Open the NSPE Home Page in a New Browser Window  |  Navigate to the NSPE Home Page (No New Browser Window)
Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts - PE Licensing

Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

This is the fourth 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.

How will the implementation of a “master’s or equivalent” pre-requisite for licensure impact the profession of engineering?

It is often asked whether the increased educational requirement will result in a shortage of engineers and licensed professional engineers. The additional requirements could discourage some students from entering engineering programs. This is a possibility in the short term, but in the long term it is believed the dynamics of supply and demand will cause adjustments in students’ career choices. This has occurred for other professions that have increased educational requirements. If there is a short-term decrease in the number of students entering engineering programs, the resultant shortage would likely cause more people to consider engineering. It is also anticipated that compensation for engineers would have to be adjusted long term to account for the increased cost and effort to become licensed.

Increasing the requirements to become licensed may result in a decrease in the number of licensed engineers compared to people with an engineering degree who do not become licensed. This could be true in situations where engineers are not required to be licensed but may choose to be licensed (e.g., under an industrial exemption and for engineers working directly for a licensed engineer). While these people may choose to get licensed for a variety of reasons under the current requirements, they may not when the educational requirements increase. In situations where the engineer in responsible charge is required to be licensed, there may be more situations where engineers who are not licensed work under the direction of a licensed engineer. This latter situation could affect the ability of licensed engineers to maintain “responsible charge” of a project.

Engineering is generally considered a well-regarded profession. While it is difficult to predict, many people believe that increased education requirements will raise the perceived stature of the profession of engineering and maintain it as one of the “learned professions.” It is possible an increased stature of licensed professional engineers will help counterbalance the more challenging requirements to become licensed (i.e., students considering engineering may be more likely to choose engineering due to a perceived higher stature).

The movement to require additional education for licensure in the U.S. is based on the anticipated need for engineers to have the necessary breadth and depth of education to meet the challenges a professional engineer will face in the future. It is intended to ensure that engineers are well equipped to perform their jobs well and be better engineers. By requiring additional education for licensure, the public can continue to rely on engineers to protect and improve the public health, safety, and welfare.


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.; and Robert Stanley, P.E.

Published Monday, February 08, 2010 4:38 PM by Craig Musselman, P.E., F.NSPE

Comments

# re: Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

The master's or equivalent requirement for a PE license, in my view, will have an over-all positive effect on our profession.

The extra cost and time will certainly present challenges; however, opportunities are usually available for post-graduate studies while employed as an Engineering Intern or EIT. The increased education requirements and recognition thereof, similar to the other "learned professions", will enhance the professional status of engineering, making it more attractive as a career option for young people.

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 4:40 PM by Michael L Shirley, PE, F.NSPE

# re: Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

I continue be dead set against the Masters or equivalent requirement, even though I am a currently licensed Professional Engineer and also working on my masters degree right now.

A masters degree costs around $40,000 in tuition alone. Little financial aid or scholarship money is available for graduate coursework. This is a huge sum of money to pay for additional education, especially for someone under the age of 30, and people are unlikely to enroll in the program for the sole purpose of getting a licensed.

Less than 1% of my coworkers hold engineering licenses. Will this percentage drop if my state requires a masters degree? Yes, it will drop considerably because many who have chosen to seek licensure have decided not to get a masters degree.

This effort to increase the education requirements is nothing more than a veiled attempt to allow licensed engineers to bill more per hour than they currently do. It shouldn't surprise anyone that the NSPE, comprised primarily of consulting engineers, is fully behind a proposal that allow their members to charge more for their services.

Saturday, February 13, 2010 7:04 PM by Anonymous

# re: Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

One thing to consider in the move towards licensure is the liability insurance.

If the only brass ring available is the golden ring of PE your liability insurance wont be 20,000 USD/year anymore.

My brother-in-law is a general practice MD with a hole in the wall private practice serving mostly elderly medicaid patients and his annual lilability is 95,000/year. (sure he makes 175/year but 95 of it is right out the door again)

Do you want to make 125000 as an Engineering manager non PE or strike it out on your own make 150+ and shell out 20+ in liability insh.

Some people are great engineers and also great "worker bees" and like the stability of of a large company and are willing to deal with all the hassles an quirks that come along with that. One of the things that is included in non-PE status MFG. employment is the legal protection afforded them by their parent comany.

Perhaps thats why the divide is so great between degreed engineers and licensed PE's

I have lived in 2 east coast states wherin I finally have enought engineering experience to qualify as a NON-Abet accred. grad + experience to take the EIT and PE exams. In another post I stated I could NEVER pass the test.

If I took a 6 month course in how to pass it I would likely pass as I have made it through extremely rigurous curriculum before.

But, I love manufacturing and can "ENGINEER" to my hearts content.  Perhaps the great divide is not really there?

Some engineers always know they want to strike it out on their own and work Civil as a PE and some just want to build widjets all day?

Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:34 AM by Richard Masi CET

# re: Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

One need not merely theorize as to the market situation after a potential "Master's degree or Equivalent"-requirement. What you are trying to create here is a North American "DI, Diplom Ingenjör" or Nordic Diploma Engineer system. Well much like in the U.S. and Canada one can be certified or licensed to work throughout the EU as a "European Engineer". There has been no rush to register (much as the case to date in Canada and the US) despite the fact that the requirements for the EuroEngineer registration were established at less than a Master's or "Diplom" degree, presumably to unite differing practises in Europe, but also to ensure more demand by mobile engineers in Europe.

The bottom line is that even in a system that normally requires legitimate engineers to have at least a Master's degree (Finland, Sweden and most Nordic countries) those who have just taken their Bachelor's are not lining up for what should be an attractive alternative through Eurolicensing.

What this proposed US system also fails to take into consideration is that talented people with other degrees might want to horizontally expand their existing non-Engineering degrees into multimajor degrees suitable for Engineering (something which labour market and educational planners have always had a hard time understanding and preparing for).

The system already exists for those taking Law degrees. Why on earth should talented multi-majors be forced to get a whole new Master's degree simply to move their talents over to a new field after they already have proven their academic and analytical maturity through one higher degree? The NSPE should have addressed THIS particular scenario over ten years ago.

The bottom line is that many countries in the West (and even elsewhere) are wasting money on "jump-through-the-hoops" programmes which do not necessarily mean that graduates will have up-to-date or relevant knowledge needed by real employers in real-life situations. A higher degree is no guarantee of practical skills or Engineering talent. Labour market experience and good results may be.

Thursday, April 01, 2010 7:28 PM by Gunnar K. A. Njalsson

# re: Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

I see one of the big arguments for the Master's requirement is that it will benefit the engineer financially.   I would hope that we could focus the discussion on whether a Master's Degree creates better engineers;  because I am not so sure that the two are necessarily synonymous.  

My perception is that the Master's level topics do not affect the way I design on a daily basis.  The first thing I was taught when I started work was to simplify my calculations as much as possible.  There is a place for a complex approach, but more often, I think we need to learn the practical approach. I have seen some engineer's with Master's that do not understand the practical approach, and cannot put a set of plans together that work in the field.  That being said, I have seen Bachelor's level engineers like this as well!  

You may have guessed that I am an engineer with only a BS in engineering ( And so biased in my views).  

Also, I am in the structural engineering field.  Perhaps there is a more profound benefit in some fields over others?

Thursday, April 15, 2010 4:37 PM by Andy Richardson

# re: Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

I have been a PE for nearly 15 years. The reason why I chose to be a PE was that I wanted to practice engineering. In my field the only reason why a Masters/PhD is necessary is to do research or teach. A Post Graduate degree in no way necessary to act as a licensed engineer. There is nothing to prove that an Ms makes a better all around engineer. I think there will be no benefit.

Friday, December 03, 2010 9:56 AM by Hammad Malik

# re: Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

I have always been opposed to making the Masters degree the minimum requirement.  I haven't heard a single argument why this would be a benefit.  If there is a concern re: qualified BS candidates, then make the test harder.  If someone can pass the test, has a BS and required experience, they should be able to be a PE.

Friday, January 07, 2011 6:50 PM by Bob Kuhn

# re: Master’s or Equivalent: Professional Impacts

I believe a masters degree can be beneficial. But what really stands out are the low standards that exist today in the manufacturing engineering industry. In no way should a major custom-manufacturing for such as the Oil industry produce critical equipment for the oil field and yet not have a PE sign on those products. Talk about hazards including electrical shocks, explosions, and the like. How about projects that happen in an Oil refinery, or even power plants with so called re-modeling or updating projects that put people's lives on the line. It is not about education only, it should be mainly about industry standards, where every equipment that could kill a human being if done wrong, should be signed by a PE. Again, this is all about improving safety, then if they want to raise the bar for a PE's education, they should also raise the bar for industry standards and safety regulations to make the PE's education and experience more practical and applicable or shall I say billable. Many industrial disasters and major accidents go un-noticed just because less than three or four people get killed.

Saturday, July 30, 2011 3:17 PM by Moe Karrit PE

Leave a Comment

(required) 
(required) 
(optional)
(required)