I am a Petroleum Engineering major set to graduate next spring. Is the FE exam worth it for me to take? If yes, is it worth it for me to pursue the PE exam?

Thanks

I just graduated with a pete degree and I took the FE exam. I read that the passing rate for petes is 61%.

I would take it. It can only help you and with the BP oil spill happening, I imagine that more and more PEs will have to supervise the going-ons of these operations.

And once you get the PE, there will be more job opportunities for you.

I passed it but I did know some PETEs that failed. Just get a book and study about 4-5 hours for the exam to know the format. Also, study the economics section because Dr. Lee and Dr. Seidel really didn't teach too much of the type of economics in the FE exam.

I basically went into the exam and passed it. It speaks a lot on the education at A&M if you pass it. I had a terrible GPA and passed the FE exam. Pretty much makes up for it.

If you are nervous about passing this, look over the videos the civil department put together. Google tamu engineering fe exam. Civil has a 90+ pass rate.

Taking it doesnt hurt you, not passing it would make me wonder how you made it through the college of engineering at A&M.

A&M has an extremely good pass rate, because we hit fundamental engineering pretty darn well before you are in upper level.

It is nothing hard, know your calculus, know your physics and realize that two answers per question have an order of magnitude which is implausible and the test gets really easy.

Yes, take it. I know 50% of Pete's usually don't take it but just do it. It will only help. I had three co-workers take it after graduating. I watched the videos and took a practice test. Also, get used to the cheap calculator you have to use. It's hard switching from a ti89 to a ti30 somthin. The mechanical department has formula books you can take to start getting the feel of flipping through and searching for formulas you need. That is where most of the time is wasted during the test.

I am not worried about not passing the exam, I am just wondering if it is actually worth it. I know it can't hurt, but is there a lot of upside to passing the exam, i.e. salary increase, better entrance job and greater expected upward movement in the company.

Caveat: I'm not a PETE, but I am a PE. This is solely my opinion, but when I counsel students, this is the advice I give them.

If you're going to work for somebody in an engineering position (as a real engineer, not one of those plant operations jobs), you won't "need" it as long as someone up the chain has it. There may be limits on promotion potential without a PE in some corporate management structures.

If you decide to move into other opportunities outside of corporate work, then yes, it will matter. You can't advertise engineering services unless you have a PE. Becoming partner in a consulting engineering firm (in my colleagues' experiences) would be very difficult, if not impossible, without it.

It won't hurt a thing to take the FE; you'll spend some time preparing for the exam and a Saturday taking the test. At the very least, enduring the test is as good a reason to celebrate, as any I had during my final year. It might help, depending on your ultimate career goals. But waiting to do it reduces your chance of passing considerably. Do it while the knowledge is fresh. All the knowledge you'll gain on the job will displace the theory you'll be expected to know for the FE.

Passing the PE (Principles and Practice) exam shows that you can exhibit minimal competence. Don't wait around on that one either. When I sat for the PE, there were several folks who waited until it was absolutely necessary for a promotion to take it. It was pretty painful to observe. I took the FE in '98 and the PE in '08, but I spent 5.5 years of that time in graduate school pursuing advanced engineering degrees, so I wasn't ever that far removed from the theory type material, since I was helping to teach it.

A friend of mine pointed out that everybody knows what an architect is and what they do because AIA has done a great job at policing the use of the title. NCEES doesn't really seem to take issue with placing the title of "x engineer" on plant operations personnel for instance. Do yourself, your engineering discipline, and the profession itself a favor and do it.

[This message has been edited by AgEng98 (edited 8/13/2011 12:25a).]

What AgEng 98 said (nice handle btw). I took FE in 92 and then went to grad school and worked and academic job. Took the PE in 04, and could not be happier about having it. I don't "need" it in my everyday work, but I will never let it lapse.

The PE is one of those things that when people need it, they tend to need it now and sometimes not have a large window of time to get it before an opportunity is gone. I got it when I didn't need it because in the back of my mind I thought I would throw my consulting shingle out at some point down the road when I was "older".

If you want to own your own company and/or consult someday it is a no-brainer to do it as soon as you can.

In honor of our AgEng guys on the thread I heard one of your collegues tell this one at a recent conference:

"How can you tell the difference between an ME and an AgEng by looking at their boots?"

"The AgEng guys will be the ones with the bullcrap on the OUTSIDE of their boots."

Black Gold

I am a registered PE (in PetE) and agree w the comments above;
a) get it, and
b) get it now (before your brain turns to management mush).
Although I do not use the PE everyday, it is there if I need it. In the "new oilfield", there is an expanding scope for PEs. With it, your field of vision is expanded.

On the days that I do not "need" it, I still look at the suffix behind my name and remember what it means - translating to a higher personal standard. This is not to say you cannot do this without being a PE, just that I hold myself to a higher standard. As stated above, even when I get more gray, I will continue to maintain my certification.

Go for it young Ag. Get out into the industry and make us proud.

98,

What does NCEES care about the use of the term engineer?

Also what does anybody care about what operations call themselves? Nothing wrong with that?

quote:

---

What does NCEES care about the use of the term engineer?

Also what does anybody care about what operations call themselves? Nothing wrong with that?

---

It's not NCEES. It's the TBPE. There are restricted uses of the term "engineer". The same way you can't represent yourself as an attorney or a doctor without a license, there are restrictions about who can/cannot represent themselves as an engineer without a license.

The whole health, safety, welfare of public thing...

By the way, the state of Texas prosecutes many people (and companies) annually for misrepresenting themselves (or their employees) as engineers. Like anything else, not everyone gets caught all the time, but if you do get caught, the penalties are stringent!

As you pointed out, NCEES doesn't have any authority to restrict the term engineer, as any registered engineer should know. Just like the restriction on the using the term engineer is only on people offering their services to the public, which typical plant folks are not doing. Hence worrying about whether a company calls some of their operations staff engineers is not of the public's concern either.

Let's put it another way... who would you rather have peforming surgery: a physician or a physician's assistant? Physician is in both titles, right?

My point is that NCEES doesn't care. And I find that to be a problem. As I stated earlier - everyone knows what an architect does. The distinction between formally trained engineers and those who are given the title based on position blurs every year.

And I'm certainly not bashing ops personnel. They're the folks who get things done. But when ops personnel call themselves engineers and don't have the training to support it, I see that as a problem, because the general public usually doesn't make the distinction between the two.

I personally direct ops personnel who support research efforts at my lab. They're sharp guys who work their tails off. Inevitably (probably once a month) a fellow researcher will pull them into a project where some design expertise they don't possess (or haven't been trained to deal with) is required. I give those situations a 40% success rate - and guess who gets to troubleshoot, redesign, and commission the final product? The engineer.

I see things like this happen outside the workplace too, and it's because of the job title. So yes it is in the public's interest to know what an engineer is and what it isn't. I worked for a short time in the timber industry - guy in the cubicle down the hall was a "Process Engineer"... with a business degree. He knew what the HMI should read, what buttons to push if the process wasn't tracking properly, and that was about it.

Of course I realize state boards restrict the term "engineer", and each does so according to its own choosing. But, NCEES is the organization which facilitates licensure, and serves as the public face of the licensing procedure. And I think they can do a better job at educating the public about the practice of engineering.

Let's put it another way... who would you rather have peforming surgery: a physician or a physician's assistant?

[This message has been edited by AgEng98 (edited 8/31/2011 7:53p).]

Once again, your physician example relates to a situation involving the public. Already covered under current law and being enforced. We can argue effectiveness of enforcement if you want.

The NCEES doesn't facilitate licensure in my opinion. All they do is administer a test and help with some record keeping. Is the states want to pay them to do some marketing for them, I'm okay with that, but that should be a state board function if needed.

The board determines whether your score and work experience satisfies if you can be called an engineer.

As another example, if you had a complaint about an engineer, do you report them to the state board or NCEES for discipline action?

Apologies for my scatterbrain-ness.... I'm using NCEES and NSPE interchangeably, and they're obviously different entities.

Enforcement is indeed the duty of licensing bodies, the state boards, but I think that an umbrella organization needs to do a better job at representing the profession and what it means to be an engineer. Microsoft went with "engineer" rather than "architect" when it named its certification program because AIA took issue.

I see folks regularly calling themselves engineers when they're not, because Company X named their position as such. That does affect the public, any way you slice it, espescially when it comes to confidence in the profession. To me, it cheapens the considerable effort expended to complete an ABET accredited education and eventual licensure. And if the B-ABET+30 licensure ever comes to fruition, the gap in effort and committment grows even more.

And if others differ in their opinion, that's fine. One man's concern is another's trivial annoyance.

Not sure what B-ABET +30 is, so I am unclear what to say there. But I am all for enforcing the current set of laws on the books.

How about instead of worrying about who does or doesn't call themselves engineers, NSPE promotes the general profession so more kids will want to be engineers. You know the good salary, rewarding career, respect in the community, etc, instead on having an increasing number of foreigners taking these jobs?