I'm preparing to take the PE exam next April. If anyone here has any advice on taking it/studying, recommended references etc I'd appreciate it. My biggest question is decided which afternoon 'depth' module to take. There's a choice from these 3: 1) power systems--definitely not my thing 2) electronics, controls, communications (ECC) 3) computer engineering The ECC module--covers a LOT of things that I've not used/seen in the 20+ years since graduating and taking the EIT. However, some of my stronger suits are in that area (op amp circuits, eg). The Computer engineering module may be my best shot--- as I've been doing real time embedded HW/firmware for many of those 20 years. However, the topics in this module also include several area I know precious little about (OS security, fault tolerance, Windows OS)-- but it seems to be missing areas that I feel are my stronger points as well. They claim that 35% of the Computer module is SW and I'm trying to imagine how you can make a multiple choice problem for SW. I am very comfortable with C, embedded uC but not too much with OO/C++. I realize the current PE exam is probably much different format from what most of you here may have taken, but I'm hoping the general advice will apply and hopefully someone has recently taken the new multiple choice format exams and can offer their $0.02 worth... I've purchased: Electrical Engineering Reference Manual for the Electrical and Computer PE Exam, Camara Six-Minute Solutions for Electrical and Computer PE Exam Problems, Camara Also, any feedback on HP33S calculator? This is the only programmable calculator now allowed during the PE exam. Is it worth buying a 2nd calculator to get the programmability? I already have one of the other allowable scientific calcs-- and Casio FX-115MS. Any advice on any /all of this greatly appreciated.... Regards, Bo
Requiest advice on PE exam
Started by ●November 16, 2005
Reply by ●November 16, 20052005-11-16
"I realize the current PE exam is probably much different format from what most of you here may have taken, ..." In 24 years of doing DSP at a number of different companies (perm, contract, consultant) I have met a total of 2 EE's that identified themselves as PEs. Group, Is my observation atypical? Dirk
Reply by ●November 16, 20052005-11-16
Reply by ●November 16, 20052005-11-16
dbell wrote:> "I realize the current PE exam is probably much different format from > what > most of you here may have taken, ..." > > In 24 years of doing DSP at a number of different companies (perm, > contract, consultant) I have met a total of 2 EE's that identified > themselves as PEs. > > Group, > > Is my observation atypical? > > Dirk >Where an engineer has a fiduciary responsibility to his client (i.e. he needs to sign off on something to say it won't endanger life and limb, and the only assurance the client has is his signature), and if this responsibility is recognized be the state he's probably required to have a PE if he wants to apply his signature as an "engineer". Most algorithm development doesn't fall into this class. Even if you were developing algorithms for medical applications you could still expect your client to do independent verification as part of their certification process. If your client _isn't_ going to do extensive testing and the algorithm _could_ kill people then you should (a) run like hell or (b) write the contract so you do the testing and get paid no matter how things work out -- then make sure the testing is solid and well documented. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●November 16, 20052005-11-16
Tim Wescott wrote:> dbell wrote: > >> "I realize the current PE exam is probably much different format from >> what >> most of you here may have taken, ..." >> >> In 24 years of doing DSP at a number of different companies (perm, >> contract, consultant) I have met a total of 2 EE's that identified >> themselves as PEs. >> >> Group, >> >> Is my observation atypical? >> >> Dirk >> > Where an engineer has a fiduciary responsibility to his client (i.e. he > needs to sign off on something to say it won't endanger life and limb, > and the only assurance the client has is his signature), and if this > responsibility is recognized be the state he's probably required to have > a PE if he wants to apply his signature as an "engineer". > > Most algorithm development doesn't fall into this class. Even if you > were developing algorithms for medical applications you could still > expect your client to do independent verification as part of their > certification process. If your client _isn't_ going to do extensive > testing and the algorithm _could_ kill people then you should (a) run > like hell or (b) write the contract so you do the testing and get paid > no matter how things work out -- then make sure the testing is solid and > well documented. >Does it even matter in these cases? A PE seal and signature is usually affixed to bridges, building systems, and buildings - and these things are not tested to make sure they work. They are expected to work as designed and built . And they should - the engineering and science behind these are "simple" and "static". I was urged to get a PE - I first went into mechanical and HVAC. I'm sure I would be dead or insane if I had not gotten the hell out of that stagnant and boring field. I never once regretted not getting the PE. Knowing a few misanthropic PEs did not help either.
Reply by ●November 16, 20052005-11-16
Bryan Hackney wrote:> Tim Wescott wrote: > >>dbell wrote: >> >> >>>"I realize the current PE exam is probably much different format from >>>what >>>most of you here may have taken, ..." >>> >>>In 24 years of doing DSP at a number of different companies (perm, >>>contract, consultant) I have met a total of 2 EE's that identified >>>themselves as PEs. >>> >>>Group, >>> >>>Is my observation atypical? >>> >>>Dirk >>> >> >>Where an engineer has a fiduciary responsibility to his client (i.e. he >>needs to sign off on something to say it won't endanger life and limb, >>and the only assurance the client has is his signature), and if this >>responsibility is recognized be the state he's probably required to have >>a PE if he wants to apply his signature as an "engineer". >> >>Most algorithm development doesn't fall into this class. Even if you >>were developing algorithms for medical applications you could still >>expect your client to do independent verification as part of their >>certification process. If your client _isn't_ going to do extensive >>testing and the algorithm _could_ kill people then you should (a) run >>like hell or (b) write the contract so you do the testing and get paid >>no matter how things work out -- then make sure the testing is solid and >>well documented. >> > > > Does it even matter in these cases? A PE seal and signature is usually > affixed to bridges, building systems, and buildings - and these things > are not tested to make sure they work. They are expected to work as > designed and built . And they should - the engineering and science > behind these are "simple" and "static". > > I was urged to get a PE - I first went into mechanical and HVAC. I'm > sure I would be dead or insane if I had not gotten the hell out of > that stagnant and boring field. I never once regretted not getting > the PE. Knowing a few misanthropic PEs did not help either. > >I'm a consultant (without a PE). I can see two reasons to get a PE (opinion backed up by consultants _with_ PE's). One: There are jobs that I cannot get without a PE. I do mostly control systems work, and while I have yet to have interest from an industrial customer if I did I'd have to work for (or at least with) a PE to get signoff. I would assume this would be an even bigger problem should I ever get interest from a government customer. Two: Should I ever get dragged into court without a PE plaintiff's attorney could claim that I'm doing engineering without a license and my attorney would have to defend that along with everything else. With a PE that distraction would be avoided. Neither of these are big issues, but I intend to work toward a PE one of these days, maybe. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●November 16, 20052005-11-16
Bo wrote:> I'm preparing to take the PE exam next April. If anyone here has any advice > on taking it/studying, recommended references etc I'd appreciate it. > > My biggest question is decided which afternoon 'depth' module to take. > There's a choice from these 3: > > 1) power systems--definitely not my thing > 2) electronics, controls, communications (ECC) > 3) computer engineering > > The ECC module--covers a LOT of things that I've not used/seen in the 20+ > years since graduating and taking the EIT. However, some of my stronger > suits are in that area (op amp circuits, eg). The Computer engineering > module may be my best shot--- as I've been doing real time embedded > HW/firmware for many of those 20 years. However, the topics in this module > also include several area I know precious little about (OS security, fault > tolerance, Windows OS)-- but it seems to be missing areas that I feel are my > stronger points as well. They claim that 35% of the Computer module is SW > and I'm trying to imagine how you can make a multiple choice problem for SW. > I am very comfortable with C, embedded uC but not too much with OO/C++. > > I realize the current PE exam is probably much different format from what > most of you here may have taken, but I'm hoping the general advice will > apply and hopefully someone has recently taken the new multiple choice > format exams and can offer their $0.02 worth... > > I've purchased: > > Electrical Engineering Reference Manual for the Electrical and Computer PE > Exam, Camara > Six-Minute Solutions for Electrical and Computer PE Exam Problems, Camara > > Also, any feedback on HP33S calculator? This is the only programmable > calculator now allowed during the PE exam. Is it worth buying a 2nd > calculator to get the programmability? I already have one of the other > allowable scientific calcs-- and Casio FX-115MS. > > > Any advice on any /all of this greatly appreciated.... > > Regards, > > BoMy suggestion would be to find a review class at one of the local colleges/universities. The classes are usually short (maybe twice a week for 2 or 3 weeks), and the instructors are usually knowledgable about the local exams. Maurice Givens P.E., Illinois
Reply by ●November 16, 20052005-11-16
Hello Tim,> One: There are jobs that I cannot get without a PE. I do mostly > control systems work, and while I have yet to have interest from an > industrial customer if I did I'd have to work for (or at least with) a > PE to get signoff. I would assume this would be an even bigger problem > should I ever get interest from a government customer. >Then there are the jobs you can really only do if you don't have a PE. In many states PEs must carry liability insurance. People with PE who want to work in med electronics will quickly find out a very unpleasant surprise: Most likely they won't find a single underwriter who will take them. The minute they check med on the app sheets they become pariahs. Yes, you can make sure the contract has the usual liability clauses. However, if the law says 'if you carry the stamp you've got to have insurance' you are legally out of the game. I don't know where all that stands right now but last time I checked this was roughly the scenario as I saw it.> Two: Should I ever get dragged into court without a PE plaintiff's > attorney could claim that I'm doing engineering without a license and my > attorney would have to defend that along with everything else. With a > PE that distraction would be avoided. >In CA that wouldn't fly since we have an industry exemption. In states that don't you might still be able to fight that as discrimination. The vast majority is non-PE and that represents a huge class.> Neither of these are big issues, but I intend to work toward a PE one of > these days, maybe. >Just MHO: The competence to determine whether someone has achieved sufficient knowledge to be an engineer is with universities and not with a bureaucracy. Then we have to ask ourselves, why do whole continents deliver excellent engineering without any license structure? For example, pretty much all of Europe. Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com
Reply by ●November 17, 20052005-11-17
In my experience, PEs seems to be much more common in civil engineering (and mechanical to some extent) than the EE, computer engineering, DSP, etc. -- Jon Harris SPAM blocker in place: Remove 99 (but leave 7) to reply "dbell" <dbell@niitek.com> wrote in message news:1132163332.720163.266950@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...> "I realize the current PE exam is probably much different format from > what > most of you here may have taken, ..." > > In 24 years of doing DSP at a number of different companies (perm, > contract, consultant) I have met a total of 2 EE's that identified > themselves as PEs. > > Group, > > Is my observation atypical? > > Dirk >
Reply by ●November 17, 20052005-11-17
