Hi i am a recent graduate in EE and i have seen very few jobs that ask for this, but i have seen it. First of all, what exactly is it? Is it just a test that you take, sorta like the GRE but is used by employers to test your general knowledge of engineering? Do you think it is worth the investment to take the EIT or do you think EIT is overrated?? Any comments would be appreciated.

 

I have my EIT and when I was almost ready to graduate, my school offered the training and testing for this so it was very convenient for most of us to just take it. The primary reason that someone might wish to get this certification is so they can ultimately get PE licensed. For PE licensing, one must have completed the fundamentals of engineering exam (i.e. EIT).

I plan to do so in a few years. As for job applications, I have never seen this as a requirement and I'm a little surprised that you have. I don't thik EIT is overrated, it is rarely ever heard about or even known about in many cases so it's not overrated.

If it is convenient for you to take the fundamentals exam then you might as well unless you already know that you will never have a desire for PE.

 

Thanks

 

If you plan to sell your service as an engineer or an employee of an engineering firm you might find a PE license to be of some benefit or possibly mandatory. The EIT is one step toward the PE license. Having the EIT credential is more of a statement that you intend to get your PE - and it is some measure of your abilities.

I worked for years inside large industrial corporations as an engineer. Now and then a PE was required to work on things like emissions permits or licenses but otherwise there was no requirement for engineers to be licensed. In this situation the management may see the PE as just one more credential - or they may ignore it.

Sometimes the public and government authorities have a look inside the corporate engineering offices while investigating violations or other similar things. They'll often exclaim that there are few 'qualified' engineers on staff even though there are a hundred well educated and experienced engineers. In their eyes an engineer is not 'qualified' without the PE. The management of the corporation does not agree that the PE is a qualifier. Usually in these situations the engineering tasks are complex and unique where education, training and proven track record are better indicators of abilities.

My personal situation - my IQ, personality, education, training, job experience and hobbies all contribute to my skills and knowledge base. My preparation for the EIT an PE exams was limited to understanding the exam format and of course, filling out the forms and driving to the test site. The resulting scores were on the high end. I cannot claim to know any more or be able to do anything better as a result of having my PE. Most of the skills set that I had to apply in taking the tests were fairly basic but fairly broad. I'd argue that it would take an engineering graduate a good solid 5 to 10 years on the job where engineering is most of the job, to really have a strong, basic and broad skills set nailed down. Some, but very few, come out of school this way. If your daily tasks as an engineer aren't really so much engineering then it would seem that some work on the side is necessary. In the end I think the qualifications demonstrated by achieving the PE level suggest that you'll be likely to understand the situations as well as understand your capabilities so you don't tackle something where you lack skill or expertise.

Like any credential, it seems that more credentials are better than less. It doesn't hurt to have them and may hurt to be without. If you feel that your career for the next 5 to 10 years will be engineering I'd suggest that you work at the qualifications, skills and knowledge that are most important to the job(s) that you have. If the kind of job that you want requires a PE then by all means you ought to focus on that. You might find that with some modest effort, beyond that required for the job, that you can get your PE. Obviously if your career path demands it then put all the effort you can muster into getting there. As with other things in life you need to balance cost with benefit. I'd argue that in this case, if the cost is relatively low then just do it. It may open some doors for you later in life. In my own case the cost was low, I have it and it allows me some flexibility. If I did not have the PE it would not have limited me however the lack of it might have limited me had I chosen a different career path.

Pardon the babble but I wanted to give you some stuff to think about.

__________________
stevez

 

Where do you live? In Wisconsin, where I used to live, I never heard anyone say anything about being a PE. Now I live in Montana, where it's required (or EIT with dreams of PE) nearly everywhere to be considered for any engineering postion. Apparently it varies from state to state.

j.

 

Take a look here:

http://www.ncees.org/

It might give you a start but let me warn you that it's likely to be biased toward PEs. NSPE is likely to be the same way.

In New York State almost anything done for the public has to be approved by a licensed professional. Approval means thorough and intense review, not rubber stamp. I've noticed that even the most rural towns and least strict metropolitan areas will not issue permits without seeing the stamp and signature. That is driven by lawsuits and insurance companies who pay out big $$ for claims because of non-compliance.

As an example, a mechanical contractor was working on some apartment buildings south of Buffalo. Nothing new to him - basically a bunch of furnaces and air conditioners with some ductwork. He's as competent as they get in terms of his trade. Local authorities refused to issue permits - because they were told by the state to be more attentive. They told the contractor that the design had to be approved by a PE - which means the PE has to design it. In this case it was a good thing. Neither the building officials nor the contractor noticed the UL rating on the floor/ceiling assemblies. In defense of both - the building officials don't get the training and are understaffed. The contractor can't know everything. The installation required all sorts of fire dampers and firestopping. When the officials reviewed the job it caused considerable worry - not on the job at hand but for the jobs that had gone thru recently that needed the fire protection but no one knew it.

It's important to note that this kind of work is only a small part of what engineers do. The PE part doesn't make anyone better or smarter. In this case it simply meant that the engineering step could not be skipped or cut short. The PE has a license to protect and insurance company to satisfy so the PE is more careful. Unfortunately the lack of a license does keep some otherwise well qualified people out of that process - and there are those with licenses that ought not to have them just as with any other profession.

Inside of industry the employer assumes responsibility however when interfacing with the public the govt agencies require licensed professionals.
When I worked for a mega corporation there was a time when many engineering groups were encouraged to have engineers get their PEs. That faded with the downturn in economy.

It's slow here today - TGIF.

__________________
stevez

 

hmm very interesting...
personally, I have never encountered it as a requirement but then again, I've never looked in Montana.

 

I've always felt that to be a good electronics engineer, you have to learn how to be a good electronics technician so that you design things that are repairable if need be. Of course in this day and age, that's pretty much a moot point. The more complex it is (e.g., cellular phone) the less likely it is that it'll be a repairable vs. replaceable item.

My thought comes from years on the tech bench and working on equipment that was designed by engineers (primarily mechanical) who didn't have a clue that what was put together at the factory would eventually have to be disassembled by a technician for repair and/or calibration/adjustment. My idea was that all engineers should have to spend at least a year on the technicians benchs to get an idea of what NOT to do!

Dean

__________________
Dean Huster, Electronics Curmudgeon
Contributing Editor emeritus, "Q & A", of the former "Poptronics" magazine (formerly "Popular Electronics" and "Electronics Now" magazines).

R.I.P.

 

Dean:
I second you sentiment. I too have spent many years in the trenches having to work around some engineeres half hearted pipe dream. It is easy to put something on paper, but not so easy to make it into reality.
All engineeres should have to spend the first few years building the products their counterparts design so they see just how "the other half lives"
Dialtone

 

In Wisconsin I was an "Engineer", now I'm a "Designer" in Montana because I don't have a PE. I think Michigan and Washington State are similar.

j.

 

I am a future engineering student and my dad, who is a machinist, is always telling me about the "half hearted pipe dreams" that he has to work around.

 

I dont get this.. you are an engineer if you have the degree. You may not be a professional engineer unless you have the PE license. So Montana puts on a label of "designer"? This doesnt make any sense. One is not necessarily a designer! The PE licensing does not nullify the fact that on e is an engineer, it merely states you are recognized by that state as professional. But if you are not professional, it doesnt change the fact t hat you have an engineering degree and are an engineer!

Montana is bogus IMHO.

 

Don't confuse an Engineer (capital E) with "one who does engineering." So, what if someone doesn't have a degree in an engineering field, but is employed doing engineering designs? Are they an engineer or not? Is it the degree or the occupation that makes an engineer?

Tell everyone you know.

j.

 

In Texas (and several other states) if you wish to offer engineering services you must have a PE (if you are the owner for instance) or have a PE supervise all of the work.

 

I think that's becoming the same the world over, you have people who can do the work doing it!, then a more highly paid person with a piece of paper, who can't do the work, initialing it!.

I've nothing against degrees and qualifications, but there's an awful lot of people out there with qualifications who don't have a clue how to do the job!. Obviously, there's also a lot with qualifications who CAN do the job, but often there's very little distinction drawn between the two.

__________________
PIC programmer software, and PIC Tutorials at:
http://www.winpicprog.co.uk