PE Licensing

FE and PE Examinations Set the Bar High

The Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) and the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) examinations provide a higher bar than many in the public, and in the engineering profession, might think. Based on the data and estimation procedures below, it is estimated that some 30–40% of civil engineering exam takers, and a similar percentage of electrical engineering exam takers, are unable to pass one of the two examinations.

A recent paper (Musselman, Nelson, and Phillips) shows pass rates (available from the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) for the FE exam for a five-year period, as presented below.

Average NCEES FE Exam Pass Rates, 2005 through April 2010

For civil and environmental engineers, who comprise about two-thirds of licensed engineers, the failure rate on average was 26% and 21%, respectively. Some of those who fail re-take the FE exam, although pass rates decline with subsequent attempts.

Next, take a look at the pass rates for the October 2010 PE exams below.

Pass Rates for the October 2010 PE Exam Administration

The pass rate in October 2010 for civil engineers was 62%, and the pass rate for environmental engineers was 77%.

The data in the tables above are from NCEES.  The estimates provided below were made by the author using that data, and do not reflect any official position of NCEES.  

The net effect of the two examinations for environmental engineers is that 21% are failing the FE exam, and 23% of first-time takers fail the PE exam, a total of 44%. If one assumes that three-quarters of those who fail the exam take it again, and with an assumed pass rate for multi-time takers of 48%, then the overall pass rate for environmental engineers might be estimated to be about 80%.

The situation for civil engineers is not quite as positive. The pass rate on the PE exam for first time takers was 62%, in October, 2010. A 26% failure rate on the FE exam, combined with a 38% failure rate on the PE exam yields 64% of civil engineers who fail one of the two exams upon taking it for the first time (less those who fail each exam on their first attempt). If three-quarters of those who fail repeat the exam twice if necessary, and if the pass rate on both FE and PE exams for multiple-time takers is 27%, as reported for the October 2010 PE exam administration, the net pass rate on the two exams for civil exam takers is on the order of 60%. The pass rate for the April, 2011 administration of the PE exam for civil engineers was reported to be better – 69% for first time takers and 40% for repeat takers.  Using these pass rates, and the estimation procedure outlined above, the net pass rate on the two exams for civil engineering exam takers would be estimated to be about 70%.  Can it be that about 30–40% of the civil engineering exam takers in the U.S. are unable to pass both the FE and PE exams? That appears to be the case.

I don’t mean at all to pick on civil engineering. By the same estimation procedure using the October, 2010 PE exam data, electrical engineering has about a 66% overall pass rate, which is in the same ballpark. It should also be noted that some civil engineering exam takers are not graduates of EAC ABET engineering programs, but rather may be educated in technology programs, other engineering disciplines or other fields of study, if and as approved for the exam by individual state boards. This is a small, but not insignificant, percentage.

I would caution anyone from drawing conclusions from the varying pass rates in different engineering disciplines. Each is a different examination, assessing a different body of knowledge. The different bodies of knowledge assessed yield different cut scores. In some disciplines, like civil and environmental engineering, most graduates take the examinations, while in other disciplines, it is a smaller subset of all graduates. This can make a significant difference in the pool of exam takers. The FE examination is now used commonly for outcomes assessment. As such, there may be a difference in preparation for the FE examination among those who need to pass for eventual licensure purposes and those who are making a good faith effort, but only for outcomes assessment purposes.

The FE and PE exams set a higher bar than many people, including those in the engineering profession, might think.

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

NSPE Has a Higher Purpose

A number of years ago, NSPE reinvented itself, as most organizations do periodically, and adopted a new set of mission, vision, and goal statements. At that time, based on the specific verbiage of NSPE’s goals, my thought was that NSPE had “turned inward,” focusing on cooperation with state societies and service to individual PEs. NSPE’s historic public health, safety, and welfare advocacy role on behalf of the engineering profession and within American society seemed to me to be absent from NSPE’s goals. It’s present in the vision statement (“licensure advocacy”), and it’s the first of the listed “values” of NSPE (“protection of the public welfare above all other considerations”), but it isn’t present in the goals of NSPE.

NSPE’s goals, specifically, are as follows:
Goals
   1. Foster Chapter-State-National partnerships to seamlessly deliver a core level of service to every member.
   2. Deliver value to our members that enhances their competence and ability to practice as a Professional Engineer.
   3. Increase membership to serve and represent the collective interests of all licensed Professional Engineers and Engineer Interns.

In recent years, the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee has proposed a number of position statements and policies for NSPE consideration. One of these initiatives involves advocacy for consideration of NSPE policies on phasing out industrial exemptions to licensure requirements adopted by many states largely in the 1930s and 1940s. In the paperwork proposing such position statements or policies, the specific NSPE goal needs to be indicated. Which of the three NSPE goals pertains to the phasing out of industrial exemptions? It doesn’t involve service to members; it doesn’t enhance a PE’s ability to practice, and it certainly isn’t at all about membership. For these and other similar public policy initiatives we pick “Goal 2,” but it really doesn’t fit.
I would contend that NSPE needs a fourth goal concerning advocacy of U.S. public policy pertaining to engineering matters in the interest of enhancing public health, safety, and welfare. After all, that is our core value. And yet it is not one of our goals.

Licensure itself has a higher purpose. We don’t license engineers for any purpose pertaining to the engineers themselves. We license engineers solely for the purpose of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare.

NSPE also has a higher purpose. Yes, we represent the interests of professional engineers. And yes, we accomplish much of what we accomplish through effective national-state partnerships. But we also play an outward-looking role in the engineering profession, which is selfless and in the public interest, not necessarily in the interest of professional engineers. If NSPE doesn’t play that role on behalf of engineers of all disciplines, who does?
I think that most NSPE members would agree that we play that role and serve a higher public purpose. Our goals should reflect that.

Input has been provided on this item by Bernard Berson, P.E.,F.NSPE, and L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE.

Certification of Environmental Scientists and Accreditation of Geology Programs

The NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice (L&QP) Committee was recently asked to provide an opinion on the appropriateness of a proposal by the American Academy of Environmental Engineers to certify environmental scientists. AAEE has historically provided a post-licensure certification of environmental engineers requiring documentation of environmental engineering education, additional experience beyond licensure, passing of either a written or oral examination given by AAEE, and documentation of continuing professional development.

AAEE is considering expanding its certifications to include environmental scientists, including geologists and chemists. Geologists are licensed as professional geologists in 29 states currently; chemists are not licensed. The NSPE L&QP Committee voiced its opposition to this proposal on the basis of four concerns, which have yet to be addressed:
1.    The delineation of the practice of engineering and geology needs to be clearly defined.
2.    Certifying scientists under the American Academy of Environmental Engineers would be confusing to the public. A name change would be in order.
3.    The academic backgrounds of geologists and chemists could not be reasonably assessed on an equal footing with engineering because their programs are not ABET accredited and very different and variable in form and content.
4.    Engineering certifications should be post-licensure in NSPE’s view. Geologists are not licensed in 21 states and chemists are not licensed at all.

The main point of this blog posting is about item 3, accreditation. In researching this issue, the L&QP members reviewed a paper entitled “An Analysis of the Bachelor of Science in Geology Degree as Offered in the United States,” by Drummond and Markin. Of 278 geology departments surveyed, the number of required courses “in the geology core” varied from four or less to more than 15. The number of basic math and science courses showed a similar variation. The academic requirements vary all over the place. A bachelor’s degree in geology may or may not be what students, state boards, or employers expect. The devil is in the details.

Geology programs are not currently accredited by ABET, as are engineering programs in the U.S. They could be accredited under the ABET Applied Science Accreditation Commission (ASAC), and there have been preliminary discussions among ABET and some geological societies about the possibility of initiating accreditation programs for geology. Geology programs are typically in universities that hold regional general accreditations, but these are not nearly as specific and discipline-rigorous as ABET accreditation.

Take this for what very little it may be worth, as it is the unsolicited opinion of an environmental engineer.

Geologists should consider having academic programs accredited. That can be at the baccalaureate level, the master’s level, or both. It could apply to environmental geology, petroleum geology, and perhaps other areas of geology practice. Here is the list of those who would substantially benefit from having academic programs in geology accredited: future geologists, firms that hire geologists, state boards of licensure of professional geologists, the Association of State Boards of Geology (ASBOG), the geology profession, academic programs in geology (all of which would have a new focus on continuous improvement), and the public. Accreditation has a great deal of upside for the profession and the public, and little downside.

The author is a Board Certified Environmental Engineer and a member of the ABET Board of Directors.

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