P.E.'s — Where's the Legal Line?

What would be interesting, is a long term study done with Design/Manufacturers firms on the safety and performance of their product One with PE's and one without.

How many firms with PE stayed in business for how long, and the companies without a PE on their payroll.

The reason I say this, I've known quite a few PE's that started businesses, and when the equipment they designed had performances issues, they would declare bankruptcy. and start over,

I know of (4) people with PEs that did this that had started more than (3) businesses. (how they get work, must have been the security of their PE licenses)

But I have seen after their third start up, gets rather hard for them to secure clients.

While the manufacturer that did not have PE's did what they could to address the performance issues, with out taking the "easy way out", at a cost to them. Their businesses took a hit but are stronger and reliable.

phoenix911

As an engineer, it took me 20 years to go to school, pass the tests, work and use all that today at a business as a consultant. I have found out that my education costed a lot and made me a good competitor in a world economy. My seal as an engineer makes a difference. Why should a business that have an exemption from the state and not to have a P.E.? This is throwing out all the effort of years in attempting to overcome requirements that businesses set in place. I believe businesses must have a PE and this is better than being a contractor. All engineers should be registered at a national level. To make better products, it is a systematic approach and planing what makes things better. No a speedy way to get in business and have no control on what is produced. This is how we have gotten into the problem we have today. Producing things people do not want. Let's talk about.

A license is a tool that reinforces a customers trust, but it does not guarantee success.

PE or no PE, success comes from the individual.

All the legal and state regulations are a joke, the only thing it does is create cliques and keep other people out of the "in-crowd".

Why can't a person just start a business, why do they need permission from someone else other than their investors. our country is going regulation crazy. This is not the ideals that shaped this country.

I am a degreed ME, easily passed the FE exam and have worked in the private sector at 3 different companies (co-ops and post graduation) doing completely different types of work/products. Some of the best and most knowledgeable/intelligent engineers I met adn worked with were non-degreed. To make a general statement that engineers should have a PE to be an engineer is flat out stupid in my opinion. That is like saying I shouldn't be able to handle my own stock investment portfolio because I am not a licensed stockbroker. The certificate only proves that I knew to pass a test, don't mistake a certificate for talent/ability. What about all the creators and innovators that never went to college? What makes a person an engineer is not a diploma or certificate, it is their intelligence, problem solving aptitude ability to innovate.

Not exactly on topic but personally I would be more skeptical of an engineer running a business if he DID have a PE license.

I also am a degreed ME, and have similar experience as you.

10 years ago, I was offered a position at an engineering firm, to work under a PE, and they would help me get my certificates. At that time the PE's I work with.....I was not impressed. I told them looking back may have sounded kinda arrogant, but I told them with the economy is today, (a need for good engineers) that I would not be able to benefit from having a PE. If the economy tightens up I sure having a PE would help, but not at that point.

Do I want a PE certificate? I've looked into it.

Would it make me a better engineer having that certificate? I doubt it.

I feel continued education would, and that includes predical experience, as well as structured classroom.

Would I learn from the testing? yes, but.......

Looking back on my college days, the fellow grads that put so much effort in getting the highest grades, out in industry they were very impractical.

I take my profession very seriously....to a point of being personal, other than PE's I know of, who goes out on their own, quits and starts over and leave their customer holding their mistakes.

phoenix911

GA to you, phoenix911. I strongly agree with you. I have met multiple PE's but only worked with one. He was an outstanding engineer in figuring out solutions but was scared to make decisions and back up his work. I personally think it was b/c of a lack of confidence, but b/c of his personality, not b/c he lacked ability. I personally have no desire whatsoever to get my PE license but that is my personal decision.

No body should be able to walk away from teh consequences of their decisions and actions, that is why I despise the bailouts and what is going on.

This is entirely off topic but this is a pretty good article if you are interested -->

http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/martenson/2008/1111.html

An Engineer does not equal a PE. Nor does a PE equal a competent manager / leader. A business does not need a PE unless you need to ensure PUBLIC safety - CE work or SE work, and some ME / EE work. Then you just need a PE on staff to "do the work" of ensuring / insuring the design. Using the title of Engineer is earned with a BS. You need to pass the PE to be a PE and use PE.

I have a Masters - therefore I no longer seek positions needing a BS or PE. An accountant does not need to be certified - CPA, unless ensuring the public trust - and everyone in the accounting department is not "the CPA" - Everyone in Engineering does not need to be a PE.

So, if there is a single PE in a company, he is responsible to make sure everything that that company churns out is "correct"?

If I was a PE, in this day and age of lawsuits, no one could afford to pay me to work for them. Looking at the way our country and society is, I would personally consider having my PE license to be a liability.

Do PE's end up getting malpractice insurance like doctors?

You may have a masters, but no PE. That is earned no matter how much education one may have. If a PE stamp is required, you need to find that person that has one, that has a lower degree than yourself.

Then you just need a PE on staff to "do the work" of ensuring / insuring the design.

As I stated earlier, a PE ensures/insures nothing, only reinforces. And rarely held accountable or have thier PE license revoked.

As I stated earlier, the PE's that started their engineering firms and bailed mostly because of non-performance of their designs. Talk of it "That its just business".

GA to you maniacal, thanks for answering some of the questions I had and providing your experience.

California has one of the toughest environments to work under, I never said having a PE was a bad thing. It has nothing to do with bankruptcy laws.

I'm just stating my experience with engineering firms with PE. though they were not from CA. but from IL, WI, and NJ,

I get a newsletter every quarter that lists all the disciplinary actions in the state. There are plenty of actions taken, and not all are due to technical incompetence. They also discipline (revoke, suspend etc) for ethical lapses.

I am glad to hear that, I'll have to look at the web site.

And for a first job the difference in price could conceivably be justified by the slightly higher confidence that should attach to the license.

Confidence, I believe I have said that.

So a person might originally give its business to a PE, or a non PE might have to bid lower to get a job, but once you do a couple of jobs the references would count for a lot more than the PE license.

Matter of factly, working with PE we had the customer's who wanted and requested and/or specified a PE stamp, and thats where we contracted out the engineering. As my posts stated, a PE doesn't guarantee performance.

And as I said earlier, the engineering firms were selling based off of their (PE) licenses. But the licenses were not tie to the business.

And when the firm bailed the customer look to us to fix it. And being the main contractor. We took the hit to make it work. Unfortunately try find another engineering firm to fix and to put their stamp on an abortion. No one in their right mind would do that.

off topic, one more thing, my experience in working in CA. is that the government dept. state and federal such as FDA, USDA, 3A, CFDA, you have to know the inspector, and which code he follows. I had shipped a piece of equipment (pasteuriser) built to USDA-3A specs, and the USDA-3A inspector said we don't follow those rules, we mainly follow FDA for sanitary issues. Confusing...... yes.

I have said this in other posts, your worst experence is usually your best,....but not at the time experiencing it.

And its the worst experiences one tends to remember.

"It is true that there are some non-licensed people who are more competent than licensed people, but a licensed person is known to be at least at a certain level of competence." maniacal_engineer

This "level of competence" is the problem, who chooses what makes a person competent. In lots of cases it is a bunch of academics who have never left school, never been exposed to the pressures of working in industry and really don't have a clue about engineering. Having carried certified engineers with no practical backgrounds for many years I believe no engineer should be certified with less than 8 years practical on the job experience. It will still not produce "competent" engineers as that takes natural ablility, a wide knowledge base and the guts to stand up against superiors and clients who insist upon you doing the wrong thing but it will help.