PE Licensing

Very interesting.

I would be interested to see the breakdown of voting by discipline.  Further, I would like to see those who are current educators (not by name) identified.

AIChE, ASME, IEEE, and other disciplines have and will continue to hold this is a poor idea.  It is recognized in the NSPE that not all engineers are licensed and we hold we should seek for more licensure.  However, we cannot ignore that the reasons more Civils than any other discipline is licensed is that they do are exempted from the "industrial exemption."

Raising barriers that make it more difficult for those who essentially "voluntarily" become licensed does not meet our core goals.  It does not serve the public interest.  It does serve the selfish interest of those who place a premium on prestige.

Unfortunately, the NSPE is not a cross section of the engineering field.  The more it limits and separates itself, the less relevance it has to the profession as a whole.  

I will reserve my assessment of these votes until I can determine how various interests were represented.  However, based on gathering the data available, it appears more likely than not that the interests of those disciplines that do not have mandated licensure are far less represented.  

One of the arguments I have heard against using licensed engineers is that its simply a racket and an attempted monopoly.  Enforcement is spotty and rarely goes forward the findings are contested, particularly against non-licensed individuals who have engineering education by not a license.  

I have not seen any statistical studies indicating these proposed measures will enhance public safety.  I have not seen any statistical studies indicating this will bring more engineers voluntarily into the responsiblity of licensure.  I have seen studies indicating people act more responsibly when licensed (in a variety of fields) and where personal accountability is mandated.  This had been a principle reason for licensure in the first place. Bhopol and the Challenger occurred in disciplines and activities currently outside licensure requirements.  

The observed trends in these discussions indicate we have abandoned widening bringing practioners under the auspices of being licensed in favor of adding "prestige".  The trends indicate we are elevating "design" at the expense of those engineers who are in the field and using their education, experience, and judgement to make life and death decisions, which is the heart of "public safety."  The trends are, in short, we are more concerned about our license as a marketing tool than as our bond to the public we serve as professionals.

Prestige is not in my oath or my license. Protecting the public and acting professionally is.  

The following two comments respond to the comments dated August 27, 2009.

1. Make-up of NCEES - NCEES is comprised of representatives of PE Board members from each jurisdiction.  Some are academic, but the vast majority, perhaps 80% plus, are practitioners.  In terms of engineering discipline, specific information isn't available, but I would guess that PE Board members generally track the engineering disciplines of licensed professional engineers - roughly 2/3 civil or environmental, and 1/3 all other disciplines combined.  

2. The initiative to require additional engineering education as a prerequisite for licensure has its basis in the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) conclusion in "The Engineer of 2020" that the body of knowledge required for the practice of engineering no longer fits within the context of the conventional baccalaureate degree.  Since that was published, two engineering disciplines have prepared their "body of knowledge" for professional practice, and concluded the same thing.  This initiative has little or nothing to do with prestige, as its basis.

While I agree that having an advanced degree may allow an engineer to competently carry out design tasks of a higher level of difficulty, it has not to my knowledge been shown that the current minimum qualifications for licensure are inadequate, or that increasing the academic requirements for licensure will increase the public health, safety and welfare.  I recently reviewed the reports sent to me by my board over the past twenty five years and was unable to find a single report of an engineer being disciplined for professional incompetence.  Certainly, there were a number of unethical performances by unlicensed persons, a number of failures to properly record surveys and several cases where data were misused, etc., but I found no discipline for a licensed engineer being found to be incompetent and endangering the public as a result thereof.  The revised NCEES Model Law, as I have read it, has no requirement that would result in increasing specific competence of an engineer in an area where incompetence or inadequate capability has been identified.  The net result of the Model Law revision is that the time and cost for an engineer to become minimally qualified is increased significantly.  The student who has an undergraduate academic record sufficient to graduate and enter the engineering field, but not to enter graduate school, may find it impossible in his/her lifetime to earn a living, raise a family and still take on the additional post graduate work or continuing education equivalent to the masters degree to finally become minimally qualified for licensure.

It is my opinion that the revision to the Model Law is ill conceived and poorly thought out with no demonstrable benefit to the public.  If there is an inadequacy in the current level of competence of today's engineering graduates, the inadequacy should be first identified and a solution for the inadequacy determined. Then there could be a clear benefit to the public that could justify the added time and cost of becoming minimally qualified.

I recently reviewed all of the bulletins that have been sent to me by my California State Board over the past thirty years and was unable to find a single instance in which the Board charged a licensed engineer with incompetent practice of engineering.  While there were many instances of illegal activity, unlicensed practice, specified work that had not been performed, etc., I found no evidence that the state's licensed engineers were being identified as inadequately educated or trained in the practice of their profession.  When it is claimed that academic credit requirements for a Bachelor's degree have decreased from 160 in the 1920s to 120 today and that there is a downward trend from here into the future, credibility is totally lacking.  Academic programs that I have been associated with over the past 50 years have not only advanced in level and better related to current practices in industry, but they have attracted better prepared students and they use much more currently employed industrial technology than in the past and are better preparing graduates for their careers.  

I do not believe that it is possible to improve a program if there is not an identified deficiency.  Simply requiring an advanced degree of unspecified content has no potential for improving the level of competence in the practice of a profession, or the better protection of the public health and safety.  It is difficult to project academic requirements five years hence, and I believe that projecting requirements ten or more years hence displays an arrogance on the part of the projector that can not be supported by my  experience.

This is in response to the comments from Walter M. Maclean, D.Eng., P.E.

The initiative to require additional engineering education as a prerequisite for licensure in the future is based in part on the conclusion of the National Academy of Engineering that "it is evident that the exploding body of scientific and engineering knowledge cannot be accomodated within the context of the traditional four year baccalaureate degree.  

Two engineering disciplines have prepared their body of knowledge for the professional practice of engineering.  Both have concluded that the requisite body of knowledge does not fit within the traditional four year degree.  Those two body of knowledge reports advocate that additional outcomes which are not currently part of accreditation requirements be added, including the the assessment of risk and uncertainty, project management, sustainability, business and public administration, public policy and leadership.  Currently, these are not required outcomes.  

Many have commented that facilities aren't falling down; that there are no "bodies in the street", and therefore change is not necessary.  Contrary to the information presented above, past surveys of the source of complaints to licensure boards have indicated that complaints are filed for both technical and professional practice reasons, about equally.  But this isn't the point.  If the body of knowledge required for professional practice cannot be attained within the traditional four year degree, now is the time to act.  

This discussion should be about the requisite body of knowledge, not about a search for demonstrated damages that cannot be linked to education levels anyway.  

I am familiar with the civil engineering development for a "Body of Knowledge", which preceded the NCEES efforts.  Having been a proponent of continuing education, I am also very familiar with the competition between civils and architects, with architects touting the 5 year program as a point to try to exclude civils from designing buildings in some states.  Also, the official NCEES briefing at a statewide engineer event (in Louisiana, the briefers were from Ga Tech) made it very clear "prestige" and "adding value to the perception of a PE registration" were drivers in the process.  It was their briefing, and their words.  

Two disciplines touted "more education", but other disciplines state this is not a good idea.  There is a flaw in this.  Perhaps if a given discipline needs more education, they can require it for that discipline or have additional certification within that field.

We have two major issues why the new model is fundementally broken for the entire field of engineers, and to push it forward would only hurt the ONLY important thing: public safety.

Assumption: Registration is good for public safety.  Being a PE is not a matter of prestige, its a matter of protecting the public.  This assumption is critical to my points.  The other assumption is that all states require Civils to be registered regardless of employ, but not so othe disciplines. (The alleged industrial exemption, which is an unethical dodge.)

1.  Time. Nevada and other states are considering letting engineers sit for their PE upon graduation because of a lack of time to prepare.  This has been in PE Magazine.  So think this through -- if working engineers do not have the time to study material they have already mastered, how are they going to have the time to take essentially a master's degree?  Therefore, raising the bar will push MORE engineers away from registration.  Civil engineers (who are also pushing the new model and have conflicts with architects) will *have* to jump whatever hoops, and their employers will have to accomodate this.  Other places with other disciplines will NOT, so it will be that much harder for other disciplines to get licensed.

2.  2nd Order effects of the Industrial Exemption.  Most non-civil engineers not only work in jobs not requiring them to have a PE, they do not have a PE supervisor.  This creates a situation where they can't even apply if they wanted to.  

These two factors will act together to push more and more engineers away from registration, with the exception of civil (and structural) as they are mandated, therefore the business model will accomdate the changes.

Reduce the number of PEs in industry and you increase the number of engineers that are NOT legally bound to put pubic safety first.  If one views the PE law in any way, shape, or form to be about "public safety" and not "prestige" or "marketing power", then barriers to having engineers in the field being registered hurts the public.  The Challenger had Boisjoilie come out saying we need more PE.  We just have the Gulf Spill.  Do we need a Bhopol in the US before we put priorities in the right place?

Engineers are at the switch as it is.  We should be doing more to help engineers get licensed, not make it more difficult.   Further, I have sat through the various briefings by educators...they are cutting more and more hours from the programs due to political reasons.  They are also having less and less PE's (other than Civil) teaching. If the kids are coming out not knowing enough, not thinking critically, and not communicating well, why would a few more semesters of a bad process improve things?

Registration is about public safety.  Period.  Registration doesn't m

This is bad news for the engineering community, and it makes you wonder who is on the board and why they voted the way that they did. My guess is the civil engineers and university professors voted out the electricals and mechanicals, but maybe somebody could correct me as I do not know the details. As a recent graduate of an ABET certified engineering program, I do not feel that the inclusion of 30 credits in advanced topics will help me in my small MEP buisiness. Then again they have not specified what is acceptable or the required certification of the program. Not all engineers need or actually pursue advanced studies in engineering, but may wish to branch off into MBA programs, mathematics, management etc to advance in their careers or for self interest or higher pay. With the board telling us what we have to study in graduate work is just not right. graduate work is solely a choice, that almost never is required to be proficient in your career, but allows you the opportunity to learn advanced topics or obtain opportunities in a company. Our country already has a shortage in engineers, do these people actually think that the students of 2020 would be more reluctant to enter a field that requires a graduate degree to practice? Let the employers determine the education requirements that they would like to see, not the board. You simply cannot 'blanket' the engineering profession as a whole and simply state that all practices require advanced topics to be proficient because in reality we all have very different requirements in our practices.