Here I go and stick my neck out. Just for interest, in Australia, to
become a Chartered Professioal Engineer, you must submit a
report on the type of work you have performed, the competencies
gained etc. a minimum 3 years after graduation.
This report is then reviewed to determine if you have met the
requirements set, then you have sit before a panel which questions
you regarding your report and assess you.(if you have been honest
in your report, you will be able to awnser the panels questions
easily, if you invented the content, this will be apparent)
If you pass...you a registered on a National register of Engineers.
Date sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 21:25:30 -0500
From: "Albert J. Meyer, Jr." <meyera(--nospam--at)bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Re: California SE exam
Send reply to: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> "Cain, William" wrote:
> > I would argue that a single test is an imperfect way to judge an engineers
> > capability. But, after participating in the process and reflecting on the
> > process, it at least acts as a gross filter to eliminate those that need
> > significantly more education and/or experience. Does passing the test
> > reflect competency? I think only in the most general way.
> Charles and Bill-
> Thank you for your coments. I really didn't expect anyone to say whether or not
> one engineer was more qualified or not based on the exam taken. I purposely
> asked the question to see what responses from the other side would be, since a
> short time ago I saw comments in a thread on the ppi2pass.com website (a site
> with a forum for prospective PE's) to the effect that many young graduate
> engineers seem to feel that passing a licensing exam is NO indication of
> competence. I even saw one post where someone indicated that passing an exam
> meant nothing, they had obtained a degree in engineering, and they didn't need
> to pass an exam to prove they were a competent engineer.