Thanks! If I could only get microsoft to adopt it.
But seriously, we didnt grab anyboyds anything. Microsoft and Novell used Engineer in the cert(its not a title), because engineer is a generic term, it applys to train drivers, audio people, all kinds of people.
Well, I passed Calculus, I was an Electronic Engineering major in college, before I dropped out to become a Rock Star(that worked out so well…)
Not really, thats not what it certifies at all. The questions on the exams are designed to show that you know how to apply the companys product (and a few other companys products) in a real world enviroment to solve a given problem or meet a particular need.
Now, you can cheat on this, and memorize the questions. But then when you get in the real world you wont have a clue what to do in those situations.
The questions will start out with a discription of a fictional company, a problem they are experiancing, and statements from differant people in the company describing the results that they require. Then you answer a series of questions about what actions will be needed to meet those expectations. The test in itself is a good indicator of what you know, if you dont cheat.
So I wonder how the debate changes if I, a PE, study up real quick and get an MSCE…there are a couple of people in my office who fit that bill, in fact.
I don’t think it changes the debate. It just makes you a P.E. who happens to also have an MSCE certification. IMO it certainly wouldn’t make you more of an engineer, especially if the MSCE content is mainly product knowledge.
It isnt.
Great thread…
Most people regard engineering as “boring”; the people who know me know better.
I’ve investigated the technical causes of accidents and fires for 22 years, in 7 states and several countries, working on cases involving celebrities, movie stars, murder, arson, extortion, suicide, fraud, etc. It’s exciting work.
One day I could be investigating a fatal traffic accident in Tampa, the next day I could be investigating a fire with a Soviet-trained counterpart in Guatemala. I love my job.
If they ever make a TV show about my work, I’ll gladly accept Brad Pitt in the role - but he has to have a moustache. 
Now I was a test engineer in aerospace on two secret projects, too, and was bored silly. But I had a depo last year where my atty introduced me as his “real rocket scientist”. So even those staid positions had subsequent image perqs.
As to the matter at hand, I have a rare Bachelor of Technology degree. Most I know with that degree are working as engineers. In fact, I studied in both engineering and technology programs at three different universities, and I really didn’t see much difference between the two in terms of curriculum. They each took course credits from the other.
My thought is that if you’ve got a four year degree in an engineering discipline - you ARE an engineer. If you’ve passed the state exam and have the license, you are a licensed PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
The difference, in my view, concerns DESIGN and the safety of the public. The PE signifies that the engineer has qualified him/herself by exam to design projects which - if designed and/or implemented incompetently - could kill people.
Of course, as we know - having the work done by a PE does not actually ensure such safety. But having standards is a good thing.
Being a PE does not entitle one to condescendingly regard all other engineers as anything less than engineers. Unfortunately, the PEs have turned it into a snob thing with legal ramifications.
I never had a desire to do design work. My interest is in APPLIED engineering and technology. So I have never been interested in being a “PE”. It’s simply not required for this job.
In my field it has been a challenge to correctly identify myself. Am I an accident reconstruction engineer? An accident reconstructionist? I prefer the former because it’s been the generally accepted descriptive term for my job throughout my career; in the early years nearly everyone practicing in it was an engineer or a physicist.
The irony is that there are a lot of newcomers with PEs, and PhDs after their name who dabble in this field who have only a limited grasp of what they’re doing. I run across them frequently;
I pound them consistently. I’ve never lost a case to even one of these guys. The alphabet soup after their names gives them an enhanced pseudo-credibility they do not deserve.
But because of them I have to be careful about describing myself as an accident reconstruction engineer - even though I have been in this field since it was a toddler.
I started thinking about this, and I think I should clarify:
Large computer networks are generally defined by a particular manufacturer. Usually, you will have a Microsoft network, or a Novell network. Sometimes you will have an all Mac network, or an all unix network, but those are not the norm.
That doesnt mean that every thing on that network is Microsoft product, or a Novell Product, it only means that the main structure of the network is.
If you have a large microsoft based network, you are going to want an MCSE, not because they have a great deal of microsoft product knowledge, but because the know the Microsoft enviroment.
For instance, my group spent a great deal of yesterday trying to get a unix based network appliance back up after it had a minor crash…A stand alone box that does nothing but provide disk space. there was nothing on this box that was microsoft, but it was designed to authenticate users through a microsoft NT domain controller. My knowledge came into play because I know how the boxes authenticate to resource domains and master domain, even though this box did not run any microsoft products. So I was able to rule out the authentication end of things, so that the unix guys could look elsewhere for the problem.
Product knowlege is a part of it, but saying an MCSE is just product knowledge is gross oversimplification.
Indeed? That’s the goal here? Perhaps a re-reading of the thread is required.
You claim you’ve been doing this for 22 years. Well, shit - 22 years experience is worth a lot more than any education or certification a “newcomer” brings. Way back at just 5 years of experience I could run rings around professors who taught what I do for a living.
But tell me what is most likely worth more - 22 years experience + PE or PhD, or 22 years experience?
Quick - you’re going in for heart surgery tomorrow. Do you pick the Board-certified surgeon with 5 years experience, or the non-Board-certified surgeon with 5 years experience? And why or why not?
ANTHRACITE SNORTED in REPLY…
“”“Indeed? That’s the goal here? Perhaps a re-reading of the thread is required.”""
ANTHRACITE asked:
“”“tell me what is most likely worth more - 22 years experience + PE or PhD, or 22 years experience?”""
In accident reconstruction and fire investigation the PE is irrelevant. All the PEs I know in this field became PEs while pursuing a career prior to entering forensics.
I think the PhD is also irrelevant, unless it was earned on a forensic subject relevant to the career which is generally not the case in my field.
ANTHRACITE offers a hypothetical…
“”“Quick - you’re going in for heart surgery tomorrow. Do you pick the Board-certified surgeon with 5 years experience, or the non-Board-certified surgeon with 5 years experience? And why or why not?”""
You’re apparently trying to make point using a dissimilar vocation requiring a dissimilar mode of qualification - committing the logical sin of false analogy. We had to learn logic - don’t they teach that in engineering school anymore?
Nobody is trying to discount experience here, BluEarthArtist. It’s one of the things we most treasure.
Anthracite specifically stated that with five years of real world experience she was a better engineer that the alphabetters in acadamia.
You have twenty-two years in. With or without formal training you will qualify to take the PE, if you can get a current PE to sign off on twelve of them. Ever think about it?
And why do you think PEs look down their noses at you?
We’re a practical bunch. Wander around a machine shop some time and see how often the engineers are asking the machinists and tool-makers for advice, instead of vice-vera.
Exgineer says:
“”“You have twenty-two years in. With or without formal training you will qualify to take the PE, if you can get a current PE to sign off on twelve of them. Ever think about it?”""
It’s really not practical for me since I’m the top dog here. There’s no one to “sign off” on anything but me.
Besides, 99% of what I know now didn’t come from school, and I haven’t even looked at a differential equation since the 70s.
“”“And why do you think PEs look down their noses at you?”""
Why would this thread even exist if there wasn’t a good degree of elitism in the air?
I’m sensitive to this mainly because of the misconception attorneys have of a “professional engineer” being a better engineer, when in many cases it’s actually an apples to pears comparison. Most don’t know the whys and whatnots of who needs to go the PE route and who doesn’t.
There are a large number of engineers now in my field who gravitated here from more basic disciplines like electrical (my original area), chemical, and mechanical. All (that I’m aware of) are PEs because of the requirements of their former jobs.
“”“We’re a practical bunch. Wander around a machine shop some time and see how often the engineers are asking the machinists and tool-makers for advice, instead of vice-vera.”""
Sure. I do the same thing. I rely on specialist expertise all the time. As a personal example, I worked a couple of Firestone failure cases. I’ve never made a tire, but my dad was a chemE (but gaspnot a PE) with Firestone for decades - so guess who I asked for tire building info?
Life is getting a lot more complicated everyday, and we can’t know everything. The career game is breaking down into ever more distinct sub categories and specialties, where people focus on learning a lot about a very narrowly defined subject.
Whereas I have to do just the opposite. I have to learn a lot about a lot of different things, and occasionally rely on specialists for crucial puzzle pieces. In fact, I regard myself as a generalist, not a specialist, even though my field is about as specific as it gets.
And BTW, I consider myself an engineer, though the state of Florida - through its board of professional engineers - says that I can’t tell anybody else.
It’s a matter of sequence. You stated those words:
Well before you said the others:
Thus, your first statment is a blanket statement, and misleading. It may not be what you meant, but don’t tell me it doesn’t read both ways.
Ummm…yeah. You can assume we are only talking about “relevant” PhD’s here - or at least I am. I sincerely doubt I was referring to someone acquiring a PhD in Parapsychology or English to assist them in forensic engineering. :rolleyes:
Re: “qualifications” - depends on the job. Even with 100 years of experience, you couldn’t be legally hired for my job without the PE. Thus, it is an obvious “qualification”, whether you like it or not. And thus, for Engineering jobs, PEs are by definition absolutely more qualified if all other things are equal. It may not relevant to the immediate task at-hand or duties and responsibilities - but it is an actual Engineering qualification. Or are we now trying to eliminate even that now in this thread?
Evidently, you don’t understand Board Certification for doctors. The analogy is not nearly as invalid as you think. Having lived with one who is now Board Certified, let me enlighten you: Board Certification is very similar to the PE in that one can practice medicine without one. And one can be quite successful at it as well. And the key practical difference between a doctor who is Board Certified and who is not is that they have shown and demonstrated knowledge of their profession by going the extra mile for the Boards.
Two posts and you’re already tossing barbs at me. Either you read invective in my response and are trying to respond in-kind, or you’re just acting like an ass.
Let me know which one.
Una
Oh, I see now. I think I’d better re-read that post, like you said… :rolleyes:
Make up your mind, dude. Either you’re poking people here or you’re not.
You know, the more I think about this the more I find myself agreeing with the P.E.s. after all, mainly because the “engineer” title is unique in the level of abuse to which it’s subjected.
I’m a programmer analyst. If every office desk jockey who keys in accounting entries or types letters were called some kind of “analyst” or “programmer” just because they work at a computer, I’d be pissed too. I’d want to set up formal licensing procedures (maybe we should anyway), and have laws control the use of the job title. I didn’t think of it that way before, but that’s exactly how bad the situation is with respect to engineers.
You know what? I cave. I think the engineers are right.
You go, guys and girls.
At several of the places I have dealt with, Analyst means phone support person…the bob you call to reset your password, or tell you how to open mail, if you are CI.
After reading through this thread, I did a little research. Is it true that you can take the PE without taking the EIT first, as long as you have enough years relevant work experience and the appropriate recommendations? Everything I’ve read regarding this question so far seems a little vague, although it may depend on what state you’re in. It also mentions that you have to work under the supervision of a PE, which (as far as I know), I’ve never done. I’ve worked with PEs on numerous occasions and have had them as students in the CAE classes I teach, though.
If I were to go for my PE, it would be in Mechanical Design (“Hello, Shigley, I think it’s time I got to know you a lot better.”). Looking at the topics, I could handle a good chunk of it without cracking a book. Other topics, however, would pretty much require me to learn them from scratch.
Hi. I’m bernse. I created this thread. I’m not even an Engineer.
Although, I suppose I may be an elitest.
You know, you can let people look down their noses at you, or you can refuse to play.
Seems to me like somebody pi$$$ed in BluEarthArtist’s corn flakes.
If you have lived to see 30 surely you must have enough wisdom to know that blanket statements about people are bad logic. Every P.E. is not a snob, just like every cheerleader is not stupid. There’s no elitism here.
And Strainger, unfortunately it is true that you have to be under the supervision of a P.E. for a certain no. of years to sit for the exam. Here in Miss. it’s 4 years. One way to accomplish that is to form a two-person partnership with another engineer who is a P.E. Ya’ll work together on a couple projects over the 4 yrs, then sit for the exam.
javaman, thanks for lifting my mood. You made a bad day better.
Rassin’ frassin’…How the hell am I supposed to be under the supervision of a PE when I work with them as equals or in an instructor-student relationship (where I’m the instructor)? :mad: One thing I should do is check to see if maybe one of my managers or directors has a PE that I’m unaware of (due to modesty, or whatever). In my early days, at least one of my co-workers, who I occasionally went to with questions, was a PE (I’ve been an engineer full time for about 9.5 years).
As far as elitism goes, I’ve never experienced it with the PEs at my workplace. The only reason I know they’re PEs is because I saw the letters on their business cards. One guy didn’t even have it mentioned on his, but I know he’s a PE because he’s always inviting us to NSPE meetings.