PE Licensing

Licensing Structural Engineers: Oklahoma Proposes Novel Approach

The Oklahoma State Board of Licensure for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors has proposed a novel approach to recognize the advanced qualifications of structural engineers who have passed the 16-hour structural engineering examination. The proposal and its rationale are presented in detail on pages 2 and 3 of the December 2010 issue of the board’s bulletin.

This proposal would allow an engineer to use the “P.E., S.E.” designation in Oklahoma if he or she has passed: the PE exam and the previous structural II exam; or the previous structural I and II examinations; or the new 16-hour structural examination, and is otherwise qualified to be licensed in Oklahoma.

The board stresses that this does not have any practice limitations—engineers still must practice within their area of competence. And it has no title implications. This is a variation on the theme advocated in earlier blog items here regarding PE board roster designations. This does the same thing, only better, and it allows more visibility for the structural engineers’ advanced qualifications. Perhaps PE boards in generic-licensure states should do both—indicate structural qualifications on their online roster, and allow engineers who have passed the 16-hour examination to use “P.E., S.E.”

What Oklahoma is doing is fully consistent with NSPE’s policy regarding generic licensure of professional engineers as PEs. This is a fine solution for a state that has historically had generic licensure; this isn’t discipline-specific licensure.

Now, if only NSPE, the National Council of Structural Engineering Associations, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and ASCE’s Structural Engineering Institute could start advocating this together in states with generic licensure. It’s time that these professional societies begin working together instead of butting heads on a state-by-state basis. This is a solution that can work.

To learn more about this topic, sign up for NSPE’s March 31 Web seminar.

Editorial input was provided by Bernard F. Berson, P.E., F. NSPE.

Industrial Exemptions: A Proposed NSPE Policy

The NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee has proposed that the NSPE Board of Directors and House of Delegates consider adopting a new policy regarding industrial exemptions. The rationale for proposing the policy is as follows:

“In the forty years prior to the 1960s, 41 states adopted exemptions from engineering licensure requirements for manufacturing businesses or utilities, or both. NSPE’s policies and positions since that time have generally recognized the existence of these exemptions in many states. The American public at that time had faith that product liability and safety laws would protect the public health and safety. In the decades since, there have been numerous publicized examples of business decisions made with unacceptable public health and safety implications. Product liability laws may provide compensation, but only after the damage is done. Licensure of engineers in industry provides an added measure of assurance to the public that public health, safety, and welfare considerations are paramount as business decisions are made.”

The proposed policy is as follows:

It is the policy of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) that all engineers who are in responsible charge of the practice of engineering as defined in the NCEES Model Law and Rules in a manner that potentially impacts the public health, safety, and welfare should be required by all state statutes to be licensed professional engineers. NSPE recommends the phasing out of existing industrial exemptions in state licensing laws.

This is a watershed moment for NSPE as it considers modifying policies and subsequently position statements that for more than 40 years have recognized the existence of industrial exemptions in many states. But it is only the first step in what would be a long process of consideration by NSPE state societies as to whether and when to begin initiatives to change state engineering statutes with legislatures. That process needs to begin somewhere and sometime, if it is to begin, and this step is its beginning.

Editorial input was provided by Bernard R. Berson, P.E., F.NSPE.

The 80% Myth in the Engineering Profession – Part II

An earlier article addressed the often claimed myth in the engineering profession that 80% of engineering graduates work as engineers in industry. That article didn’t present any data, just a compelling hypothesis that engineering graduates go into many lines of work.

Now, here is some more specific information. Two reports published in 2004 for the National Science Foundation by Abt Associates of Cambridge, MA, entitled, “The Education and Employment of Engineering Graduates” and “Engineers in the United States: An Overview of the Profession” present interesting data on the engineering profession gathered in 1999. It may be somewhat dated as it hasn’t been updated since then, but the trends are likely consistent over time, and the report does provide outstanding insight into the engineering profession. Presented below are one figure and one table from that report.

Engineering Graduates and Engineering Occupations: 1999

SOURCE: National Science Foundation/Division of Science Resources Statistics, SESTAT(Scientists and Engineers Statistical Data System), 1999.

Larger View (PDF)

The figure shows that there are an estimated 1.3 million engineering graduates in the U.S. working as engineers, and that there are an estimated 1.0 million engineering graduates in the U.S. working in some occupation other than engineering. Put another way, of working engineering graduates, 43% of them work in an occupation other than engineering. I would not have thought that the number would be that high. The percentage of engineering graduates who become licensed professional engineers is about 20%. Of the other 80%, this data indicates that more than half of the others work in occupations other than engineering. This begs the question, “what do these people do?”

The table above provides estimates of what these engineering graduates who are employed other than as engineers do. They do all sorts of things. About 25% of them are senior managers, at many different levels of management. The list of other occupations is long. A close look at the table above reveals that those who report “non-engineering occupations” may be in related fields, as those reported to be involved in senior management, sales and marketing, administration, finance, and personnel may well have begun careers in engineering, but morphed into other related roles as careers progressed. Others may have focused their careers on computer sciences and programming, construction, and engineering technology rather than on engineering.

The analytical education provided by a baccalaureate degree in engineering is a jumping off point for many occupations.

Editorial input provided by Bernard R. Berson, P.E., F.NSPE and L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE.