Letters.

MORE P.E. DEBATE

To the Editor: The latest letters regarding P.E. licensure have been very enjoyable reading. I agree with Konrad Powers' assertion (Letters, November 1999) that the license may not give an advantage in getting a job and requires jumping through a lot of bureaucratic

I wish the P.E. were more valuable, that employers did see it as something worth having. This is what they get: a state certification that the individual actually did complete a degree program at an accredited school, retained enough to pass two rather rigorous exams, and has good relationships with employers and colleagues who took time to fill out recommendation sheets. This is a much better screening than is normally done. The potential employer can call the state and verify the license.

I personally know of an individual who flunked out of college (but took most of the courses), yet claims a degree (not against the law in most states) and 10 years of experience (and maybe has two) when applying for work. This person has great success in getting jobs at high wages because of a charismatic personality, fast talk, and an ability to appear technically competent to the administrative types and (in the beginning) to the technical types.

Invariably, the true colors and abilities are found out after the new employee begins to work closely with the responsible technical people. But, the experience costs the employer several thousand dollars and much heartache. I personally competed with this person for a job and was not ranked as highly (despite a RE. license and 13 years of experience). Given that degrees and diplomas are sold on the Internet, companies should take the time to screen employees and consultants.

The P.E. license is now the best and easiest way for employers to screen engineers, and should be rewarded with premium pay and exclusive opportunities. In that way, Jay and Konrad and I would find our efforts at licensure very worthwhile.

Eddie Ashe, P.E.

Winston-Salem, N.C.

To the Editor: I obtained my license early in my engineering career, which can be divided into three distinct phases: employment as a design and field engineer for a series of small design-build contractors serving various process industries; employment by a fairly large manufacturing company; and currently as an independent consulting engineer. The license was important (a condition for employment in at least one firm) in the first phase. It was largely irrelevant in the second. (On the other hand, my master's degree, though in engineering and thus less desirable than an MBA, was given some consideration, whereas it had been felt irrelevant in the construction industry.)

Licensure did serve one valuable function in my manufacturing role, however. A portion of my duties consisted of liaison with A&E firms employed for new plant construction or expansion of existing production facilities, and the P.E. designation at least informed those consultants that they were dealing with someone who had a formal engineering education. Consequently, I kept the P.E. designation on my business card, rather than ignoring it as did most of the few other licensed engineers in the company.

In my current situation, the license is essential. But since few engineers will actually go into private practice, and most will, in fact, be employed in the manufacturing sector, where the P.E. license is held in low regard, what else could be done to enhance the image and prestige of the profession?

I disagree with those who have expressed the view that the Principles and Practices examination should have its focus shifted away from technical subjects. The license is, after all, for engineering, not corporate management, and I think the public has a right to expect some level of expertise in technical problem solving ability. To those engineers of long standing who have had trouble passing the exam, I can only say that I've known a number of nondegreed practitioners who did pass it, along with the even more difficult fundamentals exam, when such persons were allowed to take the test. If they can do it, with appropriate study, you should be able to as well.

For the engineer who leaves the area of strong technology focus (as any in manufacturing must to avoid plateauing by about age 45), perhaps something on the order of a Certificate of Engineering Management could be contrived. The state licensing boards are unlikely to have any interest in such certification, so perhaps the societies such as ASME could be induced to perform that function.

Robert L. Aufdemberge, P.E.

Auburn, Kan.

To the Editor: Some engineers complain that they are not considered as professional as lawyers and physicians. On the other hand, the same engineers question the value of a professional engineering license. There is no free lunch in life.

As a member of a minority ethnic group, Hispanic, this is how I see it. I am very confident of my engineering skills, not only because of a good GPA (3.72) during my B.S.M.E. and M.S.M.E. studies, but also because of achieving the status of a professional engineer.

On a couple of occasions, a new coworker (not familiar with my engineering experience) would dare to challenge my intellect. After I reminded them of the P.E. odds, they would not have a rebuttal. (An M.S.M.E. does not hurt either.)

Whatever happened to the American dream, which says, "Work to the level of achievement you want to obtain"? Anyone expecting to be considered a professional engineer should consider the test going by the same name, the P.E. exam.

Julio C. Banks, P.E.

Port St. Lucie, Fla.

To the Editor: I read with dismay the letters in the November issue of Mechanical Engineering responding to the article by Emily Smith, "To License or Not to License," in the May issue. Most of the November letters were very critical of the licensing procedure in general, and questioned the worth of having a license in particular. The pervasive attitude is that licensure is not worth the hassle if one's employer does not reward one with more money or advancement.

One letter went so far as to say that "a P.E. license is no more a guarantee of a competent engineer than a driver's license is of a competent driver." While this may be true in some instances, statements like this serve only to denigrate all types of professional licensing and competency testing. If you were in need of a physician to operate on your heart, would you not prefer one who was licensed? Why not expect the same of an engineer who is designing a new braking system for your future car? Your life may depend on it as you swerve out of the way of that unlicensed driver.

Why did we go to engineering school anyway? Was it simply to ensure us a financially rewarding career? I gave up a career in business to go back to engineering school, at first part-time, later as a frill-time student, and graduated in 1993 with a B.S.M.E. I did not do it for the money or prestige, but because I wanted to find out what makes things tick. I am preparing for the April 2000 exam right now, not because my employer will reward me in any way, but because I believe in the profession and in the value of basic competency testing. I, for one, will feel proud of that license because of something I proved to myself.

Frank Proske

Delaware Water Gap, Pa.

To the Editor: As a follow-up to the ongoing discussion concerning P.E. or not to P.E.: I feel strongly that the P.E. exam and licensing system as it is now is misdirected.

As a consultant, acting as an expert witness in many cases involving mechanical engineering disciplines, I am often asked whether I have a P.E. license, to which I have to reply in the negative.

This is not to say I would not like to be able to state that I am a professional engineer, but this is not the case.

I have a B.S.M.E., and have worked at companies in the automotive, steel, and HVAC industries, and also in the consulting fields. I have worked as a machinist; I have designed and built machinery and equipment; I have managed the layout and construction of new facilities; I have run a human resources department; I was involved with implementation of safety systems following the passage of the OSHA regulations in the early '70s and have worked in various senior managerial capacities.

Although not all these positions required the strict application of principles of mechanical and electrical engineering, physics, chemistry, and other disciplines, they did require a good working knowledge of these areas to perform the tasks required of an engineer. They also required the ability to work with shop floor personnel, nondegreed and degreed technicians and engineers, and Ph.D.'s in academia. At no time did I require a P.E. license, and few if any, to my knowledge, had one.

Immediately after leaving college over 40 years ago, there was no discussion of getting a P.E. license. Later, I thought about this and started the application process, together with enrolling in a review class. I soon found that all my knowledge and experience were to no avail, and the fact that I had been away from the academic side for some 15 years, together with the requirement for past employer recommendations, were not compelling reasons to continue. Furthermore, since it appeared to me that the only people who really required a P.E. license were those in governmental agencies, commercial construction, and local utility companies, I decided it was not worth the aggravation or the cost.

I note with interest as a non-P.E. that, if I counted correctly, there were 36 P.E.'s to 67 non-P.E.'s in your listing of Fellows in the November 1999 issue of Mechanical Engineering.

This letter is not intended to denigrate the worth of a P.E. license, as I believe there is a pressing need to separate those who are engaged in the real field of engineering and those to whom the title of engineer has been bestowed in the current vein of political correctness. There should be some other criteria to measure the ability of a professional engineer and to bestow some form of credential. I hope that those on the various committees note the broad and sincere feelings this topic has generated, and develop some way of enabling those who are mature engineers to be able to inform others of their relevant expertise and experience without the baggage.

Graham S. Thompson

Devon, Pa,

To the Editor: With regard to the licensing of engineers, I would like to add my two cents' worth. I earned a B.S. in mechanical engineering from an ABET-accredited university and passed the Fundamentals of Engineering exam.

In the 6 1/2 years since graduation, I have worked about 2 1/2 years under two different Professional Engineers. Most of the work consisted of drafting and design. With jobs being relatively short-lived due to staff reductions, it has been very difficult to accumulate the four years of experience under Professional Engineers. Other bosses have not even had a degree.

Under the current rules, it is only within one's ability to gain the right employment situation that one can qualify to even sit for the P.E. exam.

There are accountants and there are CPAs. I see no reason why there cannot be engineers and P.E.s. Leave it to the P.E.s to want to copyright, register, and trademark all engineering titles. Graduate engineers should be able to refer to themselves as such, as the Professional Engineers should have enough of an advantage, being able to use the P.E. designation and to offer their services outright to the public.

Richard G. Voth, E.I.T.

Euless, Texas

SPOOF POSITIVE

To the Editor: The article "Ready for the Future" in your November issue was the most delightful spoof on technical doublespeak that I have seen for a long time. I was especially taken by the sentence that included "[ldots] the combined use of visualization, haptic feedback, and sonification (the use of nonspeech audio to convey information) will significantly increase the bandwidth of the human-computer interface [ldots]" That was genius. I could hardly believe that the staid, stuffy ASME magazine had finally found a sense of humor. Congratulations!

Everett D. Smith

Willits, Calif.

THE TECHNOLOGY GAP

To the Editor: Going through my ME magazines I have realized how specialized our profession has become.

What is of concern to me is the widening gap between the advanced and developing countries of the world. While problems like water and shelter still exist here, advanced countries are planning voyages to Mars, and are cataloging the human DNA sequence.

I believe engineering in my part of the world will have to develop a "think local, act global" approach. This is why the September 1999 article "Chunky, Spunky, and Cheap" caught my interest. Imported cars are a luxury here and such concepts will only cheapen cars.

I am thinking of new low-tech, easy-to-maintain technologies. For instance, my final year project involves a device to lift water from a local well.

ASME and the Internet are great places for members from less advanced countries to meet and solve the problems facing their communities.

Usman Modibbo

Adamawa State, Nigeria

ONLINE RIGHT ON

To the Editor: ME Online is a great site. Although I am a member of ASME and receive the magazine on a regular basis, now I can recommend a worthwhile site to my colleagues in the department who are not ASME members, as well as to our students.

The back issues are a wonderful resource for students, and I, for one, can use some of the articles in my courses.

Raymond N. Laculache

Associate Professor

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

North Dartmouth, Mass.