National Society of Professional Engineers
September 2010 - Posts - PE Licensing

September 2010 - Posts

The 80% Myth in the Engineering Profession

There are two axioms that are often cited regarding the engineering profession. One is that only about 20% of those who graduate with a B.S. in engineering in the U.S. go on to become licensed professional engineers. This one is true. The second, and a corollary to the first, is that 80% of engineering graduates work in industry. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In round numbers (all the numbers in this piece are very “round numbers”—don’t pick apart the numbers, think about the concepts), there are roughly 450,000 licensed professional engineers in the United States. The data aren’t precise, and the estimate varies a little from year to year, but this is in the ballpark. The American Society for Engineering Education indicates that about 74,000 baccalaureate degrees in engineering and computer science were issued in the United States in 2009. If one assumes a career length of 30 years and a constant number of graduates (neither of which are necessarily true, but these are round numbers), that would yield an estimated 2.2 million graduate engineers between licensure age and retirement in the U.S. Dividing the number of PEs by the estimated number of graduate engineers of working age in the U.S. yields a ratio of about 0.20, or 20%. Thus, the 20% axiom is approximately true.

Here’s the deal, though, with the other 80%. They don’t all work in industry; it isn’t even close. Of the 80%, consider the following:
1.    Those who fail the FE exam: About 50,000 engineering students take the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam each year, and the pass rate is typically in the low 80s as a percentage. This means that 8,000-10,000 examinees per year fail the FE exam (about 12% of total engineering graduates). Some retake the FE exam; many don’t. Do you think that the engineers who fail the FE exam flock to industry? Some probably do wind up working in industry. But the percentage likely isn’t high.
2.    Those who fail the PE exam: About 26,000 engineer interns take the PE exam every year, and the pass rate is typically in the low 60s as a percentage. Many who fail the PE exam retake it, but pass rates decline with each subsequent re-examination. This is another 8,000-9,000 examinees per year who fail the PE exam, some of whom subsequently pass upon re-examination. Do you think that engineers who fail the PE exam flock to industry? Probably not a high percentage. The vast majority of those who take the PE exam aren’t working in industry in the first place.
3.    Engineers in government: The number of graduate engineers who work in federal, state, county, or local government and are not required to be licensed is significant.
4.    Graduate engineers who go into other fields: The number of graduate engineers who go into management consulting, business, teaching, and any manner of other technical and nontechnical fields is very significant. The B.S. in engineering is a common starting point for many different careers other than engineering.
5.    Graduate engineers who don’t work: Many graduate engineers take long mid-career or permanent breaks from work to raise families, and for other reasons. At an ABET meeting a few years ago, a professor rose to say the following: “We don’t talk about this often, but I’ve been wondering whether the engineering profession is sufficiently ‘user-friendly’ for female engineers. I have been teaching for a long time, and of all the female engineering students I’ve taught in the past, there are more not working at this moment than are working.” This is a topic for another day, but it is not an insignificant issue. The engineering profession is not user-friendly for women or men with young families. It takes dedication and a whole lot of flexibility by all involved to make it work well in this regard.
6.    Graduate engineers who are underemployed or unemployed: This can be for a variety of job-skill-related reasons, or health or personal reasons. This category isn’t insignificant either.

I don’t have enough data to fill in the numbers above, but I would guesstimate that the combined total of the six categories above is greater than the number of graduate engineers working in industry under the industrial exemption. Without question, 80% of graduate engineers DO NOT work in industry.

Read Part II of this post.

NCEES Considers New Pathways to Licensure

At the 2010 Annual Meeting of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, NCEES leaders continued discussions regarding the details of the engineering educational requirements in the Model Law as of 2020.

In 2006, NCEES modified its Model Law to require, as of 2020, a B.S. in engineering from an EAC/ABET-accredited program plus a master’s degree in engineering from an institution that offers EAC/ABET programs. Two alternates had previously been approved by NCEES: a B.S. in engineering from an EAC/ABET-accredited program plus 30 additional credits from approved providers in broadly defined topic areas; or a master’s in engineering from an EAC/ABET-accredited graduate program. These are Model Law provisions as of 2020, and would take effect only upon adoption by individual jurisdictions.

In 2010, attendees of the NCEES Annual Meeting considered two additional alternate pathways:

1.    A comprehensive baccalaureate program consisting of at least 150 semester credits, of which at least 115 credits are in engineering, science, and mathematics, and of which at least 75 credits are in engineering topics. A handful of programs in the U.S., notably in architectural engineering, currently meet these requirements. This alternative was referred, by a narrow vote, to the NCEES Unified Procedures and Legislative Guidelines Committee for drafting of Model Law language to be considered at the 2011 NCEES Annual Meeting.

2.    An alternative pathway consisting of six years of engineering experience coupled with structured, mentored experience, and at least 30 days of rigorous continuing education (more rigorous than typical PDH offerings). This alternative had been developed by representatives of ASME, and was supported in NCEES task force deliberations by representatives of ASHRAE, ACEC, and AIChE. By a wide margin, the NCEES Council voted to continue to study this alternative. The concepts will be further developed and studied by NCEES committees over the next several years. As characterized by one NCEES speaker, this alternative “needs work.” “Structured, mentored experience” needs to be defined, from both practical and regulatory standpoints. And “rigorous continuing education” needs to be defined as to what it is and who may provide it. Decisions need to eventually be made as to whether this alternative is appropriate for consideration in the Model Law, or whether, instead, it might be considered on a state-by-state basis, as has historically been the case with alternate pathways to licensure.

The year 2020 is still ten years away. A number of jurisdictions are now beginning to discuss statute changes to consider adopting the Model Law 2020 provisions for engineering licensure in the future. This beat goes on.