<p>I know this is probably more so in civil than other fields, but I’m wondering if this is the ultimate goal of engineers to reach PE status. Let’s say as a civil engineering major, are my chances of career advancement and salary raises limited if I don’t ever become licensed?</p>
<p>How common is it for engineers to fail the PE exam repeatedly and end up never passing it? In previous threads, I’ve read that the exams (especially for civil) are difficult with passing rates between 30-40%.</p>
<p>
Only a minority of engineers, perhaps 20%, will ultimately get a PE license. See [this</a> thread](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=330071]this”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=330071) for more info on who needs one and who doesn’t.</p>
<p>Some engineers become PEs, even if they don’t need the license professionally, purely as a matter of personal pride. In California, for example, you aren’t legally an “electrical engineer” or “mechanical engineer” until you become a PE, even if you have valid BS or MS degrees in these fields. It’s like law: you aren’t an “attorney” until you’ve passed the Bar, even if you have a valid JD degree. </p>
<p>
In civil and related fields, the answer is typically yes. You would generally expect a senior-level civil engineer to be a PE, just as you would expect a lawyer to have passed the Bar exam, or an accountant to have passed the CPA exam. You might be able to get by without a PE license if you had terrific managerial or sales skills, but it would be a conspicuous absence. You would not, by law, be able to take technical responsibility for any projects that you managed.</p>
<p>
Nationally, most people who take the Civil PE exam pass it on the first try. According to NCEES, the October 2006 [pass</a> rate](<a href=“http://www.ncees.org/exams/pass_rates/index.php#pe_pass_rate]pass”>http://www.ncees.org/exams/pass_rates/index.php#pe_pass_rate) for first-time examinees was 64%. </p>
<p>The pass rate for the repeat takers (who are, by definition, low performers on the exam) is always much lower; it was only 30% in October 2006. NCEES didn’t publish the overall pass rate, but it should be somewhere in between, depending on the ratio of first-time to repeat takers.</p>
<p>Some people do take the PE exam repeatedly. However, NCEES recommends limiting the number of attempts that you are allowed, and some states have already imposed such limits. Other states currently have no restrictions.</p>
<p>Some states, notably California, are believed to have unusually low pass rates. The problem with California is that they require two supplemental Civil PE exams (on seismic and surveying issues) that are not used in other states. So civil PE candidates in California typically have to prepare for three exams, not just one. It’s reasonable to suppose that this hurts their performance.</p>
<p>Just to make sure, you believe 20% of Civils become licensed…</p>
<p>His post says 20% of engineers, not just civil engineers.</p>
<p>Can you get your PE without a degree? Can you get a job like this? </p>
<p>PE no degree vs Degree no PE. What’s better? </p>
<p>i have a feeling these questions are pointless but i’m just wondering.</p>
<p>The National Society of Professional Engineers [url=<a href=“http://www.nspe.org/lc1-cottingham.asp]estimates[/url”>http://www.nspe.org/lc1-cottingham.asp]estimates[/url</a>] that “about 20% of all engineers in the United States are licensed.” In civil (including subdisciplines like structural, geotechnical, traffic, etc.), the percentage of engineers that will get PEs would be much higher than 20%. In other disciplines, the percentage of engineers that will get PEs would be lower than 20%. </p>
<p>In some states, it is possible to get a PE license with a degree in science or engineering technology, or even without any college degree at all. This is not a common route to the PE, but it does happen occasionally; you would typically need much more work experience than if you had an ABET engineering degree. Other states strictly require ABET degrees for PE licensure.</p>
<p>A PE with no degree might well be more employable than someone with a degree but no PE (assuming that you were in a state where it was possible to obtain a PE with no degree). The FE exam is commonly considered to require a BS-level understanding of engineering issues (in fact, some engineering schools require the FE as an exit exam), and the PE exam is commonly considered to require a MS-level understanding.</p>
<p>
That’s the operative word. Yeah, I bet “licensed” includes things that are not PE. Like someone who has passed the FE.</p>
<p>It’s definitely my goal to become a PE. You get that cool stamp.</p>
<p>
No, the term “licensed engineer” specifically means a PE. In California, this is spelled out explicitly in state law (Section 6732 of the [Professional</a> Engineer’s Act](<a href=“http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/pe_act.pdf]Professional”>http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels/pe_act.pdf), to be exact). </p>
<p>The 20% figure seems reasonable to me. I don’t have nationwide statistics, but I do have statewide figures for California (courtesy of the CA Post-Secondary Education Commission and the CA Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors). For 2005, the numbers of engineering credentials issued in California were as follows:</p>
<p>BS degrees: 7,241
MS degrees: 4,696
PhD degrees: 896
PE licenses: 1,830</p>
<p>To keep the results as broadly applicable as possible, I only counted passing results on NCEES (national) PE exams. I excluded some supplemental PE exams that are only offered in California.</p>
<p>So in California in 2005, new PEs were minted at a rate that was approximately 25% of the total new engineer production rate, as measured by new BS degrees. The PE was less popular than the MS, but more popular than the PhD.</p>
<p>Damn. Learn something new every day. That just seems so monstrous. I mean, Civil alone would probably have an 80% PE rate! I mean, how many CPE/EEs get could possibly get a PE.</p>
<p>
Sounds about right. We can compare BS production vs. PE production for the largest engineering disciplines, using the 2005 California data described above.</p>
<p>Civil BS degrees: 1,693 (includes EnvE and ArchE)
Civil PE licenses: 1,412
Ratio: 83 %</p>
<p>Mechanical BS degrees: 2,178
Mechanical PE licenses: 208
Ratio: 10 %</p>
<p>Electrical BS degrees: 5,726 (includes CompE)
Electrical PE licenses: 163
Ratio: 3 %</p>
<p>Chemical BS degrees: 541
Chemical PE licenses: 33
Ratio: 6%</p>
<p>In California, the PE results are probably more skewed towards Civil PEs than in other states, because of the peculiarities of California engineering law. In most states, all PEs have the same legal authority, regardless of the specific PE exam that they pass. In California, on the other hand, the electrical, mechanical, and civil PEs have more legal authority than PEs in other disciplines; civil PEs have the broadest authority of all. So there is an incentive to become licensed as a civil PE in California, even if your academic background is in another discipline.</p>
<p>Why doesn’t the BS degrees add up to the figure you presented earlier (not that it matters, just curious)?</p>
<p>*PE no degree vs Degree no PE. What’s better? *</p>
<p>A PE with no degree might well be more employable than someone with a degree but no PE (assuming that you were in a state where it was possible to obtain a PE with no degree). The FE exam is commonly considered to require a BS-level understanding of engineering issues (in fact, some engineering schools require the FE as an exit exam), and the PE exam is commonly considered to require a MS-level understanding.</p>
<p>PE with no degree rarely happens because to sit for the PE exam, you have to have a certain number of years of work experience in that field. It is very very difficult to get a position in any company without a bachelors degree in engineering. So while a PE with no degree may be better, you can’t expect to be able to take this route.</p>
<p>Yeah…I hate to say it but getting license is the ultimate goal for the engineering major. You are kind of a failure if you could not get it done. It’s like going through medical school but the ultimate test is to get State certify.</p>
<p>So, that lead to my other thought…it doesn’t matter if you went to Columbia, Penn or Pacific dental school, the end result is the same as long as you got that license.</p>
<p>
I agree. The (relatively few) people who do get the PE without an engineering degree are often qualified in some other related technical field (e.g. architects, scientists, engineering technologists/technicians, surveyors, engineering geologists). Such people sometimes find a technical position based on their primary, non-engineering qualifications, then find themselves working with engineers. In a few cases, they will accumulate enough on-the-job engineering work experience and knowledge to pick up the PE as a supplemental credential. </p>
<p>The non-degreed PE route is fine, if the PE is a supplement to other professional credentials. It’s not a practical approach, if the PE will be your only professional credential.</p>
<p>
Because…I messed up. When I queried the CA PSEC database for the degree numbers for specific engineering disciplines, I mistakenly asked for the numbers for all degrees (BS, MS, PhD), not just BS degrees. So let’s try it again. Data are for California in 2005.</p>
<p>Civil BS degrees: 939 (includes EnvE and ArchE)
Civil PE licenses: 1,412
Ratio: 150 %</p>
<p>Mechanical BS degrees: 1,392
Mechanical PE licenses: 208
Ratio: 15 %</p>
<p>Electrical BS degrees: 3,274 (includes CompE)
Electrical PE licenses: 163
Ratio: 5 %</p>
<p>Chemical BS degrees: 324
Chemical PE licenses: 33
Ratio: 10%</p>
<p>So in 2005, the California Engineering Board was actually cranking out Civil PEs at a faster rate than California universities were cranking out Civil BS degrees. This discrepancy probably reflects several factors, including:</p>
<p>(1) The people getting Civil PEs today got their degrees several years ago, when Civil was a more popular major;</p>
<p>(2) California imports people who got civil engineering degrees in other states or other countries, then pursue licensure in California;</p>
<p>(3) Engineers from other disciplines pursue the Civil PE in California, because under California law, Civil PEs have the broadest legal authority.</p>
<p>In any case, the pattern is still clear: Civils commonly pursue the PE, but engineers in other disciplines usually do not. </p>
<p>The BS numbers still fall short of the total that I posted originally, because I did not tabulate engineers in smaller disciplines (petroleum, nuclear, aerospace, industrial, etc).</p>
<p>McCash: If getting licensed is “the ultimate goal for the engineering major”, the vast majority of the engineering students I studied and graduated with (not to mention faculty I studied under) sure are good at keeping that a secret! So are all the non-licensed professional engineers I work with! It is interesting that when I was sitting for the EIT exams my senior undergraduate year, one of our faculty members was taking the test as well, as a first step in getting his PE license. Interesting for two reasons: he was about 45 years old, had worked for several years in various corporations, got his PhD, and became a tenured faculty memeber, all without getting a PE- apparently getting the PE became at some point just a thing he wanted to do. The second reason is that he is the ONLY faculty member I ever talked to who even gave it a second thought.</p>
<p>EE here with no intention of ever being licensed.</p>
<p>Well doesn’t the first PE exam give you EIT (engineer in training) and upon completing x number of years in business (I think its 4 in New York) you are eligible to take the p.e. exam.
My eldest brother has a PE in EE (he is currently living abroad) And remember him studying about 6 hours a day for a year to pass.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The vast majority of today’s engineering students will never become PE licensed, simply because the vast majority of them pursue engineering disciplines in which PE status is simply not required. For example, as can be seen by Corbett’s figures, only a tiny percentage of EE’s become licensed, and yet EE is by far the most populous of all of the engineering disciplines - with, I believe, more EE degrees conferred in the US than all other engineering degrees combined. Many current engineering students are pursuing the ‘new-economy’ engineering degrees such as bio/bio-med engineering or materials science for which state certification isn’t even available today and perhaps never will be. Incidentally, many of the top bioengineering and materials science programs - such as the ones at Berkeley- aren’t even ABET-accredited. </p>
<p>The truth is, the vast majority of engineers will never need PE status, simply because the vast majority of them will work for firms that design/manufacture consumer goods, for which PE status is unnecessary. You don’t need to be a PE to design an Ipod or Iphone. Nor do you need it to manufacture a Wii, an Xbox, or a PS3. You don’t even need it to design cars or airplanes. You only need PE status to perform a constrained set of activities, i.e. state-regulated construction design work or offering engineering services to the public. </p>
<p>To be sure, obtaining PE status can boost your resume and can therefore be valuable just for that purpose alone. But I would hardly say that getting licensed is the “ultimate goal for the engineering major”.</p>