Open the NSPE Home Page in a New Browser Window  |  Navigate to the NSPE Home Page (No New Browser Window)
A Win-Win-Win for Texas Engineers - PE Licensing

A Win-Win-Win for Texas Engineers

Take this for what it is, the opinion of one person who is not from Texas, and for what little it may be worth because of that.

Texas engineers are currently discussing an initiative of structural engineers in Texas to establish discipline-specific licensure for structural engineers. Texas has historically licensed engineers only as professional engineers. PEs in Texas, as in most states, are obligated to use their professional judgment to ensure that they practice only within their area of expertise. The structural engineers in Texas propose to change that by establishing an SE license for structural engineers. This proposal is controversial among engineers in Texas, with some in favor and some against such a change. Establishing a formal discipline-specific license would require a change in the Texas engineering statute through the legislature.

NSPE’s long-standing policy has been to advocate that engineers be licensed as professional engineers. The NSPE policy is clear and simple, as follows: NSPE endorses and supports the concept of licensure of engineers only as a "professional engineer" and opposes licensure status by designated branches or specialties. (NSPE Position Statement No. 1737—Licensure and Qualifications for Practice).

A recent article in PE magazine describes the nature of this issue. In 2010, structural engineering organizations are making overtures to establish discipline specific licensure in eight states, including Texas.

There is another alternative that merits careful consideration by all parties in Texas. The Texas Board of Professional Engineers maintains an excellent online roster where the primary discipline or disciplines of each licensed engineer is/are listed adjacent to their name. An engineer who has education and experience as a structural engineer is listed as “STR” on that roster. The TBPE could change its policy on assigning those disciplines going forward to only indicate “STR” for those engineers who have education and experience in structural engineering AND have passed either the Structural I and II exams in the past, or the new 16-hour structural engineering exam in the future. Simple. No statute change required. Engineers licensed prior to the date of the change could be listed as STR*, unless they had passed the Structural I and II exams.

This is a simple and elegant solution to what is otherwise a controversial issue. And it is a win-win-win.

It is a “win” for TBPE because it provides a way for structural engineers to demonstrate advanced qualifications by passing the rigorous two-day structural engineering exams. And the board can do so without a statute change, and probably without a rules change. Simple.

It is a “win” for Texas structural engineers because this simple change accomplishes the same objectives as would the establishment of a new “Title Act” in Texas. Structural engineers could point out to clients and among themselves the clear indication of advanced qualifications presented online.

And it is a “win” for the Texas Society of Professional Engineers because this alternative accomplishes everyone’s objectives in a manner that is fully consistent with NSPE’s policy, and with the views of most or all professional engineers.

This is a “win-win-win.” Simple. Easy to do. And, consistent with everyone’s objectives. Since this is the personal opinion of someone who is not from Texas, take it for what little it may be worth. But this concept merits consideration by all parties.

Published Monday, August 30, 2010 10:56 AM by Craig Musselman, P.E., F.NSPE

Comments

# re: A Win-Win-Win for Texas Engineers

Interesting.  It is better than requiring a test.  Any practicing engineer knows many in the profession who can do great on tests and not "design their way out of a paper bag".  I have had employees who are excellent in the academic environment but have no practical skills.  I have seen this first hand over my 40 years in practice. As long as the public feels that you can test your way into competence, they will get what they deserve.  That extends past the engineering profession right into our school system.  Maybe we will learn some time!

Thursday, September 30, 2010 7:52 AM by Paul Beck

# re: A Win-Win-Win for Texas Engineers

Specialized licensing is the wrong direction to go, except in locations that require specialized seismic experience such as California.  As stated, we as professional engineers already are required to stamp only the area in which we have technical competence.

So why the extra license?

All this does is give the states the opportunity to charge more $.  Will you have to maintain and pay for your P.E. license and your S.E. license?

As an engineer with a multi-disciplined engineering consulting firm that does work in various states, I am already frustrated by the cost of maintaining P.E. licenses in every state we do projects.  We have to pay for licenses for a structural, mechanical and electrical P.E., plus the cost to register with the Secretary of State as a business, and often to register as a professional organization with the licensing board.  That's five licenses for possibly one project in a state.  The worst is Tennessee that requires you to pay an additional professional privelege tax of $200 per year for the privelege of doing work in their fair state!

NSPE would serve P.E.'s better by going for a national P.E. registration, than having each state do it.  Also, why can't we have one P.E. stamp a project for all disciplines in a given state, and allow the the other P.E.s to stamp with their resident state?  Instead of 3 stamps we could get by with 1.

Thursday, September 30, 2010 10:57 AM by Conrad Ettmayer, P.E.

# re: A Win-Win-Win for Texas Engineers

I see valid points on each side of this issue, but frankly both sides are just being protectionist.  NSPE doesn't want the license of their membership to become less valuable and the variousl structural engineers feel the extra requirements of a 16 hour test versus 8 for other disciplines warrants an advanced qualification.  I think the fact that someone can obtain the same P.E. license in construction management (is this really an engineering discipline?) that s structural engineer has to take a 2-day exam for is a little frustrating to many, including myself.

Monday, October 04, 2010 1:03 PM by Adam Johnson

# re: A Win-Win-Win for Texas Engineers

One additional comment I have is that the 'ethics' argument does not really hold any water for me.  The problem with ethics rules and honor codes is that in the end, you will be relying on some un-ethical and dishonest people to behave ethically and it's these people, not the ethical ones, who create the problems.

Monday, October 04, 2010 1:06 PM by Adam Johnson

Leave a Comment

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