Task Force Addresses Alternatives to Master’s or Equivalent
One of the charges to the NCEES Engineering Education Task Force (EETF) this year was to formulate and evaluate alternatives to be considered to add to the “master’s or equivalent” requirements provided in the Model Law beginning in 2020. As NSPE’s representative to the EETF, I can report that the task force has completed that task, and is in the process of preparing a report that will be considered by member licensing boards at zone meetings this spring and likely at the NCEES Annual Meeting in August 2010.
Two alternatives have been formulated and evaluated as follows:
Alternative 1: “B-Robust”—a potential fourth pathway to licensure in 2020 (in addition to a “B-ABET” plus a master’s in engineering, a “B-ABET” plus 30 additional credits, or an “M-ABET,” an accredited master’s degree in engineering). This would entail an accredited BS degree that consists of a minimum of 150 total credits, of which at least 115 credits are in math, science, and engineering, and of which at least 75 credits are in engineering. There are a small number of four-and-a-half- or five-year programs in the U.S. that currently meet, or very nearly meet, these requirements. The Penn State program in architectural engineering and the University of San Diego program in industrial and control systems engineering are two examples. This pathway would be deemed equivalent to a B-ABET plus 30 additional credits, if codified as part of the Model Law. Additional flexibility might be provided by allowing existing relatively high-credit programs to provide a defined certificate for additional engineering coursework beyond the ABET-accredited BS, to be reviewed and approved beforehand by NCEES, as an additional method of meeting the requirements.
EETF members in favor of this option cited this as a means to provide flexibility to engineering programs to meet the new requirements in a variety of ways, a means to recognize those programs that are currently at or near this level, and a way to comply with the 2020 requirements without the need to take coursework beyond the baccalaureate level. Those opposed to this option indicated that very few programs would take advantage of this flexibility due to the need to stretch the BS program to five years, that this is a prescriptive approach that limits program flexibility, and that this flexibility could be provided on a state-by-state basis as an equivalent for those few programs that are likely to be at this level in the future. The NCEES members of the EETF were split 5-5 on whether or not NCEES should consider modifying the Model Law to include this option.
Alternative 2: “BMEE” or “Bachelor’s Plus Mentored Education and Experience”—This alternative would entail a bachelor’s degree from an ABET-accredited program plus six years of progressive engineering experience, of which at least three years would be under a formal structured mentoring program of a licensed professional engineer, plus thirty days of continuing education over the six-year period. This is a concept at this point that would require further study to flesh out the details.
Those EETF members in favor of this alternative indicate that this will result in more focused training in the specific area of the engineer’s practice in some disciplines, be more appropriate for engineers in certain settings, such as in industry, and provide a solid start to necessary lifelong learning. Those opposed to this alternative indicate that this is limited training rather than foundational learning, which are two different things; that it is not an equivalent to additional engineering education; and that evaluation of mentoring programs would need to assure rigor and assessment of the mentored experience. The NCEES members of the EETF voted four in favor and seven against this concept. The decision as to whether to study this concept further will likely be made at the NCEES Annual Meeting in August.
Opinion
In my opinion, the pros and cons of the “B-Robust” concept have been properly characterized by the EETF. NCEES could validly choose to add this to the Model Law, or could instead rely on individual states to recognize the few programs that are likely to exist at this level. With respect to the “BMEE” concept of reliance upon mentored education and experience, this concept merits consideration, but it has a potential significant flaw. Licensure is about assuring a minimum level of competence in order to protect the public. Mentoring is critical to the professional competence of the vast majority of engineers. However, at the basest level of engineering practice, at the level of minimal competence, mentored experience may be little more than, and of little more value than, a signature on a piece of paper. A lot of work is required with this concept to ensure that it is appropriately rigorous in all circumstances and that PE boards can reasonably review and judge that rigor.