NSPE Blog

Never Too Late to Earn the PE

An article in the April issue of PE magazine told the story of NSPE member Mark Johnson, P.E., who proved that there’s not one standard path to earning the PE license. Johnson first took the FE exam in 1987, five years after he graduated, and last December, at age 50, he passed the PE exam.

After the article was published, PE magazine received the following letter:

Dear Editor,

I just wanted to let you know what a good job I think you did on the Mark Johnson article about how some people just don't get around to being licensed until later in life. I too took the "nontraditional" licensing path and wanted to relate my story to reinforce that it is never too late to advance within your profession.

I originally graduated with an MS in geology from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale in 1981 after doing thesis research in ground water transport and contamination. After working in the petroleum industry for 2 years, and for a state regulatory agency for 6, I decided to enter the consulting business about the time that underground storage tank remediation became big business in the late 1980's. Up until that time I had no thoughts of ever being licensed as a P.E. and was content with my profession as a ground water geologist. However, when I began working for my current firm, who are consulting engineers and where I have now been for nearly 22 years, I began to see that many of my advancement opportunities would eventually be limited.

I first applied for approval to take the Fundamentals of Engineering exam through the "non-ABET accredited institution" provisions under Illinois' licensing regulations. Although I was approved, I took the FE twice and did not pass. However, in 1998 I learned of a distance learning program being offered by my alma mater, SIU-C for a Master of Science degree in Civil Engineering. Although not an ABET-accredited curriculum, I thought it would "as good as" being licensed and would at least give me an educational background on par with my peers. For three years while working full time as an engineering project manager I was also enrolled as a full-time graduate student. I eventually graduated in May 2001 at the age of 45 with my second MS from SIU-C. Newly armed with fresh educational experience, I once again applied again to take the FE under the "non-ABET accredited program" provisions of Illinois' licensing regulations feeling that I now possessed the necessary technical background to be successful.

Just in case I was feeling overly confident, the State Of Illinois decided to put one more hurdle in my path, if for no other reason, than to simply test my resolve. I was informed that I needed four more hours of higher level math before I would be approved to sit for the FE. This class proved more difficult to find than my MS classes, because a class like this is usually offered only during the day when I would normally be at work. As fortune would have it, my local community college decided to offer a night class in differential equations during the summer session. In the summer of 2003, I attended class two hours a night, four nights a week, which thankfully only lasted for 8 weeks. My 25th wedding anniversary was spent studying for a DE test that would be the next night. After passing the class I was told I would be allowed to sit for the FE exam in the spring of 2004. This time I took full advantage of on-line study resources and was more disciplined in my study habits after being relatively fresh off of my most recent college classes. I was informed that I passed the FE in June, 2004. I gave myself a one month break and started studying for the PE which I took in October 2004. I learned that I had finally passed my PE in December 2004 at the age of 48. I estimate that I spent in the neighborhood of 600 - 700 hours preparing just for the FE and PE exams in 2004, which does not include hundreds more hours of study earlier in the decade while in graduate school. Perseverance and organization were key to passing these milestone in middle age at a time when I was older than even many of the proctors of the exams.

I am deeply indebted to the engineering faculty at SIU-C, and in particular to Dr. John Nicklow for making these additional opportunities available to me and my fellow "non-traditional" classmates. I am now an associate and group manager and supervise 13 professional and technical staff including several PE's. I am obviously an advocate for professional licensing and continuing education and believe I can serve as an example to my co-workers that one is never too old to accomplish life's goals, both professional and personal. Thank you to NSPE for all your services and for the support you provide to your members.

Allen O. Oertel, P.G.,P.E.
Springfield, Illinois

Fracing, PEs, and Advocacy

What’s the difference between science-based advocacy and advocacy-based science? And what does it mean for professional engineers?

In the April issue of PE magazine, Anthony Ingraffea, P.E., addresses these questions as they relate to the timely topic of hydraulic fracturing, or fracing.

Ingraffea, who is the Dwight C. Baum Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Cornell University with a background in rock fracture mechanics and hydraulic fracturing, says there is a crucial ethical distinction between science-based advocacy and advocacy-based science.

“In the former, an engineer advocates publicly for or against an engineering project based on peer-reviewed science that has quantified the risks to human health, Ingraffea writes. “In the latter, an engineer, perhaps swayed by outside interests or by ideology, advocates for a position based on non-peer-reviewed and biased reports, or on an unbalanced assessment of the pros and cons.”

Ingraffea advises: “Remember, when communicating today with responsible legislators or administrators on such a large-scale economic, environmental, and human health issue, one is advocating not just for the present stakeholders but for generations to come.”

Burdensome Regulations and Infrastructure

Without strong infrastructure systems, our national economic position, including our workforce, production, health, safety, and overall welfare is at risk. Professional engineers play a key role in the planning, design, implementation, construction, operation, and maintenance of this infrastructure. So when the Department of Transportation requested public input on the efficacy of its regulations, NSPE sprang into action. (DOT was responding to President Obama’s January Executive Order, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” under which every federal agency must review its existing regulations to determine whether regulations are effectively promoting economic growth, job creation, and competitiveness without being unduly burdensome.)

NSPE surveyed 10,000 members to pinpoint the regulations of greatest concern to the engineering profession, then filed comments with DOT on a range of topics including the Federal Highway Administration’s and Federal Transit Administration’s inconsistent application of qualifications-based selection, the environmental clearance process, FHWA’s conflict of interest policy, inconsistent models of quality assurance across DOT, and outdated pipeline safety standards. NSPE then spoke at a DOT meeting helmed by DOT General Counsel Robert Rivkin and attended by a panel of the DOT components’ general counsels and senior staff.

NSPE member Dan Tanksley, P.E., F.NSPE, a Texas-based civil engineer who serves as the general counsel of Halff Associates, represented NSPE at the meeting, where he highlighted two critical issues:

• FHWA and FTA only use QBS for construction-related contracts. The Brooks Act requires federal agencies to use QBS when procuring architectural and engineering services; however, FHWA and FTA guidance documents state that QBS is necessary only if engineering services directly relate to construction. This is based on an incomplete reading of the Brooks Act and the mistaken assumption that all engineering services involving real property must be directly related to construction. NSPE recommended that FHWA and FTA amend their guidelines to comply fully with the Brooks Act.
• The environmental clearance process is excessively long. The National Environmental Policy Act requires DOT to evaluate the potential impact of its proposed projects on the environment before any work on projects may begin. Obtaining the necessary environmental clearances, however, takes from six months for a categorical exclusion to a minimum of two years for an environmental assessment and even longer for an environmental impact statement. NSPE believes that the environmental clearance process could be streamlined without compromising the intent of NEPA – a popular view at the meeting, where APWA, AASHTO, ARTBA, the Orange County (CA) Transportation Authority, and the Midwest Bus Corporation also cited the environmental clearance process as a major issue.

NSPE recommended streamlining the environmental clearance process by transferring environmental review responsibilities entirely to the state DOT unless an environmental impact statement is required; replacing sequential reviews with a single joint review or charrette; emphasizing substantive environmental issues rather than issues that have no bearing on decision-making; eliminating the requirement for indirect and cumulative impacts analyses in all categorical exclusion documents; and accepting electronic submissions of documents.

NSPE believes that resolving these and the issues addressed in the written comments will improve the nation’s transportation system, benefiting the public's health, safety, and welfare.

Read NSPE’s position statement on infrastructure.