CHANGES I’D LIKE TO SEE IN THE ENGINEERING PROFESSION

[IlPadrino]

Control Systems Engineering is being done by HS and College dropouts in the name of programing or even software engineering, or even the name of "Cisco Certified Engineer".

Maybe you lost me... are you saying there are lots of people practicing Control Systems Engineering without the requisite license (at least in 48 of the 50 states)?

 

[SuperAlpha]

Maybe you lost me... are you saying there are lots of people practicing Control Systems Engineering without the requisite license (at least in 48 of the 50 states)?

I have witnessed engineers design and seal the control documentation but the winning-bid contractors use high school/GED help as technicians to setup and configure the systems.

 

[Slugger926]

Maybe you lost me... are you saying there are lots of people practicing Control Systems Engineering without the requisite license (at least in 48 of the 50 states)?

Behind the scenes, YES!!!!!

 

[Slugger926]

I have witnessed engineers design and seal the control documentation but the winning-bid contractors use high school/GED help as technicians to setup and configure the systems.

I have seen it where there was no engineers or seals in the whole process.

 

[Dleg]

I think the "system" as it is has been the way it is for so long now that it would be extremely difficult and ill advised to just legislate it away. Having worked in an exempt field before, and now in an non-exempt field, I can say that there are a lot of engineers working in exempt fields who truly are outstanding engineers. Folks who design the automobiles you drive in, the planes you fly in, and even many of the folks who put the US on the moon. You can't just shut off their use of the term "engineer" overnight like that. Maybe with a long transition period....

On the other hand, now that I am a PE, having begrudgingly gone through the process and come out the other side not only unscathed, but also a better engineer for it (studying broadened my abilities my a mile), I also see the value in having everyone who calls themselves an "engineer" be licensed.

But, frankly, I don't want to live in a world where I have to always remember to call them "train drivers" when talking to my son about his favorite thing.

 

[Slugger926]

My biggest pet peeve is when my Sr. Management lays off 5 people in Oklahoma, and hires 8 people via Aerotek (or similar unlicensed company) in Texas without a PE from the company offering the services, I get ticked. It has happened on multiple occasions, and if there is a law to make the company offering engineering services be licensed, then they better be licensed. Else, they are undercutting both licensed engineers and even degreed engineers (since company policy states for such positions requires a BS, but the service companies aren't providing equivalent personnel).

 

[Freon]

Nothing like a lively debate between polite professionals. In reality, I see two things that need to be done:

1) Stepped-up enforcement of the current state laws governing the engineering pratice. And yes, I think we need to make some changes reguarding "exempt" fields.

2) We need to activly work to control the title of "Engineer"; Only graduates of ABET BS programs shoud be allowed to use the title. Our brethern in the medical and legal fields have suceeded in making thier certifications and qualifications a part of society. We need to do the same, but what is the first step?

Now I'm going back to the "Engineer Princesses" thread to see if EngineerGurl posted her photo....

Freon, P.E. and dirty old man.

 

[BluSkyy]

I feel the definition of engineer written into the code cited (same as in OK) is a bit tautological...

"Engineer means a person who, by the reason of...engineering sciences...engineering analysis and design acquired by engineering education and engineering experience is qualified...to engage in the practice of engineering"

 

[IlPadrino]

I feel the definition of engineer written into the code cited (same as in OK) is a bit tautological...
"Engineer means a person who, by the reason of...engineering sciences...engineering analysis and design acquired by engineering education and engineering experience is qualified...to engage in the practice of engineering"

Yeah, well, it certainly leaves it up to someone else to define "engineering sciences", "engineering analysis", "engineering education", and "engineering experience". Normally, I'd think those things are defined in statute.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

If you have an engineering degree, you are an engineer.

Pass two additional tests, and your a licensed Professional Engineer.

Should be that simple.

 

[gymrat1279 PE]

If you have an engineering degree, you are an engineer.
Pass two additional tests, and your a licensed Professional Engineer.

Should be that simple.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[IlPadrino]

If you have an engineering degree, you are an engineer.
Pass two additional tests, and your a licensed Professional Engineer.

Should be that simple.

OK, but what about (almost all the) state laws that preclude you from calling yourself an "engineer" unless you're a licensed Professional Engineer? The degreed-engineers can't legally call themselves engineers for purposes of public business unless they're in an exempt industry (where allowed).

 

[Capt Worley PE]

The only time that really becomes an issue is consulting. You'd have to have a PE in that case anyway.

 

[Katiebug]

edit -Katiebug, why the hell are you pursuing PE licensure? sounds like you're not only complaining about the perceived non-necessity of it for where you work & your job, but about the work involved in obtaining it at all. If it ain't your cup of tea, don't go spitting in everybody else's cup.

Two reasons: as a personal challenge and so that I can get more heavily involved in codes and standards work.

My complaint is not in the non-necessity of it - my main complaint is the apparent differences between states in terms of what is acceptable and what is not. In some states, not having any PE references is a showstopper. In other states, it may be a workable situation if the boards say it is. Some states waive the FE with a certain amount of experience, others do not. The inconsistency would be a major a problem if we suddenly mandated licensure for all.

Also, it's not feasible (that I can see) to suddenly require licensure across the board without a suitable - and again, consistent - transition plan for those working in industries and for companies where PEs are extremely unusual. I'm not decrying the process when I state that it would cause utter mayhem in my organization if suddenly 150+ mechanical, electrical, and materials engineers needed a PE in order to legally be called "engineers" - I'm being honest. I know and work with a lot of really outstanding, experienced engineers who would probably get out of the industry entirely rather than try to pass the FE at the age of 55 or 60. That would be a real loss, IMO. It'd be easy to say, "If they don't like it, screw 'em" but I think it's important to protect that knowledgebase.

For mechanical, there are only three depth areas on the PE exam: Thermo/Fluids, HVAC, or Machine Design. A lot of mechanical engineers work in areas like aerospace, automotive, modeling and analysis, etc. where maybe machine design would be close to their area of expertise. There is a real lack of options for those who have spent a career in an area other than the three currently-available depth areas. I don't know the process by which NCEES comes up with and offers additional depth areas, but if licensure became a universal requirement, they'd probably need to come up with some more choices.

I realize I approach this from an unconventional viewpoint - but realize that for someone who is in an area of engineering where licensure is unusual, this can be a very frustrating process to approach, with a lot of apparent contradictions and inconsistencies. It just shouldn't be this complicated if we truly want to convince people of the value of licensure. I see that you're a civil - understand that it's a very different scenario for most mechanical engineers (for example) to get a PE than it is for most civil engineers.

I fully agree with limiting the use of the term "engineer". While my favorite "field engineer" is a smart man and very good at hands-on work, he is not an engineer. Ask him to do a simple statics problem and he'd be useless - forget about him doing any significant engineering analysis! Likewise, "sanitation engineers", most "sound engineers", etc. are not truly engineers. Those without an ABET (or equivalent) engineering degree should not be considered engineers. I think most/all of us would agree on that one. I would welcome additional regulation in this regard, up to and including requiring universal licensure for engineers - not to disparage those in other professions, but to reinforce the value of our own profession.

However, I see significant potential issues in requiring universal licensure (i.e. eliminating industry exemption) without substantial harmonization in requirements between states as well as a substantial expansion of available depth modules on the PE exams, and removing the requirement for endorsement by a certain number of PEs - or temporarily suspending it until exempt industry can develop a critical mass of PEs to endorse the next generation. I am many things, but I am not a blind cheerleader of moving forward without addressing such considerations. It's easy to say, "Everyone get licensed" but in my view would be much harder to implement under the current setup.

No need to get in a huff. I'm not trying to spit in anyone's cup, just pointing out that it'd be darned hard to mandate universal licensure/get rid of industrial exemption under the current system. Some simple changes could be made that would allow for straightforward universal licensing, and I suggested a few that might or might not be workable. The reality is that it can be daunting to even start this process if you're in exempt industry. It certainly was for me.

 

[SSmith]

Just as a point of reference, let me be the first to say that there are Reliability Engineers that are certified. I am one of them. (We do all the below.)

Also, System Safety Engineering, Process Engineering, and Failure Mode and Effects Engineering ...
Yes, they should be licensed, or working under a licensed engineer.

 

[EM_PS]

No need to get in a huff. I'm not trying to spit in anyone's cup, just pointing out that it'd be darned hard to mandate universal licensure/get rid of industrial exemption under the current system. Some simple changes could be made that would allow for straightforward universal licensing, and I suggested a few that might or might not be workable. The reality is that it can be daunting to even start this process if you're in exempt industry. It certainly was for me.

Katiebug - apologies for coming across as 'being in a huff'. i wasn't at all - w/ exception of Carlito , i'm being conversational & also throwing down my thoughts as point blank as i can. writing never conveys emotion. Again, sorry for coming across as angered.

My perception was that you were rallying behind the idea of our profession NOT taking on the daunting tasks of these changes, due to the difficulites & intangibles involved, as you discussed. Of a certainty, it will be very difficult to enact such wide ranging changes & engineering is certainly not alone - surveying is even in a worse state as it battles similar issues. But i truly believe these types of changes (some if not all) should be pursued, and hopefully will be pursued in our generation, and those to come.

Good luck in your pursuits & challenges, EM

 

[Guest]

From what I read, JR is the Chief Tool Engineer around here these days.

Good point ... I need a change of title!

Nothing like a lively debate between polite professionals. In reality, I see two things that need to be done:
1) Stepped-up enforcement of the current state laws governing the engineering pratice. And yes, I think we need to make some changes reguarding "exempt" fields.

2) We need to activly work to control the title of "Engineer"; Only graduates of ABET BS programs shoud be allowed to use the title. Our brethern in the medical and legal fields have suceeded in making thier certifications and qualifications a part of society. We need to do the same, but what is the first step?

I agree - can't do much without actively policing your profession to INSURE compilance.

Now I'm going back to the "Engineer Princesses" thread to see if EngineerGurl posted her photo....

I think that is something we can all agree upon! :eyebrows:

If you have an engineering degree, you are an engineer.
Pass two additional tests, and your a licensed Professional Engineer.

Should be that simple.

Yes it should be ...

However, the world just doesn't work that way unfortunately.

JR

 

[C-Dog]

How does a state regulate an industry that is national or global? They can't, the constitution forbids it (I am stretching here). If you want to get rid of the exempt status, then you need to get federal gov. regulating licences. I work in an exempt industry and have my PE, why, mainly to challenge myself and who knows what my future will bring. It does bring credibility, espeacially to those that do not know you.

I am rather fortunate to work in a large place (~4,000 engineers), so it was a a task to find PEs to endorse me, but it was not too dificult, but I can certainly understand the frustration of those in exept industries trying to find PEs to endorse them.

I agree with Capt. W. Degree = engineer, PE = licensced engineer.

 

[ROBIAMEIT]

its been RIDICULOUS in PA

FIRST we couldnt call ourselves "Project Engineer" without a PE. THEN we couldnt even HAVE "Engineer" in our job title without PE . . . .

I went from "Engineer I" and "Engineer II" to "Project Engineer" to "Engineer Assistant" (how degrading!!) to "Senior Designer" (even MORE degrading since someone who had never been to college could also be a "Designer"!!)

I thought those SOB FULL OF THEMSELVES P.E's on the State Board were being SOO stupid!!

who the H#LL wants to get a P.E. and be included with those bunch of idiots?????

i was ashamed of my fellow "Engineers" for behaving that way, ON TOP of the crap us college grads and E.I.T.'s ALREADY got from thos idiots!

 

[benbo]

How does a state regulate an industry that is national or global? They can't, the constitution forbids it (I am stretching here).

Well, that's a major point of argument (on which I have no real opinion). States do the majority of regulation of commerce within the state. That's why incorporation is a state issue. But the commerce clause of the consitution does give the federal government the right to regulate commerce between the states. Interpretation of that clause can be a big bone of contention among people.