Comity Question
- Thread starter matchek
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
hjg7715
Well-known member
Well every state has their own requirements for licensure and in some instances residency requirement, but as long as you meet the perspective state board's requirement you shouldn't have any issues. In general, I think most states have degree requirement and specified amount of professional work experience requirement, but different states have requirements for engineering degrees vs. technology degrees/non-engineering degrees and years of experiences. I think the biggest issue I hear from people who run into roadblocks is the "professional experience" requirement, where some states have strict criteria by which they define "professional experience" and others not so much. I know a former colleague who listed their professional experience on their original application for licensing in their home state when they first took the exam and it was accepted without any problem, but when applying for comity in a neighboring state listed the exact same professional experience and was asked to provide an addendum for their experience.
Look at the application for the state you need. They are all different. Some require you to have ncees record: ma, some don't use it at all: nj, some require references licensed there: PR. Prob the only thing they all have in common is a fee.
Audi Driver P.E.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4,851
- Reaction score
- 1,675
There are some states that allow you to take the test early and others that do not, and comity may not be available for some early test takers. Ohio comes to mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ken PE 3.1
It's wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man
Ohio might be the only one.
When I was in Massachusetts, I worked with a guy who had the FE waived and he passed the PE first time. He tried to get licensed in FL and they wouldn't let him until he passed the FE exam.
How hard is it for all states to play in the same sandbox and knock this silliness off???
I hate tapatalk
Clemson CE P.E.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 230
- Reaction score
- 61
I agree with this completely
But why should anyone have the FE waived? It should be really simple... everyone has to take FE and PE to become licensed, the only other differences should come with if you went to an ABET accredited school, or if you earned your time by apprenticeship.
hjg7715
Well-known member
I think some states waive the FE requirements for individuals with advanced engineering degrees (PhD) and if you consider the rationale, I think it makes sense. The FE exam tests fundamental knowledge engineers should have obtained through formal education, so the assumption is an individual with a PhD in engineering would definitely have that fundamental knowledge.
JJ_structural
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 20, 2016
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 6
Some states will waive the FE requirements for individuals with significant engineering experience (~15 years). This could apply in cases where an engineer has been working for 15-20 years either under an industry exemption where they didn't need to be licensed or have worked as an equivalent to a PE in another country. At that point, it seems a little silly to make them take the FE exam (especially when it had Chemistry/Circuits/Thermo before they changed it) when they've already been practicing in responsible charge just without a US PE license.
Audi Driver P.E.
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2015
- Messages
- 4,851
- Reaction score
- 1,675
I don't know how I feel about this exactly. If earning an undergraduate degree in and of itself (and/or work experience) isn't good enough for EIT status, why would advance degree be? Both MS and PhD degrees become very specialized. Yes, there is a core competency level required to enter those programs, but there is no exam or training within either of the advanced degree programs that is equivalent to the EIT. If one wants to argue that the knowledge and experience gained by them goes well above and beyond, my response would be "then the exam should be very easy to pass". I may have driven tractors, motorcycles, and orvs all my childhood life, but I still had to take and pass a test to get a driver's license at age 16, and take an additional test to get a motorcycle endorsement.
I have always felt that there should be two avenues for licensure for any profession: via abet accredited diploma or via the licensing exam process. And I feel the same way for doctors, lawyers, nurses etc. What good is formal education, otherwise? What value does it bring? With the current requirements, it certainly doesn't speed up the process.
hjg7715
Well-known member
Well EIT status in most states doesn't require any professional experience and it's simply a designation that signifies an individual has core engineering knowledge. It, in itself, doesn't give you any special privilege or authority in regards to performing engineering work. What ultimately most state boards want to verify with their respective requirements for Professional Engineering licensing is that applicants are competent to review, approve and seal construction plans and perform other engineering related work. So even for individuals who have the FE requirement waived, they still have to meet all other requirements for PE licensing. How applicants should arrive to that point is where some of the boards differ.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoldfishJack
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2015
- Messages
- 78
- Reaction score
- 30
Thank you , great information!
I agree with Audi Driver. FE should be a must requirement regardless. Some might say one could waive the PE with a PhD someday? Imagine that. I wish there was data on how PhDs do on both exams.
I am biased as I did pass the FE.
Other than the local state law test, one would think the other equirements should be universal.
I actually heard that most people struggle with the FE as it tests the whole curriculum, rather than your field. And it is one way to compare all engineering majors, graduates, applicants, etc.
I agree with Audi Driver. FE should be a must requirement regardless. Some might say one could waive the PE with a PhD someday? Imagine that. I wish there was data on how PhDs do on both exams.
I am biased as I did pass the FE.
Other than the local state law test, one would think the other equirements should be universal.
I actually heard that most people struggle with the FE as it tests the whole curriculum, rather than your field. And it is one way to compare all engineering majors, graduates, applicants, etc.
hjg7715
Well-known member
Again, I think it's important to distinguish that Exam I (FE) and Exam II (PE) are intended to evaluate different qualifications in the requirements to be licensed as an professional engineer. So the idea that some boards may eventually waive the PE exam for people with advanced degrees isn't realistic at all. The FE exam tests examinees GENERAL understanding and BASIC knowledge of engineering principles, hence the reason why even before the switch over to CBT, some boards allowed engineering students to take the exam after their sophomore year. I've even heard that the FE exam was used to weed out some engineering graduates who may have passed and completed an engineering curriculum but who hadn't gain an adequate understanding of engineering principles. Exam II is used to evaluate your ability to solve practical engineering problems in your respective field.
I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that anyone who's completed advanced curriculum in an engineering field would have obtained general understanding and basic knowledge of engineering? And I wouldn't be surprised if the boards who have waived the requirement for people with advanced degrees may have examined and considered data showing the pass/fail rate of individuals with advanced degrees. In my opinion, it's not necessary to test someone basic knowledge and understanding of a field that they've surpassed twice the number of years of formal education and more advanced curriculum than is required in most states.
And I wouldn't be surprised if the boards who waived the FE for people with PhDs did so because a relative whined about it, or because one of the Board members was a professor and didn't want to take the FE exam himself after being forced to become licensed. Boards are political appointments, so there's nothing necessarily scientific or impartial about them when it comes to making decisions, which are probably "political" as often as not. I think that's the real value of NCEES: to provide standards that boards must meet in order to be allowed to administer tests. Otherwise, every state would have all kinds of crazy requirements and loopholes as a result of decades of special requests.
The PE exam tests someone's practical knowledge in one's field. One would think that a PhD achieved that. So why make a PhD take the PE as well then when only a Bachelors degree is required to take the PE? Wouldn't that be close to the similar logic?
And what if another situation, a PhD knows their field cold (eg. Nuclear), but did not understand physics, chemistry, and computers and flunks the FE? Do we want them to be licensed?
If the FE would be easy for a PhD, in my opinion, then they should pass the FE and PE exam easily and prove that they not only earned and advanced degree in their field, but they understood the basics of chemistry, physics, differential equations, mechanics, computers, etc, like everyone else.
It would be interesting to have data on how PhDs do on the exams. It is slippery slope to allow waivers of any of the exams in my opinion.
And what if another situation, a PhD knows their field cold (eg. Nuclear), but did not understand physics, chemistry, and computers and flunks the FE? Do we want them to be licensed?
If the FE would be easy for a PhD, in my opinion, then they should pass the FE and PE exam easily and prove that they not only earned and advanced degree in their field, but they understood the basics of chemistry, physics, differential equations, mechanics, computers, etc, like everyone else.
It would be interesting to have data on how PhDs do on the exams. It is slippery slope to allow waivers of any of the exams in my opinion.
hjg7715
Well-known member
Well, that's partially true. But in most states, the boards only make recommendations and the state legislating body ultimately decide on rules/requirements for licensing. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if certain requirements in some states were "politically" motivated but that's just speculative.
And maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I don't see waiving this requirement for individuals with PhD's as a big deal. Again, these individuals still have to meet all other requirements and pass Exam II. It would be comparable to me as graduate programs waiving the GRE requirements for certain applicants.
When I went to Graduate School, there wasn't a waiver on the entrance exam regardless of prior credentials to enter the program. The reason - "they wanted to have at least one criteria where they could evaluate the performance of all students".
Interesting points of view. I wonder how many states waive the FE anyway. Perhaps this point is relatively moot.
Interesting points of view. I wonder how many states waive the FE anyway. Perhaps this point is relatively moot.
I guess I have a different take than many. I agree that the idea of using a standardized exam as an evaluation tool is a good one. However, I personally don't feel the PE in its current iteration is a useful evaluation tool at all for determining someones competency to be an engineer/design professional. I'm not saying the exam was easy or hard, just that it doesn't evaluate someone's engineering competency at all. While taking it, it felt like the entire goal of the exam was to create a standardized exam for the sole purpose of creating a standardized exam with no intent of actually assessing one's engineering competency, as opposed to taking an exam design to test someone's competency and mold it into a standardized exam if that makes sense.
I have no problem with a state opting out of the FE or even the PE requirement at this point for someone who has received a PhD from an accredited university. I might feel differently if I thought that the PE exam was a better evaluation tool. But at the end of the day, my opinion means absolutely diddly on this subject...
