hundt@paul.rutgers.edu (Thomas M. Hundt) (05/03/89)
|I am interested in finding out the legalities of calling yourself an |engineer or the position you hold being that of an engineer. I am a In the NJ Revised Statutes, Title 45:8: "it shall be unlawful for any person ... to use the title professional engineer or land surveyor or any other title, sign, card or device in such manner as to tend to convey the impression that such person is practicing engineering or land surveying or is a professional engineer or land surveyor, unless such person is duly licensed under the provisions of this chapter." "No corporation, firm, partnership, or association shall use or assume a name involving the word "engineers" or "engineering" or any modification or derivative of such term, unless an executive officer, if a corporation, or a member, if a firm, partnership, or association shall be a licensed professional engineer in the State of New Jersey" So I guess you can't go around calling yourself a professional engineer, nor have the word "engineer" in your firm's name. I have a couple of other questions about the PE: In the statutes book (this is the NJ version I have, I assume other states are similar) it states that one must have worked under a licensed Professional Engineer for a certain amount of time before being eligible to take the PE test and get licensed. Now, as a graduating EE I doubt that if I work for a typical computer/electronics company such as say, HP, that my boss would be a professional engineer. Does this mean I can never get a PE license? -Tom unprofessional engineer hundt@occlusal.rutgers.edu:Thomas M. Hundt:201/247-6723(H),932-5843(Lab)
levine@bonnie.ics.uci.edu (David Levine) (05/03/89)
In article <May.3.00.55.09.1989.3427@paul.rutgers.edu> Thomas M. Hundt writes: > >In the statutes book (this is the NJ version I have, I assume other states >are similar) it states that one must have worked under a licensed >Professional Engineer for a certain amount of time before being eligible >to take the PE test and get licensed. > >Now, as a graduating EE I doubt that if I work for a typical >computer/electronics company such as say, HP, that my boss would be a >professional engineer. Does this mean I can never get a PE license? > From the "Plain Language Pamphlet" distributed by the California Board of Registration: . . . four of your references should be registered in the branch for which you are applying, although the Board may waive the requirement that they all be registered in your branch if, in your work environment, there are not sufficient registered engineers in your branch. They don't cite any law or statute for this, although they do for most of the plain language in the pamphlet, so it may be something that the board does on its own. I obtained my PE license in DC, and had never worked under a PE (and still haven't). I would read the fine print, and contact your state board if you are in this quandry. They are used to handling special cases, such as comity (reciprocity) and non-degreed applicants.
cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) (05/05/89)
The rules in North Carolina are obviously tougher than in California. Here you have to have worked four years after graduation, two under the direction (or at least observation) of a PE. If you work for Northern Telecom and have no PE in the department, you need to go moonlight with a sympathetic PE or else forget licensing... -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include <std.disclamers> cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include <cutsey.quote> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *
jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) (05/05/89)
In article <6937@ecsvax.UUCP> cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) writes: > > >The rules in North Carolina are obviously tougher than in California. >Here you have to have worked four years after graduation, two under >the direction (or at least observation) of a PE. If you work for >Northern Telecom and have no PE in the department, you need to go >moonlight with a sympathetic PE or else forget licensing... All this discussion brings up a question that nobody was able to answer to my satisfaction 10 years ago... What is the point of going through the EIT/PE exams? I realize that certain types of engineering require licensing; civil engineering and nuclear engineering come to mind as prime examples. But why PE? When I asked that question 10 years ago, all the answers seemed to indicate that the movement was started by a group of engineers who were upset that someone with a 2 year degree and 10 years of experience could carry the same title (and salary) as someone with a bright shiny BS and a Mercedes to match. No flames please! I do not presume to belittle the achievement of passing the exams, I just don't understand the point of it all. In 10 years of work experience, I have never been required to perform and organic synthesis, never had to compute the deformation tensor of a solid cylinder under compressions, never had to analyze a floating truss, and have only met a handful of colleagues who understood the quantum mechanical behaviour of a particle in a crystal lattice, none of whom ever applied the knowledge. Yet, these were all things I was required to study for my BSEE. Since none of these are necessary as working knowledge for any of my fields of interest, I don't feel compelled to demonstrate my knowledge of them. The background I obtained from 3 music theory classes I have been able to successfully apply to various parts of my career (which is not music related) as well as everyday life, yet the EIT/PE exams would not test me on music theory. So I ask again, what's the point? Why should I bother? What's the bottom line in terms of: * Affect on career growth * Professional compensation * Quality of life Again, no flames, please. I am not being a wise guy, just asking a legitimate question. If someone is losing sleep over the EIT exam and looking here for answers, they deserve the benefit of the whole picture. Jonathan Quist
res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) (05/07/89)
In article <2306@laidbak.UUCP>, jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: > In article <6937@ecsvax.UUCP> cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) writes: > > > >The rules in North Carolina are obviously tougher than in California. > >Here you have to have worked four years after graduation, two under > >the direction (or at least observation) of a PE. If you work for > >Northern Telecom and have no PE in the department, you need to go > >moonlight with a sympathetic PE or else forget licensing... > > What is the point of going through the EIT/PE exams? ... I do not presume > to belittle the achievement of passing the exams, I just > don't understand the point of it all. ... > So I ask again, what's the point? Why should I bother? For many engineers, there is no reason. The PE certification is, for them, a neat trophy to hang on the wall. For other engineers it is a necessity. For engineers working all their lives for a corporation (as I do for AT&T Bell Laboratories), the PE certification is not really necessary. In our case, the Company is responsible to the public at large for the work we do. For work that REQUIRES the seal of a Professional Engineer (such as building construction plans), the Company will often retain an outside firm to do the work and seal the plans. In the case of any engineer who is working for the public on his/her own, the laws of most states require that they be registered for much the same reasons that doctors of medicine must be registered -- to protect the public from unskilled charlatins. This goal may not always be attained, but an approach to this goal is made. As a point of information, I took and passed the EIT exam in Michigan back in 1968. I joined Bell Telephone Laboratories (as it was called then) as an Electrical Engineer in that year. I subsequently earned a PhD in CS. I have felt no need to go back to take the PE exam. Indeed, I probably could not pass it since my work has had no relation to the topics covered by that exam that are of great importance to Consulting Engineers or other Engineers in private practice. I have no desire to take the PE exam myself, but I respect and applaude anyone who does have that desire and who successfully completes the exam. Note well that nowhere in the above posting have I used a smiley. Rich Strebendt ...!att!ihlpj!res
cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) (05/08/89)
I wholeheartedly agree with Rich's capsulation of the benefits/etc of PE registration. If you are on your own (or moonlight), it helps to be able to legally call yourself an Engineer. If you work for XYZ company and either (a) represent yourself as an asset to your company (say on the key personnel list on a proposal) or (b) are in a competative track on the promotions ladder, anything you can do to further distinguish yourself helps. As Rich stated, if you have a Ph.D. the PE really doesn't make that much more difference. If you have a BSEE or MSEE, being able to put that ",PE" after your name can sometimes make a difference when other factors remain equal. I have seen it work enough for others to feel that it is worth the pain to go the EIT/PE route (including studying why sewage doesn't flow uphill). On a similar note for (b) above, Senior Membership in IEEE sure doesn't hurt your resume. One of the immediate benefits is a letter (if you request it) sent from IEEE to your employer stating that you have been elevated in membership status for significant accomplishment, etc. Having that in your personnel file can be that extra thing needed in future promotion decisions. And, Sr Membership costs no more than regular IEEE membership. -- * Charles Lord ..!decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!cjl Usenet (old) * * Cary, NC cjl@ecsvax.UUCP Usenet (new) * * #include <std.disclamers> cjl@ecsvax.BITNET Bitnet * * #include <cutsey.quote> cjl@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Internet *
rickc@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Rick Clements) (05/09/89)
In article <2306@laidbak.UUCP> jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: }All this discussion brings up a question that nobody was able to answer }to my satisfaction 10 years ago... What is the point of going }through the EIT/PE exams? I realize that certain types of }engineering require licensing; civil engineering and nuclear engineering }come to mind as prime examples. But why PE? When I asked }that question 10 years ago, all the answers seemed to indicate that }the movement was started by a group of engineers who were upset }that someone with a 2 year degree and 10 years of experience could }carry the same title (and salary) as someone with a bright shiny }BS and a Mercedes to match. No flames please! When I looked into the PE exam, about 10 years ago also, attending an engineering school was not a requirement. For the EIT exam you needed 4 years of experience; they COULD be as a student. To take the PE exam you needed 4 more years of experience. They had to be all work experince. }So I ask again, what's the point? Why should I bother? I'm not sure. I changed from Electrical Engineering to Computer Engineering while I was in school. At that time Computer Engineering was not recoginized. So, I never bother to take the EIT exam. I have yet to need it professionally. If you get called into court and you are a PE, you are an expert witness. -- Rick Clements (RickC@pogo.WV.TEK.COM)
goodloe@b11.ingr.com (Tony Goodloe) (05/11/89)
In article <10429@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, res@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Rich Strebendt) writes: > In article <2306@laidbak.UUCP>, jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) writes: > > In article <6937@ecsvax.UUCP> cjl@ecsvax.UUCP (Charles J. Lord) writes: > > > > What is the point of going through the EIT/PE exams? ... > > For many engineers, there is no reason. The PE certification is, for them, a > neat trophy to hang on the wall. For other engineers it is a necessity. > I was told by one of my professors (who owns a corporation, consulting of course), that AL requires a corp. having engineering as its main business, (however you define that), must have a PE on its Board. With AL being the backward state that everyone knows it is :) I would be surprised if other states didn't have similar rules.
mac@harris.cis.ksu.edu (Myron A. Calhoun) (05/12/89)
In article <5058@b11.ingr.com> goodloe@b11.ingr.com (Tony Goodloe) writes: >I was told by one of my professors (who owns a corporation, consulting >of course), that AL requires a corp. having engineering as its main >business, (however you define that), must have a PE on its Board.... The "Academic Positions Open" advertisement from the University of South Alabama in the May, 1989, issue of IEEE Spectrum states "Candidates must .... be willing to obtain the P.E. license." While examining the Auburn (Alabama) University catalog recently (Yes, I'm looking for a new job!) I recall noticing that most of the engineering faculty held the P.E. license. --Myron, B.S., M.S., and Ph.D., all in E.E., but no P.E. by choice! -- Myron A. Calhoun, PhD EE, W0PBV, (913) 532-6350 (work), 539-4448 (home). INTERNET: mac@ksuvax1.cis.ksu.edu BITNET: mac@ksuvax1.bitnet UUCP: ...{rutgers, texbell}!ksuvax1!harry!mac