Master’s or Equivalent: Regulatory Impacts
This is the second in a series of four articles prepared by a subcommittee of the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee examining the various impacts of the additional engineering education initiative. This summary was drafted by Paul D. Schmidt, P.E. Comments are welcome.
What will it take to enact additional educational requirements as a prerequisite for professional licensure and what will it mean to professional engineers who are currently licensed and to those who choose to get licensed in the future?
Enacting additional education requirements is seen as the major challenge of the Master’s or Equivalent initiative. Because licensure is regulated by the states and territories, changing existing laws to add additional education requirements will require legislative changes in each state and jurisdiction. In many cases, this will require efforts by multiple engineering interests, such as the state licensing board, the state Society of Professional Engineers, the state organization of the American Council of Engineering Companies and multiple engineering societies representing different disciplines. This is a significant challenge due to the controversial nature of this issue, but this is how change happens in the engineering profession.
Several aspects regarding the enactment of additional education requirements are critical and are a concern with respect to the regulatory effects on professional engineers.
Maintaining uniformity between the states and jurisdictions is critical to provide consistency between the different licensing bodies and to maintain the portability of licensure across state lines. The NCEES Model Law provides a uniform guideline to follow. However, few states, if any, have enacted the Model Law language verbatim to date, and it is likely few, if any, are likely to do so in the future. As legislation works its way through legislative bodies, it will be important that the critical aspects described herein be maintained to ensure uniformity.
There are several potential effects on current and soon-to-be licensed engineers, depending on how the provisions are adopted. Enactment of the current NCEES Model Law would grandfather all engineers currently licensed in that state, or duly licensed in another state, but complying with the requirements in that state. Such a grandfathering provision is important to existing professionals. If any state did not incorporate such provisions, mobility for existing professional engineers would be significantly compromised.
As new requirements are enacted, those engineers not yet licensed will need to meet the additional requirements. There is concern this will decrease the number of engineers applying for licensure, particularly in the short term. This, however, has not occurred in other professions that have raised their educational standards.
The timing of implementation is important. The current Model Law provides for the new education requirements in the initial adopting states to become effective in 2020, but they can be enacted in any state well before that date, so that potential professional engineers can plan accordingly. After 2020, newly licensed engineers will need to decide whether to pursue additional education, even if their home state has not yet adopted the requirements, in order to maintain their licensure mobility in the future.
The current Model Law after 2020 provides for two definitions of “Model Law Engineer.” A Model Law Engineer meeting current educational requirements will receive expedited comity licensure in those states that have not yet adopted the additional education requirements. A Model Law Engineer 2020 will receive expedited comity in all states. These provisions will work to maintain licensure mobility throughout the U.S., if adopted as proposed.
NSPE state societies need to work effectively with their state legislatures to ensure that the appropriate grandfathering and Model Law Engineer 2020 provisions are adopted in each jurisdiction.
NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, Master’s or Equivalent Subcommittee: Paul Schmidt, P.E.; Michael Gunsch, P.E.; Mark Davy, P.E.; Jon Nelson, P.E.; Bernard Berson, P.E.; Paul Taormina, P.E.; Robert Stanley, P.E.
