PE Journal

Another task at hand is the broader public relations/ public perception of PEs, which in turn fuels demand and industry recognition for the profession as something that goes far beyond an undergraduate degree.

One obstacle is, as you mentioned, the absence of need for PE licensure for engineers  practicing engineering within a corporation.  This industrial exemption alone is one of the business world realities that is alive and well today.   No one could possibly say they are a "lawyer" without a JD while the number of job titles with the word "engineer" in them is in the thousands, the majority of which not requiring a PE.  Even though legally an engineer cannot conduct engineering in private practice without licensure, the number of engineers in private practice are at a vast minority relative to their industrial/corporation counterparts.  This ties into public perception because there is no "market" need, as it were, for licensed engineers practice engineering when that void can filled with college-degreed engineers doing the same task.  I believe this is an issue that goes far beyond the realm of mere semantics.

In that sense, the problem may be one of  economic incentives---what would be the advantage for any individual to pursue additional education on their own volition if (a) there is no public awareness of its need when in fact, PEs affect our lives each time we cross a bridge, enter a building, drive by a chemical plant (b) much of the need of furthering one's skills in the profession has been passed onto the individual or by a company making a decision that such licensed individuals (or those with master's degrees) are necessary for the business.

The advantage that private companies have is the incentive of promotions, pay, and work experience to encourage licensure or master degrees from within.  Knowing that a certain opportunity would not otherwise be available unless licensure or an advanced degree was obtained, this motivation drives the individual towards pursuing this type of professional advancement.

Bring the cream of the crop of engineers into the licensing profession will certainly add to its professional and societal significance, but there is a lot of work to be be done before that significance will have any weight outside our own profession.  B+30 will certainly raise the knowledge-based capabilities of the profession without a doubt. B+30 wil lmake us even more qualified, more knowledgeable, more skillful, more adept at our chosen disciplines within the engineering profession. The issue is whether the public will care.

In my view as a 10 years in industry EIT who will be taking this April's PE exam without any promise of salary increase at my company, B+30 highlights the broader challenges for us as a profession:

[] Engineers, either through personal incentive or professional incentive, almost always will choose a master's degree over a PE under today's current situation because masters degrees, especially in other professional fields (MBA, JD, etc.) are strongly correlated with increased opportunity, financially, responsibility-related, and otherwise.  Companies, under the industry exemption, have no similar incentive for a PE.  In cases where PEs are required to seal drawings or approve engineering work, the PE requirement falls onto the scale of a "work requirement" on par with requiring an undergraduate degree before that individual is hired, not after the individual has accepted the position.

[] At any given social gathering, how many people there will know what a JD is?  How many will know what an MBA is? How many will know what a PE is?

Having these issues of public understanding are not narcissistic for the profession at all--rather, they are engines that drive current and future students into the field that is a function of job satisfaction, impact to society, and professional pride.  This in turn drives funding to academic programs, attracts and retains the best and brightest within the engineering world, and shapes how entire industries grow (as well as whether those industries are employed by engineers from this country or from other countries).

Our very own Code of Ethics states that "Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people...dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare."  As individuals working in engineering fields, we all know that.  

Our greatest challenge is that no one else does.

A lot of great thought went into the comments above and I applaud your insight. My response will brief.  I am hoping the engineering community will rally around the new NAE messages books.nap.edu/catalog.php to promote engineering and that public understanding will improve as a result.  The more engineers we have the more PEs we will need.

Initially a concern I heard most was that we don't have enough engineering graduates pursuing their PE license in the first place, and this requirement would exacerbate the problem.  After a while it finally occurred to me that many PEs are already required to enlist in continuing professional development either by law or by ethical standards.

In the states with mandatory CPC that I am aware of, the requirement is 12-15 credits per year, which happens to exceed 30 credits in two or three years.  It typically takes 4 years of experience to sit for the PE exam giving ample time for engineers to obtain 30 credits of valuable knowledge to jumpstart their careers.

Let's not confuse PDH's or CEU's (which are contact hours) with Credit Hours (which are average weekly hours in an academic term). States with mandatory CPC require up to 12-15 contact hours per year, not Credit Hours. One Credit Hour is the equivalent of approximately 15 contact hours.  Therefore, on a contact hour basis "B+30" would be expressed as "B+450".

Granted, but on the Kathryn has put her finger on the point.  Broader education and continuous learning are ethical standards.

My comment on "B+30" is "show me increased public health, safety and welfare."  If that cannot be demonstrated, then I perceive "B+30" is an illegitimate effort to appropriate the power of the state to create a restriction on trade.

Bigger, picture, my perception of why NSPE/TSPE have not succeeded in their mission of advocating and advancing PE licensure to where most, if not almost all engineers, are licensed is because they will not "name and shame" the federal government (or industry) when engineering disasters involving non-licensed engineers occur.

Think of Columbia and Challenger space shuttles, levee failures in New Orleans, Dept. of Energy sick workers, Three Mile Island, Firestone Tires, etc.

The engineering disaster of the failed dikes at the TVA Kingston Steam Plant in Roane County, TN (the website for Knoxville newspaper <www.knews.com> has much current/related info) is another opportunity for NSPE/TSPE to say something as "had the responsible TVA engineers been licensed, instead of TVA invoking some exemption to TN engineering  law, the inadequate design would not have been allowed for so long and this disaster would either likely have been prevented or individual professional fault for it more readily established."

The only legitimate reason for the State to regulate the engineering profession via licensure is to discharge its mandate to protect public health and safety.  Otherwise, requiring engineering licensure is an illegitimate restraint on trade.   To call for more educational requirements to become a PE is without demonstrating how that would result in improved protection for public health and safety is, in my opinion, a basically flawed argument.

Thank you, John, on correcting my misuse of the term credit hours.

All:

I have been involved with this discussion for over 15 years.  During that time, I have seen the de facto requirements of the market in my discipline (Civil Engineering) move toward imposing the Masters as First Professional Degree in four of the seven major sub-disciplines of Civil Engineering.  Most employers in the Structural, Environmental, Geotechnical and Transportation areas require their new hires to have a concentrated Masters in that sub-discipline before they are trusted as Project Engineers, Job Captains or Project Managers. I'm not certain that Geomatics, Construction or Materials Engineering have reached that level of entry qualifications yet.

One element of the equation was settled last year when EAC of ABET decided to allow multiple degree levels of the same Program at the same institution to seek accreditation.  Previously, institutions had to choose between accrediting the baccalaureate degree and the masters degree.  Thew result was that there were very few accredited Masters in Engineering Programs. Now, the institutions must choose to accredit one or the other levels of degrees in the same program or to bear the expense of accreditation for multiple levels of degrees in the same program.

The Indiana Society of Professional Engineers hosted a point-counterpoint between Professor Wilfrid Nixon (University of Iowa) and Dean Stuart Walesh (Valparaiso University) in 1997, where Prof. Nixon took the opposing view and Dean walesh took the supporting view of "The Masters as First Professional Degree - an Idea whose Time has Come?"

Unfortunately, a P.E. license has become an eligibility requirement for positions where the incumbent will never be asked to stamp a plan. I'm concerned that requiring more education to sit for the P.E. exam will make it more difficult for minorities and women to gain access to a career in engineering.  If we truly need the best and the brightest, we shouldn't be making it more difficult to become licensed.  

This is interesting, the apparent supporting of additional impediments/restrictions to becoming a Professional Engineer without any basis in statistics.

I don't know if this is the case here, but this is typical of "Academia" type decisions, i.e. the more education in an institution, the smarter you will be and therefore less mistakes you will make.  I contest this.

How will this improve anything?  Is there any proof anywhere that those with masters degrees make less design mistakes resulting in accidents?

Only 18% of all engineers are licensed with a P.E., and yet, our world seems to function just fine.

Don't get a P.E. license. It's not financially and socially worth it. A JD/MBA looks way better on your resume.

Leave the P.E.'s to the grunt work.....

Just a way for universities to make more money.  That is all  :)

I'm going to have to agree with Janus on this one...