Job Title "Engineer" without PE?

[benbo]

Ilan-

You work for a company right? The title you have is the title that they gave you, right? They are the ones who print up these cards, right? I assume they have been in business a while and are aware of the rules. You could check with your board, but let me point out this-

My uncle was an engineer for Lockheed in Houston for thirty years. No PE, no problem. THere are hundreds of engineers down at NASA, very very few PEs, and I'm sure none of them are at risk of prosecution. And a quick search of monster anywhere in Texas will yield hundred of ads for engineers, none of which call for a PE. Either the board is completely incompetent in pursing these criminals, or this is not a crime.

I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[JoeBoone82]

I've always wondered about this topic myself. I've always been told that you should not use "engineer" unless you are registered/licensed. I have passed the EIT and I have the E.I. after my name only. My certificate says "engineer intern" so i do not use any other title or variation. It seems that the laws have exemptions, etc. and can be difficult to comprehend. I have friends who are from the ME, AE, EE and think it's okay to use "engineer". Some did not even pass the EIT and they say to me "you can call yourself what you want, but I'm an Engineer!" Maybe it is different under certain companies, gov't agencies, industries, etc... but I will stick with E.I. for now. My grandfather worked his way up to become a Chemical Engineer without license and maybe not even an engr degree... but that was back a long time ago when years of experience counted for a lot.

Someone can read this and tell me what you think for the State of Tennessee.

62-2-102. Practice and persons exempt from registration. —

(a) Except as provided in subsections (B) and (d), nothing in this section shall

be construed as requiring registration for the purpose of practicing architecture,

engineering or landscape architecture by a person; provided, that the

person does not use the appellation ‘‘architect,’’ ‘‘engineer’’ or ‘‘landscape

architect,’’ an appellation which compounds, modifies or qualifies the words

‘‘architecture,’’ ‘‘engineering’’ or ‘‘landscape architecture,’’ or which gives or is

designed to give the impression that the person using same is an architect,

engineer or landscape architect.

62-2-105. Penalties — Reporting offenses.

(2) A violation of this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.

(3) Each day’s violation of this subsection is a separate offense.

© A person is construed to practice (or offer to practice) engineering,

architecture or landscape architecture who, by verbal claim, sign, advertisement,

letterhead, card, or in any other way, represents such person to be an

architect, engineer or landscape architect, with or without qualifying adjective,

or through the use of some other title implies that the person is an architect,

engineer or landscape architect.

(d) It is the duty of the members of the board to report any violations of this

chapter to the proper authorities.

Let me know what you get out of this from the link here...

http://www.state.tn.us/commerce/boards/ae/...ects05E_000.pdf

 

[IlPadrino]

Either the board is completely incompetent in pursing these criminals, or this is not a crime.

I'm thinking it's usually the former but incompetent might be a bit harsh...

In Oregon:

672.991 Penalties. (1) Violation of any provision of ORS 672.045 is a Class A misdemeanor.
(2) Notwithstanding ORS 131.105 to 131.155, prosecution for violation of ORS 672.045 may be commenced within two years after discovery of the offense, but in no case shall the period of limitation otherwise applicable be extended by more than 10 years.

and

Category/Prison Term-ORS 161.615/Maximum Fine ORS 161.635
Class A Misdemeanor/1 year/$6,250

I don't think many State boards have a lot (any?) time to start their own reviews. They depend on complaints and let's be honest... not many people are going to complain.

I, too, wouldn't worry about it. But I would do what I think the law prescribes.

 

[benbo]

Well, it is a pretty big scandal that the board is igrnoring, because huge, and I mean huge companies like Boeing, Microsoft, etc, and govenrmental agencies like NASA are flouting the state boards. And very openly. THere is a difference between calling yourself an XXX engineer, and practicing engineering or offering engineering services or calling yourself a professional engineer. And as I said, many states have industrial exemptions for electrical and mechanial engineers. California is one. And it looks like the Texas board has exceptions as well.

If I worked for NASA and they hired me as a "Systems Engineer" I think I would be inclined to just accept my title. I don't think I would assume my legal judgement susperceded the judgement of NASA attorneys and refuse to accept the title they gave me.

 

[chaosiscash]

I don't know how NASA in Texas is, but I do know this. If the work is done by the Fed gov or their contractors on Federal land (like the site I am currently at in TN), the State board has no jurisdiction.

 

[Dark Knight]

The bottom line here is that you can have the tittle you want but have to pass the NCEES test to put P.E. after your name on a business card or call yourself a Professional Engineer. I agree with Benbo's statement.

The fact is that there are hundreds to go around that because the nature of our profession and the fact that not 100% of graduated engineers take the PE. Some do not take the EIT!!!!!.

My first job out of college my tittle was Design Engineer. By the time I got the job my EIT results were unknown so I was not an EIT. My bosss was not even an EIT but his title was Principal Engineer. Have to mention that it was a job with the Federal Goverment in Tennessee.

On my next positions my titles were Engineer II, Substation Engineer, and Engineer II - Protection & Control. The first with a city utility and the last two in Florida. Only the last position was after the P.E. but it was not a factor in any ways.

My point is that the title is irrelevant. That is something the companies play with at their convinience. The trick here is how do you sell yourself to the public. If you are going to offer your services to the public you HAVE to be a P.E. Inside a company, most could not care less.

 

[Ilan]

I wanted to find out the rules at different states about having the "Engineer" title.

It is interesting to see that each state has grossly different rules and are interpreted differently. :bowdown: EB.

I will let my company's attorneys break their head. I have an exam to worry about.

BTW, I just learnt that you can take the PE exam in NV without meeting the experience requirement.

 

[squishles10]

CA is a no way. My old company gave us titles that we couldn't use. I accidentally attached my signature when I emailed the board once and I got a cease and desist reply. I took it to HR and they acknowledged that it was illegal but didn't want to change it. I had a Masters and they still didn't care. I tend to like how Texas does it better, and I also agree that I hate how "software engineers" give me crap about "we're engineers too". Please.

 

[Tark62]

CA is a no way. My old company gave us titles that we couldn't use. I accidentally attached my signature when I emailed the board once and I got a cease and desist reply. I took it to HR and they acknowledged that it was illegal but didn't want to change it. I had a Masters and they still didn't care.

The California Board does regulate certain engineering titles, but not all. For example, they don't regulate the plain-vanilla title of "engineer". They also don't regulate titles like "aerospace engineer" or "project engineer".

The law only gives them authority over certain specific titles, as per Section 6732 of the Professional Engineer's Act:

It is unlawful for anyone other than a professional engineer licensed under this chapter to stamp or seal any plans, specifications, plats, reports, or other documents with the seal or stamp of a professional engineer, or in any manner, use the title “professional engineer,” “licensed engineer,” “registered engineer,” or “consulting engineer,” or any of the following branch titles: “agricultural engineer,” “chemical engineer,” “civil engineer,” “control system engineer,” “electrical engineer,” “fire protection engineer,” “industrial engineer,” “mechanical engineer,” “metallurgical engineer,” “nuclear engineer,” “petroleum engineer,” or “traffic engineer,” or any combination of these words and phrases or abbreviations thereof unless licensed under this chapter.

There are a few other titles that are regulated as per other sections of the Act, like "engineer-in-training", "soil engineer", "soils engineer", "geotechnical engineer", and "structural engineer". But that's it.

You can legally use the title "engineer" in CA, as long as you don't use one of the titles specifically regulated in the Act. For example, look at the "operating engineers".

 

[benbo]

Squishles=

I don't know what was up with your company. In Cali it is a lot stricter for CEs. Obviously you can't claim or imply that you have a credential you don't have. But you need to read the Professional Engineers Act for California. There are many exemptions, including the telecommunications exemption for telecom engineers, and the industrial exception for engineers working in many industries. I won't list all the exceptions here. Pick up the PE Act in California. - http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/pe_act.pdf

Here's a few examples -

6746. Exemption for communications companies under the Public Utilities Commission

Plans, specifications, reports and documents relating to communication lines and equipment prepared by employees of communications companies which come under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, and by employees of contractors while engaged in work on communication equipment for communications companies which come under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, are not subject to the provisions of this chapter.

6746.1. Exemption for employees of communications industry

The provisions of this act pertaining to licensure of professional engineers other than civil engineers, do not apply to employees in the communication industry, nor to the employees of contractors while engaged in work on communication equipment. However, those employees may not use any of the titles listed in Section 6732, 6736, and 6736.1, unless licensed.

{Added by Stats.2006, Ch. 658.}

6747. Exemption for industries

(a) This chapter, except for those provisions that apply to civil engineers and civil engineering, shall not apply to the performance of engineering work by a manufacturing, mining, public utility, research and development, or other industrial corporation, or by employees of that corporation, provided that work is in connection with, or incidental to, the products, systems, or services of that corporation or its affiliates.

(B) For purposes of this section, “employees” also includes consultants, temporary employees, contract employees, and those persons hired pursuant to third-party contracts.

6737.3. Exemption of contractors

A contractor, licensed under Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3, is exempt from the provisions of this chapter relating to the practice of electrical or mechanical engineering so long as the services he or she holds himself or herself out as able to perform or does perform, which services are subject to the provisions of this chapter, are performed by, or under the responsible charge of a registered electrical or mechanical engineer insofar as the electrical or mechanical engineer practices the branch of engineering for which he or she is registered.

6739. Exemption of federal officers and employees

Officers and employees of the United States of America practicing solely as such officers or employees are exempt from registration under the provisions of this chapter.

 

[Guest]

There are many exemptions, including the telecommunications exemption for telecom engineer ...

Speaking of which .... did you see the Washington Post ??

JR

 

[squishles10]

Squishles=I don't know what was up with your company. In Cali it is a lot stricter for CEs. Obviously you can't claim or imply that you have a credential you don't have. But you need to read the Professional Engineers Act for California. There are many exemptions, including the telecommunications exemption for telecom engineers, and the industrial exception for engineers working in many industries. I won't list all the exceptions here. Pick up the PE Act in California. - http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/pe_act.pdf

Yeah, they were just stupid. Every other company in the city did it right. I was an Assistant Civil Engineer right out of college, then a Civil Engineer, and when we got our PE, we were a Design Engineer. :screwloose: Everywhere else you were design first, then civil, OBVIOUSLY. Since it's ILLEGAL.

 

[Dleg]

I was a Junior Field Engineer, Field Engineer, and Senior Field Engineer in CA. Never had any trouble with any board ... of course this was in one of the "exempt" industries, and no one gave a crap about professional licensing - you simply wouldn't keep your job if you weren't competent. No testing required. And, if anyone even mentioned "industry expemtion", we would probably have just laughed at them: "As if you're going to step in and stop us!" That sounds like a label that was just slapped on by the licensing boards after-the-fact, after being laughed out of some legislator's office. "We'll just grant them an exemption, so it looks like it was our decision."

Seriously, I think some engineers are way too absorbed in the building/construction industry to notice that there is a whole world of engineering out there that cares little for a licensing model that was developed 100 years ago and has failed to keep up with the explosion of technologies unrelated to construction. Simply put: most "engineering" being done in industry is so diverse, and so specialized, that professional licensing can't ever keep up, and therefore can never have much value to those coroporations and agencies. I've seen many, many articles and editorials in the NSPE literature bemoaning this fact. Invariably, they are all written by some senior civil or HVAC PE who just can't get past the idea that their organization is unable to collect membership fees from this 40% or whatever of graduate engineers who never pursue licensing.

I'm not saying that professional licensing isn't a good idea for all forms of engineering. I'm not sure, to be honest. But what I am saying is that people should not get so worked up about it. A PE is meaningful in certain industries. Enjoy what you have. But don't detract from the people who work in industries where it is meaningless. I guarantee that there are folks working over at Boeing or NASA or even Microsoft who could out-smarts any one of us "PEs". I wonder how many PE's were behind putting men on the moon? You can't tell me that wasn't engineering.

Sorry for the rant. I just think we need to be a bit more open minded and humble about this part of our profession.

 

[Dark Knight]

I was a Junior Field Engineer, Field Engineer, and Senior Field Engineer in CA. Never had any trouble with any board ... of course this was in one of the "exempt" industries, and no one gave a crap about professional licensing - you simply wouldn't keep your job if you weren't competent. No testing required. And, if anyone even mentioned "industry expemtion", we would probably have just laughed at them: "As if you're going to step in and stop us!" That sounds like a label that was just slapped on by the licensing boards after-the-fact, after being laughed out of some legislator's office. "We'll just grant them an exemption, so it looks like it was our decision."
Seriously, I think some engineers are way too absorbed in the building/construction industry to notice that there is a whole world of engineering out there that cares little for a licensing model that was developed 100 years ago and has failed to keep up with the explosion of technologies unrelated to construction. Simply put: most "engineering" being done in industry is so diverse, and so specialized, that professional licensing can't ever keep up, and therefore can never have much value to those coroporations and agencies. I've seen many, many articles and editorials in the NSPE literature bemoaning this fact. Invariably, they are all written by some senior civil or HVAC PE who just can't get past the idea that their organization is unable to collect membership fees from this 40% or whatever of graduate engineers who never pursue licensing.

I'm not saying that professional licensing isn't a good idea for all forms of engineering. I'm not sure, to be honest. But what I am saying is that people should not get so worked up about it. A PE is meaningful in certain industries. Enjoy what you have. But don't detract from the people who work in industries where it is meaningless. I guarantee that there are folks working over at Boeing or NASA or even Microsoft who could out-smarts any one of us "PEs". I wonder how many PE's were behind putting men on the moon? You can't tell me that wasn't engineering.

Sorry for the rant. I just think we need to be a bit more open minded and humble about this part of our profession.

:appl: :appl: :appl: No comments needed

 

[SSmith]

:appl: :appl: :appl: No comments needed

I agree with above.

For another data point for this discussion:

I work for the Army as a civilian in beautiful Fort Knox, KY.

I have my FE certifiction.

Job title is "Reliability Engineer"

No problems with the designation so far.

 

[Tark62]

I work for the Army as a civilian in beautiful Fort Knox, KY.I have my FE certifiction.

Job title is "Reliability Engineer"

No problems with the designation so far.

My understanding is that employees of the Federal government are not subject to state licensing laws, in any state or in any profession. This is explicitly stated in some cases (for example, the California Professional Engineer's Act has a "Federal exemption"). However, my understanding is that it applies universally, whether the state laws explicitly say so or not.

Federal agencies (e.g. Army Corps of Engineers) may voluntarily comply with state regulations and licensing laws, but they are not legally required to do so.

 

[Tark62]

I'm not saying that professional licensing isn't a good idea for all forms of engineering. I'm not sure, to be honest. But what I am saying is that people should not get so worked up about it. A PE is meaningful in certain industries. Enjoy what you have. But don't detract from the people who work in industries where it is meaningless.

That's well and good, but keep in mind that deregulation, via the industrial exemption, does have a downside.

Yes, deregulation removes a bureaucratic burden from "real" engineers who work in industries where licensure is meaningless.

But deregulation also gives anyone else, in those same industries, the freedom to claim the title of "engineer", even when they are arguably not "real" engineers.

The "operating engineers" (= dozer drivers), or the "maintenance engineers" (= custodians), or the "sales engineers" (= marketing staff), and the "software engineers" (= programmers) may not have engineering degrees, or even basic understanding of math or physical science. But in the absence of professional board regulation and enforcement, they have the same claim to the title of "engineer" as someone with ABET BS and MS degrees.

If you don't legally protect your "trademark", then it falls into the public domain. Some people feel that the title of "engineer" has been cheapened in this manner.

For example, do you agree that the person who fills this job -- which requires no formal education or training -- is really an "engineer" ?

 

[Dleg]

That's well and good, but keep in mind that deregulation, via the industrial exemption, does have a downside.

Don't kid yourself - it was never regulated to begin with. Do you really think that the term "engineer" was coined by the Wyoming Board of Professional Licensing 100 years ago? I don't know my engineering history terribly well, but I believe that even back in the heydays of licensing, a fairly large proportion of mechanical engineer graduates went into industry and never bothered to get licensed. I've even read recent editorials by old-timers in publications such as CE News that mention how uncommon it was even back in the 1950s for ME professors to be licensed as PEs.

I agree with you that of course there is is a downside. And I'm glad you are up front about protecting our profession. I understand that "safeguarding the public safety and welfare" argument, but it rings a bit hollow in the NSPE articles, when we all know that professional licensing is just as much about protecting our jobs and salaries. I will agree 100% on that. But I don't think that simple, blanket prohibitions on the use of job titles is the way to go about that. The PE licensing model has worked very well in the "built environment" industry, but obviously not so well in other parts of the engineering world. And until those "other" engineers get engaged in the process of trying to figure out a way to protect themselves from the janitors and train drivers (oh my!), nothing is going happen. The Mars Rover re-entry systems engineer is not going to be swayed by some culvert designer shouting at him that he needs to get a PE license to call himself an engineer.

 

[benbo]

I am a PE and an electrical engineer by trade and education. But I don't understand this marginalization of software engineers or programmers. The notion that real programmers don't know math - I just don't get it. We are using an internet that was designed by programmers, and at work we use operating systems and applications programmed by programmers. A lot of innovation is in the programming of devices, not the hardware. Do you think firmware programming for cells phones or GPS systems is simple? I guarantee it isn't. And programmers use lots of math, especially numerical methods.

My first "technical" job was as an intern at Hughes Research labs. We used Runge Kutta methods to solve differential equations and boundary value problems and programmed the algorithms in Fortran, and wrote multidimensional integration progams to analyze deep space antennas for satellites. It was just as hard and technically advanced as anything I saw on the PE exam. Especially when they want everything optimized to run as fast as possible with the fewest number of steps.

LAter in my career I went for an interview for Qualcomm. A software engineer position. I walked in and they threw a paper down with some gibberish I didn't understand vaguely and asked to see my algorithm, flowchart, and some code for some sort of driver, or digital Kalman filter. I can't even remember. Basically I just said thanks and walked out.

I guess what I'm saying is that all programming is not writing a few lines of SQL, HTML or Basic. Some of it is pretty advanced.

 

[Tark62]

Don't kid yourself - it was never regulated to begin with.

Of course not. What profession ever started out that way? For example, nobody ever told Abraham Lincoln that he needed to graduate from an ABA-accredited law school. Just like nobody told 19th-century engineers to get ABET degrees or take the PE exam.
But today, you need to earn an accredited graduate degree and pass a rigorous licensing exam to be a "lawyer". On the other hand, there is no need to do either of those things to be an "engineer". The lawyers apparently perceived some value to increased regulation, while the engineers apparently did not.

But I don't think that simple, blanket prohibitions on the use of job titles is the way to go about that.

Yet other professions make a point of establishing exactly such prohibitions. The legal profession, for example, is very strict about the use of titles like "lawyer" or "attorney". The lawyers apparently perceive some value to title restrictions, while the engineers apparently do not.

Do the lawyers know something that the engineers don't ?