PE Journal

Grand Challenges Ahead

Looking back at the last century, engineers have had a profound impact on humankind. What’s remarkable is that we now take so much of that great work for granted. When I was a child, I sat mesmerized as Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon. Today, we take space travel largely for granted. If the power goes out we feel helpless, when at the turn of the last century most homes didn’t have electricity. And as much as airline service today isn’t what it was ten years ago, people travel the globe in hours instead of months.

And what is at stake for this century? The National Academy of Engineering has been contemplating that very question. What are the “grand challenges” for engineering in the 21st century? Is it making solar power economical, providing access to clean water throughout the world, reverse engineering the brain or providing energy from fusion?

On March 2-3 at Duke University, NAE is holding a summit on engineering’s grand challenges to ask these very questions. Be sure to watch the live webcast. What do you think the grand challenges are for the engineering profession, our children, and grandchildren?

Life-Long Learning

Should a demonstration of continuing professional competency through life-long learning be a requirement for maintaining your PE license? The majority of states think so, but there are a number of states that still don’t have a continuing education requirement, including my state of Vermont. That said, I need to fulfill CPC requirements to maintain my licenses in New Hampshire and Maine, so I have an understanding of what’s involved.

It seems to me that the primary objective is to assure that each of us stays current with technical advances, code changes, and other standards for the protection of public health, safety, and welfare and given the fact that most all other “professions” require a demonstration of continuous learning, we need to do the same. What do you think? If you need to meet CPC requirements for your license in one or more states, what has been your experience?

And what should the requirements be? Should there be a requirement for specific technical content (discipline specific)? Should there be a requirement for ethics training? Should participation in one of the technical societies or your professional society count toward the requirements? I think the answer to each of these questions is yes. What do you think?

Google, EWeek, and NSPE

This just in ...The Official Google Blog has recognized the company's work through the National Girl Scouts in support of Engineers Week's Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day. The blog also recognizes NSPE as the founder of EWeek.

Changing the Message

When engineers talk about engineering to students or the public (and we don’t do this enough), we frequently deliver wrong messages. How many of us have said, “It’s a very tough degree” or “You really need to be good in math and science,” or my personal favorite, “Only one in three who start in engineering will graduate with an engineering degree”? I know I’m guilty!

NSPE and other engineering groups, through the National Academy of Engineering, are trying to change those messages, and we need your help to spread the word. Four key messages have been crafted to properly portray engineering in the 21st century. They are:

• “Engineers make a world of difference.”
• “Engineers are creative problem-solvers.”
• “Engineers help shape the future.”
• “Engineering is essential to our health, happiness and safety.”

Students today are not intimidated by a rigorous math and science curriculum. What they are learning in high school rivals some of our college content. And we don’t stoop over a desk all day every day with multi-color pens and a calculator strapped to our belt, contemplating abstract problems that don’t appear to have relevance in today’s world. So, why don’t we talk about how cool it is to be an engineer? There aren’t many days that I don’t look forward to going to work. The environment, especially water resources, is my career. It’s also my passion. How many of us can say that?

Join me in changing the message so future generations will know how cool engineering really is and how essential it is to our society. After all, we have engineers because “dreams need doing.”

B+30 -- Raising the Bar?

I recently took part in a teleconference with the North Dakota Society of Professional Engineers to discuss the initiative to “raise the bar” for PE licensure by requiring advanced education beyond the bachelor’s degree. Many believe this is essential if professional engineering is to be regarded as a “learned profession” and stay even with other professional practices that require more than a four-year bachelor’s degree (medicine, law, accounting, architecture, pharmacy, physical therapy…). I understand that this is a contentious issue that some in our profession don’t support, probably because they don’t really understand what it is or what is at stake for our future.

First, this is about those engineering graduates who elect to pursue licensure. The majority of engineering graduates do not choose to pursue licensure, so it doesn’t affect them. We are not advocating a five-year engineering program for all.

Second, the additional education can be taken any time after graduation and before the individual applies for a PE license. They do not need to stay in school for a fifth year if they choose not to. They also don’t need to take a year out of work to meet these added requirements. Coursework that would satisfy “B+30” is offered at night and online, for everyone’s convenience.

The term “B+30” refers to Model Law language adopted by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, but even NCEES admits that the term is confusing. I think the profession should be calling for a master’s degree in engineering as the minimum educational requirement for licensure, preferably a “professional master’s” with coursework that will better prepare candidates for professional practice as opposed to a theoretical master’s.

One reason for the push for more education is the gradual reduction in the credit hours required for a bachelor’s degree in engineering. Many of us recall taking 142-156 credits over four years to get an engineering degree. Most schools today grant a bachelor’s degree in engineering with 124-130 credit hours. And there are market demands to tailor all bachelor’s programs to 120 credit hours! These are market forces that the engineering profession can have little influence over.

Another interesting trend: Many students are taking engineering because of its rigor in math and science, but they have no intention of pursuing an engineering career. They are using it as preparation for medical school, veterinary school, law, an MBA, and other advanced degrees. Our engineering schools are no longer singularly focused on educating the next engineers that will design the bridge they drive over or the water treatment system that will provide them with safe drinking water.

Some claim that requiring additional education will further reduce the number of licensed professional engineers. This may be true in the short-term, but I don’t think it is a long-term concern. Elevating the educational requirements for licensure will attract more of the “best and the brightest” to first consider engineering and, once in it, to stay.

What do you think? I welcome your comments and questions.