What do you guys think about the education requirements for getting a PE in certain states? Do you think they should do away with getting a PE with experience alone and require everyone have a bachelors in engineering or do you think they should leave as is? I am for requiring everyone having a Bachelors as a minimum education requirement, I mean I wouldn't go to a doctor that never went to medical school... just my 2 cents.
Education Requirements for PE
- Thread starter PJ3346
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
Boomer01 PE
Boomer Sooner!
I kind of agree with you but then again I don't use 99.9% of the things I learned in school at my job. On the job training and experience is much more relevent and important.
Soil_EngineerVA
Active member
In my opinion experience is more important than education. i know a ton of educated engineers that are still as green as the grass grows and are able to sit for the PE. I would rather get my engineering advice from someone that's been doing the work for 20 years. Just my opinion.
I disagree. Engineering school teaches you physics and the theoretical science behind engineering, not how to "be and engineer" the same way that medical school teaches someone to "be a doctor." You learn to be an engineer by working under someone else. A big chunk of the curriculum in an engineering program is basically memorizing formulas and proving you can use them to solve problems quickly, in other words proving you have complex problem solving skills. This aspect of what is proved by completing an engineering degree can also be proven by completing a degree in Physics or Math.
But the #1 reason that I think states should not require an engineering degree is that it is an undergraduate degree, and as such it is rarely offered at night and in my experience not at all accommodating to anyone over the age of 23. I agree 100% with the idea that applicants need to prove they are not only experienced but also book-smart, but there needs to be a way for working adults to prove that without quitting their day jobs to go back to school with a bunch of kids. That's just insane, especially since it means giving up the experience you would otherwise be gaining by working instead of going to school.
So do I think they should get rid of the 'experience only' option? Maybe, but if they did, they would need to replace it with some sort of 'experience plus adult education' option.
But the #1 reason that I think states should not require an engineering degree is that it is an undergraduate degree, and as such it is rarely offered at night and in my experience not at all accommodating to anyone over the age of 23. I agree 100% with the idea that applicants need to prove they are not only experienced but also book-smart, but there needs to be a way for working adults to prove that without quitting their day jobs to go back to school with a bunch of kids. That's just insane, especially since it means giving up the experience you would otherwise be gaining by working instead of going to school.
So do I think they should get rid of the 'experience only' option? Maybe, but if they did, they would need to replace it with some sort of 'experience plus adult education' option.
Excellent insight willsee, thanks for sharing. That comment really added a lot to the discussion. It all makes sense to me now.
I think that a degree should be required. However the list of eligible degrees should be:
Bachelor's, Master's and/or Doctorate in:
Any engineering, physics, chemistry, fire protection, or architecture (maybe others).
For example, it should be fine to be a professional engineer with a degree in chemistry (Chemical Engineer) or architecture (Architecture Engineer), since both have PE exams.
I see many people on here with Master's degrees in engineering who are denied due to not having the Bachelor's in Engineering. Masters should be >> Bachelors.
Bachelor's, Master's and/or Doctorate in:
Any engineering, physics, chemistry, fire protection, or architecture (maybe others).
For example, it should be fine to be a professional engineer with a degree in chemistry (Chemical Engineer) or architecture (Architecture Engineer), since both have PE exams.
I see many people on here with Master's degrees in engineering who are denied due to not having the Bachelor's in Engineering. Masters should be >> Bachelors.
Exception Collection
Civil P.E., Washington
A bit late to the thread, but (obviously) I am in support of allowing experience-only, as long as the experience is of the proper nature. I *don't* think that drafting experience only (that is, pure drafting with no detail/connection design) should be accepted for the FE, and all experience for the PE-requirements (after FE requirements are met) should have some aspect of design to them. I would be willing to allow for reasonable additional/more intense testing required for a separate no-degree FE; perhaps having the no-degree FE be the exact same exam - in essay format, possibly divided into two days (since essay would probably take longer) - or possibly restoring the "must meet % pass on each section" rules.
I *really* think it's a bad idea to go to Master's only, even for subspecialties like Structural only. Personally, I'm looking forward to taking my NCEES Structural exam in the fall of '12. I could have scheduled for this fall, but I'm uncertain about passing; I'm reasonably good with concrete and general steel design, but have little experience with steel moment frame design. I'd prefer to wait until after I've had a better chance to study those.
Of course, as always - this assumes that the recommending engineers are actually doing their jobs, and preventing people that they feel aren't qualified from taking the exam - by not giving the required references. That's an important part of the process; if the referring engineers don't feel that they can honestly and accurately assess and provide information for the person asking them for a reference, than they are quite simply acting unethically by filling out that letter.
In the end - it comes down to ethics. If the engineers and prospective engineers involved in the process are ethical, than there is in my viewpoint no problem with allowing those of us that were prevented from going to college (full or part time) from obtaining licenses, so long as they prove (via testing) that they know the material. The FE exam, in my personal opinion, does a decent job of proving that.
I *really* think it's a bad idea to go to Master's only, even for subspecialties like Structural only. Personally, I'm looking forward to taking my NCEES Structural exam in the fall of '12. I could have scheduled for this fall, but I'm uncertain about passing; I'm reasonably good with concrete and general steel design, but have little experience with steel moment frame design. I'd prefer to wait until after I've had a better chance to study those.
Of course, as always - this assumes that the recommending engineers are actually doing their jobs, and preventing people that they feel aren't qualified from taking the exam - by not giving the required references. That's an important part of the process; if the referring engineers don't feel that they can honestly and accurately assess and provide information for the person asking them for a reference, than they are quite simply acting unethically by filling out that letter.
In the end - it comes down to ethics. If the engineers and prospective engineers involved in the process are ethical, than there is in my viewpoint no problem with allowing those of us that were prevented from going to college (full or part time) from obtaining licenses, so long as they prove (via testing) that they know the material. The FE exam, in my personal opinion, does a decent job of proving that.
palvarez83
Project Engineer
Our profession deals with things that put people's lives at risk, albeit, not as directly as a medical doctor. Yet, I'm amazed at how few barriers to entry there are. I heard sometime ago California was trying to make a master's degree a requirement for a PE, people weren't happy.
I think a BS should be the minimum. Experience is too hard to actually verify. You could be the office AutoCAD ***** for enough qualifying years to take the exam. At least by having an accredited BS in engineering, you know that the guy taking the test has some clue about engineering.
Exception Collection
Civil P.E., Washington
The difference is in the number of things that can go wrong, and the conceptual requirements. Structural engineering in particular comes down to a handful of concepts; most other disciplines of engineering are similarly able to be broken down. Once those basic concepts are taught, it becomes a matter of practical application of those concepts and how to deal with codes - which is far better taught in practice than in classrooms. Contrast this with doctors, who are expected to deal with multiple systems that act very differently from one another, and do so with correct enough judgement to deal with the issues of each individual person. In addition, they must be taught how to look for interactions; one person might have a half-dozen independent signs of a condition that have no apparent relationship to one another.
That's not actually true. AutoCAD ***** isn't enough to qualify for the FE. AutoCAD might be a reasonable start, but if the people asked to verify experience are honest than the experience requirements are quite clear. As an example, look at the Washington requirements (http://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/651019.pdf). Categories A, D, G and H could be included in an AutoCAD-only position. But they wouldn't have the experience requirements for categories B, C, E and F.
Now, it might be different in different states. But those are the requirements I met, and those are the requirements I think are reasonable.
The difference between the requirements to become a PE and to become a doctor is that the education requirement for the PE is an undergraduate degree. The whole "I wouldn't go to a doctor who didn't go to medical school" analogy brought up in the post that started this thread is irrelevant for this reason. A more apt analogy would be: would you go to a doctor that did not major in Biology before going to medical school? If you choose Engineering for your undergraduate degree and later decide you want to be a doctor, you can go to medical school and become a doctor. However, if you choose Biology as your undergraduate degree and later decide that you want to be an Engineer, in states that do now allow a Master's degree to count in place of an undergraduate engineering degree, your only option is to go back to little kid school and get a second B.S. degree, which is B.S. in another sense of the abbreviation.
If Engineers want to be taken seriously in the same vein as Doctors and Lawyers (as gets proclaimed on here) and wants similar salaries then no way should a person without an engineering degree be able to become a Professional Engineer.
Being a Professional Engineer is the only license in our profession so to allow a non-engineer to get it kind of shoots yourself in the foot in establishing credibility for your trade. I believe that industry exemption should be removed as well.
Being a Professional Engineer is the only license in our profession so to allow a non-engineer to get it kind of shoots yourself in the foot in establishing credibility for your trade. I believe that industry exemption should be removed as well.
If engineers want to be on the same playing field as doctors and lawyers they should require a M.S. degree or some other form of graduate level education to get the PE. I would be in favor of that
I agree you should be required to have to take the undergraduate engineering classes that are prerequisites for graduate school: statics, dynamics, fluids, etc, but asking working professionals to go back and do a senior project with a bunch of 22-year-olds is just unnecessarily insulting.
I would assume that all current PEs would be grandfathered into the new requirements for a Masters Degree, I can't see them asking all PEs that currently don't have a Masters Degree go back to school, its just too unrealistic to do.
snickerd3
Taking suggestions
We had a guy doing that very same thing when I was in college. He was basically doing all the same work as an engineer in the military without the degree so when he got out he went back for the degree so he could get the $. It was actually rather annoying having him around as he tried to do the whole college experience instead of just doing the work to get his degree. 20-21 years olds don't have a lot in common with 40 year olds with a wife and kids.
who knows
Member
Boomer01 PE I personally don't agree with the notion that because experience is the ultimate in one's career lifespan the education part is irrelevant. Infact, if you look into what we do as civil engineers (especially in the structurual field), you can pretty much conclude academia is the engine driving all the inovation and codes we use on a daily basis. Even at the underground level where sometimes I have qualms about the depth to which some of the courses are taught there is no doubt that most of what we learn further translate into what we do in the field finally when we step into the industry after school.
I don't know about where you had your education but looking at the average content of an ABET degree, one can find a wide range of concepts and principles applied on a daily basis in every civil engineering office. The fact that you don't find yourself refering to lecture notes on a daily basis to solve the problems you deal with does not mean you don't make use of the knowledge academia afforded you or has to offer.
What industry does is take the principles provided by academia and perfect it over time, occasionally sending it back to academia to have it fine-tuned in the labs.
If you have a graduate degree in Structural Engineering, for instance, you will acknowledge the way industry and academia work to complement each other.
Ask yourself these few questions;
How do you design a member for loads? Do you rely on some Martian principles and theories or the very basic load analysis methods we learn in school right here on earth in our brick and mortar classrooms? Staitics, Dynamics, Plastic, Linear and non-linear analysis etc?
How did the come up with the codes? Were they dreamt of by one awesome SE,PE or a combination of experts with both ScD, PhDs, BS's, MSs, SE, PE, etc?
You know why the system is messed up? Because we tend to agree with these same popular notions that you are throwing around here. Don't get me wrong the ultimate should be experience but you cannot get to that without the very basic tools you need. What we need to realise is every stage (college, after college industry experience etc.) comes with some responsibility and each has to be respected. The Engineering College stage spans over (4+2+3 years if you want a PhD) only 9years with the average being just 4 years (BS degree only) but a career spans over average 40 years. You spend roughly those forty years learning how to do things the smart and efficient way!
That is my 2 cents.
I think you're right about that. I was referring to working professionals who don't yet have their PE.
