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.

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. The engineers from these disciplines often cannot stamp documents, although many local agencies require them to do so. 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) 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.

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.

Licensure of Engineering R&D Principal Investigators

Many in the engineering licensure community have for decades bemoaned the fact that the percentage of engineering faculty licensed as professional engineers has been declining. This continuing trend is due to a variety of factors, outlined in a previous article. A new, and brilliant, idea is coming to the fore, which may serve to reverse this trend in the long term.

The NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee recently adopted a proposed NSPE position statement advocating that funding agencies and state licensing boards require principal investigators of R&D projects that constitute engineering, in whole or in part, and potentially impact public health, safety, and welfare, either in and of itself as an R&D project or in its subsequent application, be licensed professional engineers.

This position statement does not apply to R&D grants and contracts that involve only science, rather than engineering. Basic (or fundamental) research needs to be under the responsible charge of the best scientists. The position statement provides a broad definition of basic research, as well as engineering research and development. This is a fine line that needs to be interpreted by grant agencies on a case-by-case basis.

Research agencies look more and more positively on the formation of interdisciplinary research teams, consisting of researchers, or co-principal investigators, with backgrounds in various fields pertinent to the research topics. The proposed NSPE position is that research teams should include principal investigators who are licensed professional engineers in the engineering disciplines involved. As an example, a team researching a specific computer engineering application potentially impacting public health, safety, and welfare might include PEs in the fields of computer engineering, software engineering, and/or electrical engineering, in addition to scientists and/or computer scientists, as appropriate. This is the way many research teams are currently constituted. The proposed position statement simply advocates that those principal investigators addressing matters of engineering include a licensed professional engineer as a team member and as a principal investigator.

For state licensing boards, this may be an interesting prospect. It may not require a statute change, and it may not require a rules change. The practice of engineering is defined in each state statute or in the rules, typically in broad terms as the application of science and mathematics in a manner that impacts public health, safety, and welfare. There are two tests there. First, is an activity engineering, rather than science? Note the exclusion of basic or fundamental research in NSPE’s position statement. Second, does it potentially impact public health, safety, and welfare? If the answer to both questions is yes, then the state licensure requirements apply, and a license as a professional engineer is required by law to practice engineering in that fashion. This can be interpreted to apply to engineering research and development projects, depending on the specific language in each state statute and rules. A phase-in or transition of this requirement would be reasonable, but it may be that the current statute and rules allow this interpretation.

The engineering licensure requirements are not intended to apply necessarily to all members of a research team—just to an engineer as a principal investigator in each discipline involved. There is no intent to preclude from research teams scientists, mathematicians, or post-doctoral researchers who are not yet licensed; the intent is to include PEs in the disciplines involved on the research team.

This is, in my view, a brilliant idea. It is doable. It makes sense. It is in the public interest. A rationale can be made to research funding agencies that this is consistent with state requirements and in the public interest. And it could serve in the long run as a significant incentive for researchers and faculty to become licensed as professional engineers.

Editorial input has been provided by Bernard R. Berson, P.E., F.NSPE; L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE; and Kirankumar V. Topudurti, Ph.D., P.E., 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.

Engineering Firm Certifications: A Barrier to Mobility in Some States

In recent years, tremendous strides have been made in engineering licensure in the U.S. to promote mobility and expedited comity licensure for individual PE licenses. In many states, a PE who meets the definition of a Model Law Engineer, and has an up to date “Council Record” through the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, can obtain a license in a new state in less than a week. This is all well and good, and works like a charm, but only if that engineer’s firm can also meet that state’s requirement for firm certifications in a similar time frame.

That same level of progress has not been made in all states with respect to firm certifications, of which there are two types. In many states, the PE board issues a certificate of authorization, of various names in different states, authorizing the firm to provide engineering services. In some states, there is a requirement for the firm to be “registered” in various fashions with the Secretary of State or the State Department of the Treasury. The types of approvals by state as reported by the state PE board are listed here and here. 

These certifications are required in many states for valid statutory reasons, for instance, to assure that taxes are paid and/or to provide a local agent, thus assuring that the venue for dispute resolution is in that state, and not in federal or another state court. Many states require that firms offering engineering services have at least one full-time professional engineer in each office in the state, to preclude plan-stamping of non-PEs’ work by part-time professional engineers.

Some in the engineering profession believe that mobility of engineering firms is an issue that primarily affects large engineering firms. That isn’t the case. Firm certifications, which serve as barriers to mobility, actually are more of a problem for small firms, which make up the vast majority of consulting engineering firms in the U.S., than for large firms. Larger firms have administrative personnel who keep track of certifications and renewals in all states where the firms practice or might practice. Small firms (less than 100) can’t reasonably do that; and they need to react quickly, typically well within 30 days, when a project presents itself through an RFP or otherwise in a state where the firm has not practiced in the past.

The licensing board survey provided online by NCEES indicates the time it takes, reported by each board, for a firm to obtain required certifications to practice. The following states indicate that it takes 30 days or more to obtain firm certifications: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island. In those states, the opportunity to respond to an RFP has come and gone before a firm can obtain a certification. I suspect that things don’t always work as fast as indicated on that table in other states. If any of you reading this have any experiences of being delayed awaiting firm certifications, leave a comment below.

The other mobility barrier related to firm certifications, other than time, consists of state requirements for the ownership of firms that are authorized to practice in their state. The ownership requirements for each state are indicated here. Most states either have no ownership requirements, or reasonably require that at least one principal of the firm be licensed in that state. There are at least two very significant exceptions.

In Michigan, for a firm that is based (i.e., incorporated) in another state to practice in Michigan, two-thirds of the firm’s principals need to be licensed as professional engineers, architects, or surveyors, in Michigan. For a firm with 10, or 50, or 1,000 professional engineers, proposing to do one or two projects in Michigan, this is a significant barrier. It would make no sense to have two-thirds of principals licensed to deal with one or several projects.

New York State’s barriers in this regard are also formidable and long-standing. New York requires that 100% of principals be licensed professional engineers. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently signed legislation to ease this to 75%, but I understand that the new bill pertains only to new firms based in New York. Firms based in other states, still have to meet the 100% requirement. Many engineering firms have surveyors, or geologists, or construction inspectors, or marketing/human resources/management staff who are part owners of firms along with professional engineers. For such firms to practice in New York, they need to set up a new, separate corporation, meeting New York State’s ownership requirements—even to do one project in New York. And the new flexibility doesn’t apply to out of state firms.

Mobility of professional engineers and of engineering firms is in the public interest. A number of years ago, a member of a PE board in a large northeastern state asked me why his state should be concerned with whether or not engineers from other states could practice there in a reasonable amount of time. Why make it easier for out of state firms? I responded, “Let’s say, there was a rare air quality problem experienced in a ventilation system in your state that had only been addressed previously by an engineer who happened to practice in Seattle. You would want that engineer’s input as soon as possible.” That PE board member said, “I get it.” Again, mobility is in the public interest.

The information reported herein indicates that firm certifications do not function as a barrier in most states.

State societies of NSPE, and state PE boards, should review their firm certification requirements and assure that certifications can be obtained quickly, in less than two weeks. That is in the public interest.

If you have war stories of difficulties in obtaining timely certifications, or in having to set up new corporations simply to practice in a given state, please make a comment below.

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

Industrial Exemptions: NSPE and NCEES Take Clear Action

At annual meetings in 2011, both NSPE and the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying took action on policies regarding the existence of industrial exemptions from engineering licensure requirements in state statutes pertaining to manufacturing businesses and/or utilities.

Industries were successful prior to the 1960s in enacting industrial exemptions in most states. At the present, all but nine jurisdictions have industrial exemptions for manufacturing businesses, and all but 16 jurisdictions have exemptions pertaining to utilities.

At  the NSPE Annual Meeting in Las Vegas in July, the NSPE House of Delegates voted unanimously in favor of a new NSPE policy on industrial exemptions 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.

The adoption of this policy changed 33 years of acquiescence on the part of NSPE regarding industrial exemptions. In its early years, NSPE had advocated strongly against the adoption of industrial exemptions under the leadership of David Steinman, P.E., NSPE’s founder. In the late 1970s, NSPE moderated its policy, acknowledging the existence of many such exemptions. This new policy now advocates the phasing out of industrial exemptions, returning NSPE to David Steinman’s core principles. Numerous speakers exhorted the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee to develop more information for use by NSPE state societies in advocating change in state statutes. The unanimity of the NSPE House of Delegates on this matter was surprising to many. This issue resonates among professional engineers who are dedicated to the protection and enhancement of public health, safety, and welfare.

At its annual meeting in Providence, Rhode Island, in August, NCEES voted 60-5 to modify the Model Law to insert the following provision:

Licensed engineers shall be in responsible charge of all engineering design of buildings, structures, products, machines, processes and systems that can affect the health, safety and welfare of the public.

This is a fine provision for a state which does not have industrial exemptions to add to its state statute, and it provides the rationale for removing current industrial exemptions where they exist now. This issue also resonates among PE boards, which have a fundamental obligation to protect public health, safety, and welfare within their jurisdiction. For further information on this topic, see the three previous items on the industrial exemption:1)
Industrial Exemptions: A Proposed NSPE Policy, 2) The Industrial Exemption: Which States Have Them and Which States Do Not? and 3) The Industrial Exemption: What, If Anything, Should The Profession Do?

The national engineering organizations have acted, clearly and decisively. It is now up to NSPE state societies and PE boards in each jurisdiction to act. The Gulf oil spill provides a perfect example of why business and economic interests should not take precedence over protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

The NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee has three work items on its agenda for the coming year:

1. It is not clear from the current Model Law or existing state statutes in what jurisdiction a professional engineer needs to be licensed if the individual works for a manufacturing business that makes a product and the engineer’s design work is completed in state X, the manufacturing itself is done in state Y, and the product is used in state Z, or in many states. My assumption is that, with respect to generic products and systems used in many states, the individual is required to be licensed in State X, but not in States Y or Z, but statutory language to date typically does not make that clear.
2. Information needs to be provided to NSPE state societies to assist in creating a compelling argument for the lack of need for exemptions for utilities. Fifty years ago, nearly every state had its own utility. Now, many utilities are regional, providing services across numerous state borders, some of which have utility exemptions and some of which do not.
3. Information needs to be provided to NSPE state societies to assist in creating a compelling rationale for phasing out industrial exemptions, based on the clear potential benefit to the public and the limited impact on industry of requiring engineers in responsible charge to be licensed. NSPE’s policy, and NCEES’s Model Law provision, pertain to those “in responsible charge,” not necessarily all engineers in industry. The difference is significant, and this is a new twist in the discussion of industrial exemptions.

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

The Engineering Credit Slide Continues

The slow and steady decrease in the number of credits required for a baccalaureate degree in engineering at U.S. universities continues.

Each year for the last seven years, Jodie Bray Strickland, P.E., of Hampton, New Hampshire, has maintained and updated a spreadsheet showing the number of semester or quarter credits required for a B.S. degree in engineering, as reported on the Web site of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) for the period from 1998 through 2010. This database does not include all U.S. universities that offer engineering programs, but it is a significant sample size—233 institutions.

While most institutions’ degree requirements remain constant each year, for the past 20 years now there has been a trend: Each year a handful of institutions reduce their requirements significantly. This slow and steady erosion continues year after year. In 2010, 17% of the institutions reporting their information to ASEE  offered an engineering program or programs requiring 120 credits, the current minimum for a bachelor’s degree in U.S. colleges and universities. In the year 2000, this percentage was 10%. The slide doesn’t appear to be accelerating, but it is steady and an unmistakable continuing trend.

Why is this happening? It isn’t being initiated by engineers or engineering program administrators, typically. The pressure to reduce credit requirements often comes from university administrators, and it is often based on university economics, and pressure from students and parents to allow B.S. degrees to be completed in four years in order to reduce college costs. Pressure to reduce credit requirements and college costs often comes from state legislatures. The typical engineering B.S. program takes a little more than 4 ½ years to complete on average. Most engineering deans probably don’t want to reduce degree requirements, but such decisions are being made none the less.

What is the impact on engineering education? I don’t want to overstate this point: The fact of the matter is that some of the finest engineering programs in the U.S., with some of the brightest engineering students, require 120 credits for a B.S. in engineering. At the other extreme, David Holger, the past president of ABET, made a comment to me last year to the effect that “you know, the programs that struggle on the cusp of engineering accreditation in the U.S. are not typically those with low credit requirements”. I believe that to be true. On the other side of the coin, those engineering programs that decrease their requirements to 120 credits, often from 128 credits, are faced with very difficult curriculum choices. I have seen civil engineering programs in the throes of heated faculty discussions over whether to drop surveying/GIS content, engineering economics, Physics II (leaving civil engineers permanently with little understanding of magnetism and electricity), thermodynamics, or even Physics I, with the assumption that there is enough Newtonian physics in the introductory section of a statics textbook. Those are difficult choices that can permanently change the body of knowledge of future graduates, and not for the better.

Where is this happening? In 2010, the University of Vermont and the University of Alaska-Fairbanks decreased their requirements to 120 credits. Listed below are those institutions that have historically always required significantly more credits for a B.S. degree in engineering, but changed in the past five years, for the first time, to a 120 semester credit (or 180 quarter credit) requirement for an engineering program or programs, as reported by the institution on the ASEE Web site.

2010
University of Vermont
University of Alaska-Fairbanks

2009
Texas Tech University

2008
California State University, Long Beach
Texas A&M University
Rice University

2007
Northern Arizona University
University of the Pacific

2006
Arizona State University
Oregon State University
Vanderbilt University

The upshot is that although the body of knowledge required for engineering practice is increasing, and will continue to increase, the course requirements of engineering programs for a baccalaureate degree are slowly but steadily decreasing, with difficult choices being made as to what content can be dropped from engineering curricula. Slowly but surely.

Editorial input provided by Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE; L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE, and Jodie Bray Strickland, P.E.

Taking the PE Exam Early

A trend among states to allow early taking of the PE exam is accelerating. For many years, California has allowed candidates to take the PE exam in preparation for licensure after only two years of engineering experience. In recent years, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico have allowed candidates to take the PE exam after receiving a BS degree from an EAC-ABET accredited program, and having passed the FE exam. Now, in the past year, Illinois has instituted the same practice, allowing the early taking of the PE exam. In these states, the licensure candidate still needs to accumulate the requisite years of experience prior to being licensed.

What is the benefit? There are several. Allowing early taking of the PE exam provides a measure of convenience for potential licensees. This is particularly important for engineers in industry whose work experience might be narrowly focused, and who might be more apt to take the exam earlier. This could encourage the licensure of more engineers. For a young engineer who passes the exam early, the likelihood that he or she will become a professional engineer is significantly increased. And that young engineer’s qualifications are strengthened because employers can be confident that he or she will become a professional engineer. The benefit is substantial flexibility and convenience for those who are potentially on a track to become a professional engineer.

What is the effect on pass rates? David James, Ph.D., P.E., of the Nevada Society of Professional Engineers prepared a report for the NSPE Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee detailing the PE exam results in Nevada from 2005 through 2011 for civil and non-civil exam takers. The data spans seven years and 12 administrations of the PE exam. For civil engineers, the pass rate in Nevada for those taking the exam with less than four years of experience is 50%, and for those with 4+ years of experience, it is 46%. For all disciplines other than civil (“non-civil”), the pass rate over all 12 administrations in Nevada is 50% for early takers and 61% for those taking the exam after 4+ years of experience. For non-civil engineering disciplines, the pass rate appears to be somewhat higher for more experienced engineers.

The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying has presented data in the past showing pass rates after various numbers of years of experience. In my recollection, that data showed that pass rates are highest after four years, and somewhat, but not substantially, lower with fewer years of experience and lower still for those who wait many years to attempt the exam.

The exam content in each discipline is different. In civil and environmental engineering, much of the exam content is similar to problem sets that are included in academic curricula. It should be noted that the examination is in principles and practice. The principles portion is based on the academic background. There has been some discussion in the engineering community as to whether civil engineering is more rooted in its academic background for the first four years post graduation. In some other disciplines—control systems is a good example—much of the content is information learned in practice, not in school. This variation has to do with the nature of the engineering disciplines, and not with the exam preparation.

What is the downside? There are a number of issues that have been discussed within the engineering profession over the years. Each issue, with its associated counter, is discussed below.

1. Comity: There are a number of states with statutes that require that the PE exam be taken after the requisite years of engineering experience have been attained—even 20 or 30 years after the fact. This has historically been a problem for engineers first licensed in California under the early-taking provision. This needs to get solved in all states, regardless of whether or not the early taking trend spreads, particularly now that Illinois, a state with a population of nearly 13 million in the middle of the country, is allowing early taking of the PE exam. Someone who can pass the PE exam after two years of experience can reasonably be assumed to be capable of passing the PE exam after four years of experience. From a qualifications standpoint, this is a non-issue, in my opinion.
2. Experience Required for Licensure: Some engineers voice the concern that if the PE exam is allowed to be taken early, there will be a push to license engineers with fewer years of engineering experience than is currently required. This has not been the case to date, and need not be the case.
3. Studying for the Exam after Four Years is Good: Some engineers contend that studying for the PE exam after four years of experience helps to tie together academic training and engineering experience. By that same argument, one could contend that perhaps we should require engineers to take the PE exam every four years throughout their careers, an idea which almost no one would advocate.
4. Practice Exam: In some engineering disciplines, engineering experience is more critical to passing the PE exam than in others. However, the early taking of the exam is voluntary. If a control systems engineer wants to wait for three or four years to take the exam, he or she may do so.

In my view, there is upside to the spread of the early-taking trend to more jurisdictions as it may provide less of an obstacle to licensure for some engineers. The downside primarily pertains to comity, which needs to be resolved whether or not additional jurisdictions allow early taking of the PE exam.

Editorial input provided by Bernard Berson, P.E., F.NSPE; L. Robert Smith, P.E., F.NSPE, and Jeff Greenfield, Ph.D., P.E.

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.

Faculty Licensure: How Can We Increase the Numbers?

Licensure among engineering faculty members has been on the decline in many institutions for decades. There are a number of reasons for this, some of which are as follows:

1. Blurring of engineering and science. Many faculty members with Ph.D.s in engineering have academic backgrounds in science rather than engineering. The need for interdisciplinary backgrounds will likely increase in the future.
2. Differences in engineering disciplines. A higher percentage of civil engineering faculty are typically licensed engineers in comparison to certain other disciplines, such as mechanical and electrical engineering. This is due to the fact that most civil engineers are licensed, and most mechanical and electrical engineers are not. Additionally, licensure is mentioned as an ABET program criterion for civil engineering, but it is not a program criterion for many other engineering disciplines.
3. More than half of the engineering Ph.D. degrees in the U.S. annually are now awarded to foreign born graduates, many of whom attended universities in their home country for their undergraduate education, and thus were not likely exposed to engineering licensure or the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination.
4. Lack of Incentive. Academic success, compensation, and tenure are dependent predominantly upon research and research revenue in most engineering programs. Success, compensation, and tenure aren’t predicated on licensure, typically.
5. Many states do not include the teaching of upper level undergraduate engineering courses with design components as being within the legal definition of the practice of engineering.

What can be done to reverse this trend? That is a good question, without easy answers.

The benefits of having faculty licensed are many. Licensed faculty members are a good model for engineering students, and are more likely to encourage students to become licensed. They are also more likely to impart the professional and ethical obligations of the licensed practice of engineering.

Several years ago, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) formed a Faculty Licensure Task Force to consider changes in the Model Law to encourage faculty licensure. After much work, this task force developed an alternative pathway to licensure for those with an earned Ph.D. in engineering, who have acceptable engineering experience, and have passed a professional practice examination, similar to the Canadian exam. This flexibility would have applied to faculty as well as to practitioners who have a Ph.D. in engineering. This potential Model Law change “went over like a lead balloon.”  It was a fine idea in the opinion of some, but it was not close. PE boards in general are not willing to cast any pathways into the Model Law that do not include passing of the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) Exam.

So, what can be done to encourage faculty licensure?

Some states define the teaching of upper level undergraduate engineering courses with design components as being within the practice of engineering, thus requiring a PE license. In those states, the enforcement of such requirements is not always, shall we say, thorough. Some professional engineers contend that this Model Law provision ought to be encouraged in all states, and that states with such provisions might consider a phase-in of such requirements over time, if full compliance is not part of university practices to date.

Some professional engineers are beginning to think about the concept of requiring engineering licensure for principal investigators in responsible charge of engineering research that has impact on public health, safety, and welfare. This would certainly provide incentive. Some things, however, are easier said than done.

Perhaps there are other approaches. If you have comments concerning current constraints to faculty licensure, or if you have in mind a potential solution to encourage more faculty to be licensed, make a comment in the box below.

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

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.

Like Medicine, Engineering Should Focus on Post-Licensure Specialty Certification

In the United States, medical doctors are licensed by state medical boards to practice medicine. That is all that is needed for state medical boards to be able to carry out their statutory mandate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by assuring that those who practice as physicians have the requisite education and experience to practice medicine. New physicians are examined through the United States Medical Licensing Examination (similar to the PE exam). State medical boards do not license medical specialties, recognizing advanced qualifications in medicine. If a physician wishes to pursue a specialty, say in anesthesiology, they have to gain another four or so years of experience in anesthesiology beyond the initial residency. After that, they can apply to the American Board of Anesthesiology (www.theaba.org, or do a Google search of “American Board of”—you will get pages and pages of them) to take the examinations leading to a specialty certification in anesthesiology. There are many specialty certifications in medicine, each overseen not by state regulatory boards, but rather by professional organizations. When a hospital needs another anesthesiologist, they hire one who is a licensed medical doctor in their state, and, most likely, one who has a specialty certification in anesthesiology from the ABA. The same is true of surgeons, neurosurgeons, radiologists, internists, obstetricians, etc., etc. In medicine, the professional associations determine the advanced qualifications required to practice in medical specialties, not the limited number of board members who are gubernatorial appointees to a state medical board.

The Web site of the American Board of Medical Specialties provides a brief description of medical licensing in the U.S.:

“Physician board certification is a voluntary process that approximately 80 percent of doctors in the U.S. obtain. A physician is licensed by the state to "practice medicine and surgery," and medical board certification is not a requirement for licensure. Licensed physicians may practice in whatever medical disciplines interest them and can legally practice in that field of interest without obtaining a medical residency or fellowship. Board certification, however, means that a physician’s skills and knowledge in the specialty/subspecialty has been examined and meets standardized requirements by an ABMS Member Board. Additionally, some of the surgical specialties require one or more years of experience before physicians can take their board-certifying exams (the number of years varies according to each board).”

Quite frankly, the licensure process in medicine couldn’t work otherwise because the state medical board would need to have too many physicians of all those specialties. And from a regulatory standpoint, it isn’t needed. In our licensing system, we regulate professions state by state essentially to accomplish two objectives: to establish and regulate a minimum threshold of education, experience, and examinations to practice that profession at a minimum level of competence; and to put in place a regulatory system to be able to discipline those who commit professional misconduct in a fashion that may negatively impact the public health, safety, and welfare.

Engineering is no different. We license engineers as professional engineers by establishing a threshold of minimum competence evidenced by appropriate standards of education, experience, and examination, and we establish a regulatory system in each state to assure that all professional engineers practice ethically and responsibly. Disciplinary power is in place to deal appropriately with those who don’t. As in medicine, regulating advanced engineering qualifications at the PE board level isn’t necessary from a regulatory/legal perspective, and it isn’t appropriate.

The American Society of Civil Engineers maintains a post-licensure certification program, for example, providing a Diplomate Water Resources Engineer specialty certification. This certification is for those water resources engineers who demonstrate by advanced education and experience that they have achieved an advanced level of qualification in water resources engineering, including achieving the requisite body of knowledge.

The American Academy of Environmental Engineers maintains a certification program, previously called Diplomate Environmental Engineer (DEE), and now called Board Certified Environmental Engineer (BCEE), which involves documentation of advanced education and experience and written and/or oral examinations showing advanced qualifications in environmental engineering.

These, and other, engineering certifications can play the same role in engineering as do the certification programs in medicine.

Structural engineers, through the ASCE Structural Engineering Institute, and through the National Council of Structural Engineering Associations, have been advocating that PE boards in the U.S. initiate separate licensure, after the PE, for structural engineers (read "Debating the Structure of Licensing"). The structural engineers mean well, but they are barking up the wrong tree. This initiative has two fatal flaws.

1. This initiative would need to be as applicable in the future to nuclear engineers, or hazardous waste engineers, et al, as it is to structural engineers. Many structural engineers believe that structural engineering uniquely imperils the public health, safety, and welfare, and this contention simply isn’t valid. The discussion is without merit. In the long run, having the state regulate multiple engineering disciplines won’t work.

2. From a legal and regulatory standpoint, the regulation of advanced qualifications isn’t necessary. It isn’t necessary in the medical profession, and it isn’t necessary in the engineering profession. Licensure followed by specialty certification works well in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare in anesthesiology and neurosurgery; it can work as well in engineering.

Engineers of all disciplines should together recognize that technology is expanding, and will continue to expand, and that engineering practice in all disciplines that impact the public health, safety, and welfare will continue to become more complex and more demanding in terms of both technical and professional practice skill sets. The appropriate method of recognizing the advanced qualifications required is:  1) through expanding specialty certification to many more disciplines; 2) ensuring that those certifications have an appropriate level of rigor, and; 3) educating owners and others who employ engineers that these specialty certifications are desirable and necessary to reflect the advanced qualifications required for complex engineering assignments.

It works in medicine; it always has. It can work the same way in engineering, and engineers should be working together to make it work well, the same way it works in medicine. If it works for neurosurgeons, it will work for structural engineers.

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