Engineers

[Chief_For_Life58]

Any enginerds on this board? any field.

[BullJunkandIron]

Control Systems Engineer - I have wrote and designed systems to control electric cars, wind turbines, gas turbines, petrochemical plants, oil and gas, gold mines, factories, space rockets. every pipeline systems known, jet aircraft, helicopters and I have only began. I could make a living going to interviews. Company's pay me anywhere between $2500 and $500 just to interview. Company's are always bringing me in to wine and dine me. And I'm just a dumbass. I have lived in alot of states and have property all the hell over everywhere. Missouri State University

[Chief_For_Life58]

^ballin

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Trivers

Strongly disagree.

Being a PE is a good thing...especially if you are in the consulting industry.

However....

Being a PE does not automatically make you a good engineer.

I know numerous PEs that I would not trust a high value project.

When working for McDonnell Douglas, Boeing, Martin Marietta, I knew many engineers who had forgotten more about aerospace engineering that I would ever know....and didn't have the PE.

I made no reference to whom was a good Engineer.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by Kaepernick

A PE (Professional Engineering license) means you can pass a test. It doesn't mean a lot.

I hear this from time to time and IMO this is just BS (at least for my discipline). So at least for structural engineers, I say this.

Perhaps I am biased because I have never struggled with tests, but if someone cannot pass the PE then they should not be sealing Documents. So from that stand point it means a hell of a lot.

Now I am not saying that every PE is a good one and that they are all worthy of sealing Documents. However, I would say that if an engineer cannot pass the structural PE then I do not want to go on the bridge or in the building that they designed/oversaw.

From my stand point, I would even go a bit further and say that I do not want structural engineers to just pass the 8 hour exam for Arch. Eng or Civils. I would prefer them to pass the 16 hour structural exam (which is only required for some states and for larger buildings/projects).

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by epitome1170

I hear this from time to time and IMO this is just BS (at least for my discipline). So at least for structural engineers, I say this.

Perhaps I am biased because I have never struggled with tests, but if someone cannot pass the PE then they should not be sealing Documents. So from that stand point it means a hell of a lot.

Now I am not saying that every PE is a good one and that they are all worthy of sealing Documents. However, I would say that if an engineer cannot pass the structural PE then I do not want to go on the bridge or in the building that they designed/oversaw.

From my stand point, I would even go a bit further and say that I do not want structural engineers to just pass the 8 hour exam for Arch. Eng or Civils. I would prefer them to pass the 16 hour structural exam (which is only required for some states and for larger buildings/projects).

Being a structural enigneer is on par with being a surgeon or crimnal defense trial lawyer. You need to be on top of your game at all times. And OMG get ready to get yelled at...especially when you close a major bridge.

[epitome1170]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

Being a structural enigneer is on par with being a surgeon or crimnal defense trial lawyer. You need to be on top of your game at all times. And OMG get ready to get yelled at...especially when you close a major bridge.

Thankfully, I do not deal with bridges (too boring for my tastes). That said our office did have to close down a reception hall the Thursday before a wedding reception was to take place.

So from a building side, we get more than our fair share of complaints from owners, contractors and architects. John Q. Public never thinks twice about buildings they go into daily though... buildings just stand and no one thinks twice about it.