April 2011 exam stories

[mrt406]

I'm surprised some states would allow this. Seems like it would be opening themselves up to a whole world of liability.

Not that I'm saying (or not saying) there'd be any corrolation for this, or that this couldn't happen to an engineer with a degree...

But what happens if, heaven forbid, a bridge fails or something similar and the public finds out that the engineer that designed it didn't even go to school for engineering?

Seems to me as though the State would just as soon require the degree to give some sort of standardization. ABET accredidation is a standardized requirement. What standardizes the 12-years of experience that replaces that?

 

[Exception Collection]

I'm surprised some states would allow this. Seems like it would be opening themselves up to a whole world of liability.
Not that I'm saying (or not saying) there'd be any corrolation for this, or that this couldn't happen to an engineer with a degree...

But what happens if, heaven forbid, a bridge fails or something similar and the public finds out that the engineer that designed it didn't even go to school for engineering?

Seems to me as though the State would just as soon require the degree to give some sort of standardization. ABET accredidation is a standardized requirement. What standardizes the 12-years of experience that replaces that?

Well, I'll admit that it's not a fully standardized system. But:

-I've taken the same FE and PE exams as any other licensed Civil Engineer.

-I've taken the same ethics exam as any other WA engineer.

-I've met the qualifications as laid out by the state

-I've worked under the direct supervision of the engineers that have trained me, who did attend ABET-accredited programs.

-I've made it clear to those engineers that I am worthy of being an Engineer.

If it helps, I guess you could consider it an extended unaccredited tutoring system. After all, what are Engineering professors, aside from Engineers passing on their knowledge to their students?

 

[HerrKaLeun]

i dont believe this, a non degree person cant pass PE exam, consider the topics covered and foundation courses required, youre dreaming.

If you have a brain, you can teach yourself with the books. I myself took HVAC and passed the first time. My undergraduate degree is environmental engineering (Germany) and my Masters is Mechanical engineering (US). None of the PE test equations I learned at school, all my schooling was in metric. MAsters degree wa a lot about programming the thermodynamic relations, so that didn't help for the test either. Trust me, it can be done to pass a test that requires reading psychometric charts and calculate pump head without an instructor teaching you how to do it.

while studying for the test, i learned a lot useful things, though.

That is one thing an engineer does, figuring something out without someone else explaining it.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

I'd rather hire someone with no degree that had enough experience and competency to pass the exam on the first attempt than someone that holds a degree but took 8 shots at the exam before they finally got lucky and passed.
Nobody interviews a potential engineering firm by asking them how many of their PE's are degreed, or even how many times those PE's took the exam. The question everybody asks is, how much EXPERIENCE does your firm (and by inference, your PE's) have in designing X-Y-Z type projects.

When was the last time you heard of ANY professional firm (doctors, engineers, lawyers, whatever) being hired solely because of the status of its employee's undergraduate degrees? If you can find one example, I'd be impressed.

when i hire consultants i require them to state their education and also ask them int he interview. I'm the only one in my firm who does that, though.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

One of my proctors was pretty freaking hot. After everything was collected and we were dismissed, at the door she said "I never want to see any of you guys again, ok?" I said, "I might come back just to see you again."

You're lucky. Just about every proctor at my test had one foot in the grave. I don't think any of them were under 80 yrs old.

Same thing in CA. I'm pretty sure one of my proctors knew Isaac Newton back when he only had a first law and went by "Ike".

Just saw this now. That's too funny man!

 

[Happy]

Upthread some guys were laughing about how Canadian engineering PE's were given out in a cracker jack box. Guess what? I got a Canadian engineering degree and I wrote the American FE and PE exams. Neither exam was much harder than some of the SEMESTER finals for individual classes I took in school. In Canada, the point is getting the degree. Then, as long as you have 4 years qualified experience they don't retest anyone for the PE (other than an ethical exam which isn't nearly as difficult).

Here, the degree is unimportant - you don't even need a degree if you have enough experience. All you have to do is pass ONE TEST. That process is a joke. The test is not a cake walk, but it is just one multiple choice and open book exam. Any fairly intelligent person with good test taking skills should be able to pick up the review books, study like a crazy person for a few months and then have a decent chance to pass this test - even if they never previously cracked an engineering text in their life. Obviously if you take a guy with 12 years 'experience' in the construction field - he has had no or little exposure to many of the topics in the PE exam and has to learn them from scratch anyways.

Ever wonder what other profession forces its members to take a comprehensive technical exam 4 years out of school? I can't think of any. Law student write their exam right out of college, medical people like pharmacists might write an exam right out of college. In my opinion it doesn't make a lot of sense to set the bar for being an engineer so low as to pass just 1 exam. To get CPR certification - okay, one exam makes sense. To get a PE, nah not so much. Better to go the Canadian route and have only certified schools which properly weed out the non-engineers over many years and many exams, assignments, projects, labs etc.

The 4 years of experience thing is fine. But why should you have to prove you can relearn structures after 4 years when you a transportation engineer? I can't buy into a justification saying someone is more 'well rounded' since any engineer is likely to quickly forget [again] that material you don't use a work anyways. Should cardiologists be taken aside and tested on dermitology after 4 years experience? After all, if they can't prove they know it all they shouldn't be doing heart surgery.

 

[Exception Collection]

Upthread some guys were laughing about how Canadian engineering PE's were given out in a cracker jack box. Guess what? I got a Canadian engineering degree and I wrote the American FE and PE exams. Neither exam was much harder than some of the SEMESTER finals for individual classes I took in school. In Canada, the point is getting the degree. Then, as long as you have 4 years qualified experience they don't retest anyone for the PE (other than an ethical exam which isn't nearly as difficult).
Here, the degree is unimportant - you don't even need a degree if you have enough experience. All you have to do is pass ONE TEST. That process is a joke. The test is not a cake walk, but it is just one multiple choice and open book exam. Any fairly intelligent person with good test taking skills should be able to pick up the review books, study like a crazy person for a few months and then have a decent chance to pass this test - even if they never previously cracked an engineering text in their life. Obviously if you take a guy with 12 years 'experience' in the construction field - he has had no or little exposure to many of the topics in the PE exam and has to learn them from scratch anyways.

Ever wonder what other profession forces its members to take a comprehensive technical exam 4 years out of school? I can't think of any. Law student write their exam right out of college, medical people like pharmacists might write an exam right out of college. In my opinion it doesn't make a lot of sense to set the bar for being an engineer so low as to pass just 1 exam. To get CPR certification - okay, one exam makes sense. To get a PE, nah not so much. Better to go the Canadian route and have only certified schools which properly weed out the non-engineers over many years and many exams, assignments, projects, labs etc.

The 4 years of experience thing is fine. But why should you have to prove you can relearn structures after 4 years when you a transportation engineer? I can't buy into a justification saying someone is more 'well rounded' since any engineer is likely to quickly forget [again] that material you don't use a work anyways. Should cardiologists be taken aside and tested on dermitology after 4 years experience? After all, if they can't prove they know it all they shouldn't be doing heart surgery.

It's not so much a test to see if you know the right answers, as it is a test to see if you know how and when to apply the correct answers. The first is pretty basic math, the second involves practical knowledge of building and material-specific codes. While they could test for that at graduation, it makes more sense (to me) to wait until after the experience is earned; your point about the transportation engineer is somewhat valid - though I'd argue that they need more specific testing (that is, more limited licensing, rather than a single discipline that includes water/insignificant structures/roads) rather than earlier testing. That is, the issue is that Civil is a discipline that encompasses multiple disciplines, that could be broken up into sub-licenses.

While I certainly have a lot of respect for those that graduate from college, I must say that the number one issue I've seen with them is a lack of knowledge of real-world situations. Knowing the theories is great. Putting them into practice is something completely different. The post-graduation experience gives them the ability to learn the code, and how to apply the code (and the exceptions, special rules, etc. that are within the code) to a specific question. The PE exam is to make sure you know what you are doing in regards to that specific discipline; how many ME-degreed people go into Civil/Structural work? I seem to recall seeing that very discussion on here a while back.

 

[chaocl]

I think that is why we need a Master Degree to take the PE in 2020.

 

[Exception Collection]

I think that is why we need a Master Degree to take the PE in 2020.

Honestly not sure that will help when it comes to training good, practical engineers. One of the worst (from a practical standpoint) engineers I ever worked with was a PhD. He learned all the theory, none of the practice. His experience was all lab-based, as well.

What's that saying? The difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than it is in theory?

I suppose he could have been atypical - aside from him, the only PE's/EI's I've worked with regularly have been BS/Architectural Engineering, MS/Physics or BS/Civil Engineering. Oh, and a BA/Architecture that could have been a PE (12 years experience under an engineer) but failed the FE exam twice and gave up.

 

[kjeads]

I think that is why we need a Master Degree to take the PE in 2020.

Honestly not sure that will help when it comes to training good, practical engineers. One of the worst (from a practical standpoint) engineers I ever worked with was a PhD. He learned all the theory, none of the practice. His experience was all lab-based, as well.

What's that saying? The difference between theory and practice is larger in practice than it is in theory?

I suppose he could have been atypical - aside from him, the only PE's/EI's I've worked with regularly have been BS/Architectural Engineering, MS/Physics or BS/Civil Engineering. Oh, and a BA/Architecture that could have been a PE (12 years experience under an engineer) but failed the FE exam twice and gave up.

I have to agree with you, particularly as it relates to practical experience. I work in manufacturing, and I have the least amount of respect for Process Engineers with PhD's compared to any other Process Engineer coming from a 4 year college. PhD's, in my experience, have a really difficult time with practicality - they love to theorize about the way things could turn out based on this principle or that principle, but in practice, it rarely ever happens the way they think it will. That results in lost time, lost money, and a general loss of respect for their capabilities as engineers. I'd also take a trained operator with years of process experience and practical knowledge and ask him/her to help with a process design over a PhD almost any day.

 

[L_Smith]

How often do you hear the statement "How did he/she pass the PE?". The PE exam, is a MINIMUM competency test. It does not evaluate how well you know the subject matter, versus knowing just enough to be able to read Code and take a test. Requiring a structural engineer to take a test on water and environmental subjects proves this point.

Codes were created and adopted by various gov/agencies to protect the public from those minimum competency test takers that pass the test. Any average joe can READ code.

Education should not be replaceable. As experience is extremely important in order to get a handle what works in the "real world" in terms of cost and constructability, it is the theory learned in school that allows you to understand the code but most importantly its LIMITATIONS (i.e. why are there rules and exceptions?).

Worrying about over conservative designs being done by under experienced but educated engineer?; It is not anywhere near as bad as an overly confident uneducated PE, under designing structures so close to their approximated demands that it requires a program to accurately analyze their true capacity. (FEA/Structural programs alone should not be used by those that don't understand how they run in the first place, let alone accept their results and not understand the sensitivity or uncertainty of the inputs). This is a recipe for a disaster. It is not worth the risk. The following motto comes to mind:

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING: The Art of Using Materials (that have properties that can only be estimated); To build real structures (that can only be approximately analyzed); and To Withstand Forces (that cannot be accurately known).

I hope for everyone's safety that those who practice engineering without a degree, have taken the time to truly understand all the theory behind the code they are following, or the programs they are using, and not just use the excuse that they had no time, opportunity, and/or money to know better. Or that school programs are being "dumbed down" to attract people. Being a recent graduate (current decade) from 6 years of college (BS and MS), all of my professors emphasized the importance of understanding the theory and the assumptions that structural programs or building codes make, and demonstrated everyday examples of how easy it is to get yourself into trouble.

Now with some years of practical experience, I can definitely add that it is also “what you learn after you know it all that counts" too. No engineers should be excluded from a continued education.

btw…..a masters is in no way a Phd. Although I agree that Phd intelligence on minor engineering design in the consulting world is counterproductive, it is definitely a necessity in field of research and development.

 

[Exception Collection]

How often do you hear the statement "How did he/she pass the PE?". The PE exam, is a MINIMUM competency test. It does not evaluate how well you know the subject matter, versus knowing just enough to be able to read Code and take a test. Requiring a structural engineer to take a test on water and environmental subjects proves this point. Codes were created and adopted by various gov/agencies to protect the public from those minimum competency test takers that pass the test. Any average joe can READ code.

Education should not be replaceable. As experience is extremely important in order to get a handle what works in the "real world" in terms of cost and constructability, it is the theory learned in school that allows you to understand the code but most importantly its LIMITATIONS (i.e. why are there rules and exceptions?).

Worrying about over conservative designs being done by under experienced but educated engineer?; It is not anywhere near as bad as an overly confident uneducated PE, under designing structures so close to their approximated demands that it requires a program to accurately analyze their true capacity. (FEA/Structural programs alone should not be used by those that don't understand how they run in the first place, let alone accept their results and not understand the sensitivity or uncertainty of the inputs). This is a recipe for a disaster. It is not worth the risk. The following motto comes to mind:

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING: The Art of Using Materials (that have properties that can only be estimated); To build real structures (that can only be approximately analyzed); and To Withstand Forces (that cannot be accurately known).

I hope for everyone's safety that those who practice engineering without a degree, have taken the time to truly understand all the theory behind the code they are following, or the programs they are using, and not just use the excuse that they had no time, opportunity, and/or money to know better. Or that school programs are being "dumbed down" to attract people. Being a recent graduate (current decade) from 6 years of college (BS and MS), all of my professors emphasized the importance of understanding the theory and the assumptions that structural programs or building codes make, and demonstrated everyday examples of how easy it is to get yourself into trouble.

Now with some years of practical experience, I can definitely add that it is also “what you learn after you know it all that counts" too. No engineers should be excluded from a continued education.

btw…..a masters is in no way a Phd. Although I agree that Phd intelligence on minor engineering design in the consulting world is counterproductive, it is definitely a necessity in field of research and development.

That phrase (well, one very much like it) is/was posted on the wall at my company's office. And yeah, I got myself into trouble in those programs a few times, in the first few years of my experience - the most important thing I learned is that I should always do the first calculation of a specific type by hand at least once before I use software, then use the software to ensure that my hand calculation was accurate.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

How often do you hear the statement "How did he/she pass the PE?". The PE exam, is a MINIMUM competency test. It does not evaluate how well you know the subject matter, versus knowing just enough to be able to read Code and take a test. Requiring a structural engineer to take a test on water and environmental subjects proves this point. Codes were created and adopted by various gov/agencies to protect the public from those minimum competency test takers that pass the test. Any average joe can READ code.

Education should not be replaceable. As experience is extremely important in order to get a handle what works in the "real world" in terms of cost and constructability, it is the theory learned in school that allows you to understand the code but most importantly its LIMITATIONS (i.e. why are there rules and exceptions?).

Worrying about over conservative designs being done by under experienced but educated engineer?; It is not anywhere near as bad as an overly confident uneducated PE, under designing structures so close to their approximated demands that it requires a program to accurately analyze their true capacity. (FEA/Structural programs alone should not be used by those that don't understand how they run in the first place, let alone accept their results and not understand the sensitivity or uncertainty of the inputs). This is a recipe for a disaster. It is not worth the risk. The following motto comes to mind:

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING: The Art of Using Materials (that have properties that can only be estimated); To build real structures (that can only be approximately analyzed); and To Withstand Forces (that cannot be accurately known).

I hope for everyone's safety that those who practice engineering without a degree, have taken the time to truly understand all the theory behind the code they are following, or the programs they are using, and not just use the excuse that they had no time, opportunity, and/or money to know better. Or that school programs are being "dumbed down" to attract people. Being a recent graduate (current decade) from 6 years of college (BS and MS), all of my professors emphasized the importance of understanding the theory and the assumptions that structural programs or building codes make, and demonstrated everyday examples of how easy it is to get yourself into trouble.

Now with some years of practical experience, I can definitely add that it is also “what you learn after you know it all that counts" too. No engineers should be excluded from a continued education.

btw…..a masters is in no way a Phd. Although I agree that Phd intelligence on minor engineering design in the consulting world is counterproductive, it is definitely a necessity in field of research and development.

I totally agree. not without reason most jurisdiction require education AND experience. Is there a guy who is smart enough to teach himself from books and experience... sure, someone will be able to be a good engineer without going to school. but majority of engineers really need things to be taught, at least the basics.

I'm spending all day fixing mistakes done by people who either never attended engineering school, or never graduated. the worst people are the ones that say they are right and their only argument is "I've been doing this for 20 years". Guess what, it is not experience if you are always wrong. the problem i see in consulting is, that they always have one PE who attends the meetings (or at least the interview), but the actual work is done by non-college graduated people.

 

[humner]

I would like to point out some people who you may recognize as not going to college, Bed Franklin, Henry Ford, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison (who was also an inovator of pre-fab concrete structures). The list goes on, I am just adding that if someone has the drive and determination to make their way to a PE license on their own, should not be treated as second rate.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

I would like to point out some people who you may recognize as not going to college, Bed Franklin, Henry Ford, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison (who was also an inovator of pre-fab concrete structures). The list goes on, I am just adding that if someone has the drive and determination to make their way to a PE license on their own, should not be treated as second rate.

You make a good point and as I pointed out, there always will be someone smart enough not needing to go to school. After all, someone who didn't go to school must have founded the first school. but the majority of people...

The individuals you mentioned didn't really design structures or buildings that could have endangered the public. Henry Ford for example was a businessmen (with 2 dailed businesses before his succesful business) and maybe we can call him industrial engineer (and he likely had staff that did implement all his assembly line ideas). Industrial engineers working in a car company also today don't need to be licensed.

Today maybe 40% of people go to some college (although I doubt that, since they count the Phoenix etc. as a real school), back in the day of Lincoln, 99% of the population were farmers, so it was normal back then to teach yourself if you wanted to know something. Mostly a prospective engineer became an apprentice with a senior engineer unless he attended one of the few engineering schools.

 

[Exception Collection]

I totally agree. not without reason most jurisdiction require education AND experience. Is there a guy who is smart enough to teach himself from books and experience... sure, someone will be able to be a good engineer without going to school. but majority of engineers really need things to be taught, at least the basics.

Just a note, I'm not a guy that was smart enough to teach myself through books and experience. I'm a girl that was... I'm extraordinarily sensitive about this, for a few different reasons.

Also, I agree that the vast majority of people need to be taught in schools. I just happen to think that licensing shouldn't absolutely require a degree; with the way education is handled in the US at the current time, very intelligent and capable (like myself) people can slip through the cracks. But I absolutely agree that this should be an extreme rarity.

I do wish that there was a more standardized experience:education comity. As it stands, I believe I can only get licenses in 2 states at the moment, with a half-dozen more opening up in 2 years or so - and only if I continue to work for another engineer; if I were to split off and make my own practice (in the state for which I am licensed), I don't think I would be able to get those further licenses even with another dozen years of experience, because the experience requirements generally require the experience to be under the direction of another engineer.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

Just a note, I'm not a guy that was smart enough to teach myself through books and experience. I'm a girl that was... I'm extraordinarily sensitive about this, for a few different reasons.
Also, I agree that the vast majority of people need to be taught in schools. I just happen to think that licensing shouldn't absolutely require a degree; with the way education is handled in the US at the current time, very intelligent and capable (like myself) people can slip through the cracks. But I absolutely agree that this should be an extreme rarity.

I do wish that there was a more standardized experience:education comity. As it stands, I believe I can only get licenses in 2 states at the moment, with a half-dozen more opening up in 2 years or so - and only if I continue to work for another engineer; if I were to split off and make my own practice (in the state for which I am licensed), I don't think I would be able to get those further licenses even with another dozen years of experience, because the experience requirements generally require the experience to be under the direction of another engineer.

I'm all with you...at my work any time something new comes up they scream " what about training?". where I'd like to respond "what about figuring it out yourselves, you call yourself engineers?". Even when we switched from Office 2000 to Office 2007, half of the people spent all day complaining about how the training was insufficient and they didn't know how to use it. Grrrr...

There should be a solution for people who don't have an ABET degree. Maybe there shouldn't be an easy solution, but a solution. I have a German degree and a US graduate degree, and had the issue that the state board almost let not write me the test because of none was ABET accredited (ABET mainly accredits US bachelor programs, and most foreign engineers with even US PhD degrees struggle with that...)

And the education system is only going downwards....

Did you just have a high school degree or a technical college degree and taught the rest yourself and by working? As you know, alll you learn in school are the basics to be able to figure it out yourself later. The world is changing and engineers constantly need to adapt. Obviously the basics stay the same, but I can see how someone who is bright and driven to figure it out can be a good engineer without school. just the way how you grew up (did you always wanted to know how things work and raided the library to find out) makes a huge difference.

 

[knight1fox3]

I'm all with you...at my work any time something new comes up they scream " what about training?". where I'd like to respond "what about figuring it out yourselves, you call yourself engineers?". Even when we switched from Office 2000 to Office 2007, half of the people spent all day complaining about how the training was insufficient and they didn't know how to use it. Grrrr...

lusone: One of my pet peeves in working with some engineers.

 

[Exception Collection]

I'm all with you...at my work any time something new comes up they scream " what about training?". where I'd like to respond "what about figuring it out yourselves, you call yourself engineers?". Even when we switched from Office 2000 to Office 2007, half of the people spent all day complaining about how the training was insufficient and they didn't know how to use it. Grrrr...
There should be a solution for people who don't have an ABET degree. Maybe there shouldn't be an easy solution, but a solution. I have a German degree and a US graduate degree, and had the issue that the state board almost let not write me the test because of none was ABET accredited (ABET mainly accredits US bachelor programs, and most foreign engineers with even US PhD degrees struggle with that...)

And the education system is only going downwards....

Did you just have a high school degree or a technical college degree and taught the rest yourself and by working? As you know, alll you learn in school are the basics to be able to figure it out yourself later. The world is changing and engineers constantly need to adapt. Obviously the basics stay the same, but I can see how someone who is bright and driven to figure it out can be a good engineer without school. just the way how you grew up (did you always wanted to know how things work and raided the library to find out) makes a huge difference.

Oh yes... I'm strongly of the "figure it out, if you can't then ask for help" method myself. We went from Office '98 to Office '10 here. It was messy.

I didn't really raid the library; I usually raided the toolbox and disassembled things. Honestly, if I'd gotten a job at a Mechanical shop I think I would have been a perfect fit. Connections - or rather, my ability to visualize connections in my head without having drawings or even physical objects in front of me - tend to be one of my strengths.

 

[Carnac]

Getting back on the topic of the exam, I didn't realize until the lunch break that my roommate during my first semester in college was sitting right behind me.