Engineering Techs!!!! NSPE wants to take away your rights!!!!!!!
MHL
I found the person to write to at NSPE to state objections to the NSPE
poilicies on eliminating registration for Engineering Technology
grads. They are proponents of the NCEES "Model Law" which eliminates
licensing for all ET graduates, regardless of experience or testing.
The NSPE is lobbying to prevent Engineering Technology graduates from
gaining professional registration. This effectively limits the
ability of the ET to perform the work of his/her trade.
This is based (mostly) on the "good-ol-boy" system rather than logic
or reason.
They claim that test scores indicate that ETs score lower than pure
engineering majors. If this is the case, then the test is working,
wouldn't you say?
They also claim that the engineering degree is required to maintain
competence for professionals working into the next century. How many
PEs do you work with that were taught tubes rather than transistors in
college? Are they incompetent? No, they learned on the job.
The NSPE has a web page on thier views (and are lobbying the same) at:
http://www.nspe.org/gr2-4049.htm
Needless to say, I disagree with these statements and I am writing
letters to object to the NSPE and have asked for an audience with this
committee. I will not allow some old fart PE to discrimiate against
me simply because I don't like to work calculus as much as he does!!!
The person below was identified to me by the NSPE as the contact on
this issue:
Keith King, P.E.
Chairman
NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee
c/o David Volkert & Associates
3809 Moffet Rd.
P.O. Box 7434
Mobile, AL 36670
If you know any members (or non members), I suggest you write to him
and express your view(s).
Malcolm Lyle, PE
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Remove the extra character(s) from my reply address
and send to: malcolm @ pipeline.com
---------------------------------------
Fight Spam - Support HR 1748
Dave Russell
ge...@life-spammer.com (MHL) wrote:
>I found the person to write to at NSPE to state objections to the NSPE
>poilicies on eliminating registration for Engineering Technology
>grads. They are proponents of the NCEES "Model Law" which eliminates
>licensing for all ET graduates, regardless of experience or testing.
>The NSPE is lobbying to prevent Engineering Technology graduates from
>gaining professional registration. This effectively limits the
>ability of the ET to perform the work of his/her trade.
>This is based (mostly) on the "good-ol-boy" system rather than logic
>or reason.
>They claim that test scores indicate that ETs score lower than pure
>engineering majors. If this is the case, then the test is working,
>wouldn't you say?
Let me offer a contrary opinion. Many graduates of ET schools are fine upstanding professionals.
However, having said that, they have not recieved either the mathematical or theoretical background
that those graduating from a full engineering program. I know because I have taught at an ET
program.
The difficulty which this develops is that one gets a type of graduate who rapidly develops a
mentality which says, "Don't bother me with the theory, just show me which formula to plug in the
numbers." While that is fine for a computer programmer, it is abominable for an Engineering
Graduate.
Look at the question this way. If you had a specialized building where the structures are tricky,
or even one where they weren't, who would you want to rely on to design the structural foundation
and the beams? Someone with a strong theoretical background who understood the theory and
consequences of his designs, or someone who understood only the formulas and who could not
necessarily detect or remedy a flaw in the formulas?
>They also claim that the engineering degree is required to maintain
>competence for professionals working into the next century. How many
>PEs do you work with that were taught tubes rather than transistors in
>college? Are they incompetent? No, they learned on the job.
The PE also has a requirement for continuing professional education, by seminars, by participatation
in teaching courses, writing technical articles, and technical conferences. There is, as far as I
know, no provision for obtaining professional education credit for "on the job" training.
>The NSPE has a web page on thier views (and are lobbying the same) at:
> http://www.nspe.org/gr2-4049.htm
>Needless to say, I disagree with these statements and I am writing
>letters to object to the NSPE and have asked for an audience with this
>committee. I will not allow some old fart PE to discrimiate against
>me simply because I don't like to work calculus as much as he does!!!
>The person below was identified to me by the NSPE as the contact on
>this issue:
>Keith King, P.E.
>Chairman
>NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee
>c/o David Volkert & Associates
>3809 Moffet Rd.
>P.O. Box 7434
>Mobile, AL 36670
>If you know any members (or non members), I suggest you write to him
>and express your view(s).
>Malcolm Lyle, PE
>ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
>Remove the extra character(s) from my reply address
>and send to: malcolm @ pipeline.com
>---------------------------------------
>Fight Spam - Support HR 1748
Dave Russell P.E.
opinionated
d...@mindspring.com (Dave Russell) wrote:
> ge...@life-spammer.com (MHL) wrote:
> >I found the person to write to at NSPE to state objections to the NSPE
> >poilicies on eliminating registration for Engineering Technology
> >grads. They are proponents of the NCEES "Model Law" which eliminates
> >licensing for all ET graduates, regardless of experience or testing.
> >The NSPE is lobbying to prevent Engineering Technology graduates from
> >gaining professional registration. This effectively limits the
> >ability of the ET to perform the work of his/her trade.
> >This is based (mostly) on the "good-ol-boy" system rather than logic
> >or reason.
> >They claim that test scores indicate that ETs score lower than pure
> >engineering majors. If this is the case, then the test is working,
> >wouldn't you say?
> Let me offer a contrary opinion. Many graduates of ET schools are fine upstanding professionals.
> However, having said that, they have not recieved either the mathematical or theoretical background
> that those graduating from a full engineering program. I know because I have taught at an ET
> program.
Opinoins are welcome.
> The difficulty which this develops is that one gets a type of graduate who rapidly develops a
> mentality which says, "Don't bother me with the theory, just show me which formula to plug in the
> numbers." While that is fine for a computer programmer, it is abominable for an Engineering
> Graduate.
I never said they were equal ... just comparable. Keep the additional
work experience requirements for ETs over Es. That's very acceptable.
> Look at the question this way. If you had a specialized building where the structures are tricky,
> or even one where they weren't, who would you want to rely on to design the structural foundation
> and the beams? Someone with a strong theoretical background who understood the theory and
> consequences of his designs, or someone who understood only the formulas and who could not
> necessarily detect or remedy a flaw in the formulas?
When you go to the emergency room, do you ask your doctor where he
went to medical school? I bet you'd be surprised to know how many
went outside the us in the Carribean. Does that necessarily mean they
are inherently less qualified? No, obvisouly they passed the boards.
Why do we treat engineers differently?
Engineers are engineers by virtue of doing ... not by virtue of a
degree. Many individuals do engineering in spite of formal (or
informal) training in other fields.
> >They also claim that the engineering degree is required to maintain
> >competence for professionals working into the next century. How many
> >PEs do you work with that were taught tubes rather than transistors in
> >college? Are they incompetent? No, they learned on the job.
> The PE also has a requirement for continuing professional education, by seminars, by participatation
> in teaching courses, writing technical articles, and technical conferences. There is, as far as I
> know, no provision for obtaining professional education credit for "on the job" training.
There are in many states (although it's not education credit). Check
the licensure laws. Some states will allow a high-school graduate to
sit for the exams with 20 years of engineering experience.
If we followed your logic ... why even require experience at all?
Let's just issue a PE license with the diplomas.
Walter Graves
get-a...@spammer.net (opinionated) wrote:
>d...@mindspring.com (Dave Russell) wrote:
>> ge...@life-spammer.com (MHL) wrote:
clip
clip and other clips to delete redundancy
>I never said they were equal ... just comparable. Keep the additional
>work experience requirements for ETs over Es. That's very acceptable.
Agree but only to a certain extent. Dave has a very good point.
Knowing how to plug and chug with formula is not good enough. Any
engineering model is merely a simplification of the real thing. The
real problem involves an infinite number of points and an infinite
number of unknowns. It also has almost an infinite number of
solutions--some unacceptable for economic or aesthetical reasons, and
some more optimal than others. However, we in our attempts to model
the problem we have to simplify it and make assumptions. It is at
this point that understanding the theory behind the model and the
formula it produces is VERY important. The formula is only valid
providing those assumptions are true. For example, a beam in bending
is said to have a maximum stress produced from bending of My/I. Is
this true? Well, this formula is based on Kirkov-Love theory that
states plane areas perpindicular to the axis remain plane and
perpindicular to the neutral axis upon bending. This is not true
because it completely ignores internal shearing forces and shear
deformation. By forcing the beam to deform in the manor this formula
describes, we introduce error in the results. Is the error
significant? As long as the beam is relatively long compared to its
depth, the contribution from shear deformation is minor and there is
no significant error. We will employ an adequate factor of safety to
cover this error as well as material deficiencies that our model does
not take into account. The formula is then applicable as long as the
length to depth ratio exceeds 10. What if it is less than 10? What
if it is 2? What if it is 1? Maybe having an engineer around that
understands these limitations and can determine a model to satisfy the
problem is a very good thing.
Bottom line is an engineer tech as well qualified as an engineer? No.
However, for the a great deal of the mundane work that a civil
engineer finds themselves engaged in, a CE tech would do a fantastic
job. The problem faciing the NSPE and others is how to identify to
the community the person that has the necessary theoretical background
to handle a problem from the individual who, although experienced in a
great deal of the normal CE profession, lacks the background to
deviate off the beaten path.
>> Look at the question this way. If you had a specialized building where the structures are tricky,
>> or even one where they weren't, who would you want to rely on to design the structural foundation
>> and the beams? Someone with a strong theoretical background who understood the theory and
>> consequences of his designs, or someone who understood only the formulas and who could not
>> necessarily detect or remedy a flaw in the formulas?
Agree completely!!!
>When you go to the emergency room, do you ask your doctor where he
>went to medical school? I bet you'd be surprised to know how many
>went outside the us in the Carribean. Does that necessarily mean they
>are inherently less qualified? No, obvisouly they passed the boards.
You are now comparing apples and oranges. Do I shop for a doctor when
I go for routine medical care? You bet!!!
Is there a difference in the quality of medical care? Yes!!! Should
we be concerned? Yes!!!!
>Why do we treat engineers differently?
>Engineers are engineers by virtue of doing ... not by virtue of a
>degree. Many individuals do engineering in spite of formal (or
>informal) training in other fields.
The term "engineering" is used pretty loosely these days. In my
humble opinion, you must know theory to actually engineer anything.
Other than that you are simply a slave to the formulas and cannot
operate out of the box. You will constantly be constrained to color
within the lines without using the full realm of what is possible.
>> >They also claim that the engineering degree is required to maintain
>> >competence for professionals working into the next century. How many
>> >PEs do you work with that were taught tubes rather than transistors in
>> >college? Are they incompetent? No, they learned on the job.
>> The PE also has a requirement for continuing professional education, by seminars, by participatation
>> in teaching courses, writing technical articles, and technical conferences. There is, as far as I
>> know, no provision for obtaining professional education credit for "on the job" training.
>There are in many states (although it's not education credit). Check
>the licensure laws. Some states will allow a high-school graduate to
>sit for the exams with 20 years of engineering experience.
And most states require continuing education for all registrants.
Engineers with conscience are always striving to improve their skills
and understanding of the physical world.
opinionated
gra...@iamerica.net (Walter Graves) wrote:
> get-a...@spammer.net (opinionated) wrote:
> >d...@mindspring.com (Dave Russell) wrote:
> >> ge...@life-spammer.com (MHL) wrote:
You engineers never studied the KISS principle, did you? (ha ha)
Fine, we could discuss abstract theories of our different specified
fields all day ... to no avail ... we all have our own niche, you
know.
Just because YOU can't see the comparable qualities of the ET to the E
doesn't mean they aren't there. It just means you are short sighted.
In an ET program, there is no course called "Plug and Chug" ... there
is also no course that inhibits an individuals ability to grasp your
preceious and proprietary "engineering" concepts and formulae. Simply
becasue we have found ways to solve real-world problems without
calculus, why are you all so offended?
You guys can go back to the lab now, knowing that ETs are taking care
of the rest ... and pretty damn well, I might add.
> Bottom line is an engineer tech as well qualified as an engineer? No.
> However, for the a great deal of the mundane work that a civil
> engineer finds themselves engaged in, a CE tech would do a fantastic
> job. The problem faciing the NSPE and others is how to identify to
> the community the person that has the necessary theoretical background
> to handle a problem from the individual who, although experienced in a
> great deal of the normal CE profession, lacks the background to
> deviate off the beaten path.
Out of school, no one is qualified as an engineer. After 10 years how
do you know? How can you so smugly sit there and tell me that I am
not the cumulative result of the design experience I have?
Dan P. Dillon
This argument has seriously degraded. Anyway- without getting
into the finer points, as an Engineering Technology student I was
required to take the calculus that classical engineering had to take.
The only difference was that I had to take one semester less than
they did.
I started off EE, and went into the program with a familiarity of
physics, electronics, etc. which (in my own estimation) was above
that of other students. This isn't a boast, although it came out sounding
like it. Continuing- I found myself much different than the other EE
students... I was deeply interested in electronics, circuits, and understanding
what is doing on in related circuits, devices, equipment, etc. In short,
this career / educational path that I had chosen came out of a hobby
and an interest of mine.
This is what set me apart from other students- I was interested in understanding
the stuff. Nailing an "A" in some circuits course isn't enough to do it for
me... I want the understanding that goes with it. EE simply didn't do that
for me. It amazed me how little the best students seemed to know once
they stepped outside the classroom. I transferred into the Electronics
Engineering Technology program fully realizing that it didn't command the
respect in industry that EE does. (This fact is something I find unfortunate
and is something I confidently predict will change over the next few years.)
In the Engineering Technology program, I found an environment where
I was challenged in a meaningful way. Many of our courses use the same
textbook as the EE program across the street on our campus. YES...
the exact same book. Many of the ET instructors have worked in industry, and
bring that experience to the classrooms- and more importantly the laboratories.
In ET, yes- a much different degree than EE- our learning is extremely hands
on. Every technical class has a comprehensive lab tied to it, where circuits
are built, tested, ad naseum. I have taken some of the EE labs, and quite
frankly they are a little less than challenging (unlike their class work). I
actually
believe that they only hold lab sessions to keep their accreditation.
Certainly ET's are engineers.. there really shouldn't be a question about
that. They are a different class of engineers. ET's chose to follow a
different direction within the vast field of engineering. They aren't better,
and they aren't worse- both diciplines follow a different path.
And, like a previous contributor to this discussion mentioned.... the notion
that an engineer is not an engineer until he or she has gotten some piece of
paper from some university is reduculous. School doesn't make you an
engineer in the true sense of the word, it doesn't teach you everything
you need to know to be successful in industry, doesn't provide you with
the knowledge to be successful in your own engineering business, and
most certainly doesn't make a person smart.
Dan
http://www.engr.csulb.edu/~ddillon
Gollum
"Dan P. Dillon" <ddi...@engr.csulb.edu> wrote:
> This argument has seriously degraded. Anyway- without getting
> into the finer points, as an Engineering Technology student I was
> required to take the calculus that classical engineering had to take.
> The only difference was that I had to take one semester less than
> they did.
I am aslo and ET. As a matter of fact, I had a full year of calculus,
too. But the engineering classes I took didn't stress the use of
calculus.
> I started off EE, and went into the program with a familiarity of
> physics, electronics, etc. which (in my own estimation) was above
> that of other students. This isn't a boast, although it came out sounding
> like it. Continuing- I found myself much different than the other EE
> students... I was deeply interested in electronics, circuits, and understanding
> what is doing on in related circuits, devices, equipment, etc. In short,
> this career / educational path that I had chosen came out of a hobby
> and an interest of mine.
> This is what set me apart from other students- I was interested in understanding
> the stuff. Nailing an "A" in some circuits course isn't enough to do it for
> me... I want the understanding that goes with it. EE simply didn't do that
> for me. It amazed me how little the best students seemed to know once
> they stepped outside the classroom. I transferred into the Electronics
> Engineering Technology program fully realizing that it didn't command the
> respect in industry that EE does. (This fact is something I find unfortunate
> and is something I confidently predict will change over the next few years.)
> In the Engineering Technology program, I found an environment where
> I was challenged in a meaningful way. Many of our courses use the same
> textbook as the EE program across the street on our campus. YES...
> the exact same book. Many of the ET instructors have worked in industry, and
> bring that experience to the classrooms- and more importantly the laboratories.
You surely got more time in the lab to see the theory working. I know
I did.
> In ET, yes- a much different degree than EE- our learning is extremely hands
> on. Every technical class has a comprehensive lab tied to it, where circuits
> are built, tested, ad naseum. I have taken some of the EE labs, and quite
> frankly they are a little less than challenging (unlike their class work). I
> actually
> believe that they only hold lab sessions to keep their accreditation.
> Certainly ET's are engineers.. there really shouldn't be a question about
> that. They are a different class of engineers. ET's chose to follow a
> different direction within the vast field of engineering. They aren't better,
> and they aren't worse- both diciplines follow a different path.
> And, like a previous contributor to this discussion mentioned.... the notion
> that an engineer is not an engineer until he or she has gotten some piece of
> paper from some university is reduculous. School doesn't make you an
> engineer in the true sense of the word, it doesn't teach you everything
> you need to know to be successful in industry, doesn't provide you with
> the knowledge to be successful in your own engineering business, and
> most certainly doesn't make a person smart.
> Dan
> http://www.engr.csulb.edu/~ddillon
Thank you, Dan. Well said.
Charles Perry
Dan P. Dillon <ddi...@engr.csulb.edu> wrote in article
<34977EC5...@engr.csulb.edu>...
< snip>
>
> the stuff. Nailing an "A" in some circuits course isn't enough to do it
for
> me... I want the understanding that goes with it. EE simply didn't do
that
> for me. It amazed me how little the best students seemed to know once
> they stepped outside the classroom. I transferred into the Electronics
> Engineering Technology program fully realizing that it didn't command the
> respect in industry that EE does. (This fact is something I find
unfortunate
> and is something I confidently predict will change over the next few
years.)
Hate to burst your bubble, but the whole country is swinging the other way.
The list of states that allow EETs to take the PE exam is getting shorter,
not longer. Also, many large corporations are beginning to require ABET
engineering degrees for ALL of there engineers. The company I work for
(18,000 employees, around 2,000 engineers) adopted this policy last year,
and all engineers without ABET engineering degrees were demoted to
technologist.
--
Charles Perry, PE
Remove xxx to reply
Frodo Baggins
"Charles Perry" <cper...@wwd.net> wrote:
Yeah, well I'll bet Dilbert and Wally would fit in, huh?
That's a sad statement about your employer ... that they will not
recognize your job-related accomplishments abilities, only the paper
you brought with you when you were hired.
Dave Russell
There has been quite a bit of heat and little illumination over this discussion. Let me see if I
can help set up a couple of points for agreement.
1. I don't think that anyone is degrading the practical experience or its value.
2. There are engineers and ET's who couldn't work their way out of a paper bag even if you gave
them a scissors.
3. The educational requirements for Engineers and ET's are different. The Engineers have more
rigorous mathematical requirements often going through and beond differential equations.
4. Many of the ET programs do not emphasize the use of calculus in the practical work.
5. Many of the ET programs have a more practical background and focus rather than a theoretical
focus of the E programs.
6. There seems to be an agreement that there are some areas where an E degree is preferable to
an ET degree.
Now: The question:
Name those areas where an Engineering Degree should be preferred over an Engineering Technology
Degree. Let's get specific and cite cases and reasons. That's the only way we will get concensus
on this debate. Other than that we risk degenerating into name calling, which is to be avoided at
all costs.
My vote for the E vs. ET certification is in structures and matters of public health where there is
reasonable risk of imperilment of life, health or property. This would exclude areas such as PC
board design and circut design if that device were part of something else which did not have to be
certified or which would undergo other certifications (UL) before it is released to the general
public.
Comments?
Dave Russell, P.E.
who??
d...@mindspring.com (Dave Russell) wrote:
> Dave Russell, P.E.
If an ET is able to solve the same problem that an E can on the PE
exam (supposedly a test of the applicant's mettle), why do you care
how they solved it?
A right answer is a right answer.
The degree a person possesses has nothing to do with their ethical
fibre.
Dan P. Dillon
> Hate to burst your bubble, but the whole country is swinging the other way.
> The list of states that allow EETs to take the PE exam is getting shorter,
> not longer. Also, many large corporations are beginning to require ABET
> engineering degrees for ALL of there engineers. The company I work for
> (18,000 employees, around 2,000 engineers) adopted this policy last year,
> and all engineers without ABET engineering degrees were demoted to
> technologist.
Engineering Technology is a degree that ABET evaluates. Universitiesthat follow
ABET guidelines are given ABET accreditation - yes, this
means four year engineering technology degrees.
Dan
http://www.engr.csulb.edu/~ddillon
Martin Brungard
I agree that a right answer is a right answer, but lets not forget about
the rest of the right answers that an engineer from an ABET certified
school had to get in order to get that engineering degree. There is nothing
that stands in the way of a qualified ET becoming a PE....by getting their
engineering degree.
I don't know of many people who would willfully endure an engineering
curriculum if they could get to the same professional status with a
engineering technology degree. If you want it, you have to prove yourself
by the same standards as those who have gone before you.
--
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
Don Barr
I believe you are correct in your statement, however not for the reason
you think. One concern of the issue is the "you have to prove yourself by
the same standards" comment. You aren't really asking the non-degreed
whether they are capable of doing the job, you just want them to have paid
for the schooling that you (or more likely your folks) had to pay for.
While you were swilling beer in weekend bashes and cramming for tests we
were out working, studying in our own time to get better jobs and
positions. You got through college by passing tests, whether you were the
dedicated student or the one that scraped by, while we got through life by
keeping our jobs and feeding our families. Now you get out of your school
and presume to tell us that we are _not_ qualified to take a certain test,
because we have not payed the "dues" you have. Perhaps they didn't teach,
in your college, where to find a clue?
--
Later
DBarr
don...@keil.com
These opinions are my own.
Martin Brungard <mabru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<67k0qm$m...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
John Marquiss
My 2 cents as a graduating senior looking to recive my B.E. Elec. Eng.
My argument is not based on the fact thet your education was different than my
own but I would like to point out several things that meny people are not
aware of with current Engineering curriculums:
1) It includes much more than Electronics and related topics. It includes
project managment, managment, economics, communication, humanities (most
require 3 yrs minimum), problem analysis and solving, Engineering design, a
strong backing in the sciences and math, (most require 2 yrs of Calc. as well
as Probability and Statistics).
2) Current trends are to recive a degree in five years as opposed to four,
taking semesters off for Co-operative education. On this plan students intern
in industry to gain valuable work experience.
I do belive that an individual that has proven their worth should be allowed to
take the PE examination. By proven I mean not only through education but by
working under a Mentor that has his or her own PE, on tasks of Enginering
quality, invloving design and problem solving skills. It would be my
suggestion that ET's due to the fact that thier education did not include meny
of the aspects so importent to Engineering be required to participate in an
extended mentorship program to compensate for this. I am not saying that you
are not intellegent nor capible, just not fully prepared for the position of
an Engineer. I will conceed though that the engineering curriculum is not
perfect either and their are Engineering graduates that are less qualified
for thier choosen profession than they should be.
John Marquiss
Please pardon my spelling it is one of my own short comings and I do not have
a spell checker at my disposal on this terminal.
Doug
Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is that some have
raised about Calculus. The biggest problem my classmates
and I had was the algebra. The basic tenets of calculus
were easy compared to some of the mental gymnastics
certain profs would put us through with the algebra.
Is that it? If the calculus was taught in a better
manner, would that make things vastly different?
As far as how often does one use it, my own experience
has been that I've not used it for long periods of time,
but rather either those around me or myself can look up
something and remember what we were taught rather than
trying to learn it for the first time. But, that really
doesn't cut to the meat of this.
So, I ask again, if the math was taught in a more, what
do you want to call it, "efficient" manner, would that
make things easier?
John Marquiss
Ok I'll give you that there are some aspects of algebra that are more difficult
than the first few portions of calc. but by the time you pass the basic
concepts say most schools Calc II most of it can not even be compaired to
agebra becaus it is so much more difficult... The material not the way it
is taught. Then by the time you get to the fourth semester it is a bone of
major contention for most Engineering students. Also as an EE it does not
stop there you have Analitical methods or some veriatio (sometimes called
Complex Calc.) wich is Calculus in the complex domain and Linear systems
which focuses on vairious transforms suh as Laplace,Fourier and the Z, in
both continous and Descrete number systems. With out this material it is
imposible to compeatly describe or analize a wave (ie communication signal).
John
who??
"Martin Brungard" <mabru...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I agree that a right answer is a right answer, but lets not forget about
> the rest of the right answers that an engineer from an ABET certified
> school had to get in order to get that engineering degree. There is nothing
> that stands in the way of a qualified ET becoming a PE....by getting their
> engineering degree.
> I don't know of many people who would willfully endure an engineering
> curriculum if they could get to the same professional status with a
> engineering technology degree. If you want it, you have to prove yourself
> by the same standards as those who have gone before you.
Maybe it's just too obvious to me, so I'll explain it to the rest of
you... 1) Not everyone has ACCESS to an engineering school, 2) not
all engineers go to engineering school (what about physicists?)
Norman
Martin Brungard wrote:
>
> I agree that a right answer is a right answer, but lets not forget about
> the rest of the right answers that an engineer from an ABET certified
> school had to get in order to get that engineering degree. There is nothing
> that stands in the way of a qualified ET becoming a PE....by getting their
> engineering degree.
>
> I don't know of many people who would willfully endure an engineering
> curriculum if they could get to the same professional status with a
> engineering technology degree. If you want it, you have to prove yourself
> by the same standards as those who have gone before you.
> Martin Brungard
> Tallahassee, FL
>
> > If an ET is able to solve the same problem that an E can on the PE
> > exam (supposedly a test of the applicant's mettle), why do you care
> > how they solved it?
> >
> > A right answer is a right answer.
> >
> > The degree a person possesses has nothing to do with their ethical
> > fibre.
> >
> > Malcolm Lyle, PE
> >
> > ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
> >
> > Remove the extra character(s) from my reply address
> > and send to: malcolm @ pipeline.com
> > ---------------------------------------
> > Fight Spam - Support HR 1748
> >
> >
comments.
First... NSPE is not and cannot take any of your RIGHTS away. None of
us, you or I, or anyone else has the RIGHT to practice engineering. The
State has said that if you meet certain standards you MAY practice
engineering. Thus the PE Lic.
Now...It would seem to me that if you wanted to become an engineer, you
would go to school to become one. On the other hand, if you want to be
an ET then go to school and become one. Why would someone that wants to
be an engineer go to school to be an ET? Did I miss something? To me
this is like telling a child that wants to be a Doctor, "Go to nursing
school, then work in a hospital for a few years, then call yourself a
Doctor".
Now (again)... There is only one reason to have the PE exam. It is to
protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. The exam should be
designed so that it shows that the applicant has the required knowledge
and experience. When I took the exam, an ET would have had a difficult
time passing. The exam may have changed and be easier now. This has
happened in many areas of society.
Now What..... In over 30 years of practice, ( I retired a few months ago
) I have found few engineers that I could recommend to the State for the
PE exam. In the early 1970's many engineering schools lowered their
standards and the quality of their graduates suffered. So maybe you all
are right and an ET is just an engineer in a different hat. Maybe the
days of quality competent engineering are gone. I hope not!!
So.... I have put in my 2 cents worth, for better or worse. Many of you
will doubt it is even worth the 2 cents, but think the next time you
drive across a bridge, "Did the designer just plug some numbers into a
convenient equation, or did he know and understand the forces at work"?
You are betting your life.
Norman P. Peer PE
¿who?
Norman <np...@mail.netacc.net> wrote:
C'mon.. Let's keep it apples to apples. ETs-Es are not the same as
Nurses-Doctors relationships, experience or education levels.
What exactly do Es learn in engineering school that is so valuable
that cannot be learned by doing ... in the real world?
> Now (again)... There is only one reason to have the PE exam. It is to
> protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. The exam should be
> designed so that it shows that the applicant has the required knowledge
> and experience. When I took the exam, an ET would have had a difficult
> time passing. The exam may have changed and be easier now. This has
> happened in many areas of society.
Agreed, It was hard! But I still passed ... and I'm an ET. Does that
mean I got an easy exam? How many Es do you think failed the same
exam I passed?
> Now What..... In over 30 years of practice, ( I retired a few months ago
> ) I have found few engineers that I could recommend to the State for the
> PE exam. In the early 1970's many engineering schools lowered their
> standards and the quality of their graduates suffered. So maybe you all
> are right and an ET is just an engineer in a different hat. Maybe the
> days of quality competent engineering are gone. I hope not!!
Let him sit for the test. If the ETs passes, then so be it!
> So.... I have put in my 2 cents worth, for better or worse. Many of you
> will doubt it is even worth the 2 cents, but think the next time you
> drive across a bridge, "Did the designer just plug some numbers into a
> convenient equation, or did he know and understand the forces at work"?
> You are betting your life.
> Norman P. Peer PE
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>Norman <np...@mail.netacc.net> wrote:
<snip>
>What exactly do Es learn in engineering school that is so valuable
>that cannot be learned by doing ... in the real world?
Nothing! You're right, there is no real difference between EEs and
EETs. All that extra math and science that EEs study is just a lot of
useless fluff. It doesn't help make an engineer better equipped, give
him deeper understanding, or make him more capable. EEs simply use
those advanced courses as an excuse to distinguish themselves from
EETs.
Does this make you feel better? Do you believe these things? If you
do, you're a fool. If you don't, then why do you continue to argue
that there is no meaningful difference between EEs and EETs?
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
> >Norman <np...@mail.netacc.net> wrote:
> <snip>
Obviously, Robert, you've never read a course description for an ET
curriculum class. If you did, you just might find out that they do
discuss math and science along with practical lab experience.
I'd just about bet you think that all ET curriculums use those yellow
"for dummies" books. Well, sir, I assure you THEY DO NOT.
90% of all engineering is an audition for Dilbert cartoons. All
engineering is not "rocket science," and I'm sorry if that offends
you to find out that someone with a different degree could do your job
... but it's true.
I've compared the two ... and the difference I found was that in the E
program classes, a great deal of time was spent re-developing the
theory. This is fine for research-type folks ... who don't need a PE
seal for anything they do ... but it is overkill for the common
engineer (who, I believe, can take what was done before, understand
it, and build on it without having to re-invent it).
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
<snip>
>Obviously, Robert, you've never read a course description for an ET
>curriculum class. If you did, you just might find out that they do
>discuss math and science along with practical lab experience.
Right. But it's typically not the same math or the same science--or as
much of it--as studied by an EE.
>I'd just about bet you think that all ET curriculums use those yellow
>"for dummies" books. Well, sir, I assure you THEY DO NOT.
I didn't suggest EETs needed any "for dummies" training. I've worked
with some quite capable EETs. But the fact is that EETs do take less
demanding courses. For example, they don't take differential
equations, partial differential equations, vector analysis, or the
same physics sequence as EEs. An EET's math and science education is
truncated in comparison with an EE's; hence, much of the theory and
the knowledge and understanding that comes with such training is
truncated as well. (Don't tell me you studied "vectors." Vector
analysis has about as much in common with "vectors" as an automobile
has with a go-cart.)
>90% of all engineering is an audition for Dilbert cartoons.
Geez! Is that how you view _your_ work? If so, that might explain why
you grumble so much.
>All
>engineering is not "rocket science," and I'm sorry if that offends
>you to find out that someone with a different degree could do your job
>... but it's true.
You don't know what I do. In fact, you might be surprised at the
amount and level of analysis that I do. (On the other hand, I also get
my hands dirty on the job.) There are, perhaps, a lot of engineers who
can do my job, but very few with only a BSEET.
>I've compared the two ... and the difference I found was that in the E
>program classes, a great deal of time was spent re-developing the
>theory.
You glibly dismiss the courses that EEs take but EETs don't. If these
course aren't important, then why does every EE program in every major
university in the world require them?
Learning is not redeveloping. What you refer to as redeveloping is
simply learning.
>This is fine for research-type folks ... who don't need a PE
>seal for anything they do ... but it is overkill for the common
>engineer (who, I believe, can take what was done before, understand
>it, and build on it without having to re-invent it).
Hmm. ". . . take what was done before, understand it, and build on it
without having to re-invent it." This sounds a lot like having a
circuits reference book on the shelf and copying from it, possibly
adding changes, and calling the resulting design your own.
I sarcastically said this in my previous post: "All that extra math
and science that EEs study is just a lot of useless fluff. It doesn't
help make an engineer better equipped, give him deeper understanding,
or make him more capable." You seem to think this way. Am I right?
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
<snips, snips and more snips>
> You don't know what I do. In fact, you might be surprised at the
> amount and level of analysis that I do. (On the other hand, I also get
> my hands dirty on the job.) There are, perhaps, a lot of engineers who
> can do my job, but very few with only a BSEET.
Robert,
Simply because our job descriptions differ does NOT mean that our
qualifications in our respective fields are that variant.
Additionally, simply because someone does not do what you do does not
mean that they are less of an engineer ... there are plenty of folks
who are bona-fide engineers who DON'T do what you do ... and who's
work you probably don't value as much as your own work.
If your office doesn't resemble Dilbert's office, good for you.
Nearly all the places I've worked have seemed just like it (hence the
universal appeal of the comic strip). In general, engineers (you
included) should learn when to take yourself seriously and when to
relax.
My basic statement was that you cannot judge an engineer by his degree
any more than you can a book by it's cover. The proof is in the doing
or the reading. If the engineer can do the work, then let them sit
for the PE exam, regardless of the degree they hold.
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
>
><snips, snips and more snips>
>
>> You don't know what I do. In fact, you might be surprised at the
>> amount and level of analysis that I do. (On the other hand, I also get
>> my hands dirty on the job.) There are, perhaps, a lot of engineers who
>> can do my job, but very few with only a BSEET.
>
>Robert,
>
>Simply because our job descriptions differ does NOT mean that our
>qualifications in our respective fields are that variant.
>Additionally, simply because someone does not do what you do does not
>mean that they are less of an engineer ... there are plenty of folks
>who are bona-fide engineers who DON'T do what you do ... and who's
>work you probably don't value as much as your own work.
Sadly, I responded directly to your comments but you then took my
response to mean something else. Don't make assumptions about what I
do and what I value. You've been flat wrong on each assumption.
>If your office doesn't resemble Dilbert's office, good for you.
>Nearly all the places I've worked have seemed just like it (hence the
>universal appeal of the comic strip). In general, engineers (you
>included) should learn when to take yourself seriously and when to
>relax.
Words to live by! You'd do well to follow your own advice.
>My basic statement was that you cannot judge an engineer by his degree
>any more than you can a book by it's cover.
Maybe. Maybe not. If I were interviewing a new EE grad from, say,
Stanford, and a new EET grad from, say, DeVry, I'd be shocked if the
EET was better qualified than the EE. I'd be just as shocked if, after
five years, the EET in this example were anywhere near as capable as
EE.
>The proof is in the doing
>or the reading. If the engineer can do the work, then let them sit
>for the PE exam, regardless of the degree they hold.
I agree. Educational qualifications for sitting for the PE were never
the issue between you and me. What was the issue was your argument
that EETs are somehow as qualified as EEs in all but ivory tower jobs.
Dave Russell
Well Malcom:
I see that you won't be content with letting the subject die, nor will you take no for an answer.
Drop it. Please.
When anyone tries to give you an answer, you duck, dodge, and avoid the real issue by changing
the subject or picking on a special point of their answer to prolong the debate.
Face it. There is a difference between Engineering and Engineering Technology Programs.
It is more than just an us versus them debate.
I suggest that you spend your time more creatively lobbying your legislature.
This is more than the question of a "right answer is a right answer" on the PE test as you so
clearly and often rephrase it. It is about judgement, it is about the changes in the field where
persons who don't know the difference between and differential and a differential equation can now,
with the aid of computer programs, perform about 80% of the work of engineering grads.
In the long run, the PE boards won't take away anyone's license. They may change the rules, but
unless you commit malpractice, your license will remain valid. Even if they do change the rules, it
won't affect you because you have already arrived. It may affect the upcoming folks, but I really
don't care if they want to make it tougher for them. There may be too many PE's anyway.
When you first started this debate, I indicated that I taught in the ET program. There is a
difference between E and ET Students. End of discussion.
Now go out there and start legislating and stop wasting your and our time on who is better or if
there is a difference.
David L. Russell, P.E.
d...@mindspring.com
s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
><snips, snips and more snips>
>> You don't know what I do. In fact, you might be surprised at the
>> amount and level of analysis that I do. (On the other hand, I also get
>> my hands dirty on the job.) There are, perhaps, a lot of engineers who
>> can do my job, but very few with only a BSEET.
>Robert,
>Simply because our job descriptions differ does NOT mean that our
>qualifications in our respective fields are that variant.
>Additionally, simply because someone does not do what you do does not
>mean that they are less of an engineer ... there are plenty of folks
>who are bona-fide engineers who DON'T do what you do ... and who's
>work you probably don't value as much as your own work.
>If your office doesn't resemble Dilbert's office, good for you.
>Nearly all the places I've worked have seemed just like it (hence the
>universal appeal of the comic strip). In general, engineers (you
>included) should learn when to take yourself seriously and when to
>relax.
>My basic statement was that you cannot judge an engineer by his degree
>any more than you can a book by it's cover. The proof is in the doing
>or the reading. If the engineer can do the work, then let them sit
>for the PE exam, regardless of the degree they hold.
>I really don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
¿who?
d...@mindspring.com (Dave Russell) spouted:
> Well Malcom:
> I see that you won't be content with letting the subject die, nor will you take no for an answer.
> Drop it. Please.
If you don't like it, stop reading the posts.
> When anyone tries to give you an answer, you duck, dodge, and avoid the real issue by changing
> the subject or picking on a special point of their answer to prolong the debate.
Very colorful, but not on the point, Mr. Russell.
> Face it. There is a difference between Engineering and Engineering Technology Programs.
> It is more than just an us versus them debate.
The programs are different, I've never stated that they were
equivelant, but you are a fool if you think that an engineer ceases
learning after earning the degree. That is short sighted.
I have always maintained that if a person has the CAPABILITIES they
should be allowed to sit for the exams REGARDLESS of their pedigree.
> I suggest that you spend your time more creatively lobbying your legislature.
I am one step ahead of you ... fortunately, in Virginia, the state
board is not so narrow minded as the NSPE or NCEES. As I'm not a
resident of the states that cower to these LOBBYING ORGANIZATIONS I
will have little effect on their legislatures ... hence my efforts to
motivate oppressed engineers in thier jurisdictions.
> This is more than the question of a "right answer is a right answer" on the PE test as you so
> clearly and often rephrase it. It is about judgement, it is about the changes in the field where
> persons who don't know the difference between and differential and a differential equation can now,
> with the aid of computer programs, perform about 80% of the work of engineering grads.
Exactly which Engineering Curriculum class teaches judgement? Or
ethics? Or professionalism? Please get off your "superiority"
complex and get back down to terra-firma.
> In the long run, the PE boards won't take away anyone's license. They may change the rules, but
> unless you commit malpractice, your license will remain valid. Even if they do change the rules, it
> won't affect you because you have already arrived. It may affect the upcoming folks, but I really
> don't care if they want to make it tougher for them. There may be too many PE's anyway.
They have no right to prevent me from becoming registered in another
state if I can pass the same tests as anyone else.
> When you first started this debate, I indicated that I taught in the ET program. There is a
> difference between E and ET Students. End of discussion.
So, All education stops when your students leave your fine
institution? Ever heard of continuing education? How about
on-the-job-training?
> Now go out there and start legislating and stop wasting your and our time on who is better or if
> there is a difference.
I can assert my first amendment right to free speech ... you don't
have to read my posts if they bother you that much. I didn't ASK YOU
to participate, I'm only trying to educate individuals like your
students WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS SUBJECT AND PROBABLY DON'T
APPRECIATE YOUR TORPEDOS.
> David L. Russell, P.E.
> d...@mindspring.com
You'd be well served, Mr. Russell, to remember that you serve a
segment of the population who will eventually run the world, students.
You might want to keep their interests in mind when you spout since
they will remember you one day ... and at a time when they will likely
control the social security system.
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
> >rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> >
> ><snips, snips and more snips>
> >
> >> You don't know what I do. In fact, you might be surprised at the
> >> amount and level of analysis that I do. (On the other hand, I also get
> >> my hands dirty on the job.) There are, perhaps, a lot of engineers who
> >> can do my job, but very few with only a BSEET.
> >
> >Robert,
> >
> >Simply because our job descriptions differ does NOT mean that our
> >qualifications in our respective fields are that variant.
> >Additionally, simply because someone does not do what you do does not
> >mean that they are less of an engineer ... there are plenty of folks
> >who are bona-fide engineers who DON'T do what you do ... and who's
> >work you probably don't value as much as your own work.
> Sadly, I responded directly to your comments but you then took my
> response to mean something else. Don't make assumptions about what I
> do and what I value. You've been flat wrong on each assumption.
whatever
> >If your office doesn't resemble Dilbert's office, good for you.
> >Nearly all the places I've worked have seemed just like it (hence the
> >universal appeal of the comic strip). In general, engineers (you
> >included) should learn when to take yourself seriously and when to
> >relax.
> Words to live by! You'd do well to follow your own advice.
touchee ... but that doesn't dimish the importance of this issue.
> >My basic statement was that you cannot judge an engineer by his degree
> >any more than you can a book by it's cover.
> Maybe. Maybe not. If I were interviewing a new EE grad from, say,
> Stanford, and a new EET grad from, say, DeVry, I'd be shocked if the
> EET was better qualified than the EE. I'd be just as shocked if, after
> five years, the EET in this example were anywhere near as capable as
> EE.
I guess that would really depend on what exactly you were interviewing
them for ... wouldn't it??? Do you really think that a green
graduate knows EVERYTHING you'll need them to know? They are both
going to need nurturing and training ... who's to say which one will
be better?
Let them both sit for the PE test after 4-6 years and then you'll know
what level they've attained.
> >The proof is in the doing
> >or the reading. If the engineer can do the work, then let them sit
> >for the PE exam, regardless of the degree they hold.
> I agree. Educational qualifications for sitting for the PE were never
> the issue between you and me. What was the issue was your argument
> that EETs are somehow as qualified as EEs in all but ivory tower jobs.
How do you know who's qualifications are better? Simply by reading a
pedigree?
Let's face it, out of a 140 semester hour BS graduate, about 1/3 of
that might be in their degree curriculum ... the rest would be core
studies.
50 hours a week * 15 weeks = 750 hours of practical experience.
Multiply that by 2 for out of class study time and you get 1500 hours.
That's STILL LESS than ONE year of on the job experience in a field of
specialty.
The test is in the doing ... not the pedigree.
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
<snip>
>> >My basic statement was that you cannot judge an engineer by his degree
>> >any more than you can a book by it's cover.
>
>> Maybe. Maybe not. If I were interviewing a new EE grad from, say,
>> Stanford, and a new EET grad from, say, DeVry, I'd be shocked if the
>> EET was better qualified than the EE. I'd be just as shocked if, after
>> five years, the EET in this example were anywhere near as capable as
>> EE.
>I guess that would really depend on what exactly you were interviewing
>them for ... wouldn't it???
Absolutely. If I were interviewing these guys for a job as the
company's engineering librarian, then either would probably be okay.
But if the interview were for a circuit design engineer position, the
Stanford grad is clearly the better choice. He's proved his potential
by simply completing his degree at Stanford.
>Do you really think that a green
>graduate knows EVERYTHING you'll need them to know?
See, that's the problem with trying to communicate with you. You
assume something I didn't say and then turn your assumption against
me. You need to cut down on your assumptions since you're wrong so
often. I hope this isn't the way you think on the job--you might give
EETs a bad reputation.
But, to answer your attack, no, I don't think a green graduate knows
everything he needs to know. A lot of engineers in the field for years
don't know everything they need to know, but that's not necessarily a
bad thing; it could mean that the engineer is frequently meeting new
challenges and is deliberately growing in his breadth and experience.
BUT the engineer who starts with the better educational foundation has
the greatest potential for growth.
>They are both
>going to need nurturing and training ... who's to say which one will
>be better?
All the smart money is on the Stanford grad. Only a fool would bet the
other way. You aren't betting the other way . . . are you?
>Let them both sit for the PE test after 4-6 years and then you'll know
>what level they've attained.
Fine. But the fact that the DeVry grad passes a test the Stanford grad
also passed does not in any way mean that they are equals. I'd have to
guess you have a driver's license. Indy racer Al Unser probably does,
too. That doesn't even suggest you can drive like Al Unser. Or do you
think it does?
>> >The proof is in the doing
>> >or the reading. If the engineer can do the work, then let them sit
>> >for the PE exam, regardless of the degree they hold.
>
>> I agree. Educational qualifications for sitting for the PE were never
>> the issue between you and me. What was the issue was your argument
>> that EETs are somehow as qualified as EEs in all but ivory tower jobs.
>How do you know who's qualifications are better? Simply by reading a
>pedigree?
No, but that's a good place to start. And in the case of the
Stanford/DeVry comparison, a good place to refer no matter how long
the two have been in the field.
>Let's face it, out of a 140 semester hour BS graduate, about 1/3 of
>that might be in their degree curriculum ... the rest would be core
>studies.
>
>50 hours a week * 15 weeks = 750 hours of practical experience.
>
>Multiply that by 2 for out of class study time and you get 1500 hours.
>
>That's STILL LESS than ONE year of on the job experience in a field of
>specialty.
>
>The test is in the doing ... not the pedigree.
But the first part of doing IS the pedigree.
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
<snip>
> >They are both
> >going to need nurturing and training ... who's to say which one will
> >be better?
> All the smart money is on the Stanford grad. Only a fool would bet the
> other way. You aren't betting the other way . . . are you?
Hey, everybody's heard horror stories about "graduates" from
universities that either slipped through, lied about thier education,
squeezed by on an athletic scholarship or whatever. I think a DeVry
graduate would have less to hide, wouldn't you?
Given the need for engineers now-a-days, I doubt Stanford could
graduate the ENTIRE country's needs.
> >Let them both sit for the PE test after 4-6 years and then you'll know
> >what level they've attained.
> Fine. But the fact that the DeVry grad passes a test the Stanford grad
> also passed does not in any way mean that they are equals. I'd have to
> guess you have a driver's license. Indy racer Al Unser probably does,
> too. That doesn't even suggest you can drive like Al Unser. Or do you
> think it does?
<snip>
They aren't equal. That, I believe, will show up in their salary
differential. But, That DOES NOT mean that the ET cannot do
engineering ... maybe not the same types as the E.
You seem to miss the point of the PE exam. It is either pass or fail.
The economics of society (and not your ELITE-ISMS) determine who is
capable and who is not.
If they both pass, they both meet the same minimum standard. Then
they should both be allowed to make as much of thier degree that they
can ... or go on to higher education, if that is thier calling.
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
<snip>
>They aren't equal.
Hey, we're making progress!
>That, I believe, will show up in their salary
>differential. But, That DOES NOT mean that the ET cannot do
>engineering
I never said an EET couldn't do engineering.
>... maybe not the same types as the E.
Wow! Even _more_ progress.
>You seem to miss the point of the PE exam. It is either pass or fail.
I fully understand this fact.
>The economics of society (and not your ELITE-ISMS) determine who is
>capable and who is not.
. . . or something like that.
>If they both pass, they both meet the same minimum standard. Then
>they should both be allowed to make as much of thier degree that they
>can ... or go on to higher education, if that is thier calling.
No argument.
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
<snip>
I'm sure statistics on this are scarce, but I'd be interested to know
how many DeVry grads work for NASA ...
and how many of your Stanford grads are working as parking valets.
I'm sure it would surprise even you.
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>I'm sure statistics on this are scarce, but I'd be interested to know
>how many DeVry grads work for NASA ...
>and how many of your Stanford grads are working as parking valets.
>I'm sure it would surprise even you.
I doubt it. Unlike you, I'm willing to accept facts.
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
Gosh, Robert ... that's awfully retalitory and not on point.
Did I hurt your feelings?
Don't worry, I wont pick on you anymore.
Jack
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
>s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
>
>>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>I'm sure statistics on this are scarce, but I'd be interested to know
>>how many DeVry grads work for NASA ...
>>and how many of your Stanford grads are working as parking valets.
>>I'm sure it would surprise even you.
>
>I doubt it. Unlike you, I'm willing to accept facts.
You're wasting your breath, Robert.
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
<snip>
>Gosh, Robert ... that's awfully retalitory and not on point.
It wasn't retaliatory at all. I was simply making the distinction
between the acceptance of facts (reality, if you will) and wishful
thinking, which your post seemed to project. Besides, given the ways
you've twisted and misinterpreted this dialog, you should be the last
one offering criticisms about being on point.
>Did I hurt your feelings?
Nope.
>Don't worry, I wont pick on you anymore.
Thanks. You don't know how relieved I feel.
Robert H. Penoyer
re...@this.group (Jack) wrote:
>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
>
>>s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
>>
>>>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I'm sure statistics on this are scarce, but I'd be interested to know
>>>how many DeVry grads work for NASA ...
>>>and how many of your Stanford grads are working as parking valets.
>>>I'm sure it would surprise even you.
>>
>>I doubt it. Unlike you, I'm willing to accept facts.
>You're wasting your breath, Robert.
You're right. But it's been such an interesting challenge.
Dave Russell
>If an ET is able to solve the same problem that an E can on the PE
>exam (supposedly a test of the applicant's mettle), why do you care
>how they solved it?
I care because the exam measures only the response to the questions. What you are pointing out is
the classical debate in the education field and testing. Just because the person answers the
question that doesn't make sure that he/she knows the answers to other than the question. Does the
eductional system teach the ability to solve the whole problem or just the answers on the test?
>A right answer is a right answer.
Yes, but that's not the whole answer. You have to have the theory behind the problem so that you
can work out the answer. That's where the ET programs fail.
I indicated that I taught at an ET school. I repeat, the problem is that there is insufficient use
of math and physics and theory. The focus is on plug and chug- using the formulas for inadequately
prepared students who know only the formulas.You can get just so far on applying equations.
While that may be good for 60-80% of the cases, do the ET grads really know their own limits?
That's the real danger and the failiing of the eductional system, AND of the licensing system.
>The degree a person possesses has nothing to do with their ethical fibre.
I don't believe that I said that it did.
>Malcolm Lyle, PE
Dave Russell, P.E.
Don Phillips
The whole registration process includes an ABET degree, an EIT exam and 4
years experience, and a P & P exam. The experience is demonstrated (in
Ohio) in the form of a report you submit. Due to my job, the Ohio board
felt I needed 8 years of that experience.
Would an ET be able to meet these requirements? Perhaps, perhaps not. If
so, and they take the exam and pass, then they are P.E.s and the debate is
moot.
A P.E. license is the attempt to ensure the public's safety is kept to some
standard. The exams test a certain level of knowledge but it represents
such a small part of what engineers do. It is the code of ethics that
keeps a environmental engineer from designing an electrical distribution
system, or a mechanical engineer from designing a suspension bridge. They
are required to stay within their competency for fear of losing their
license or in rare cases, being charge with criminal negligence.
The P.E. license is meant to protect the masses. As with most legal
matters, terms have to be defined to prevent confusion and/or abuse. Even
though NSPE may be pushing for more limited use of the word engineer,
ultimately it is the states attorneys general who need to enforce this
based on the laws of their state.
The biggest problem with the word engineer is its universal application.
You have many engineers; software, automotive, choo-choo train, etc. When
a lay person hears the word engineer, a P.E. does not come to mind. When
these same people hear the word Architect, they envision a licensed
architect. NSPE is trying to get the word engineer associated with a
licensed professional like architects.
OK, stepping off my soapbox.
Sparks
>
>>Malcolm Lyle, PE
Would "Real P.E's" please catch on. Malcolm Lyle is not a PE. He is an "ET
Nutter" who has been hounding the very many NGs with his " Chip on the
Shoulder" and "Anti-Engineer" views. You will recognise him easily - he is
the one who always talks through his arse about matters that he knows
nothing about .
Sparks.
Gareth Alun Evans
In article <6avsh3$8...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Don Phillips
<don.phi...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>The biggest problem with the word engineer is its universal application.
>You have many engineers; software, automotive, choo-choo train, etc. When
>a lay person hears the word engineer, a P.E. does not come to mind. When
>these same people hear the word Architect, they envision a licensed
>architect. NSPE is trying to get the word engineer associated with a
>licensed professional like architects.
Let us conceive of a new word or phrase to identify us; and to
distinguish us in the minds of the hoi polloi (General Public and uppity
ET's!) from your quoted categories. For as long as we name ourselves
with a word that has widespread insignificance, then we shall remain
insignificant in the minds of the General Public, amongst whose numbers
are to be found those who pull the purse strings.
That which distinguishes the engineer (as we understand the term) from
the operator, the technician or the technologist is in-depth knowledge.
There has long been a term to identify the knowledgeable and
inquisitive professional, and the word is "Scientist", taken from an
original Greek root meaning, "Knowledge".
I suggest "Electrical Scientist", "Mechanical Scientist", and so on; the
engineering adjective serving to distinguish us from the pure scientist.
--
G.A.Evans, Director, Out And About Systems Ltd
Software Consultancy for Telecommunications, Real Time and ATE
13 Hardens Close, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 3AA
(01249) 651897
¿who?
Gareth Alun Evans <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
<bs snipped>
> Let us conceive of a new word or phrase to identify us; and to
> distinguish us in the minds of the hoi polloi (General Public and uppity
> ET's!) from your quoted categories. For as long as we name ourselves
> with a word that has widespread insignificance, then we shall remain
> insignificant in the minds of the General Public, amongst whose numbers
> are to be found those who pull the purse strings.
<more bs snipped>
Engineers are such by virtue of what they do ... they do engineering.
Just because I am a BSEET does NOT preclude me from practicing
engineering. Frankly, your ego-ridden rhetoric is nothing more than a
dissertation on elitism.
If a BSEE stops working for 10 years after school is he still an
engineer?
A degree is not a pedigree.
... and to point, the economic system has rewarded me greatly for my
achievements, allowing me to become Vice President of an engineering
consulting firm. I'm just as qualified as any competetor in my field.
And you're mind will be eased to the fact that I've had no claims to
my professional liability insurance.
Get off your high horse.
Gareth Alun Evans
In article <6b9rhv$8...@camel21.mindspring.com>, =?iso-8859-
1?q?=BFwho=3F?= <s...@bottom-of-post.com> writes
>Engineers are such by virtue of what they do ... they do engineering.
>Just because I am a BSEET does NOT preclude me from practicing
>engineering.
(Do you mean, "practising"?
> Frankly, your ego-ridden rhetoric is nothing more than a
>dissertation on elitism.
is neither egoism nor elitism here. All who reach the standard are
welcome. Do you dismiss the behaviour of medical practitioners when
refusing to accept the modern rash of loony-medical types to their ranks
as elitism? Of course you don't! In their case, as in ours, anybody who
gains the qualifications is welcome.
>If a BSEE stops working for 10 years after school is he still an
>engineer?
is not an engineer in the first place.
>A degree is not a pedigree.
>... and to point, the economic system has rewarded me greatly for my
>achievements, allowing me to become Vice President of an engineering
>consulting firm.
systems of engineering excellence? A crucial difference.
> I'm just as qualified as any competetor in my field.
That may be true; but perhaps irrelevant to the discussion. Your field
may not be the same as ours, for it is YOU who has stated that you are a
"BSEET". That is not a qualification here in England. Taking the lead
from your reference to the snipping of "bs", does BSEET, perhaps, stand
for "Bull-Shitting Electrical Engineering Technician"? I don't know -
you were the first to use "bs" as an abbreviation for "Bull Shit".
>And you're mind will be eased to the fact that I've had no claims to
>my professional liability insurance.
Do you mean, "by the fact"?
>Get off your high horse.
>Malcolm Lyle, PE
This would suggest that you are now qualified as an engineer. How
regrettable that you let the side down by whingeing in the manner that I
would normally associate with someone who is a technician. If you ARE an
engineer, then behave as one!
Dave Russell
Malcom:
No matter how I try to ignore you, you won't go away. I tried. Your posts keep showing up on this
news group and you are still busy tilting at a windmill.
No matter what you write, that still doesn't change the fact that your prejudice and ignorance is
reigning over your intellect. Drop it and let everyone save bandwidth.
Dave Russell, P.E>
s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
>Gareth Alun Evans <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><bs snipped>
>> Let us conceive of a new word or phrase to identify us; and to
>> distinguish us in the minds of the hoi polloi (General Public and uppity
>> ET's!) from your quoted categories. For as long as we name ourselves
>> with a word that has widespread insignificance, then we shall remain
>> insignificant in the minds of the General Public, amongst whose numbers
>> are to be found those who pull the purse strings.
><more bs snipped>
>Engineers are such by virtue of what they do ... they do engineering.
>Just because I am a BSEET does NOT preclude me from practicing
>engineering. Frankly, your ego-ridden rhetoric is nothing more than a
>dissertation on elitism.
>If a BSEE stops working for 10 years after school is he still an
>engineer?
>A degree is not a pedigree.
>... and to point, the economic system has rewarded me greatly for my
>achievements, allowing me to become Vice President of an engineering
>consulting firm. I'm just as qualified as any competetor in my field.
>And you're mind will be eased to the fact that I've had no claims to
>my professional liability insurance.
>Get off your high horse.
>Malcolm Lyle, PE
Don Phillips
> I suggest "Electrical Scientist", "Mechanical Scientist", and so on; the
> engineering adjective serving to distinguish us from the pure scientist.
You got my vote! Next time NSPE solicits my advice, I will suggest
scientist.
Don Phillips
I colleague of mine is attending a community college to be an ET. She is
so excited about statics and engineering mechanics. She described to me
her level of knowledge after the class and unfortunately, her limited
mathematics prevents her from seeing the big picture - complicated design
equations dictated by code and the theory leading to steel and concrete
structures.
Should this bright ET be entrusted with a bridge design? No. However, if
we do not separate the ET from the PE, someday a law maker may make a
mistake and pass a law allowing an ET to practice engineering.
¿who?
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
Frankly, I let this drop until Bonehead started it up again. Then the
woodwork opened and a few personal attacks ensued.
It seems to enrage the elite engineering profession everytime I make a
statement ... so I must be hitting a nerve. "Say it ain't so..."
Let me just quote to you from my PE Certificate:
"Let it be known by these presents that Malcolm Henry Lyle, III
has given satisfactory evidence of having the qualifications
required by the law regulating the practice of Professional
Engineering in this state and is hereby authorized to practice as
a PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER in the Commonwealth of Virginia."
I'll bet all you engineers with an engineering degree (and its
associated GOD complex) have a similar placquard ... and I suggest you
read it.
If we (ETs) can prove it on the test, and under the SAME
CIRCUIMSTANCES that you must take the test ... and pass ... then you
really don't have an argument.
P.S. This is going to really make you all mad. I intend to get
registered in as many states as I can (ha ha).
Micro Chip
Malcolm Little wrote :
>It seems to enrage the elite engineering profession
I'm glad you recognise that we are an elite profession !
> everytime I make a statement ... so I must be hitting a nerve. "Say it ain't so..."
"It ain't so ".
>Let me just quote to you from my PE Certificate:
At least you can read and write which comes as a suprise to some,
considering you talk such a load of shite.
>If we (ETs) can prove it on the test, and under the SAME
>CIRCUIMSTANCES that you must take the test ... and pass ... then you
>really don't have an argument.
More shite.
You stated in another NG that you were no good at maths and that you are
not a P.E. Of course, this comes as no suprise to most. So, what is your
problem. I have great respect for ET's, and thank god that they are not all
nutters like you.
>P.S. This is going to really make you all mad.
Yes . We are all frothing at the mouth !!.
> I intend to get registered in as many states as I can (ha ha).
As what ? An ET Idiot !!
>Malcolm Lyle, PE (Failed) and Impostor.
Micro Chip, ET (Hons).
Robert Dell
Curious, how do you guys feel about a person that knows more than others
know and more theory than others know but has no degree whatsoever and
doesn't preach about it? I'm in reference to all those jerk kids that come
fresh out of school that can't even solder a through-hole resistor straight
or without burning the pads from the board. They have all their theory and
schooling but I have 30 years exp on them (37 years old now). I'm sorry
for bringing this out but degrees whether BSEE or Doctorate or BSEET makes
no difference to the question of can you perform the job required of you
effectively and safely. Be proud of your acomplishments and not your
schooling which anybody can obtain.
Gareth Alun Evans wrote:
> >If a BSEE stops working for 10 years after school is he still an
> >engineer?
> A meaningless question. If just a BSEE straight out of school, then he
> is not an engineer in the first place.
> > I'm just as qualified as any competetor in my field.
> (Do you mean, "competitor"?)
> That may be true; but perhaps irrelevant to the discussion. Your field
> may not be the same as ours, for it is YOU who has stated that you are a
> "BSEET". That is not a qualification here in England. Taking the lead
> from your reference to the snipping of "bs", does BSEET, perhaps, stand
> for "Bull-Shitting Electrical Engineering Technician"? I don't know -
> you were the first to use "bs" as an abbreviation for "Bull Shit".
Don Phillips
I guess I fail to see the problem. An ET who is registered is a PE and is
entitled to use the word "engineer" in his title. After all, that is the
title of this thread.
Robert H. Penoyer
Robert Dell <rober...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Curious, how do you guys feel about a person that knows more than others
>know and more theory than others know but has no degree whatsoever and
>doesn't preach about it?
How do _I_ feel? Well, first, your claim that you know more, as well
as more theory, is probably either wishful thinking, a paranoid
reaction to people who know more than you do, or your way of reacting
simply because you realize you know less. Second, by making your claim
on a world-wide forum, it seems that you _are_ preaching about it.
>I'm in reference to all those jerk kids that come
>fresh out of school that can't even solder a through-hole resistor straight
>or without burning the pads from the board.
Well, if college were a soldering clinic, you might have a point.
Referring to college grads as "those jerk kids" sounds like
resentment.
>They have all their theory and
>schooling but I have 30 years exp on them (37 years old now).
But all that experience doesn't give you anywhere near the level of
theory that they achieved in 4+ years of engineering school.
>I'm sorry
>for bringing this out but degrees whether BSEE or Doctorate or BSEET makes
>no difference to the question of can you perform the job required of you
>effectively and safely.
I suppose you're right--if you mean that a PhD doesn't necessarily
make a good cab driver. If all you have to know is which end of a
soldering iron to hold, then any degree is pretty useless.
>Be proud of your acomplishments and not your
>schooling which anybody can obtain.
Anybody!? Gosh, even more resentment! Get over your envy, Bob, and go
get you one of them thar degrees that anybody can get.
¿who?
Robert Dell <rober...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Curious, how do you guys feel about a person that knows more than others
> know and more theory than others know but has no degree whatsoever and
> doesn't preach about it? I'm in reference to all those jerk kids that come
> fresh out of school that can't even solder a through-hole resistor straight
> or without burning the pads from the board. They have all their theory and
> schooling but I have 30 years exp on them (37 years old now). I'm sorry
> for bringing this out but degrees whether BSEE or Doctorate or BSEET makes
> no difference to the question of can you perform the job required of you
> effectively and safely. Be proud of your acomplishments and not your
> schooling which anybody can obtain.
Frankly, I think you deserve the respect you've earned ... as well as
ANYONE who proves their abilities in the free market.
That would include people without degrees in engineering (like
physicists)
But ... the Machiavellian engineering elite don't see it that way ...
and I'm sure one of "them" has spouted off to you already in a
subsequent post.
¿who?
All I can say Mr. Dell is, "See, I told you so." This guy and all
like him want to put you into the engineering "sub" culture ...
"sub-serveant" to them regardless of your abilities.
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> Robert Dell <rober...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> >Curious, how do you guys feel about a person that knows more than others
> >know and more theory than others know but has no degree whatsoever and
> >doesn't preach about it?
> How do _I_ feel? Well, first, your claim that you know more, as well
> as more theory, is probably either wishful thinking, a paranoid
> reaction to people who know more than you do, or your way of reacting
> simply because you realize you know less. Second, by making your claim
> on a world-wide forum, it seems that you _are_ preaching about it.
> >I'm in reference to all those jerk kids that come
> >fresh out of school that can't even solder a through-hole resistor straight
> >or without burning the pads from the board.
> Well, if college were a soldering clinic, you might have a point.
> Referring to college grads as "those jerk kids" sounds like
> resentment.
> >They have all their theory and
> >schooling but I have 30 years exp on them (37 years old now).
> But all that experience doesn't give you anywhere near the level of
> theory that they achieved in 4+ years of engineering school.
> >I'm sorry
> >for bringing this out but degrees whether BSEE or Doctorate or BSEET makes
> >no difference to the question of can you perform the job required of you
> >effectively and safely.
> I suppose you're right--if you mean that a PhD doesn't necessarily
> make a good cab driver. If all you have to know is which end of a
> soldering iron to hold, then any degree is pretty useless.
> >Be proud of your acomplishments and not your
> >schooling which anybody can obtain.
> Anybody!? Gosh, even more resentment! Get over your envy, Bob, and go
> get you one of them thar degrees that anybody can get.
¿who?
"Don Phillips" <don.phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Many states who have been lobbied by NSPE and NCEES have eliminated
eligibility for ETs to sit for the exams.
I just happen to live in a state where this moron-esqe view does NOT
prevail (unlike SC, TN, KY, etc...)
If you really want to know more ... check out NSPE's web site. They
have two pages that you should read ... re: "Model Law" and
"Engineering Technology"
¿who?
Sir (and I use that term with a sick feeling in my stomach) ...
Your attacks do not phase me. Your picking attack proves that you
cannot argue the points on substance. It is painfully obvious to
everyone that you are a mere fool.
sa...@spam.demon.co.uk (Micro Chip) wrote:
> Malcolm Little wrote :
> >It seems to enrage the elite engineering profession
> I'm glad you recognise that we are an elite profession !
> > everytime I make a statement ... so I must be hitting a nerve. "Say it ain't so..."
> "It ain't so ".
> >Let me just quote to you from my PE Certificate:
> At least you can read and write which comes as a suprise to some,
> considering you talk such a load of shite.
> >If we (ETs) can prove it on the test, and under the SAME
> >CIRCUIMSTANCES that you must take the test ... and pass ... then you
> >really don't have an argument.
> More shite.
> You stated in another NG that you were no good at maths and that you are
> not a P.E. Of course, this comes as no suprise to most. So, what is your
> problem. I have great respect for ET's, and thank god that they are not all
> nutters like you.
I expect you should PROVE that, because I never said that I wasn't a
PE ... and I never said I was "no good at maths" either.
> >P.S. This is going to really make you all mad.
> Yes . We are all frothing at the mouth !!.
> > I intend to get registered in as many states as I can (ha ha).
> As what ? An ET Idiot !!
> >Malcolm Lyle, PE (Failed) and Impostor.
> Micro Chip, ET (Hons).
Malcolm Lyle, PE
yankee
Robert H. Penoyer wrote:
>
> Robert Dell <rober...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose you're right--if you mean that a PhD doesn't necessarily
> make a good cab driver. If all you have to know is which end of a
> soldering iron to hold, then any degree is pretty useless.
>
> >Be proud of your acomplishments and not your
> >schooling which anybody can obtain.
>
> Anybody!? Gosh, even more resentment! Get over your envy, Bob, and go
> get you one of them thar degrees that anybody can get.
I couldn't have said it better Robert. Thanks
If these jealous types would put as much effort into a formal education
as they do belittling it, they would already be PhDs. The trouble that I
have found is that people without the formal training don't even know
what it is that they don't know. Because of the total lack of exposure
to many subjects, they don't realize the full extent of the subject
matter to which they haven't been exposed.
Try bringing up DSP or control system theory to a technician and they
stumble. I'm not belittling the contributions of technicians, but design
work is more involved than soldering, resistor codes, and running an
oscilloscope. Some technicians think that getting a degree is just more
extensive technician training.
yankee
żwho? wrote:
>
> s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
>
> Frankly, I let this drop until Bonehead started it up again. Then the
> woodwork opened and a few personal attacks ensued.
>
> statement ... so I must be hitting a nerve. "Say it ain't so..."
>
> P.S. This is going to really make you all mad. I intend to get
> registered in as many states as I can (ha ha).
>
> Malcolm Lyle, PE
Please post which states they might be. I intend to avoid driving my
car over any bridges in that state.
¿who?
yankee <yan...@yankee.com> wrote:
> I couldn't have said it better Robert. Thanks
> If these jealous types would put as much effort into a formal education
> as they do belittling it, they would already be PhDs. The trouble that I
> have found is that people without the formal training don't even know
> what it is that they don't know. Because of the total lack of exposure
> to many subjects, they don't realize the full extent of the subject
> matter to which they haven't been exposed.
> Try bringing up DSP or control system theory to a technician and they
> stumble. I'm not belittling the contributions of technicians, but design
> work is more involved than soldering, resistor codes, and running an
> oscilloscope. Some technicians think that getting a degree is just more
> extensive technician training.
I still don't understand why you don't think a Bachelor of Science
degree is not formal training.
yankee
żwho? wrote:
>
> I still don't understand why you don't think a Bachelor of Science
> degree is not formal training.
>
> Malcolm Lyle, PE
I never said it wasn't formal training. Technician training is formal,
but just not extensive.
But in general:
BSEE - (advanced math + Physics) = BSEET
BSEET - (Calculus) = Technician
I've been there.
sincerely,
Yankee,
Certified Technician, BSEE, BS Physics, MSEE
Boris Yakubovich
schooling which anybody can obtain."
college. You have to have a grate discipline and work really hard to get it.
Five years commitment with minimum 17 credit hours per quarter, not even being
able to chose your own schedule, quizzes and test on average at least three
times a week, tons of material to read and comprehend and not enough time for
all of it, staying home studying when others playing Frisbee and having fun on
the college campus- it just a small fraction of things that engineering
students have to go through. As an example only one third of starting
engineering students do actually graduate with engineering degree. It's not as
easy as you think That is a big accomplishment itself!
Robert Dell wrote:
> Curious, how do you guys feel about a person that knows more than others
> know and more theory than others know but has no degree whatsoever and
> doesn't preach about it? I'm in reference to all those jerk kids that come
> fresh out of school that can't even solder a through-hole resistor straight
> or without burning the pads from the board. They have all their theory and
> schooling but I have 30 years exp on them (37 years old now). I'm sorry
> for bringing this out but degrees whether BSEE or Doctorate or BSEET makes
> no difference to the question of can you perform the job required of you
> effectively and safely. Be proud of your acomplishments and not your
> schooling which anybody can obtain.
>
> Gareth Alun Evans wrote:
>
> > >If a BSEE stops working for 10 years after school is he still an
> > >engineer?
> > A meaningless question. If just a BSEE straight out of school, then he
> > is not an engineer in the first place.
> > > I'm just as qualified as any competetor in my field.
> > (Do you mean, "competitor"?)
> > That may be true; but perhaps irrelevant to the discussion. Your field
> > may not be the same as ours, for it is YOU who has stated that you are a
> > "BSEET". That is not a qualification here in England. Taking the lead
> > from your reference to the snipping of "bs", does BSEET, perhaps, stand
> > for "Bull-Shitting Electrical Engineering Technician"? I don't know -
> > you were the first to use "bs" as an abbreviation for "Bull Shit".
> > >Malcolm Lyle, PE
> > This would suggest that you are now qualified as an engineer. How
> > regrettable that you let the side down by whingeing in the manner that I
> > would normally associate with someone who is a technician. If you ARE an
> > engineer, then behave as one!
--
邢 唷��
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>All I can say Mr. Dell is, "See, I told you so." This guy and all
>like him want to put you into the engineering "sub" culture ...
>"sub-serveant" to them regardless of your abilities.
>
>rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
<snip>
Wrong, again, Mal. Dell isn't an engineer so it was easy to dismiss
him in a thread that has engineering, engineering qualifications, and
engineering training as its subjects.
Don Phillips
> All I can say Mr. Dell is, "See, I told you so." This guy and all
> like him want to put you into the engineering "sub" culture ...
> "sub-serveant" to them regardless of your abilities.
Well, instead of pigeon-holing everyone, let them put up the opinions. You
can always ignore them.
Don Phillips
> effectively and safely. Be proud of your acomplishments and not your
> schooling which anybody can obtain.
I agree wholeheartedly. After you land that first job after school, you
real education begins. I tell kids going to school to work hard not for
the good grades (which help land that first job) but for the work ethic.
After that first job, it don't matter what your grades were or what you
learned in school. The next employer wants to know your experience. The
more varied your experience, the more valuable you become.
Don Phillips
> But ... the Machiavellian engineering elite don't see it that way ...
> and I'm sure one of "them" has spouted off to you already in a
> subsequent post.
>
Can you better describe this elite for us?
Robert H. Penoyer
yankee <yan...@yankee.com> wrote:
<snip>
>I couldn't have said it better Robert. Thanks
Thank you for such a kind response.
>The trouble that I
>have found is that people without the formal training don't even know
>what it is that they don't know. Because of the total lack of exposure
>to many subjects, they don't realize the full extent of the subject
>matter to which they haven't been exposed.
This is a basic truth that every non-engineer critic of engineers
should read and understand before speaking.
>Try bringing up DSP or control system theory to a technician and they
>stumble.
It's not surprising, nor is it a condemnation of technicians.
(Speaking as a former technician who was eager to learn, I never
learned so much so fast until I attended engineering school.)
>I'm not belittling the contributions of technicians, but design
>work is more involved than soldering, resistor codes, and running an
>oscilloscope. Some technicians think that getting a degree is just more
>extensive technician training.
You are exactly right.
¿who?
yankee <yan...@yankee.com> wrote:
> żwho? wrote:
> >
> > I still don't understand why you don't think a Bachelor of Science
> > degree is not formal training.
> >
> > Malcolm Lyle, PE
>
> I never said it wasn't formal training. Technician training is formal,
> but just not extensive.
> But in general:
> BSEE - (advanced math + Physics) = BSEET
> BSEET - (Calculus) = Technician
I believe the term is Technologist.
A technician is an individual who goes to a technical school.
I didn't study for 4 years, earn a BS ... to repair TVs and Computers.
Which is also why I'm the Vice President of an engineering consulting
firm.
> I've been there.
> sincerely,
> Yankee,
> Certified Technician, BSEE, BS Physics, MSEE
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
> >All I can say Mr. Dell is, "See, I told you so." This guy and all
> >like him want to put you into the engineering "sub" culture ...
> >"sub-serveant" to them regardless of your abilities.
> >
> >rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> <snip>
> Wrong, again, Mal. Dell isn't an engineer so it was easy to dismiss
> him in a thread that has engineering, engineering qualifications, and
> engineering training as its subjects.
Frankly, Robert, I don't see how blasting Mr. Dell's lack of
engineering credentials does anything for your argument.
Or do you feel like more of a man to have "dismissed" him?
Let him speak ... unless you're scared he's right.
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
<snip>
> >I'm not belittling the contributions of technicians, but design
> >work is more involved than soldering, resistor codes, and running an
> >oscilloscope. Some technicians think that getting a degree is just more
> >extensive technician training.
> You are exactly right.
Again, a technicial attends technical school (e.g., repairperson,
etc...) ... a person with a technology is a technologist.
Ergo, I do engineering, therefore I am.
¿who?
"Don Phillips" <don.phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Yeah, this is very true. Nobody puts their grades on their resume ...
only their accomplishments.
Regardless of their schooling, an engineer is a person who DOES
engineering (period).
¿who?
"Don Phillips" <don.phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
two examples:
NSPE and NCEES
They think that people who CAN pass the engineering exams should not
sit for them simply because their 4 year degree is an engineering
technology degree rather than an engineering degree.
Check out their web pages if you do not believe me.
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
<snip>
>Frankly, Robert, I don't see how blasting Mr. Dell's lack of
>engineering credentials does anything for your argument.
He doesn't know what he's talking about. You support him. What does
that tell you?
>Or do you feel like more of a man to have "dismissed" him?
>
>Let him speak ... unless you're scared he's right.
>
>Malcolm Lyle, PE
You know, I've observed that you don't contribute to this newsgroup
except to crow about how wonderful it is that you're a PE, and
complain that EEs don't treat EETs as equals.
Do you really have any technical knowledge that might be a positive
contribution here, or are you all bluster and whining?
Gareth Alun Evans
>Again, a technicial attends technical school (e.g., repairperson,
>etc...) ... a person with a technology is a technologist.
>
>Ergo, I do engineering, therefore I am.
Perhaps therein lies the whole of your misunderstanding.
Common English usage is not the same as the definition of a term by the
cognoscenti of a refined group.
Equivocation is another way of putting this...giving equal weight to
different meanings of a word.
Gareth Alun Evans
> extensive technician training.
>
>I still don't understand why you don't think a Bachelor of Science
>degree is not formal training.
>
>Malcolm Lyle, PE
Malcolm - you excel yourself! Instead of the usual singular negativity from
you, here you give a DOUBLE negative in one sentence!
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>Again, a technicial attends technical school (e.g., repairperson,
>etc...) ... a person with a technology is a technologist.
No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
Don Phillips
> > > But ... the Machiavellian engineering elite don't see it that way ...
> > > and I'm sure one of "them" has spouted off to you already in a
> > > subsequent post.
> > >
>
> > Can you better describe this elite for us?
>
> two examples:
>
> NSPE and NCEES
>
> They think that people who CAN pass the engineering exams should not
> sit for them simply because their 4 year degree is an engineering
> technology degree rather than an engineering degree.
>
I see. So since I am a member is NSPE, I am an elitist? Why must people
be labeled?
JLH
In article <6bia15$k...@camel19.mindspring.com>, malco...@pipeline.com wrote:
>"Don Phillips" <don.phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> > But ... the Machiavellian engineering elite don't see it that way ...
>> > and I'm sure one of "them" has spouted off to you already in a
>> > subsequent post.
>> >
>
>> Can you better describe this elite for us?
>
>two examples:
>
>NSPE and NCEES
>
>They think that people who CAN pass the engineering exams should not
>sit for them simply because their 4 year degree is an engineering
>technology degree rather than an engineering degree.
>
>
>Malcolm Lyle, PE
>
I am getting tired of hearing about this issue. So I'll put my two cents in
and then leave it alone.
1. You seem to be more proud of the fact the your a Vice-President of a
consulting firm, more than a PE. Managers, who give up design, are simply
engineers who could not hack it, so they got out. If your going to
flambouyantly relay info that being a Vice-President proves your worth to the
public, I suggest you allow yourself a little modesty.
2. We are the elite and the priveledged. We went thru engineering school and
deserve the respect that comes with it. NSPE does what is best for the public,
not what is best for the examinee. I totaly agree with the NSPE, ETs do not
get the level of schooling going thru an ET program that E's get (PERIOD).
The NSPE is making sure that all examinees have the BASIC fundamental
knowledge needed to insure the public's safety, Es and ETs. The key word is
basic. Yes, it is true that an ET may gain the basic fundamentals needed to
pass the PE, but NSPE wants to look beyond the test into the future. What
happens when a project comes thru the door that is advanced engineering,
something never done before. Engineering that needs judgement, ethics, and a
PhD consultant just to do model tests. The ET, in most cases, does not have
the background to understand some principles needed. It is easy to read a
design manual to get the design equations needed, it is a whole new story
to derive the equations yourself. Yes, there are probably some who have taught
themselves and do have the knowledge to take on such a project, but the NSPE
does not know that. They are a special case, the NSPE does not look at special
cases, they look at the general consensus. The NSPE uses these rules to
justify to the public whom they think is ready or not for the public domain.
I suggest you start using some of your ethics. The public is what is at hand,
not your degree or PE. Being a Vice-President of a consultant firm does not in
anyway justify your competence as an engineer, so stop using that for an
answer. Your main concern is the public, so start justifying yourself thru
your work, and concrete examples of it. Only then will people(public and other
engineers) take you seriously. There are good engineers and great engineers;
good engineers do the work, great engineers better society for whom they work
for.
¿who?
Well, what can I say, being raised in Tennessee ... It was only a few
years ago that we lost our overalls and got shoes.
Maybe I misunderstood the name of this newsgroup ... this is
engineering, not grammar ... and certainly not a formal environment
for publication.
¿who?
"Don Phillips" <don.phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > > But ... the Machiavellian engineering elite don't see it that way ...
> > > > and I'm sure one of "them" has spouted off to you already in a
> > > > subsequent post.
> > > >
> >
> > > Can you better describe this elite for us?
> >
> > two examples:
> >
> > NSPE and NCEES
> >
> > They think that people who CAN pass the engineering exams should not
> > sit for them simply because their 4 year degree is an engineering
> > technology degree rather than an engineering degree.
> >
> I see. So since I am a member is NSPE, I am an elitist? Why must people
> be labeled?
You pay their dues so you are part of the problem.
¿who?
"Gareth Alun Evans" <gar...@cemetery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Again, a technicial attends technical school (e.g., repairperson,
> >etc...) ... a person with a technology is a technologist.
> >
> >Ergo, I do engineering, therefore I am.
> Perhaps therein lies the whole of your misunderstanding.
> Common English usage is not the same as the definition of a term by the
> cognoscenti of a refined group.
> Equivocation is another way of putting this...giving equal weight to
> different meanings of a word.
You missed your calling ... you should be writing speaches for
President Clinton.
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
> <snip>
> >Frankly, Robert, I don't see how blasting Mr. Dell's lack of
> >engineering credentials does anything for your argument.
> He doesn't know what he's talking about. You support him. What does
> that tell you?
Ok, personal attacks aside ... why don't you stick to the point?
> >Or do you feel like more of a man to have "dismissed" him?
> >
> >Let him speak ... unless you're scared he's right.
> >
> >Malcolm Lyle, PE
> You know, I've observed that you don't contribute to this newsgroup
> except to crow about how wonderful it is that you're a PE, and
> complain that EEs don't treat EETs as equals.
> Do you really have any technical knowledge that might be a positive
> contribution here, or are you all bluster and whining?
All I was trying to do was point out the inequity of the NSPE & NCEES
lobbying effort. Frankly, you've kept this thread alive, Robert,
otherwise I'd keep myself in the sys-protection and compliance
newsgroups ... since they are more pointed to my expertise.
You really do love to change the subject, don't you. Well, why don't
you just stop reading my posts if you fail to find any contribution in
them?
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
> >Again, a technicial attends technical school (e.g., repairperson,
> >etc...) ... a person with a technology is a technologist.
> No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.
And you are narrow minded.
An engineering technology degree consists of (at least mine did),
roughly 130 semester hours of study, 40 in field of major study. The
remaining portions were in the basics of core curriculum.
If you plan to demean the education EARNED by all ETs then ...
No, I'm not going to resort to insults. I don't have to prove
anything to you.
Until you can respond to the point, I'm no longer going to respond to
you. Look at the title of this thread and keep it on subject, Robert.
Do you or do you not agree that ETs should be allowed to sit for the
PE and EIT exams?
¿who?
jl...@bellsouth.net (JLH) wrote:
> In article <6bia15$k...@camel19.mindspring.com>, malco...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >"Don Phillips" <don.phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > But ... the Machiavellian engineering elite don't see it that way ...
> >> > and I'm sure one of "them" has spouted off to you already in a
> >> > subsequent post.
> >> >
> >
> >> Can you better describe this elite for us?
> >
> >two examples:
> >
> >NSPE and NCEES
> >
> >They think that people who CAN pass the engineering exams should not
> >sit for them simply because their 4 year degree is an engineering
> >technology degree rather than an engineering degree.
> >
> >Check out their web pages if you do not believe me.
> >
> >Malcolm Lyle, PE
> >
> I am getting tired of hearing about this issue. So I'll put my two cents in
> and then leave it alone.
> 1. You seem to be more proud of the fact the your a Vice-President of a
> consulting firm, more than a PE. Managers, who give up design, are simply
> engineers who could not hack it, so they got out. If your going to
> flambouyantly relay info that being a Vice-President proves your worth to the
> public, I suggest you allow yourself a little modesty.
If this must be a defense of my own worth, then so be it. I am the
ONLY electrical engineer in my firm. My promotion to ownership was
MERIT based. I'm only thirty and I feel I've done pretty well. I
still am responsible for all of the electrical design in our firm. If
you (and your cohorts that started this tangent) want to challenge me,
then lets all put our credentials on the table, shall we?
Frankly, you should try to be more educated about what you speak.
> 2. We are the elite and the priveledged. We went thru engineering school and
> deserve the respect that comes with it. NSPE does what is best for the public,
> not what is best for the examinee. I totaly agree with the NSPE, ETs do not
> get the level of schooling going thru an ET program that E's get (PERIOD).
> The NSPE is making sure that all examinees have the BASIC fundamental
> knowledge needed to insure the public's safety, Es and ETs. The key word is
> basic. Yes, it is true that an ET may gain the basic fundamentals needed to
> pass the PE, but NSPE wants to look beyond the test into the future. What
> happens when a project comes thru the door that is advanced engineering,
> something never done before. Engineering that needs judgement, ethics, and a
> PhD consultant just to do model tests. The ET, in most cases, does not have
> the background to understand some principles needed. It is easy to read a
> design manual to get the design equations needed, it is a whole new story
> to derive the equations yourself. Yes, there are probably some who have taught
> themselves and do have the knowledge to take on such a project, but the NSPE
> does not know that. They are a special case, the NSPE does not look at special
> cases, they look at the general consensus. The NSPE uses these rules to
> justify to the public whom they think is ready or not for the public domain.
If you have all the education and background of engineering you need
when you graduate, then why do you need experience or a test? I still
don't understand why everyone thinks that any single piece of this is
a "keystone" ... none of them are.
> I suggest you start using some of your ethics. The public is what is at hand,
> not your degree or PE. Being a Vice-President of a consultant firm does not in
> anyway justify your competence as an engineer, so stop using that for an
> answer. Your main concern is the public, so start justifying yourself thru
> your work, and concrete examples of it. Only then will people(public and other
> engineers) take you seriously. There are good engineers and great engineers;
> good engineers do the work, great engineers better society for whom they work
> for.
Well, you're right ... the test of my mettle are the (lack of) claims
against our company, which testifies to our collective competence in
our field. I don't know what you want for justification ... why don't
you lead by example yourself.
When you realize that generalizing that all engineers need the exact
same education is as ludicrous as saying that all doctors, lawyers,
teacher, etc... need the exact same education, then we'll be on to
something.
Tell me why an ET shouldn't be allowed to sit for the PE and EIT
exams? If they don't pass (due to incompetence) what's the worry?
The fact is the pass rate for most ENGINEERS is about 50% ... exactly
what are you scared of?
¿who?
Frankly, all of you who support the NSPE in thier "policy through
ignorance" campaign should think about where your dollars are being
spent ...
Unless it is your goal (as I suspect) to protect your clique through
legislation. Try to cloak it in "protection of the public," but it
doesn't hold water if an ET can jump through all the hoops you must to
become registered.
Don Phillips
> Unless it is your goal (as I suspect) to protect your clique through
> legislation. Try to cloak it in "protection of the public," but it
> doesn't hold water if an ET can jump through all the hoops you must to
> become registered.
If an ET jumps through the same hoops as an engineer, then the ET deserves
the PE. I guess I do not understand the problem.
Don Phillips
> > > > > But ... the Machiavellian engineering elite don't see it that way
..
> > > > > subsequent post.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > Can you better describe this elite for us?
> > >
> > > two examples:
> > >
> > > NSPE and NCEES
> > >
> > > They think that people who CAN pass the engineering exams should not
> > > sit for them simply because their 4 year degree is an engineering
> > > technology degree rather than an engineering degree.
> > >
>
people
> > be labeled?
>
> You pay their dues so you are part of the problem.
>
another?
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>Ok, personal attacks aside ... why don't you stick to the point?
You should be the _last_ person to make that plea.
>All I was trying to do was point out the inequity of the NSPE & NCEES
>lobbying effort. Frankly, you've kept this thread alive, Robert,
YOUR pseudonym is the most frequent one seen on this thread.
>otherwise I'd keep myself in the sys-protection and compliance
>newsgroups ... since they are more pointed to my expertise.
I hope they love you over there.
>You really do love to change the subject, don't you.
It's time for some introspection on your part. There you are, the guy
howling the loudest about staying on the subject while changing
subjects--excuse me ... misreading posts and responding
accordingly--as if doing so were a noble goal.
>Well, why don't
>you just stop reading my posts if you fail to find any contribution in
>them?
And miss out on all this fun?
Robert H. Penoyer
s...@bottom-of-post.com (¿who?) wrote:
>Do you or do you not agree that ETs should be allowed to sit for the
>PE and EIT exams?
Yes.
JLH
>> I am getting tired of hearing about this issue. So I'll put my two cents in
>> and then leave it alone.
>
>> 1. You seem to be more proud of the fact the your a Vice-President of a
>> consulting firm, more than a PE. Managers, who give up design, are simply
>> engineers who could not hack it, so they got out. If your going to
>> flambouyantly relay info that being a Vice-President proves your worth to the
>> public, I suggest you allow yourself a little modesty.
>
------------------------------------
>If this must be a defense of my own worth, then so be it. I am the
>ONLY electrical engineer in my firm. My promotion to ownership was
>MERIT based. I'm only thirty and I feel I've done pretty well. I
>still am responsible for all of the electrical design in our firm. If
>you (and your cohorts that started this tangent) want to challenge me,
>then lets all put our credentials on the table, shall we?
>
>Frankly, you should try to be more educated about what you speak.
>
-------------------------------------
If that is the case, then congrats, you have done well for yourself. I am only
as educated about this debate as you lead to believe by your posts. I do not
believe we are challenging you, we know, by reading your posts, you are a PE,
your merit is not what the debate is about.
>> 2. We are the elite and the priveledged. We went thru engineering school and
>> deserve the respect that comes with it. NSPE does what is best for the public,
>> not what is best for the examinee. I totaly agree with the NSPE, ETs do not
>> get the level of schooling going thru an ET program that E's get (PERIOD).
>> The NSPE is making sure that all examinees have the BASIC fundamental
>> knowledge needed to insure the public's safety, Es and ETs. The key word is
>> basic. Yes, it is true that an ET may gain the basic fundamentals needed to
>> pass the PE, but NSPE wants to look beyond the test into the future. What
>> happens when a project comes thru the door that is advanced engineering,
>> something never done before. Engineering that needs judgement, ethics, and a
>> PhD consultant just to do model tests. The ET, in most cases, does not have
>> the background to understand some principles needed. It is easy to read a
>> design manual to get the design equations needed, it is a whole new story
>> to derive the equations yourself. Yes, there are probably some who have taught
>> themselves and do have the knowledge to take on such a project, but the NSPE
>> does not know that. They are a special case, the NSPE does not look at special
>> cases, they look at the general consensus. The NSPE uses these rules to
>> justify to the public whom they think is ready or not for the public domain.
>
---------------------------------------
>If you have all the education and background of engineering you need
>when you graduate, then why do you need experience or a test? I still
>don't understand why everyone thinks that any single piece of this is
>a "keystone" ... none of them are.
>
--------------------------------------
Do you have all the experience and background you need when you graduate?
To be perfectly honest, I did not. It has taken me a long time to get where I
am today (skill based). I have studied day in and day out, reading, writing,
analyzing, communicating with other engineers (far more experienced than I at
the time), and still I never stop learning. But in order for me to learn, I
must first understand. The understanding is what the intense E education
has given me. Honestly, when you graduated, did you know everything you needed
to know? If you did than you must be damn a genius. Look back at your
schooling, I assume by your posts you where an ET, how long was it before you
were ready for the PE, not just the test but for the **public responsibilty**.
From this, decide for yourself whether or not an ET is ready after 4 years,
not just the test, but the ability to market themselves to the public domain
as ethically sound Professional Engineers. You have a tendancy not to look at
the full picture, the whole ball park. Think about all disciplines, not just
electrical.
>> I suggest you start using some of your ethics. The public is what is at hand,
>> not your degree or PE. Being a Vice-President of a consultant firm does not in
>> anyway justify your competence as an engineer, so stop using that for an
>> answer. Your main concern is the public, so start justifying yourself thru
>> your work, and concrete examples of it. Only then will people(public and other
>> engineers) take you seriously. There are good engineers and great engineers;
>> good engineers do the work, great engineers better society for whom they work
>> for.
>
-------------------------------------------
>Well, you're right ... the test of my mettle are the (lack of) claims
>against our company, which testifies to our collective competence in
>our field. I don't know what you want for justification ... why don't
>you lead by example yourself.
-------------------------------------------
I do! Your no claims against is great. In my field, things are little
different. And here you start narrowing your decision making down to
electrical again. Please for the benefit of all engineers ( E and ET ) look at
the whole picture. I do not know what you design as an electrical engineer,
but let me ask you who you feel has the most dangerous(harmful to the public)
design job? Electrical, Mechanical, Civil, Structural, Environmental. The
answer is structural, and that my friend is exactly what I am. Everyday, I
design structures with one thing in mind, if this fails, how many people will
die? So I can't assume that this will work just because a computer or design
equation says it will. I have to understand first what is going on, and if I
did not have an E education, I would not be able to understand the theory
behind the analysis. The justification needed is for engineers to stand by
their work, even if in a court of law. I cannot justify my work by stating I
am a President, Director of Engineering Service, of an A/E/C firm, so
therefore I won't.
---------------------------------------------------------
>When you realize that generalizing that all engineers need the exact
>same education is as ludicrous as saying that all doctors, lawyers,
>teacher, etc... need the exact same education, then we'll be on to
>something.
>
--------------------------------------------------------
I have no idea what your trying to say here. All Structural Engineers have the
same education, its a BSCE. All Cardiologists have the same education, its a
MD, all DA's have the same education, its a Juris Doctorate. etc. All ETs have
the same education, its a BSCET. However, a BSCE and BSCET are not the same in
any way, and therefore they are not treated the same. Yes, they need the same
education, more in depth they need the same theoretical understanding of
physics, math, etc. MD don't get that, JD's don't, BSCET don't. That's what
makes them engineers, that is why there is competition in the world, because
they have the same education.
>Tell me why an ET shouldn't be allowed to sit for the PE and EIT
>exams? If they don't pass (due to incompetence) what's the worry?
>The fact is the pass rate for most ENGINEERS is about 50% ... exactly
>what are you scared of?
>
>Malcolm Lyle, PE
That 50% passing ratio should tell you something. What is the % passing of ETs
after 8 years? If you had that number, this would of been a great debate.
They can sit for the PE and EIT, they just have to wait. There competence will
show when they are ready, just like E grad's. Look at the whole picture. And
please do not defense yourself with challenges about putting credentials on
the table, you sound like an immature yuppie, completely out of line and
unprofessional for a VP of a consulting firm, this debate is not judging your
merit or skill, besides half of the PE's in this NG will make your resume seem
like a childs book and mine as well. There are far greater engineers out there
than you and I put together. They usually know what their talking about.
Thanks for the debate - it is a good one, unfortunately, we have no power over
it. So I am going to go back to work. I wish you all the best and please
remember that the NSPE is doing what is best for the public.
Take Care
¿who?
rpen...@pacbell.net (Robert H. Penoyer) wrote:
> s...@bottom-of-post.com (żwho?) wrote:
> >Do you or do you not agree that ETs should be allowed to sit for the
> >PE and EIT exams?
> Yes.
Well then ... discussion over.
I really don't have anything against you, Robert. I suppose you are a
joy to work with (sarchasm) ... but thankfully there's no one in our
office like you.
¿who?
"Don Phillips" <don.phi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
The problem is that the NSPE and NCEES lobby the state regulation
boards to prevent ETs from even sitting for the exams.
The intent (and title) of this thread was to educate ETs that their
rights (in the limited number of jurisdictions that still allow them
to sit for the exams) were being threatened.
Doug
Last I heard, the 4 year Engineering Technical
Programs here in CT were being phased.
Anyway, I have said this before, here in CT there
are several different classes of PE licenses:
Class 1, 2, 3, 4, ... In differing combinations
of work experience, exams, and differing degrees
from an accredited 4 year degree to an Associates
degree to no degree, one can become a PE.
I fail to understand the *actual* issue here.
Is this an issue of having a 4 year technical
degree from an unaccredited school AND trying
to get the equivalent of a Class 1 license?
That is already a no-go here in CT and has been
for quite some time. But, with the required
length of time on the job, one can still become
a PE. Just not a Class 1 PE.
Hell, you can be from another country with a
4 year engineering from a school that does not
follow the standard accreditation policy of the
US and still become a PE.
Where is it written that the NSPE is "taking
away your rights"? It's not an issue as far
as I can see here in CT.
*********************************************
Return Address: ROT13[no...@ubgznvy.pbz]
yankee
żwho? wrote:
>
> yankee <yan...@yankee.com> wrote:
>
> > żwho? wrote:
>
> > >
> > > I still don't understand why you don't think a Bachelor of Science
> > > degree is not formal training.
> > >
> > > Malcolm Lyle, PE
> >
>
> > but just not extensive.
>
> > But in general:
>
> > BSEE - (advanced math + Physics) = BSEET
>
> > BSEET - (Calculus) = Technician
>
> I believe the term is Technologist.
Maybe where you are, but here, it's a "Technician"
>
> A technician is an individual who goes to a technical school.
>
> I didn't study for 4 years, earn a BS ... to repair TVs and Computers.
> Which is also why I'm the Vice President of an engineering consulting
> firm.
>
So what, the President and VP of our Company aren't even engineers. What
is your point?
> > I've been there.
>
> > sincerely,
>
> > Yankee,
> > Certified Technician, BSEE, BS Physics, MSEE
>
> Malcolm Lyle, PE
yankee
> Tell me why an ET shouldn't be allowed to sit for the PE and EIT
> exams? If they don't pass (due to incompetence) what's the worry?
> The fact is the pass rate for most ENGINEERS is about 50% ... exactly
> what are you scared of?
I always wanted to be a lawyer. I think I'll sit for the Bar Exam. What
the hell , right?
¿who?
yankee <yan...@yankee.com> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't study for 4 years, earn a BS ... to repair TVs and Computers.
> > Which is also why I'm the Vice President of an engineering consulting
> > firm.
> >
> So what, the President and VP of our Company aren't even engineers. What
> is your point?
Showing your ignorance ...
An engineering firm, by law, must be held in ownership by licenced
engineers ... except when it is a publicly traded corporation.
¿who?
yankee
>
> Showing your ignorance ...
>
> An engineering firm, by law, must be held in ownership by licenced
> engineers ... except when it is a publicly traded corporation.
>
That's a load of crap Malcolm.
What the hell does that have to do with my comment?
This is not a consulting firm, nor do the President or VP "own" the
firm. And my firm is a Public Firm. Why don't you read before you
respond with your typical "knee (Malcolm) jerk" reaction.
Spanner
Hello Malcolm,
Since you are a P.E., maybe you could explain the attached for me. Don't
try sliding out of this one. I need proof that you are a P.E. If you are an
impostor, then say so.
Many thanks,
Spanner.
[stuff deleted]
First, a plausibility argument for the relativistic momentum formula,
p_j = gamma m v_j. Let's just assume that momentum is of the form
p_j = f(v) m v_j, and then we will see that f(v) must be gamma.
(Why do I assume that it is of that form? Well, intuitively, it
should be proportional to mass, since the momentum of two objects
of the same mass travelling at speed v should be the same as the
momentum of a single object of twice the mass travelling at speed
v. It should point in the same direction as the velocity, since
where else is it going to point? Finally, the scalar factor f(v)
is a function of the magnitude of v alone, since I don't know
anything else to do.)
So, look at two objects of masses m and M, (with m much, much
smaller than M), which collide with each other and then bounce
off. First, we look at conservation of momentum in a frame
in which M is travelling nonrelativistically, while m is
travelling relativistically, then we look at it in a
frame in which m is travelling nonrelativistically.
In Frame 1, initially m is travelling at speed v in the
x-direction, and at speed -u in the y-direction. M is
initially at rest. We will assume that u is very, very,
small compared with v, so the magnitude of the velocity
of m is approximately just v. Assuming that m is much,
much less than M, m should just bounce off M: afterwards,
the speed of m in the y-direction will be approximately
+u in the y-direction. Afterwards, M will be given a
tiny speed in the -y direction, which we will call U.
Since U is assumed to be very tiny, we can use the
nonrelativistic formula for the momentum of M afterwards:
momentum of M afterwards in the y-direction is -MU. The
momentum of m in the y-direction is -m u f(v) beforehand,
and +m u f(v) afterwards. Conservation of momentum in
the y-direction tells us:
-m u f(v) = +m u f(v) - MU
So, U = 2(m/M) u f(v)
Frame 2: Now, let's look at things from a frame that is moving
at speed v with respect to Frame 1. In this frame, it is m that
is travelling nonrelativistically, and M is travelling
relativistically. The speed of m in the x-direction in
frame 2 is 0. The speed of m in the y-direction in frame
2 is - gamma u. (Why? It is a yucky application of the
Lorentz transformations, which I'll post if you don't
take my word for it.) The speed of M in the x-direction
is -v. The speed of M in the y-direction is initially 0.
After the collision, m is travelling at speed + gamma u
in the y-direction. M is travelling at speed -U/gamma in
the y-direction (why? again, the Lorentz transformations)
and at speed -v in the x-direction. Since v is much greater
than U/gamma, the magnitude of M's speed is approximately
just v. Conservation of momentum in the y-direction gives:
- m gamma u = + m gamma u - M (U/gamma) f(v)
Since we already derived that U = 2(m/M) u f(v), we
get:
- m gamma u = + m gamma u - 2 M (m/M) u f(v)^2/gamma
which simplifies to:
f(v) = gamma
Therefore, the relativistic form for the momentum is
P_j = gamma m v_j
Once you know the relativistic formula for momentum, it is
easy to derive the relativistic formula for energy. First,
let's assume that an object is proportional to
its mass, and is a function of its speed. So, we assume that
E = m f(v).
Now, consider a collision of two wads of chewing gum of mass m
travelling in opposite directions at the same speed v.
After the collision, the two wads stick together to
get a bigger wad of gum of mass M that is at rest. Applying
conservation of energy gives:
2m f(v) = M f(0)
or
M = 2m f(v)/f(0)
Now, look at the same collision in a frame of reference in
which one of the two wads of gum is at rest. In this frame,
by the velocity transformation laws of relativity, the
speed of the other wad of gum is u = 2v/(1+v^2/c^2). The
momentum of the moving wad of gum is
p = gamma(u) m u
where gamma(u) = 1/square-root(1-u^2/c^2)
= (1+v^2/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2)
(this is obtained by substituting 2v/(1+v^2/c^2) for u).
So, the momentum before the collision is
p = (1+v^2/c^2)/(1-v^2/c^2) m (2v/(1+v^2/c^2))
= 2 m v/(1-v^2/c^2)
After the collision, the big wad of mass M is travelling
at speed v. So the momentum after the collision is
p = gamma(v) M v
= M v/square-root(1-v^2/c^2)
Equating the momentum before with the momentum after gives:
2 m v/(1-v^2/c^2) = M v/(square-root(1-v^2/c^2))
which simplifies to
M = 2 m/square-root(1-v^2/c^2)
f(v)/f(0) = 1/square-root(1-v^2/c^2)
This gives us the following formula for the energy (using
E(v) = m f(v))
E(v) = E(0)/square-root(1-v^2/c^2)
Now, to see the value of E(0), we expand this in a Taylor series
about v=0:
E(v) = E(0)(1 + 1/2 v^2/c^2 + ...)
The second term, 1/2 E(0) v^2/c^2, is the kinetic energy in
the limit as v gets much smaller than c. We know from Newtonian
mechanics that that is 1/2 m v^2. Therefore,
1/2 E(0) v^2/c^2 = 1/2 m v^2
E(0) = m c^2
So,
E(v) = m c^2/square-root(1-v^2/c^2)
Steve Alexanderson
Please reference this law.
--
Steve Alexanderson, P.E.
Newport Oregon
>
>Showing your ignorance ...
>
>An engineering firm, by law, must be held in ownership by licenced
>engineers ... except when it is a publicly traded corporation.
>
Don Phillips
> I always wanted to be a lawyer. I think I'll sit for the Bar Exam. What
> the hell , right?
And after that, if you are feeling cocky, sit for the medical license exam
as well :)
Don Phillips
> Since you are a P.E., maybe you could explain the attached for me. Don't
> try sliding out of this one. I need proof that you are a P.E. If you are
an
> impostor, then say so.
>
If ya want proof, ask for his license number and state and you can check
with that state's board.