PE Licensing

FE Exam Results Should Be Public Information

Performance statistics for the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination issued by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) are forwarded each year to universities and to state PE licensing boards that request them. These reports are an outstanding tool for programs to use in determining curriculum strengths and weaknesses, and formulating plans for improvement. More and more, university engineering programs are using FE exam reports as an outcomes assessment tool, which is one of the critical components of ABET accreditation processes.

These exam results would also be of value to students and to the public, but pass-rate data is not availble to the public. Since many universities and all state PE boards are public entities, the information may be available by public information request under the laws of each state, but the information is generally, perhaps uniformly, not publicized.

The engineering profession should consider the benefits of requiring that a two- or three-year running average of FE exam pass rates be made publicly available, perhaps on the institution’s engineering program Web site, by university and by program. A two- or three-year running average might be considered because results can vary significantly from class to class, but a longer-term running average takes out that variable. And it might be made available by program because the data may be far more valid for programs such as civil or environmental engineering, where 90% of graduates will need to be licensed in order to practice engineering, as opposed to electrical engineering, where perhaps only 10% of the graduates take the PE exam and become professional engineers.

The benefits of doing this are several. Students and parents who are selecting engineering programs should have access to information on the performance of the program’s graduates. It is an indicator of the quality of the program and the academic talent of the engineering students. It is of particular importance to parents and students who are entering a field of study that requires licensure to practice professionally to know the past history of the program’s graduates in passing the FE exam. There are some EAC-ABET accredited programs that consistently have very low pass rates on the FE exam (at least that’s what I’ve heard for years; I’ve never seen the data). In that case, parents and students have a right to know that. It may not be an inalienable right, but it is a reasonable right. The publication of the data also would create a significant incentive for programs with poor performance to improve. That could encourage “teaching to the test,” but in this specific case, perhaps that is a necessary and good thing.

What is the downside? There will be initial push-back from institutions that will not want to publicize these results. Representatives of some disciplines will argue that the FE exam isn’t fully relevant to their curricula and publishing skewed results will be an unreliable indicator of their program’s quality. Some programs require all students to at least attempt the FE exam in order to graduate, and in these cases some students who don’t anticipate needing to be licensed don’t make a good faith effort. This can skew results. And some institutions will probably contend that publishing these results doesn’t reflect on the problems they face in educating incoming students with poor academic preparedness; East Podunk State just isn’t Stanford, and can’t be expected to be. Perhaps in the case of a program that has consistently extremely poor performance on the FE exam, the program might consider curriculum and program changes, including changing to a technology program rather than an engineering program.  There is, however, some concern that programs with consistently poor performance might not encourage students to take the FE exam in the future if the data is published and ranked. Another downside is that curricula vary from school to school. The goal of the FE exam for outcomes assessment is not to shape the curriculum to teach to the exam. It is to allow schools to assess how they are doing in the areas that they do teach. A school where civil engineers don’t take, say, thermodynamics, may do better in the areas their curriculum covers, but a school that requires thermo may have a better pass rate. Overall, I contend that all of these downsides are outweighed by the benefits.

U.S. architectural programs are required by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (the architects’ equivalent to ABET) to publish the performance of their graduates on the NCARB examinations, given after gaining experience (the equivalent of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Exam). Here is the NAAB requirement:

“Annually, the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards publishes pass rates for each section of the Architect Registration Examination by institution. This information is considered to be useful to parents and prospective students as part of their planning for higher/post-secondary education. Therefore, programs are required to make this information available to current and prospective students and their parents either by publishing the annual results or by linking their website to the results.”

NCEES should consider the possibility of similarly publishing the pass rates for the Principles and Practice of Engineering exam by university and by program. This would likely require gathering additional data beyond what is gathered currently. Perhaps starting with making the FE exam pass rates public could be followed in future years with the PE exam results.

The FE exam results currently are nearly secret. If I were an incoming student in an engineering field that requires exam passage in order to practice at a professional level, or a parent paying $100,000 or so for such a college education, I would want to know if the institution’s graduates only pass 30% of the time, or 60% of the time, or whatever. They have a reasonable right to know that. And programs with graduates experiencing a very low pass rate have a need to know that, and to be accountable for improvement.

It’s time to come clean, and let the chips fall where they may.

Comments can be submitted below. A rationale for continuing not to divulge the performance by institution and program might be particularly interesting.

This item has been reviewed and edited by L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE, and Bernard R. Berson, P.E., P.L.S., F.NSPE.

The author is a Fellow of NSPE and ACEC, a Distinguished Member of ASCE, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, the Chair of the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, and a member of the ABET Board of Directors. The opinions expressed herein are his own and do not reflect the views of any of these organizations.

California Engineering Statute Needs Fixing

California has a convoluted engineering statute that needs fixing. For many years, reasonable legislative initiatives proposed by the PE board, legislators, and other interests have failed due, in large part, to testimony and political influence from factions within the engineering profession in California with interests in maintaining the status quo. [Read a related article by Diane Spencer, P.E., vice president of the California Society of Professional Engineers.]

California has a unique engineering licensure system. There are three “practice act” disciplines: civil, mechanical, and electrical. These disciplines are authorized to practice engineering, and their practice is regulated by the California Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists. Civil, mechanical, and electrical engineers can be held accountable for their professional misconduct, and their authority to practice can be suspended or revoked. There are also nine “title act” disciplines: agricultural, chemical, control systems, fire protection, industrial, metallurgical, nuclear, petroleum, and traffic engineering. In these disciplines, the state regulates the use of the title, but not the practice. In the case of misconduct, the board can revoke continued use of the title but cannot preclude continued practice. Title act engineers who commit professional misconduct can continue practicing as long as they do not continue using the title. Many state and local agencies refuse to accept documents stamped by engineers in these disciplines even though their reports are within their field of study and experience. Many fire protection and nuclear engineers, for example, are also licensed as mechanical engineers, but many of the title act engineers are not also licensed in either civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering. To make matters even more complicated, there are two “title authority acts,” for structural and geotechnical engineers, indicating proficiency in those specialties at a higher level than is required for civil engineering licensure.

The plot has thickened. A recent ruling has indicated that any “fixed work” constructed in California—essentially anything not on wheels or that doesn’t fly or float—must be designed by a licensed civil engineer. In the past, the regulated work of any of the title act engineers has needed to be under the responsible charge of a licensed civil, mechanical, or electrical engineer. That is now clarified, and required to be under the responsible charge of a civil engineer. Despite the fact that the California statute requires that licensed civil engineers practice only within their areas of competence, some civil engineers in California have testified to the effect that these provisions require them to practice outside of their areas of competence, and to stamp the work of engineers of other disciplines, which would constitute professional misconduct. Convoluted. And very confusing. This system may have made some manner of political sense when it was adopted many years ago, but it doesn’t make practical sense now. No other states have licensure systems like this.

A bill currently before the California legislature (SB 692) [Note: This bill is now SB 1061] would convert the title acts to practice acts, requiring all professional engineers to practice within their area of competence and allowing the inherent overlap among disciplines that is common in all other states, and that is now allowed in California only for civil engineers. Fixing this is in the public interest and will enhance the protection of the public health and safety. And it is consistent with the manner in which engineering is regulated in every other U.S. jurisdiction. The benefits are as follows:

1. California will be able to regulate the professional practice of all the engineering disciplines. It cannot currently. That doesn’t make any sense, and it is not in the public interest.
2. Civil engineers will not feel that they are required by law to assume responsible charge and stamp documents for engineering disciplines outside their area of practice and/or competence.
3. Engineers with education and experience in the title act disciplines will be able to practice, and to take responsibility for work within their area of expertise.

As an added benefit, fixing this legislation would result in far less confusion, among engineers and the public. It must be very difficult for all concerned in California to understand who can and cannot do what. In other states, it is far simpler. Professional engineers practice within their areas of competence.

Like civil engineers, California title act engineers generally are educated in engineering programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET. Like civil engineers, California title act engineers are rigorously examined through the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam and the Principles and Practice of Engineering Exam, issued by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. In all other states, duly qualified engineers of the disciplines that are California title act disciplines are qualified to practice as professional engineers and are regulated as such.

Legislation to fix this dysfunctional licensure system has been opposed for years by the California Professional Engineers in Government (a public employees’ union of Cal Trans and other public agency employees) and the American Council of Engineering Companies, California, and in recent testimony by a lobbyist representing California members of the American Society of Civil Engineers. They made an attempt to explain their opposition at a recent state senate hearing, which can be viewed on YouTube here. [Look for SB692 Hearing Jan 9 2012. This bill was a predecessor to the current SB 1061.]

Some of the opposition testimony is disturbingly misleading and directly contradicted by correct testimony from a group of engineering deans. Much of the opposition, for years, has stemmed from the one time grandfathering of a small number of title act engineers without a PE exam requirement in the 1970s when some of these title act disciplines were initially established. Those small numbers of engineers are now predominantly in their 70s and 80s, and many are not practicing. At this point in time, this issue appears to be a ruse.

It is time for professional engineers in California, and those who retain the services of professional engineers, to speak out and encourage that the licensure system be fixed. Doing so is clearly in the interest of protecting public health and safety in California.

This item has been reviewed and edited by L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE; Bernard R. Berson, P.E., P.L.S., F.NSPE; and Ken Discenza, P.E., president, California Society of Professional Engineers.

The author is a Fellow of NSPE and ACEC, a Distinguished Member of ASCE, a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, the Chair of the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee, and a member of the ABET Board of Directors. The opinions expressed herein are his own and do not reflect the views of any of these organizations.