Hijacking the Engineering Profession

Several comments say "just go take the test and stop whining." Ah, if only it were that easy.

  I've worked as an electrical engineering design consultant for about 20 years. I've designed hundreds of circuit boards and have worked with many clients. I have a degree from a top-notch engineering school. Late last year, I decided it would be cool to be able to put the title "Engineer" on my business card after all these years. I found it was impossible for me to even take the test. 

To get a professional engineering license, an applicant needs to take two tests. The first test is the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE). It is a pretty difficult test for anyone who has been out of school for a while, because it covers a broad variety of material, certain sections of which are not even covered at many institutions. Although I can't say that I agree with the scope of test, I did not find it too difficult to study the material and it was kind of neat to learn some structural engineering.

  I would have taken the FE. However, I started to fill out the Professional Engineering Test application and hit a brick wall. The application had two requirements that were difficult or impossible for me to meet: (1) it required "4 recommendations from people you have worked for who have PE licenses in your field." After contacting almost everybody I could think of, I came up with 3 EE PE's (all at a single

client) and 1 Civil PE. Close, but no cigar. (2) It also required that I had worked for four years under supervision of EE PE's, and I hadn't.

  When I discussed these requirements with the State licensing office and with someone at the National Society of Professional Engineers, they both agreed with me that, because there are few (if any) EE PE's working in the design world, it would be pretty much impossible for me to even qualify to take the test. 

Requiring recommendations from PE's and PE supervised experience only makes sense if there are, in fact, PE's working in your chosen field or industry. For many who work in the engineering profession, there aren't.

These requirements stink of exclusivity and protectionism rather than an earnest interest in ensuring engineering excellence. If certification or proving competence is really the goal, bring it on. I'm up for it.

PS: So, uh, does this letter qualify as whining?

(please, please label this as from anonymous -- I don't trust regulatory boards)

Consultant

I also have degrees from the University of Illinois, my friend. You should pass the exam easily. This is a long standing requirement in the states and territories. The exam review itself is worthwhile. Go get the license. I feel that your energies are better spent complying with the law than in fighting it.

I am the author of the article everyone is commenting about. I cannot comment on P.E. Acts in states other than Illinois, but most are similar as a result of the P.E. 's relentles and well financed lobby and their model Act. I have been forced to re-study our Act for the last four years and know it word for word.

Illinois, and probably most, if not all ofl the other states, do not require that ALL ENGINEERS be licensed; only those who practice "professional engineering". The legislators then listed about four dozen examples of what they meant by "professional engineering" and you would instantly recognize designing dams, railroads, sewage treatment plants, etc. as examples of civil engineering. If in 1945, when the Act was created, they used "Civil" instead of "Professional" there would have been no confusion. The Act specificly exempts engineers who work for industry. There is absolutely nothing in the Act requiring you to be licensed if you are a consultant to industry. You are actually specifically exempted from the act as a "research affiliate". Some responders have stated that if you are paid for doing engineering you must be licensed. This might be in the NSPE hope chest, but there is no basis for this absurdity in the law.

There are over 2,000,000 engineers in America and a little over 200,000 P.E.'s, some of whom work for industry and chose to get a P.E. for what ever reason. While they sometimes will use "P.E." next to their signature on a letter, have you ever seen a production part drawing that had a P.E. stamp on it? I must have seen at least 50,000 prints in my career and cannot recall ever seeing one. The P.E. Act REQUIRES P.E.'s TO STAMP THEIR DRAWINGS.

I wanted no part of the P.E. 's when I graduated and I like them less now. Having spent a lot of effort promoting engineering in public appearances, visiting schools, running an intern program, etc. That is the only thing I have in common with them. This organization, representing a small minority of engineers, is trying to impose their will on our huge, but very fragmented, majority.

The last time I looked there were three different fundaments exams and a small number of second exams in various specialties. Unfortunately the people creating the certification exams are about 30 years behind the status of modern engineering. What is the specific competence of a P.E. doing FEA, rapid prototyping, antenna design, designing optics, bio-engineering, RFID, genetic engineering, fiber optic gyroscopes, DNA analysis equipment, mold flow analysis, GPS, broadcast engineering and more than a hundred other speciaties when there is nothing in these fields that are tested by the exam? I found nothing that tested competence in mechanisms, complex aluminum extrusions and technology transfer; three areas in which I have a national reputation. Not by taking an exam covering things I learned earlier at the University of Illinois, but by actual engineering acomplishments.

You know how treacherous are the product liability laws. How about designing several hundred products and devices (most of which were put into production and distribution) and never being involved in a product liability claim or even a legal complaint? They also generated over 125 patents for my clients. That is why we never had to advertise or even make a brochure in fifty years.

I am subject to and respect the laws of the United States and the State of Illinois, not the desires of the NSPE. I am being forced to drain my retirement fund to pay lawyers to enforce my constitional right to truthfully call myself an engineer and to fight a second law suit claiming FRAUD because, although never asked, I didn't volunteer the fact that I was not a P.E.

I wrote that article to warn other engineers of what might happen to them and to enlist their support in a battle to set legal precedents that will protect us all.

I wrote the article and every word in it is true. After getting my BSME from the University of Illinois in '53, I started Budd Engineering in 1959. In 1960 went to the Illinois Dept. requesting and getting a ruling that I and my company were expemt from the P.E. Act because we work for manufacturing companies and are considered either sub-contracting, part time employees or per the Act, a "research affiliate". This ruling has been repeatedly confirmed as recently as 2004.
The IDFPR doesn't question my competence and cannot come up with any thing to countermand their previous rulings that I am exempt from the Act, yet they still want me to stop calling myself an engineer and remove "engineering" from my 50 year old corporation's name.

The real danger to you, my engineering brothers, is not your state boards, who know how stupid this situation is. The real danger is that anyone with a real or in my case an imagined grievance can drag you into court with nothing to do with what you did or didn't do. He can claim FRAUD because he engaged you to do some engineering and you didn't tell him you were not a licensed professional engineer. This law suit over non-existant damages has been running since 2005 and has cost tens of thousands in legal fees and we are still in discovery. By claiming FRAUD, he is also suing my wife and me personally who are officers of our tiny "C" corporation.

I didn't want this fight and would do anything possible to walk away from it and get back to serving my understanding clients. I have to fight this with both him and the Department he has badgered into pursuing the issue. If and when I win, it will set a precedent that will help protect you from a similar fate. I NEED YOUR HELP...

I also happen to have a BSME from Illinois. 1986 for me. In the early '90s I was living in North Carolina which has similar requirements - if you're selling engineering work you need to have a PE - so I took the test, got the piece of paper, and did my moonlighting.

I'm a machine design guy - it's what I've always done. Contrary to some other opinions, I am not "a castrated form of technocrat with their head firmly placed up the corporate a**." I spend most of my time at a CAD station creating new products. I have 10 patents and years of experience as a machinist and metal fabricator, which is what I did to get through school.

I have never stamped a drawing or put my PE license to any good use - but I have no regrets for getting it. It took a few months of study, a few letters, and it was done.

If the law requires it, take the test and be done with it.