Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!amdahl!pacbell!att!laidbak!jeq From: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) Newsgroups: comp.org.ieee Subject: Re: PE exam, EIT exam (was: The Title of Engineer) Message-ID: <2306@laidbak.UUCP> Date: 5 May 89 15:46:04 GMT References: <1429PICHER@MAINE> <13200@paris.ics.uci.edu> <6937@ecsvax.UUCP> Reply-To: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist) Distribution: usa Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, Il. Lines: 53 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