B.S. plus 30

[mudpuppy]

I'm with Sapper on this. I can see it more in the Civil discipline, but cars, computers and space shuttles aren't designed by PE's, so why should the person teaching you how to design cars, computers and space shuttles have to be licensed?

Something to keep in mind: even though a state might not have a specific exemption for industry, a de facto one exists. I'm not a lawyer, but the way I understand it is interstate commerce is regulated (under the Constitution) by the federal government. So a state cannot regulate a product you make in that state if you sell it in other states. A state may regulate what is sold within it's borders, but not what is sold in other states. So, for instance, Michigan could say "Any car sold in Michigan has to be designed by a PE", but not "Any car designed or built in Michigan has to be designed by a PE"--only the federal government has the power to do that, and they haven't. Before I get flak for this, I'm not saying I agree with it, it's just the way it is.

And, BTW, I took the EE PhD. qualifier exam at Michigan Tech and it was a helluva lot harded than the PE exam. OTOH, the qual is not a standardized test.

 

[Dark Knight]

The PE license is just for liability purposes.It is like a bet. When you stamp a design your bet is that it complies the state requisites and the commomwealth of the people who benefits or will make use of your project, name it a bridge, a road, an electric system, or just fill the blanks, will not be compromised.

Professors at college are not offering their jobs to the public. They are preparing professionals with their teaching. After that is up to us to apply the concepts they taught us. Based on that I do not see why the college professors have to be licensed. If that becomes a requisite I can see blood sucker leaches(aka lawyers) going all the way back to the colleges looking for money everytime something goes wrong becausue the professors did not do a good job preparing the engineer that messed up.

That is a little too much. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[Guest]

This is the thread that never ends,

It goes on and on my friend ....



:joke: .... I couldn't resist

JR

 

[ClemsonEngr]

I get the point that if a professor does not provide Engineering Services, he does not need to be Licensed, and I also agree that some Engineering fields do not necessarily require Licensure to practice, but....

Never mind I will drop it

 

[mudpuppy]

And, BTW, I took the EE PhD. qualifier exam at Michigan Tech and it was a helluva lot harded than the PE exam. OTOH, the qual is not a standardized test.

I'm not trying to further this topic, I just want to clarify for posterity what I was trying to say with this statement: Given the difficulty of the PhD qual, I don't begrude a professor for not having a license. But that's probably why some states allow PhDs to bypass the FE. (And, BTW I miserably failed on the qualifier).

 

[Slugger926]

I get the point that if a professor does not provide Engineering Services, he does not need to be Licensed, and I also agree that some Engineering fields do not necessarily require Licensure to practice, but....
Never mind I will drop it

Isn't teaching Engineering an Engineering Service?

:deadhorse:

 

[IlPadrino]

Isn't teaching Engineering an Engineering Service?

No, it is not.

I told my son the other day that he needs to eat my fiber to keep him regular. I then explained how the digestive track needed it to keep things moving; it was a mini medical lesson. But I was NOT practicing medicine.

In Oregon, the following law applies:

672.005 Additional definitions.
As used in ORS 672.002 to 672.325, unless the context requires otherwise:
(1) “Practice of engineering” or “practice of professional engineering” means doing any of the following: 
   (a) Performing any professional service or creative work requiring engineering education, training and
experience.
   (b) Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional
services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services
during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications
and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment,
processes, works or projects.
   (c) Surveying to determine area or topography.
   (d) Surveying to establish lines, grades or elevations, or to determine or estimate quantities of materials
required, removed or in place.
   (e) Surveying required for design and construction layout of engineering and architectural infrastructure.
   (f) Performing photogrammetric mapping.

Teaching would be fine.

 

[jartgo]

I think you all are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think having a PE makes you an "engineer" either. That probably doesn't make sense to most of you, but how difficult to do you really think it would be for an engineering professor to show experience and pass the PE exam? Once he or she did, what benefit would that be to them? If you don't need to be a PE in order to do your job, why go to the trouble? Some of the posts above sound like, "you're nothing until you get your PE, once you get the PE designation, well boy you're something!" Having a PE license is something to be proud of and most of us work hard for it, but it doesn't automatically make us better than all those without it. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dleg]

Yeah, I can't stand that attitude either.

 

[C-Dog]

I know we have brought this up before - the new rule that will go into effect in 2015 requiring engineers to have 30 credit hours in addition to a Bachelor of Science degree to become licensed - essentially a Masters degree - but I thought I would link to the latest NCEES Licensure Exchange newsletter, where there is an interesting editorial by NCEES Treasurer Larry Smith, P.E. (scroll down to page 12 of 17 of the pdf file).
Once again, I do not disagree with the principle, but I think it is a shame that this is not being addressed by a more appropriate organization such as ABET, rather than the engineering licensing boards.

The article has kind of a "I had to walk 5 miles, barefoot, in the snow" kind of thing going on, and rubs me a bit wrong. I would think that anyone who is presently an engineer, and under the age of say 40, might also get the feeling that we are being diminshed as a lesser class of engineers than our seniors. Maybe we are, I don't know, but damn!

ld-025:

Back to the main topic. I agree with this. I also think that there needs to be something put in place for life long learning, like attend 1 conference / class every three years. Because having a PE today means you knew the material on the day of the test, not neccissarily know it today...

:deadhorse:

 

[EngRanger]

The article has kind of a "I had to walk 5 miles, barefoot, in the snow" kind of thing going on, and rubs me a bit wrong. ld-025:

I agree 100%

My kid bought me this t-shirt for Christmas - I think it applies.

http://shirt.woot.com/Friends.aspx?k=4362

 

[Road Guy]

The Council also passed a UPLG motion adding language to the Model Rules stating that, effective January 1, 2015, a graduate with a bachelor of science degree in engineering requiring more than 120 credits may request that credits earned in excess of 120 credits be applied to satisfy the requirement.

I was peeved at this at first, but I think most of you, if you look at your transcrpts will see that you have more than 120, and enough to cover the 30 without needing any extra classes.

I want to point out that I think requiring a MS (which is where we are headed) is a bad idea. I know some great people with masters degrees, and many also who have a MS, PE, and couldnt make a decision if there life depended on it (but boy they look good on paper).

 

[Katiebug]

I think you all are comparing apples to oranges. I don't think having a PE makes you an "engineer" either. That probably doesn't make sense to most of you, but how difficult to do you really think it would be for an engineering professor to show experience and pass the PE exam? Once he or she did, what benefit would that be to them? If you don't need to be a PE in order to do your job, why go to the trouble? Some of the posts above sound like, "you're nothing until you get your PE, once you get the PE designation, well boy you're something!" Having a PE license is something to be proud of and most of us work hard for it, but it doesn't automatically make us better than all those without it. Just my 2 cents.

I know for the Civils, the PE is everything - but for engineers who can easily work an entire career under industrial exemption, most of us can attest to working with fine engineers who have masters degrees, doctorates, and decades of experience who would laugh at the idea of a newly-minted PE four-odd years out of school trying to tell them they're not real engineers because they didn't pursue licensure. Don't get me wrong, a PE is a great accomplishment and one that really I hope to attain at some point. However, having those magic letters on my business card won't magically make me an "engineer". It won't make me a better engineer than the overwhelming number of my colleagues who'll never bother with the process. I'm going to try to get a PE as a personal/professional challenge - no more.

I like the way the Canadians do things. Graduate from an accredited engineering program, take an ethics test, and do the equivalent of an EIT phase, and you get your P.Eng. You can't call yourself an engineer or do engineering work without having it. A benefit is that every practicing engineer is licensed, so getting recommendations when applying for a P.Eng is just not an issue like it often is for mechanicals/electricals/etc. in the US who are looking to get a PE. You don't have "sanitation engineers" and MCSEs "diluting" the profession. They control quality via stringent educational standards rather than testing, and most provinces require some degree of continuing ed to maintain a license. It's a different system, and I think it has pros (and a few cons) compared to the way the US does things.

If the engineering societies got their collective behinds in gear, we could move towards something similar. For engineers working under industrial exemption, the lack of PEs at work can pose a big barrier to seeking a license. Heck, I still don't know if I'll be able to pull it off. In a system where every practicing engineer is licensed, that issue goes away. The other side of the coin - if there's concern over an accredited degree not being sufficient preparation for engineering practice, then ABET needs to fix things in a hurry.

I was peeved at this at first, but I think most of you, if you look at your transcrpts will see that you have more than 120, and enough to cover the 30 without needing any extra classes.

My BSME required 134 credits. I think I graduated with 135 or 136. Not quite enough to make the extra 30, but a few grad classes or a graduate certificate would have handled the rest.

I don't like the idea of requiring a masters degree. Again, I know plenty of really great engineers who didn't go to grad school - and I know some who have a masters and are marginal at best. Some form of continuing ed is a great requirement and I think all states should require something.

 

[C-Dog]

While I agree with the +30, I disagree with their saying the education has been watered down. Isn't the FE exam should cover this. They could just revise that exam, instead of adding this 30+ credit thing

 

[Johnny]

While I agree with the +30, I disagree with their saying the education has been watered down. Isn't the FE exam should cover this. They could just revise that exam, instead of adding this 30+ credit thing

I only agree with the 30+ plus rule if they don't fix the undergraduate requirements. The FE is a pretty good litmus test, but I would also like the kids to get exposure to different classes while in school and not just study an FE preparation book a few weeks before the exam. I am a little 'old school' that way (I had to do it...so they should have to do it) I guess.

I wanted to touch on a separate topic also in this thread. I am one of those 'industrial exemption' guys who has never had the chance to work for a PE, and has only ever worked with a relative few PE's in industry. They are rare to find these days. The way I see it is, there just isn't much incentive anymore for my types to get licensed. We aren't going to get much of a raise (if any) and the company may or may not pay for the required professional development hours needed afterwards. The CEU's can get expensive. So, what's the real benefit if we stay in the same profession, within the same company?

Don't get me wrong, I believe in licensure (That's why I'm pursing it) but how do you get others to follow suit? Where's the tangilble argument?

Anyway, MTC.

Johnny

 

[Dleg]

^^Good points, and argued over endlessly. In my opinion, there's a disturbing habit of many PEs in the civil profession to not only look down their noses at non-licensed, yet highly skilled engineers in industry, but also to attempt to cut out the competition by making the application process so tough that an engineer from an exempt industry can hardly even meet the application requirements to sit for the exam. I'm talking about mostly the required experience working for other licensed PEs, and getting licensed PEs as references. Honestly, I have no idea how "they" ever expect to recruit more engineers from the exempt industries unless they can better control the state boards and the civil engineering good old boy network that seems to dominate the licensing world.

That's my 2 cents, anyway.

 

[Katiebug]

^^Good points, and argued over endlessly. In my opinion, there's a disturbing habit of many PEs in the civil profession to not only look down their noses at non-licensed, yet highly skilled engineers in industry, but also to attempt to cut out the competition by making the application process so tough that an engineer from an exempt industry can hardly even meet the application requirements to sit for the exam. I'm talking about mostly the required experience working for other licensed PEs, and getting licensed PEs as references. Honestly, I have no idea how "they" ever expect to recruit more engineers from the exempt industries unless they can better control the state boards and the civil engineering good old boy network that seems to dominate the licensing world.

I'm going to (hopefully) get my EIT with absolutely no guarantee that I'll be able to take the PE. I'm hopeful that if I keep plodding, I'll find a way to make it work.

In my fairly small engineering organization, virtually all EEs and MEs, there are two guys with a Canadian P.Eng, one UK Chartered Engineer, and one guy (in my group, actually) with a lapsed/inactive PE in my state. That's it. If I can't provide my three US PE references, I have to write a letter to the state licensing board explaining why, and they may or may not allow me to take the PE exam. In this, I feel fortunate since I know in other states the lack of PEs at work would be a total showstopper; at least I have a decent chance here! Of my five likely references, all have at least a master's degree, and two have PhDs - combined they have more than 100 years of industry experience. Yet they're not good enough to attest to the quality of my work, unless I can convince the licensing board of it. I find that ludicrous.

If the requirement is PE references and/or working directly for PEs, that excludes an awful lot of talented people for no good reason. That's the opposite of promoting universal licensing! The mysterious "they" need to find ways for experienced, talented engineers in exempt industries to get licensed without running up against that brick wall. Of course everyone should take the tests and prove valid experience, but the PE reference requirement is unreasonable for many/most engineers other than Civils. In the days where engineers were trained via apprenticeship, the PE references and work history made a lot of sense - but today, IMO, an applicant with an ABET-accredited degree and solid work experience shouldn't have to jump through that particular hoop.

Reality for me is that if I get my PE, I'll probably never stamp anything, my employer won't care very much, and the only real difference is that I'll have it on my business cards. The only motivation I have for doing this is personal/professional challenge, and to maybe make it a little easier for the next person at work who wants to get licensed. If my colleagues see that it CAN be done, perhaps a few of them will decide to give it a try. I think engineering licensing is important on general principle; like I said before, I like the Canadian model. I also don't think it's realistic to switch to such a model here. However, changes could be made to the current licensing system to make it more attractive and straightforward for engineers in exempt industries to get a PE.

 

[C-Dog]

Great points made here by everyone.

One more question, how does this whole +30 thing going to apply to schools with trimesters or quarters? I went to a school that was on a 10 week tri-mester system, we racked up credits, but our total class time was the same as the typical 15 week semester school. I had over 250 credits at graduation (I think... I really can't remember)

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Interesting article on this and other engineering issues.

http://www.fpemag.com/articles/article.asp?i=332

 

[C-Dog]

Interesting article on this and other engineering issues.
http://www.fpemag.com/articles/article.asp?i=332

That was a good write up. So they are worried that the BS degree is becoming to general.