BSE vs BSEE ??????
Todd Jackson
I have a serious question that is perplexing.
I am attending a junior college in whick I intend to transfer to the University
of Tennessee at Chattanooga to pursue a degree in electrical engineering.
UTC doesn't off er a BSEE degree. It offers a BSE with an emphasis in
electrical engineering. What I understand is that everyone in the school of
engineering takes the same core of classes for the first 1 to 2 years then is
branched off into the field they wish to specialize in i.e. electrical,
mechanical ect. ect. engineering.
I have heard that someone with a BSE with an emphasis in electrical
engineering isn't ranked as high as one with a BSEE because of the fact that
it isn't a BSEE. And that a BSE could be more prohibited as far as career
movement and placement.
I desperately need to know from you engineers out there in the field who
hire and fire or are knowledgeable in the market if I am shooting myself in the
foot by trying for a BSE in electrical eng. I have heard mixed opinions around
here from my profs and local people about this but I need to hear from you
guys/gals who are out there about this.
Thank You for your time.
Todd Jackson
tjac...@freemark.com or tjac...@chatpub.mindspring.com
Mike Middleton
> I have heard that someone with a BSE with an emphasis in electrical
> engineering isn't ranked as high as one with a BSEE because of the fact that
> it isn't a BSEE. And that a BSE could be more prohibited as far as career
> movement and placement.
The only people you hear saying a BET is more or less equal to a BSEE
are those who have a vested interest in the BET -- people who already
have a BET, BET teachers, BET administrators, and certainly salesmen for
private BET schools.
If you want to be a technician or technologist, get the BET. If you
want to be an engineer, a BSEE is the way to go.
There's a lot of damn good engineers out there with a degree in
something else (like myself), or no degree at all, but the vast majority
have a BSEE and it's very well recognized.
Mike Middleton, engineer
Wirebenders Inc. Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Custom Transformers For Electronics
e-mail co...@aztec.asu.edu or
ee7...@goodnet.com
voice (602) 861-1856
fax (602) 870-9242
Jerry Codner
Todd Jackson wrote:
>
> I have a serious question that is perplexing.
>
> I am attending a junior college in whick I intend to transfer to the University
> of Tennessee at Chattanooga to pursue a degree in electrical engineering.
> electrical engineering. What I understand is that everyone in the school of
> engineering takes the same core of classes for the first 1 to 2 years then is
> branched off into the field they wish to specialize in i.e. electrical,
> mechanical ect. ect. engineering.
>
> engineering isn't ranked as high as one with a BSEE because of the fact that
> it isn't a BSEE. And that a BSE could be more prohibited as far as career
> movement and placement.
>
> hire and fire or are knowledgeable in the market if I am shooting myself in the
> foot by trying for a BSE in electrical eng. I have heard mixed opinions around
> here from my profs and local people about this but I need to hear from you
> guys/gals who are out there about this.
>
> Thank You for your time.
>
> Todd Jackson
> tjac...@freemark.com or tjac...@chatpub.mindspring.com
I have a BSEE, but I just looked at my Cornell diploma and it says
Bachelor of Science, not even engineering.
Your brief description of the curriculum sounds no different than
Cornell's program. Since the degree is in engineering, I don't see
the difference.
There is a difference between a degree in engineering vs. a degree in
engineering technology. I believe the former is preferable to most
companies.
Jerry Codner
gco...@lightlink.com
Lt Michael Long
Mike Middleton <co...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>> I have heard that someone with a BSE with an emphasis in electrical
>> engineering isn't ranked as high as one with a BSEE because of the fact that
>> it isn't a BSEE. And that a BSE could be more prohibited as far as career
>> movement and placement.
>
>are those who have a vested interest in the BET -- people who already
>have a BET, BET teachers, BET administrators, and certainly salesmen for
>private BET schools.
>
>If you want to be a technician or technologist, get the BET. If you
>want to be an engineer, a BSEE is the way to go.
>
>There's a lot of damn good engineers out there with a degree in
>something else (like myself), or no degree at all, but the vast majority
>have a BSEE and it's very well recognized.
>
>
>
>
>
>Mike Middleton, engineer
>Wirebenders Inc. Phoenix, Arizona, USA
>Custom Transformers For Electronics
>e-mail co...@aztec.asu.edu or
>ee7...@goodnet.com
>voice (602) 861-1856
>fax (602) 870-9242
>
A BET is not the same as a BSE. The original questioner is asking for a
comparison between BSE and BSEE.
I graduated from WSU (Ohio) only a few years after their program changed
from a BSE (with concentration in electrical) to a BSEE. The university
had applied to the state for the right to use the BSEE degree years back.
The state had some rule that only so many universities within a
geographic region could use the BSEE. According to an official in WSU's
EE department, there is really no difference in their curriculum from
then til now. For some reason, though, the BSEE is at least
slightly preferred, or else WSU would not have cared to apply for the
rights.
An interesting note is that some of the noted engineering universities in
the country (i.e. M.I.T. , University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins) use the
BSE, not the BSEE.
M. H. Lyle, PE
Lt Michael Long <ml...@pafosu2.hq.af.mil> wrote:
>Mike Middleton <co...@goodnet.com> wrote:
>>> I have heard that someone with a BSE with an emphasis in electrical
>>> engineering isn't ranked as high as one with a BSEE because of the fact that
>>> it isn't a BSEE. And that a BSE could be more prohibited as far as career
>>> movement and placement.
>>
>>The only people you hear saying a BET is more or less equal to a BSEE
>>are those who have a vested interest in the BET -- people who already
>>have a BET, BET teachers, BET administrators, and certainly salesmen for
>>private BET schools.
<snip> ....
I have a BSEET from an accredited institution ... and have proven to
my state that I am a capable engineer - jumped through all their
hoops.
The only difference between BSEET and BSEE, that I see, is calculus -
Which I've yet to see any of my contemporaries use.
It's funny, the states make a big deal about the education part, but
then they make you get experience before becoming a PE. Which is it
that makes you a PE? the experience or the education? (or membership
in the "good-ol-boys" club?)
--
M. H. Lyle, PE
brya...@pipeline.com
Todd Jackson
>A BET is not the same as a BSE. The original questioner is asking for a
>comparison between BSE and BSEE.
>
>I graduated from WSU (Ohio) only a few years after their program changed
>from a BSE (with concentration in electrical) to a BSEE. The university
>had applied to the state for the right to use the BSEE degree years back.
> The state had some rule that only so many universities within a
>geographic region could use the BSEE. According to an official in WSU's
>EE department, there is really no difference in their curriculum from
>then til now. For some reason, though, the BSEE is at least
>slightly preferred, or else WSU would not have cared to apply for the
>rights.
Thats an intersting thought. I had never heard of that. But, it makes some
sense.
>
>An interesting note is that some of the noted engineering universities in
>the country (i.e. M.I.T. , University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins) use the
>BSE, not the BSEE.
Now thats heartening to hear. I have heard so much of the negitive
concerning the BSE that I had never thought of seeing if there were any
other colleges/universities that offered it. I think that the one difference
that I have found between BSE and BSEE is that in a BSE program there is a
little more emphisis on core engineering classes i.e. Statics,
Thermodynamics, ect.ect. They say thats its easier to pass the
Professional Engineer exam with a BSE for the reasons listed above.
Thanks for your time.
Todd
Robert H. Penoyer
>I have a BSEET from an accredited institution ... and have proven to
>my state that I am a capable engineer - jumped through all their
>hoops.
>The only difference between BSEET and BSEE, that I see, is calculus -
>Which I've yet to see any of my contemporaries use.
>It's funny, the states make a big deal about the education part, but
>then they make you get experience before becoming a PE. Which is it
>that makes you a PE? the experience or the education? (or membership
>in the "good-ol-boys" club?)
>--
> M. H. Lyle, PE
> brya...@pipeline.com
I hold an MSEE degree and a PE. It's my opinion that a background in
calculus is very important. It's a tool I don't often use but, like
other tools, when you need it, you need it. I've worked with engineers
holding BSEET degrees. They were good engineers. But I've sometimes
had to bail them out because they either couldn't grasp the mechanics
of a particular analysis, or they couldn't perform the analysis. That
is, engineering problems sometimes crop up in which you can guess at
the solution (often arriving at an adequate to good solution,
depending upon experience) or you can solve for the correct or optimal
solution if you have the skills. There is strength in knowledge of
calculus.
As to proving experience before being allowed to test for the PE: As
good as any engineering school might be, nothing can substitute for
sound experience. Facing real life problems and learning to deal with
them is the core of a top notch engineer. You almost never face real
life engineering problems in school, so THAT type of experience is
very limited when coming out of school. A LOT can be learned by a
newly minted BSEE/BSEET if he is put under the wing of an engineer
with lots of experience. A lot of insights and useful "tricks of the
trade" can be acquired this way; it's an accelerated way to capitalize
on what you learned in college.
It's my opinion, having had lots of experience in electronics before
receiving my formal education, that PEs should be issued without
regard to formal education if adequate experience can be shown and the
formal test can be passed. After all, it seems to me, the test of an
engineer is in what he can do and what he knows, NOT how he acquired
his background.
Bob
Jerry Codner
Mike Middleton <co...@goodnet.com> wrote:
> >>> I have heard that someone with a BSE with an emphasis in electrical
> >>> engineering isn't ranked as high as one with a BSEE because of the fact that
> >>> it isn't a BSEE. And that a BSE could be more prohibited as far as career
> >>> movement and placement.
Lt Michael Long <ml...@pafosu2.hq.af.mil> replied:
> >>The only people you hear saying a BET is more or less equal to a BSEE
> >>are those who have a vested interest in the BET -- people who already
> >>have a BET, BET teachers, BET administrators, and certainly salesmen for
> >>private BET schools.
> <snips by 'M. H. Lyle, PE'> ....
M. H. Lyle, PE answered:
>
>
> I have a BSEET from an accredited institution ... and have proven to
> my state that I am a capable engineer - jumped through all their
> hoops.
>
> The only difference between BSEET and BSEE, that I see, is calculus -
> Which I've yet to see any of my contemporaries use.
>
> It's funny, the states make a big deal about the education part, but
> then they make you get experience before becoming a PE. Which is it
> that makes you a PE? the experience or the education? (or membership
> in the "good-ol-boys" club?)
> --
> M. H. Lyle, PE
> brya...@pipeline.com
A BSEET can certainly lead one to a very good education, that of an electrical
engineer. So can a BSEE. An engineer should know how to do calculus, since it
does come up if the experience is broad enough. I thought BSEET's did learn
calculus. Thanks for keeping me on the lookout. I would like to know which
applicant does or doesn't have calculus as a tool in his engineering toolbox.
The State cares about covering its butt. They make you get both. The work part
is the "good ole' boys" part. If you don't have the opportunity to work with
PE's then you don't get to join the 5 year club. They can weed down those
opportunities still more by limiting applicants to those with a 4 year degree.
A BSEET qualifies for that distinction.
You have to get a B.S., work and take another test. It sounds fine, as long as
the test is the same for everyone and there is calculus on it. Is it the same
and is there calculus on the test? Then it's consistent.
Jerry Codner
gco...@alightlink.com
M. H. Lyle, PE
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
>>I have a BSEET from an accredited institution ... and have proven to
>>my state that I am a capable engineer - jumped through all their
>>hoops.
>>The only difference between BSEET and BSEE, that I see, is calculus -
>>Which I've yet to see any of my contemporaries use.
>>It's funny, the states make a big deal about the education part, but
>>then they make you get experience before becoming a PE. Which is it
>>that makes you a PE? the experience or the education? (or membership
>>in the "good-ol-boys" club?)
>>--
>> M. H. Lyle, PE
>> brya...@pipeline.com
>I hold an MSEE degree and a PE. It's my opinion that a background in
>Bob
----
Thank you Bob,
To correct ... I wasn't required to take calculus, but I did to
satisfy the requirements of another major ... and I hated every minute
of it ... still don't like it and don't use it. What's more, I've
never had the call, outside of academia, to use it.
But CHEERS to you for your statement ... "PEs should be issued without
regard to formal education if adequate experience can be shown and the
formal test can be passed." I Agree Totally!!!!!
I've contacted several states that don't see it that way. In fact,
they don't even have a clause for a Physicist to gain a PE. It's
really some kind of political mess.
You should write to the NSPE ... get them to lobby a bit.
Gareth Baron
I Don't know the exact difference between a BSE and a BSEE but from what
you are saying there is a difference between the maths content in the
courses.
In the UK we have a similar situation; and HND vs a Beng. The first one
is a Higher National Diploma and the second one is a Bachelor of
Engineering. I'm able to express an opinion on these as I hold both!
In my engineering career I have found that the maths is very useful
although I don't use it very often. The main use of the maths is the
ability to abstract problems and think more laterally. If you understand
the maths you are usually more capable of thinking of abstract ideas
(from my observations). I will, however, point out that an HND has a
very practical slant to it. This I found the degree did not and as a
result I have gained a lot from doing both courses.
Whatever you do don't underestimate the guy with an HND as they have a
lot of *very* practical knowledge which may run circles around the the
guy with the Degree. The only difference IMO is that the guy with the
degree is more likely to come up with a novel solution to the problem
opposed to using an old trick. Both types of people are AS important as
each other and I honestly don't think people should be point scoring
because they took a different route through education. The most
important thing is ***can you get the job done ? ***.
--
Gareth Baron.
Email: gar...@trsys.demon.co.uk
Dave Young
Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
But it seems like you're considering calculus as overkill when in fact
its merely the starting point in engineering schools. How could you
study control theory without knowledge of complex variables,
transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and differential equations, all
of which build upon the foundations calculus.
If you don't have the math skills you could never function in the
field. And a masters degree, which is almost a minimum these days,
would be out of the question.
brya...@pipeline.com (M. H. Lyle, PE) wrote:
>The only difference between BSEET and BSEE, that I see, is calculus -
>Which I've yet to see any of my contemporaries use. ...
shapi...@aol.com
As long as the school program is acredited by the ABET then there is no
difference between a 4 year BSE and a 4 year BSEE
M. H. Lyle, PE
sag...@cris.com (Dave Young) wrote:
>Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
>particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
>etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
>But it seems like you're considering calculus as overkill when in fact
>its merely the starting point in engineering schools. How could you
>study control theory without knowledge of complex variables,
>transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and differential equations, all
>of which build upon the foundations calculus.
> If you don't have the math skills you could never function in the
>field. And a masters degree, which is almost a minimum these days,
>would be out of the question.
----
You are, of course, assuming that all electrical engineers need to use
control theory, transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and
differential equations. THEY DON'T. While I don't discredit their
useful applications to other branches of EE ... they haven't been
required for my work.
Jerry Codner
> brya...@pipeline.com (M. H. Lyle, PE) wrote:
>
> >The only difference between BSEET and BSEE, that I see, is calculus -
> >Which I've yet to see any of my contemporaries use. ...
Dave Young wrote:
>
> Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
> particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
> etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
>
> But it seems like you're considering calculus as overkill when in fact
> its merely the starting point in engineering schools. How could you
> study control theory without knowledge of complex variables,
> transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and differential equations, all
> of which build upon the foundations calculus.
>
> If you don't have the math skills you could never function in the
> field. And a masters degree, which is almost a minimum these days,
> would be out of the question.
You were doing just fine until that last statement. It doesn't
matter where you learn it as long as you do learn it. I agree that
calculus is necessary for a good engineering understanding of control
theory. A masters degree is definitely not "almost a minimum." and
I am talking about doing the full range of engineering, not just circuit
design and test. If you need to learn something new, you pick up a book
or take a course, just like you will do after you get your masters
degree.
Jerry Codner
gco...@lightlink.com
Bruce B
> <Snip>
>
> Thank you Bob,
>
> To correct ... I wasn't required to take calculus, but I did to
> satisfy the requirements of another major ... and I hated every minute
> of it ... still don't like it and don't use it. What's more, I've
> never had the call, outside of academia, to use it.
>
> But CHEERS to you for your statement ... "PEs should be issued without
> regard to formal education if adequate experience can be shown and the
> formal test can be passed." I Agree Totally!!!!!
>
> I've contacted several states that don't see it that way. In fact,
> they don't even have a clause for a Physicist to gain a PE. It's
> really some kind of political mess.
>
> You should write to the NSPE ... get them to lobby a bit.
>
Actually most states will allow an applicant to take the PE exam without
any formal education. In california you need the same 6 years as anyone
else does, except the degree counts as four years (a masters as one
more). The licensing boards don't include it on the apps because it is
rare for anyone to do. Go read the law in your state on the subject. It's
usually in the Business and Professional code. My degree is in economics,
and I passed the FE last year and will take the PE next year. I think
that the system is currently slanted toward academia but not too much. I
think that the four year degree should be worth 2 years. I work with many
degreed engineers that can do any real design work or problem solving.
Nothing can take the place of on the job training.
Dave Young
>control theory, transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and
>differential equations. THEY DON'T. While I don't discredit their
>useful applications to other branches of EE ... they haven't been
>required for my work.
>--
Well, let me repeat my first statement:
Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
Sure, I know that most engineers deal with standards, procedures,
politics, people, bosses, subordinates, presentations, proposals, and
that for many industries the technology used is pretty much home grown
and thus learned on the job.
But still, there really are 'real' engineering jobs out there that
need advanced engineering knowledge. I think what's driving this is
the expanding use of computers to perform simulations of systems,
which require advanced engineering knowledge to create. The old
way of designing by the seat of your pants just doesn't cut it today.
Robert H. Penoyer
>Actually most states will allow an applicant to take the PE exam without
>any formal education. In california you need the same 6 years as anyone
>else does, except the degree counts as four years (a masters as one
>more). The licensing boards don't include it on the apps because it is
>rare for anyone to do. Go read the law in your state on the subject. It's
>usually in the Business and Professional code. My degree is in economics,
>and I passed the FE last year and will take the PE next year. I think
>that the system is currently slanted toward academia but not too much. I
>think that the four year degree should be worth 2 years. I work with many
> degreed engineers that can do any real design work or problem solving.
>Nothing can take the place of on the job training.
I have held a California PE since 1981. So it's been a while since I
went through the process. I knew that at one time in this state a
college degree was not needed. Apparently, from what you've said,
that's still true.
It's a shame the application doesn't explicitly say that a degree is
not needed. This is probably cynical, but I suspect the board doesn't
say it on the form so as to discourage non-degreed people from
applying. This would certainly be unfair if true.
I'm curious:
1. What's an FE?
2. Since your are degreed in economics, what sort of experience do you
have where you can demonstrate the minimum required time in
responsible charge? (I'm not trying to get any personal information
here, but I am interested in the nature of your background.)
3. As an electronics engineer, not someone who works in the power
field, the board would have allowed me to use fewer PEs as references
to substantiate my experience. (There are far fewer PEs in the
electronics area than in the power area.) As it turns out, I was able
to find enough PEs in any case. Do you have enough PEs who can act as
references for you?
Good luck with your PE efforts.
Larry Brunson
sag...@cris.com (Dave Young) wrote:
>brya...@pipeline.com (M. H. Lyle, PE) wrote:
>>You are, of course, assuming that all electrical engineers need to use
>>control theory, transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and
>>differential equations. THEY DON'T. While I don't discredit their
>>useful applications to other branches of EE ... they haven't been
>>required for my work.
>>--
>
>Well, let me repeat my first statement:
>
>Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
>particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
>etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
>
>need advanced engineering knowledge. I think what's driving this is
>the expanding use of computers to perform simulations of systems,
>which require advanced engineering knowledge to create. The old
>way of designing by the seat of your pants just doesn't cut it today.
>
I have a BSEE (as opposed to a BSEET) and one of those engineering jobs
that require an excellent grasp of math and physics. As a matter of fact
I do computer simulations of satellite interference scenarios. I will
pose a real life problem to the audience to see how many with BSEETs can
solve it:
You are given a set of satellite state vectors, position (from the
center of the earth to spacecraft) and velocity, for every increment of
the simulation. [you can assume that these vectors are *never* parallel]
The task is to use these state vectors to determine a spacecraft antenna
pointing vector in the same earth centered inertial reference frame. The
user inputs an antenna elevation angle in the position/velocity plane wrt
the spacecraft velocity. There are two other planes orthogonal to this
plane and to each other. One of them contains the velocity vector. The
user also inputs an antenna azimuth angle in this plane wrt to the
velocity vector. I am looking for ideas how to express the antenna
pointing vector (specified by the user entered azimuth and elevation wrt
the spacecraft velocity vector) in the same Cartesian coordinate system
used to express the state vectors.
I think that a BSE gives a definite advantage over a BSET if this is the
type of work you want to get into.
N.R.H. Black
Someone wrote:
: >Actually most states will allow an applicant to take the PE exam without
: >else does, except the degree counts as four years (a masters as one
: >more). The licensing boards don't include it on the apps because it is
: >rare for anyone to do. Go read the law in your state on the subject. It's
factually incorrect for California. It is ...
two years experience for someone with an ABET approved Engineering degree,
six years for someone with a non-ABET approved Bachelor's Engineering
degree (like my United Kingdom Bachelor of Arts Engineering degree).
but seventeen years (!) for someone with no degree at all.
There are non-degreed registered Engineers of the old school and by
reputation they are first class Engineers - they needed to be to get
registration the hard way! It can still be done.
By the way, Stanford University - which some regard as of high standing
used to issue B.A. degrees to Engineers. An elderly friend has a Stanford
Bachelor of Arts degree in Mechanical Engineering.
So the real issue for an Engineering degree becomes.....
is it ABET approved or not?
Also, contrary to popular belief it is not necessary to work under
the direction of a P.E. to gain registration (again it helps a lot),
but it's not necessary. The one requirement you can't get away from
is that you need four references from Engineers familiar with your work
but they don't have to be supervisors or workmates, they
can be outsiders - you just show them your work (schematics etc)
and if they are competent in the subject area and think your work is up
to snuff they can write you those essential references.
I encourage all Engineers to seek registration, you don't know when
you may need it and you can't get it in a hurry.
Henry Black P.E.(Electrical, California)
Luis
Anyway, what is really needed is analytical thougth and abstraction
capacity, besides a constant desire to match Laplace, Fourier, Ampere,
Volta, etc. with everyday's problems. A sound theoretical base is -of
course- needed to accomplish that.
M. H. Lyle, PE <brya...@pipeline.com> escribió en artículo
<574cah$v...@camel4.mindspring.com>...
> sag...@cris.com (Dave Young) wrote:
>
> >Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
> >particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
> >etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
>
>
> >But it seems like you're considering calculus as overkill when in fact
> >its merely the starting point in engineering schools. How could you
> >study control theory without knowledge of complex variables,
> >transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and differential equations, all
> >of which build upon the foundations calculus.
>
> > If you don't have the math skills you could never function in the
> >field. And a masters degree, which is almost a minimum these days,
> >would be out of the question.
>
> ----
>
> You are, of course, assuming that all electrical engineers need to use
> control theory, transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and
> differential equations. THEY DON'T. While I don't discredit their
> useful applications to other branches of EE ... they haven't been
> required for my work.
> --
M. H. Lyle, PE
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
>>Actually most states will allow an applicant to take the PE exam without
>>any formal education. In california you need the same 6 years as anyone
>>else does, except the degree counts as four years (a masters as one
>>more). The licensing boards don't include it on the apps because it is
>>rare for anyone to do. Go read the law in your state on the subject. It's
>>usually in the Business and Professional code. My degree is in economics,
>>and I passed the FE last year and will take the PE next year. I think
>>that the system is currently slanted toward academia but not too much. I
>>think that the four year degree should be worth 2 years. I work with many
>> degreed engineers that can do any real design work or problem solving.
>>Nothing can take the place of on the job training.
>I have held a California PE since 1981. So it's been a while since I
>went through the process. I knew that at one time in this state a
>college degree was not needed. Apparently, from what you've said,
>that's still true.
>It's a shame the application doesn't explicitly say that a degree is
>not needed. This is probably cynical, but I suspect the board doesn't
>say it on the form so as to discourage non-degreed people from
>applying. This would certainly be unfair if true.
>I'm curious:
>1. What's an FE?
Fundamentals of Enigineering Examination - formerly EIT
>2. Since your are degreed in economics, what sort of experience do you
>have where you can demonstrate the minimum required time in
>responsible charge? (I'm not trying to get any personal information
>here, but I am interested in the nature of your background.)
I don't know his story, but ...
You don't have to be in charge to get engineering experience ... you
can act under the direction of a PE.
>3. As an electronics engineer, not someone who works in the power
>field, the board would have allowed me to use fewer PEs as references
>to substantiate my experience. (There are far fewer PEs in the
>electronics area than in the power area.) As it turns out, I was able
>to find enough PEs in any case. Do you have enough PEs who can act as
>references for you?
He should really answer that for himself.
PS - Why do you fellows in electronics need PE licensure?
>Good luck with your PE efforts.
M. H. Lyle, PE
Bruce B <mr-...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> <Snip>
>>
>> Thank you Bob,
>>
>> To correct ... I wasn't required to take calculus, but I did to
>> satisfy the requirements of another major ... and I hated every minute
>> of it ... still don't like it and don't use it. What's more, I've
>> never had the call, outside of academia, to use it.
>>
>> But CHEERS to you for your statement ... "PEs should be issued without
>> regard to formal education if adequate experience can be shown and the
>> formal test can be passed." I Agree Totally!!!!!
>>
>> I've contacted several states that don't see it that way. In fact,
>> they don't even have a clause for a Physicist to gain a PE. It's
>> really some kind of political mess.
>>
>> You should write to the NSPE ... get them to lobby a bit.
>>
>> --
>> M. H. Lyle, PE
>> brya...@pipeline.com
>Actually most states will allow an applicant to take the PE exam without
>any formal education. In california you need the same 6 years as anyone
>else does, except the degree counts as four years (a masters as one
>more). The licensing boards don't include it on the apps because it is
>rare for anyone to do. Go read the law in your state on the subject. It's
>usually in the Business and Professional code. My degree is in economics,
>and I passed the FE last year and will take the PE next year. I think
>that the system is currently slanted toward academia but not too much. I
>think that the four year degree should be worth 2 years. I work with many
> degreed engineers that can do any real design work or problem solving.
>Nothing can take the place of on the job training.
----
In my state I had no problem ... Virginia.
But just try Tennessee, Kentucky or South Carolina ... they're
hard-asses.
M. H. Lyle, PE
sag...@cris.com (Dave Young) wrote:
>brya...@pipeline.com (M. H. Lyle, PE) wrote:
>>You are, of course, assuming that all electrical engineers need to use
>>control theory, transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and
>>differential equations. THEY DON'T. While I don't discredit their
>>useful applications to other branches of EE ... they haven't been
>>required for my work.
>>--
>Well, let me repeat my first statement:
>Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
>particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
>etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
>Sure, I know that most engineers deal with standards, procedures,
>politics, people, bosses, subordinates, presentations, proposals, and
>that for many industries the technology used is pretty much home grown
>and thus learned on the job.
>But still, there really are 'real' engineering jobs out there that
>need advanced engineering knowledge. I think what's driving this is
>the expanding use of computers to perform simulations of systems,
>which require advanced engineering knowledge to create. The old
>way of designing by the seat of your pants just doesn't cut it today.
---
You just remember who does the "real" engineering when you need the
power for your refrigerator so your humble pie won't spoil, buddy.
Funny how all you electronic gizmo artists seem to think you're the
chosen ones in electrical engineering ... open your mind a bit.
Dave Young
brya...@pipeline.com (M. H. Lyle, PE) wrote:
>sag...@cris.com (Dave Young) wrote:
>>Well, let me repeat my first statement:
>>Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
>>particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
>>etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
>>Sure, I know that most engineers deal with standards, procedures,
>>politics, people, bosses, subordinates, presentations, proposals, and
>>that for many industries the technology used is pretty much home grown
>>and thus learned on the job.
>>But still, there really are 'real' engineering jobs out there that
>>need advanced engineering knowledge. I think what's driving this is
>>the expanding use of computers to perform simulations of systems,
>>which require advanced engineering knowledge to create. The old
>>way of designing by the seat of your pants just doesn't cut it today.
>---
>You just remember who does the "real" engineering when you need the
>power for your refrigerator so your humble pie won't spoil, buddy.
>Funny how all you electronic gizmo artists seem to think you're the
>chosen ones in electrical engineering ... open your mind a bit.
>--
> M. H. Lyle, PE
> brya...@pipeline.com
Well, where I work it's common to talk about a 'real' engineering job
as being one where ya have to actually use all the stuff we study in
school. It's not meant to be a slam, just a definition. Most
engineers, for lots of valid reasons, don't even want such a job.
But for the few who do, its encourging to know the jobs are out there.
As far as the whining about engineers having to study calculus, what
can they be thinking off? Most of the classes couldn't even be taught
without high level mathematics. Electrical engineering practically is
a math major. Why should we dilute the prestige of an engineering
degreee. For god's sake, 2 year associate degree technicians take
calculus!
Robert H. Penoyer
>>1. What's an FE?
>Fundamentals of Enigineering Examination - formerly EIT
Okay. Thanks for the info. I had held an EIT before my PE.
>I don't know his story, but ...
>You don't have to be in charge to get engineering experience ... you
>can act under the direction of a PE.
When I applied for my PE, I had to document some experience in which I
was in responsible charge. That was California in 1980-81. It's
possible that you can be in responsible charge while working for a PE
or otherwise. After all, I didn't own the company and I had
engineering supervisors. Still, for all intents and purposes, I
controlled the direction of some of my projects.
>PS - Why do you fellows in electronics need PE licensure?
You can't legally call yourself an engineer or advertise yourself as
an engineer unless you're licensed. As an electronics type, working in
industry, I would have fallen under the "industry exemption" umbrella.
However, two things were on my mind when I went for the PE: 1) I was
considering becoming an independent consultant and wanted to advertise
myself as an engineer without restrictions; 2) I figured I might want
or need a PE in the future and it would be best to test for the PE
while my school experience was fresh in my mind AND while I was in
touch with that hard-to-find commodity, other PEs who could vouch for
my experience.
M. H. Lyle, PE
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
---
I think you mean that you can't legally work on your own as an
engineer without a PE ... you can work for someone else without it ...
especially in industry for manufacturing.
M. H. Lyle, PE
brya...@pipeline.com (M. H. Lyle, PE) wrote:
>---
-----
Not to be overly verbose, but why would you need it?
The only folks who "need" it are those who are involved in life safety
branches of engineering (in electrical that would be building design,
fire alarm, etc ...). I don't see how most of you electronics types
need it.
Jerry Codner
M. H. Lyle, PE wrote:
(regarding getting Professional Engineering certification, PE)
>
> Not to be overly verbose, but why would you need it?
>
> The only folks who "need" it are those who are involved in life safety
> branches of engineering (in electrical that would be building design,
> fire alarm, etc ...). I don't see how most of you electronics types
> need it.
> --
> M. H. Lyle, PE
> brya...@pipeline.com
I agree, most engineers don't need the PE, but electronics types do get
involved with life safety and building design. The essence of being an
engineer is having a bag of knowledge and knowing when what's in the bag
won't do, that is, when to hire someone who does know how. That person
could be a PE if necessary. The cost savings to a company could be
substantial if all the engineers were PE's, even the electronics types.
Jerry Codner
gco...@lightlink.com
Robert H. Penoyer
>>>You can't legally call yourself an engineer or advertise yourself as
>>>an engineer unless you're licensed. As an electronics type, working in
>>>industry, I would have fallen under the "industry exemption" umbrella.
>>>However, two things were on my mind when I went for the PE: 1) I was
>>>considering becoming an independent consultant and wanted to advertise
>>>myself as an engineer without restrictions; 2) I figured I might want
>>>or need a PE in the future and it would be best to test for the PE
>>>while my school experience was fresh in my mind AND while I was in
>>>touch with that hard-to-find commodity, other PEs who could vouch for
>>>my experience.
>>I think you mean that you can't legally work on your own as an
>>engineer without a PE ... you can work for someone else without it ...
>>especially in industry for manufacturing.
Not exactly. You can independently design a radio receiver, etc. But
you can't pass out business cards saying you are, say, an "electrical
engineer". You are not an electrical engineer--no matter what your
diploma says--unless you have met the state's requirements to be an
engineer.
I suppose you can skirt the law by passing out business cards, or
advertising in engineering publications wherein you call yourself a
"power supply design expert," for example. Everyone knows you are
advertising engineering services, but since you don't call yourself an
engineer, you're probably on solid ground. (Disclaimer: I am not an
expert in the law so anything I say here is simply my opinion.)
>Not to be overly verbose, but why would you need it?
>The only folks who "need" it are those who are involved in life safety
>branches of engineering (in electrical that would be building design,
>fire alarm, etc ...). I don't see how most of you electronics types
>need it.
Right. I don't need it. But career paths can change. I chose to get
the PE because circumstances were optimum for me at the time. Thus,
when I really do need it, I have it.
howard
> >control theory, transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and
> >differential equations. THEY DON'T. While I don't discredit their
> >useful applications to other branches of EE ... they haven't been
> >required for my work.
> >--
>
>
> Some engineers learn everything they need to know on the job. Others,
> particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
> etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
>
> Sure, I know that most engineers deal with standards, procedures,
> politics, people, bosses, subordinates, presentations, proposals, and
> that for many industries the technology used is pretty much home grown
> and thus learned on the job.
>
> But still, there really are 'real' engineering jobs out there that
> need advanced engineering knowledge. I think what's driving this is
> the expanding use of computers to perform simulations of systems,
> which require advanced engineering knowledge to create. The old
> way of designing by the seat of your pants just doesn't cut it today.
seems to me that today is more seat of the pants as some engineers
become catatonic between ENTER the problem and PRINT the answer. As a
matter of fact, one of the highest achievement levels in engineering is
to be able to fly "seat of the pants" (I prefer "intuition") based upon
years of solid applicable engineering experience.
howard
> > >Which I've yet to see any of my contemporaries use. ...
>
> Dave Young wrote:
> >
> > particularily those in advanced areas of analysis, design, modeling,
> > etc. need their book learnin' everyday. Depends on what ya wanna do.
> >
> > its merely the starting point in engineering schools. How could you
> > study control theory without knowledge of complex variables,
> > transformations (laplace, z, fourier), and differential equations, all
> > of which build upon the foundations calculus.
> >
> > If you don't have the math skills you could never function in the
> > field. And a masters degree, which is almost a minimum these days,
> > would be out of the question.
>
> matter where you learn it as long as you do learn it. I agree that
> calculus is necessary for a good engineering understanding of control
> theory. A masters degree is definitely not "almost a minimum." and
> I am talking about doing the full range of engineering, not just circuit
> design and test. If you need to learn something new, you pick up a book
> or take a course, just like you will do after you get your masters
> degree.
>
> Jerry Codner
> gco...@lightlink.com
yrs for the MSEE, and I'll bet you've been whining about this for longer
than 6 yrs. And nowadays an MS should be thought of as a minimum.
Thats the way it is.
Dave Young
howard <how...@erols.com> wrote:
>"Seat of the pants"? Same theory, same math, same sorts of problems -
>seems to me that today is more seat of the pants as some engineers
>become catatonic between ENTER the problem and PRINT the answer. As a
>matter of fact, one of the highest achievement levels in engineering is
>to be able to fly "seat of the pants" (I prefer "intuition") based upon
>years of solid applicable engineering experience.
I do agree with what you're saying here. Engineers often are
blissfully ignorant of what their computer tools are doing (to them).
And inspiration, insight and intuition usually precede the analysis,
modeling and simulation.
By "seat of the pants" I'm referring to people making decisions based
primarily upon prior observation (experience), with that special added
ingredient of "I'm this boss, we'll do it this way" thrown in.
The modern approach, to me, is based upon fundemental understanding
(theory), plus reality (not everythings in the books), put into a
useable form (mathematics, models).
The former is characterized by local optimization, and physical
prototypes and testing. This translates into not-so-great products,
long development lead times, and expense.
The latter allows global optimization and virtual testing, using
models and simulation. This translates into great products, short
lead times, at the lowest cost. (well, that's the idea anyway.)
dave y.
shapi...@aol.com
Finally a adequate answer. Please drop this thread.
Steve Shapiro P.E.
M. Lyle, PE
Jerry Codner <gco...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>M. H. Lyle, PE wrote:
>(regarding getting Professional Engineering certification, PE)
>>
>> Not to be overly verbose, but why would you need it?
>>
>> The only folks who "need" it are those who are involved in life safety
>> branches of engineering (in electrical that would be building design,
>> fire alarm, etc ...). I don't see how most of you electronics types
>> need it.
>> --
>> M. H. Lyle, PE
>> brya...@pipeline.com
>I agree, most engineers don't need the PE, but electronics types do get
>involved with life safety and building design. The essence of being an
>engineer is having a bag of knowledge and knowing when what's in the bag
>won't do, that is, when to hire someone who does know how. That person
>could be a PE if necessary. The cost savings to a company could be
>substantial if all the engineers were PE's, even the electronics types.
>Jerry Codner
>gco...@lightlink.com
------
OH I DISAGREE!!!
You see, it's folks like you who make it so hard for folks like me.
In North Carolina, they've instituted a plan to require CEUs for
engineers ... CEUs that prove you're up to speed and competent in the
field ... and they are focused on construction engineering.
I feel this is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the
insurgence of all of the guys with PEs who think "Hey, I am a PE ... I
could make some extra money in consulting" regardless of thier
qualifications.
The PE is more than the Seal ... but I'm afraid that the vast number
of PEs from the electronics field will one day take a shot at building
systems when they need extra cash just because someone is willing to
buy their seal for a drawing ... and I hope no one gets hurt.
Honestly, I wish you guys would just stay in your radio/satellite/coke
machine/vcr/gadget development ... and leave registration to those of
us who actually need it.
--------------
M. H. Lyle, PE
Don't_Spam_Me@I_Hate_Spam.com
"Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Dennis Miller
Robert H. Penoyer
>The PE is more than the Seal ... but I'm afraid that the vast number
>of PEs from the electronics field will one day take a shot at building
>systems when they need extra cash just because someone is willing to
>buy their seal for a drawing ... and I hope no one gets hurt.
>Honestly, I wish you guys would just stay in your radio/satellite/coke
>machine/vcr/gadget development ... and leave registration to those of
>us who actually need it.
>--------------
>M. H. Lyle, PE
>Don't_Spam_Me@I_Hate_Spam.com
As I recall from my P.E. exam long ago, there was a rather involved
question about a single-stage FET amplifier. Are you suggesting that
question didn't belong on a P.E. exam?
It seems to me that if someone has the experience/education to qualify
for the P.E. exam, and then passes the exam, he's qualified. That is,
he's qualified to practice within his area of expertise even if he has
experience in VCR design or satellited communication.
Jerry Codner
> >M. H. Lyle, PE wrote:
>
> >(regarding getting Professional Engineering certification, PE)
>
> >>
> >> Not to be overly verbose, but why would you need it?
> >>
> >> The only folks who "need" it are those who are involved in life safety
> >> branches of engineering (in electrical that would be building design,
> >> fire alarm, etc ...). I don't see how most of you electronics types
> >> need it.
> >> --
> >> M. H. Lyle, PE
> >> brya...@pipeline.com
>
> Jerry Codner <gco...@lightlink.com> replied:
>
> >I agree, most engineers don't need the PE, but electronics types do get
> >involved with life safety and building design. The essence of being an
> >engineer is having a bag of knowledge and knowing when what's in the bag
> >won't do, that is, when to hire someone who does know how. That person
> >could be a PE if necessary. The cost savings to a company could be
> >substantial if all the engineers were PE's, even the electronics types.
>
> >Jerry Codner
> >gco...@lightlink.com
>
> ------
>
M. Lyle, PE wrote back:
>
> OH I DISAGREE!!!
>
> You see, it's folks like you who make it so hard for folks like me.
>
> In North Carolina, they've instituted a plan to require CEUs for
> engineers ... CEUs that prove you're up to speed and competent in the
> field ... and they are focused on construction engineering.
>
> I feel this is nothing more than an attempt to circumvent the
> insurgence of all of the guys with PEs who think "Hey, I am a PE ... I
> could make some extra money in consulting" regardless of thier
> qualifications.
>
> The PE is more than the Seal ... but I'm afraid that the vast number
> of PEs from the electronics field will one day take a shot at building
> systems when they need extra cash just because someone is willing to
> buy their seal for a drawing ... and I hope no one gets hurt.
>
> Honestly, I wish you guys would just stay in your radio/satellite/coke
> machine/vcr/gadget development ... and leave registration to those of
> us who actually need it.
> --------------
> M. H. Lyle, PE
> Don't_Spam_Me@I_Hate_Spam.com
Hmmm....you're making a lot of assumptions about me and my qualifications.
I would never dream of trying to get extra cash by doing work for which I
am not qualified! I am an Engineer! I was arguing for hiring qualified
engineers and I consider PE certification as one more bit of evidence in that
regard. I hope this rash thinking doesn't carry over into your work.
Are you also implying that the states license unqualified individuals? It
sounds as though NC is cracking down on those "concrete guys"
who try to design power systems as well as those "electronic guys" who
try to design buildings. Sounds good to me.
Jerry Codner
gco...@lightlink.com
Howard
Perhaps the biggest advantage of an education is knowing what you don't
know.
Howard.
Marc Denis
>The PE is more than the Seal ... but I'm afraid that the vast number
>of PEs from the electronics field will one day take a shot at building
>systems when they need extra cash just because someone is willing to
>buy their seal for a drawing ... and I hope no one gets hurt.
>Honestly, I wish you guys would just stay in your radio/satellite/coke
>machine/vcr/gadget development ... and leave registration to those of
>us who actually need it.
>--------------
>M. H. Lyle, PE
>Don't_Spam_Me@I_Hate_Spam.com
Egads...Did he really say that?
Mr. Lyle, I'm insulted. I look to me P.E. registration as a matter of
personal pride and accomplishment. I am one of those *you guys* who do
(gasp!) electronics development. Do I need to have a PE registratin?
According to laws in all 50 states, as you should very well know, if I
perform engineering services to the publlic, I must be registered. It
matters not that I do not do building electrical design.
Rather than encourage EE's to get licensed, you are making the erroneous
judgement that only those EE's who work with the building and
constructio trades *should* be licensed, and let's discourage the rest.
Your view of your P.E. world is way too narrow. Lighten up and broaden
your views.
Marc Denis, P.E.