Through my travels throughout the U.S. as NSPE president, I’ve been involved in numerous discussions over the “B+30” proposal to increase the amount of education required to become a licensed professional engineer. The viewpoints run the gamut, due in part to a great deal of misunderstanding about what is being sought.
At issue is not the educational experience and competence of every individual who will graduate with a degree in engineering, but the need for a professional degree in engineering (a PE degree). Statistics show that only 1 in 10 engineering graduates will pursue licensure. The other nine pursue careers in a multitude of fields that don’t require a license. This shouldn’t be a debate about changing the engineering curriculum for all. It should be a debate about the level of education that we should require to become a PE.
We need to reframe the argument and the debate around a professional degree in engineering for those who want to pursue a PE license. That in my mind is the essence of the proposal from the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. If you look at the educational requirements for virtually all other licensed professions comparable to a professional engineering, the requirements are substantially more than a bachelor’s degree. Shouldn’t PEs demand the same rigor in our requirements?
The debate shouldn’t be about whether 30 course hours beyond a bachelor’s degree or even whether a master’s degree in engineering is adequate, but whether a traditional master’s degree is enough! Like a JD in law, a degree specifically designed to train those who will practice law, we need a PD in engineering, specifically designed for those who will practice as professional engineers.
