "techs". These same managers are then up a creek when a real engineering need comes along.


----------



## JoeBoone82

Slugger926 said:


> I don't know, I think they are all pretty hard. You may be right with Agricultural being the toughest and Structural being the easiest. How hard can it be to engineer stuff not to move?



lol, I think he meant Agricultural and Structural being on opposite ends.... as in Structural being the more difficult of the two.

There are LOTS of things to consider for "stuff not to move."


----------



## JoeBoone82

IlPadrino said:


> Examination, First-time takers, Repeat takers---------------------------------------------------
> 
> PE Architectural, 66%, 26%
> 
> PE Structural I, 38%, 25%



..... Like I was saying....


----------



## Slugger926

JoeBoone82 said:


> lol, I think he meant Agricultural and Structural being on opposite ends.... as in Structural being the more difficult of the two.
> There are LOTS of things to consider for "stuff not to move."


I agree that there is a LOT of stuff to conceder for stuff not to move. I have done structural stuff before. I was being sarcastic. They are all tough.

I didn't know that they added a PE Architectural. What do they do besides what a Civil / Structural would do? I would prefer someone who has passed both Structural tests.

The point I was trying to make is one test's pass rates on some of the areas such as fire protection or Agricultural may vary from 75% one time to 25% the next since the numbers taking the tests may be low which statistically allows for more variance in pass rates. I have also seen the EE pass rates vary a lot too. The Civil, Chemical, and Mechanical pass rates usually don't vary much since the testing sample is large enough to minimize the variance.

I don't think we should be throwing rocks at each other, but be more worried about the unlicensed practice that is undercutting our jobs and professionalism. Should the guy that can't do the easiest calculations that was called an engineer in the military be allowed to offer engineering services to the public? These are the kind of engineers that are really eroding our profession.


----------



## IlPadrino

My point here was to try and stimulate a discussion that "Registered Professional Engineer" is a pretty broad title and does little to demonstrate proficiency in a specific discipline. My thesis is that some exams are easier to pass than others (maybe I shouldn't have used a specific example).


----------



## IlPadrino

Slugger926 said:


> I don't think we should be throwing rocks at each other, but be more worried about the unlicensed practice that is undercutting our jobs and professionalism. Should the guy that can't do the easiest calculations that was called an engineer in the military be allowed to offer engineering services to the public? These are the kind of engineers that are really eroding our profession.


Don't all state laws prohibit offering engineering services without license?

Hey... and let's not disparage military engineers, eh? 

I think you're in agreement with me that the term "Engineer" should be more restrictive, not less... regardless of a PE exam. It seems to me NCEES is more interested in making money and expanding it's base (though technically a non-profit) than in preserving the "Engineering" community. I mean, why do I have to pay an annual fee for an NCEES record?


----------



## Slugger926

IlPadrino said:


> Don't all state laws prohibit offering engineering services without license?
> Hey... and let's not disparage military engineers, eh?
> 
> I think you're in agreement with me that the term "Engineer" should be more restrictive, not less... regardless of a PE exam. It seems to me NCEES is more interested in making money and expanding it's base (though technically a non-profit) than in preserving the "Engineering" community. I mean, why do I have to pay an annual fee for an NCEES record?


Just because the laws are in place, doesn't mean the state boards are enforcing the laws. I know my board is under immense political pressure to not prosecute certain companies. They told us last year at a legal class that Company A may donate to State Rep A, and pressure State Rep A to abolish certain engineering laws. The Rep A makes a deal with the Attorney General not to introduce the law in exchange of a letter promising not to prosecute Company A.

Here is some videos of a board meeting in a different state:

Videos

As you can see, we need to ban together to protect our profession. We may have to create something other than the NSPE since those that control NSPE may own companies that are making too much to want laws enforced properly.

I think we all agree that there are real engineers in the military then those given the title. I have been forced to hire some from the military that only qualifications were that they A) drove a delivery truck, B) cleaned nuclear missiles. This really confuses the business majors when these guys get out of the military because the business majors aren't worried about qualifications but the price tag of the engineer. Then we can't fire the guys once we have them on board.


----------



## Slugger926

IlPadrino said:


> My point here was to try and stimulate a discussion that "Registered Professional Engineer" is a pretty broad title and does little to demonstrate proficiency in a specific discipline. My thesis is that some exams are easier to pass than others (maybe I shouldn't have used a specific example).


Here are the pass rates the year I passed:

**Nat’l Pass% ** Nat’l Pass%

1st time takers Repeat Takers

AGR 55% 42%

CHE 72% 30%

CIV 59% 28%

ELE 62% 25%

ENV 69% 40%

IND 62% 26%

MEC 65% 31%

PET 66% 32%

STR 43% 18%

It looks like Chemical and Environmental were the easiest tests that year, and Structural and Agricultural were the toughest which doesn't surprise me. There is a difference in studying for something where you have straight forward problems with lots of study materials versus areas where questions could bring in anything real world where their aren't study problems for.

I just noticed this information and thought I would post it when looking through the newsletters trying to figure out when my Board raised the license fees by 50% per year.

By watching the pass rates from year to year, my thesis is that the fields will vary from year to year on which are the easier and which are the harder to pass. I have seen the EE test with 25% success rate in the past.

Yes, Licensed PE is a broad title just like an MD is in medicine.


----------



## benbo

As the person who spent a lot of time here defending everybody as having taken and passed a difficult exam, I think it is time we stop this comparison of exams. It's ridiculous.

I don't think these pass rates tell you anything. Yes, the agricultural exam had a lower pass rate for first timers, but a higher pass rate for repeat takers than any other exam. And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate. Why? Who knows. It doesn't mean anything, particularly since there are so few people that take this exam.

Now, the structural exam consistently has a much lower pass rate, so maybe we can say it is harder. I mean, it had a repeat takers pass rate of 18%. But what's the point of all this?


----------



## IlPadrino

benbo said:


> As the person who spent a lot of time here defending everybody as having taken and passed a difficult exam, I think it is time we stop this comparison of exams. It's ridiculous.


Ridiculous is a passionate word... It is reasonable to hypothesize there is a discernible difference in exam difficulty. Past that, it seems interesting to discuss what this means to the Engineering profession. Other than the original poster, I don't see anyone trying to disparage.



benbo said:


> I don't think these pass rates tell you anything. Yes, the agricultural exam had a lower pass rate for first timers, but a higher pass rate for repeat takers than any other exam. And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate. Why? Who knows. It doesn't mean anything, particularly since there are so few people that take this exam.


The pass rates should tell you something if the PE designation is to have value. As the designation is designed to protect the public interests, there shouldn't be large and unexplained upward swings in pass rates. You lost me on the repeat takers and overall pass rate. Isn't the pass rate for repeat takers *always* less than the pass rate for first-time takers? It would be interesting to compare differences in first-time and repeat takers pass rates. If some disciplines require more real-world experience, perhaps the repeat takers pass rate is lower considering preparation/studying will add little to real-world experience.



benbo said:


> Now, the structural exam consistently has a much lower pass rate, so maybe we can say it is harder. I mean, it had a repeat takers pass rate of 18%. But what's the point of all this?


The point, as I mentioned before, is that I believe the increased number of ways to earn (yeah... no one gives them away - every exam is difficult!) a PE as diluting the clarity of what an Engineer really means. As an extreme example, I don't like software writers calling themselves Engineers.

But, still, it's just a discussion that provokes my thought.


----------



## benbo

Sigh. I am not talking about comparing the repeat passer rate with the first time passer rate. I am talking about comparing the repeat passes rate from exam to exam. Slugger926 is making a point that the Ag exam is harder than the others because it has a lower first time pass rate (55%) than the other exams. I stated that it has a higher pass rate for 2nd time examinees (42%) than every other exam. If you are going to compare passing rates you should do it in a complete manner and not cherry pick things you think make your point. I don't believe it means anything.

I'm sorry if you are offended by the word ridiculous. Perhaps I should have said pointless. THere are not huge radical swings in exams with large sample sizes. Other than that, what is the point of all this? Do you think that the engineering boards and NCEES don't look at this stuff? If you are truly concerned there is some problem, I trust you are working with your board and NCEES to fix it.

First, we have some clown coming on here claiming that the exam doesn't really mean anything, anybody could pass it, especially a top three school honors millionaire graduate. Then, we have some people coming on here claiming x exam is easier than y exam. Specifically, the agricultural exam was mentioned. THen we have somebody coming on claiming that not only is the agricultural exam not easier than the other exam, it is significantly harder. I think they are all difficult and all this discussion is fruitless.


----------



## benbo

For people who are real interested in splitting up the exams by subject, they should move to California. They basically put Structural and Geotechnical Engineers above the others in clear wording. Of course this is logical, since I think you first have to be licensed as a civil engineer before you can become a structural or geotechnical in Ca. So you have to pass a bunch of tests.

From board website-

There are three categories of Professional Engineer licensure available in California: (1) practice act, (2) title act, and (3) authority. The practice acts are Civil, Electrical, and Mechanical Engineering. Practice act means that only a person appropriately licensed with the Board may practice or offer to practice these branches of engineering. The title acts are Agricultural, Chemical, Control System, Fire Protection, Industrial, Metallurgical, Nuclear, Petroleum, and Traffic Engineering. Title act means that only a person licensed by the Board in that branch of engineering may use the title in any manner. The authorities exist for two sub-branches of civil engineering: Structural Engineering and Geotechnical Engineering. An authority indicates a proficiency in that field greater than what is required for civil engineering licensure. Persons who pass the written examination will be issued a license in the branch of engineering for which they applied.


----------



## IlPadrino

You wrote "And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate." What did you mean by that?



benbo said:


> I think they are all difficult and all this discussion is fruitless.


Oh, so you'll stop writing?


----------



## benbo

IlPadrino said:


> You wrote "And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate." What did you mean by that?Oh, so you'll stop writing?


Which exam did you take? Suppose I conclude that was the easiest exam. You're saying that doesn't disparage you?

To answer your first question -

In California, at one time they gave the number of repeat takers verses first time takers. The repeat taker number was a lot higher.

So, Assume there are 500 exam takers. 100 are first time takers, and 400 are repeat takers.

On one exam you have a first time taker pass rate of 25%, and a repeat pass rate of 50% THe overall pass rate is 225/500

Then assume we have a first time pass rate of 50%, and a repeat pass rate of 25%. The overall pass rate is 150/500. Significantly lower.

The repeat takers have a larger effect.

To answer your last question-

Yes. Now I'm done writing.


----------



## Road Guy

my bet is this guy is an unregistered HVAC installer from Panama City


----------



## IlPadrino

benbo said:


> Which exam did you take? Suppose I conclude that was the easiest exam. You're saying that doesn't disparage you?


The easiest does not mean easy. Should I have wrote "least difficult" to avoid any misunderstanding?



benbo said:


> To answer your first question -In California, at one time they gave the number of repeat takers verses first time takers. The repeat taker number was a lot higher.
> 
> So, Assume there are 500 exam takers. 100 are first time takers, and 400 are repeat takers.
> 
> On one exam you have a first time taker pass rate of 25%, and a repeat pass rate of 50% THe overall pass rate is 225/500
> 
> Then assume we have a first time pass rate of 50%, and a repeat pass rate of 25%. The overall pass rate is 150/500. Significantly lower.
> 
> The repeat takers have a larger effect.


Got it; thanks for the example. I was confused because you wrote "And, at least in California, there are far more repeat takers which would mean that it has a higher overall pass rate." More repeat takers can only lower the overall pass rate.



benbo said:


> To answer your last question-Yes. Now I'm done writing.


OK. But I think there's benefit to this discussion so I'll keep at it.


----------



## newton

Colleagues,

I appreciate all of the views that have been expressed. I think we can all agree that we care about our profession. The engineering profession is in a stressful predicament at the moment. Many CEOs and Board of Director members will claim that we (engineers as a segment of the labor force) are pricing ourselves out of the global market, and thus the decade-long shift offshore of our manufacturing base and now R&amp;D.

The number of our community that will be eligible to take the PE exam drops significantly in 2015 due to the new requirements (30 hours of academic credit past the BS in addition to the 4 years of experience). Basically you will have to have the equivalent of a Masters degree to sit for the PE starting in 2015. Each state is now in the process adopting this change.

We are also routinely outflanked politically by our architectural colleagues. From state to state they are generally more organized and better funded. We (engineers) tend to fight amoungst ourselves.

I'm not trying to shut down discussion or minimize the opinions of anyone contributing to this board. I'm saying that there are internal and external pressures that will be changing to face of engineering and professional registgration in a short period of time. We need to collectively try and be more proactive to try and deal with and favorably shape the coming changes instead of reacting and pointing fingers after the fact.

I fully expect congress to let the floodgate of the H1B visa program to allow a large influx of 'engineers' from Asia to flood into the US to 'fix' our global competitiveness problem. The business lobby will dictate these policies unless we can be more effective. There will be no credible way to evaluate or verify their credentials, and the business community will not care as long as their labor costs decrease. These will effect and displace current US engineering graduates that don't currently see the need or benefit of protecting their profession through registration.

In my opinion, we are currently trying to draw narrow conclusions about ease of exam and possible professional abilities of each other based on exam that tests how quickly we can solve 80 unrelated problems. How this measures the ability of a practicing engineer, I'm not sure. I know I don't work under may 6-minute deadlines. The test has to be something, and I don't have a better solution.

I'm not an alarmist, but I would sure like to see some discussion on how we react to current and proposed changes that we will be faced with.


----------



## IlPadrino

newton,

All interesting points. I didn't know there was an impression Engineers were pricing themselves out of the global market. Do you think State boards will help to insulate our profession from foreign labor?

You wrote "I fully expect congress to let the floodgate of the H1B visa program to allow a large influx of 'engineers' from Asia to flood into the US to 'fix' our global competitiveness problem." How does this fix a global competition problem? I think you're implying that businesses see an opportunity to lower expenses and wouldn't care about qualifications - but registration is still required for an Engineer to do business. What if there was an international professional engineer licensing body? I wouldn't be against the idea... each State could still add to the standard. But it would be scary to think about the impact to American Engineering labor.

I think I've done a poor job explaining my opinion and I fell to the temptation of getting wrapped around exam discipline difficulty. After thinking about your post, I still suggest the solution lies in narrowing the perview of the PE rather than expanding it with more disciplines. Of course, this can be done by State boards choosing to license by discipline like many do for Structural. But if we continue to "dilute" the Engineer, it may get worse.


----------



## newton

IlPadrino,

The issue of our (engineering) labor costs came from a board of director of a major chip manufacturer. They (the board and management) were impressed with the quality of work and the time of construction for a new facility in China. This was not a one-on-one meeting, but a presentation to a group (I don't rate that kind of face time with board level folks). For mechanical, electrical, environmental, etc engineers to 'practice' in industry, no licensure is needed. Those engineers involved in industry will claim they 'do' engineering instead of just 'practicing' all day. This disconnect between industry, consultants, educators, and those employed by state and federal goverment needs to be addressed by our profession.

We have to remember that corporate structures mandate profitability. It's illegal for them to operate in a way detremintal to corporate profits. State boards can certainly protect the engineering workforce that is dedicated to infrastructure (State DOT's, large consulting firms, etc), but I suspect that corporate pressure will work to drive down the costs of the non-licensed workforce (i.e. those that don't need a license to work in an engineering job title).

My point is that all in the engineering community need to come together to shape and protect the future of our profession. It might be in the long term interest to have a two-tier licensing system with the ability to reach out at the lowest-tier level to those that currently don't see a need for licensure, or are in some cases discouraged form seeking it. I know it seems silly, but there are actually managers that don't want to see 'their' engineer with a PE credential due to the worry of losing that person or having to pay more to keep them. This lower teir would be one step up from those that have passed the FE and are engineers-in-training.

Having H1-B visa status means that you are beholden to the company that brings you in. This gives them a measure of price control over that segment of the labor force. I don't mean to imply that US corporations don't care about the qualifications of the engineering workforce. I am saying if they can get someone to do it more cheaply, then they will, regardless of that person's qualifications either here or overseas. If something goes wrong, then they have built in contingencies to deal with that.

I don't know enough to have an opinion about the strength of the current licensing system regarding the specific sub-categories. I do have a healthy respect for all of those that show up every day and prove, by example, that they are worthy of the title of engineer whether they have a license or not. I just wished there was some way to galvanize the engineering community to stand up for the profession.


----------



## kevo_55

I'd like to see someone with an H1-B visa seal something in the US.................


----------



## Slugger926

kevo_55 said:


> I'd like to see someone with an H1-B visa seal something in the US.................


Why would they need to when they work directly for the company, or work directly under a PE? Or as I have seen, work for an unlicensed company A doing consulting work for company B that the board of engineers won't prosecute? As far as that goes, company A uses a lot of non-licensed engineers to consult for company B without any reprocussions. Once you get away from Civil Engineering, these abuses get worse.


----------



## IlPadrino

Slugger926 said:


> Why would they need to when they work directly for the company, or work directly under a PE? Or as I have seen, work for an unlicensed company A doing consulting work for company B that the board of engineers won't prosecute? As far as that goes, company A uses a lot of non-licensed engineers to consult for company B without any reprocussions. Once you get away from Civil Engineering, these abuses get worse.


If State Boards aren't willing to enforce the laws of the State, aren't there some repercussions a private citizen can help occur? I guess a lawsuit is pretty extreme... I'd thinking casting light on the practice would suffice. Or are you suggesting the engineering products are rubber-stamped and there's no way to highlight it?


----------



## Slugger926

IlPadrino said:


> If State Boards aren't willing to enforce the laws of the State, aren't there some repercussions a private citizen can help occur?



This nails it. It probably happens in a lot of states too. I know my board has said that they have agreements from the AG in letter form not to prosecute some companies as a political favor to state legislators. They law makers probably got a $500 campaign donation per our board's Director.

I know there are some videos on youtube of state board meetings where the board is looking the other way over licensure issues.

If they really wanted to enforce the laws, they would be proactive in investigating any company offering technical services.

In most states, offering engineering services is illegal even though the work required probably does not require an engineer's stamp.

Per an attorney, you would have to go to the AG who may be getting political pressure to look the other way.

I guess their could be a lawsuit against the companies offering illegal services, but that could black ball the complainer against any future jobs. It boils down to "he that has the gold makes the rules."


----------



## Dleg

newton - :thumbs: From someone in the trenches, seeing this happen already on the fringes of the US.


----------



## IlPadrino

Slugger926 said:


> This nails it. It probably happens in a lot of states too. I know my board has said that they have agreements from the AG in letter form not to prosecute some companies as a political favor to state legislators. They law makers probably got a $500 campaign donation per our board's Director.
> I know there are some videos on youtube of state board meetings where the board is looking the other way over licensure issues.
> 
> If they really wanted to enforce the laws, they would be proactive in investigating any company offering technical services.
> 
> In most states, offering engineering services is illegal even though the work required probably does not require an engineer's stamp.
> 
> Per an attorney, you would have to go to the AG who may be getting political pressure to look the other way.
> 
> I guess their could be a lawsuit against the companies offering illegal services, but that could black ball the complainer against any future jobs. It boils down to "he that has the gold makes the rules."


I was thinking a suit against the State Board. You'd think there was a way to do it with some "whistle blower" protection (maybe that is only for people within the organization itself?) or anonymity.


----------



## slates

IlPadrino said:


> I was thinking a suit against the State Board. You'd think there was a way to do it with some "whistle blower" protection (maybe that is only for people within the organization itself?) or anonymity.


NSPE Board of Ethical Review

The NSPE Board of Ethical Review was established in the 1950s to review factual situations involving ethical dilemmas submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public. These anonymous dilemma situations are reviewed by the members of the Board and considered in light of the language of the NSPE Code of Ethics, Board of Ethical Review precedents, and the practical experiences of the seven professional engineers selected from each of NSPE's separate geographical regions who serve on the Board. Following extensive deliberation, the Board issues written opinions which contain a description of the facts, pertinent Code citations, relevant questions, detailed discussions, and conclusions. Some opinions also include dissents.

From your previous post in another thread wouldn't this be at least a starting point?


----------



## Ilan

Wait for three more months, I should have my license by then. B)



kevo_55 said:


> I'd like to see someone with an H1-B visa seal something in the US.................


----------



## Road Guy

I kind of miss GT_ME ........... HOF Poster IMO


----------



## benbo

Road Guy said:


> I kind of miss GT_ME ........... HOF Poster IMO


Yeah - all this discussion about the importance of the PE designation when we know it doesn't mean anything unless you are an honors ME graduate from a top three university.


----------



## Road Guy

dont forget 7 figure income!


----------



## Sschell

bump


----------



## Ble_PE

How is this not in the HOF?


----------

