Mandate License or Certification 6

[metengr]

Over the last several weeks of reading various posts, there are numerous opinions regarding the regional or national over-supply and demand for engineers.

Perhaps to reduce the supply and weed out engineers that look at engineering as an occupation (activity that occupies ones time to earn a living) versus a profession (occupation that requires special education), we should mandate a PE license or federal certification to work as an engineer?

This could be phased in for new (graduating) engineers, and for employed engineers a grace period of 3 years to obtain a license or certification. This I believe would trim the current over-supply of engineers and increase the salary for those that obtain a license or certification. If pharmacists, lawyers, dentists and doctors can do this type of self-imposed regulation to limit the supply, why couldn't the engineering profession do the same thing??

 

[ischgl99]

I should start off by saying I think certification is a good idea and graduates should be required to take the EIT in their senior year, but I think there are a couple major obstacles for this to happen.

First is companies will not tolerate anything that will increase their costs and will lobby very aggressively against this. Medical professionals require certification since their jobs have a direct effect on the welfare and safety of the public. You will have a hard time convincing someone that an engineers job has the same risks. We already require certification for structural engineers, but to require certification for a project engineer for instance probably would not fly.

Second, if certification does go into effect and the supply of engineers decreases, companies will either reclassify present engineering jobs and fill them with technicians or simply outsource to countries where they are not subject to the certification process. Companies have been using non-certified engineers for a long time, since they do not feel there is a need for it, it will probably cause an even higher oversupply then now.

Instead of requiring certification, a middle step might be a better solution. By requiring engineering graduates to pass the EIT to receive their diploma, it will weed out some of the lower quality students and may discourage some from even pursuing engineering in the first place.

Mike Bensema

http://www.dutchmenservices.com

 

[profengmen]

Like we need another PE thread......anyhow;

We already have too many lawyers, they require special licensing.

We have too many people driving cars, they require licensing.

We Have red flags in Eng-tips forum, yet we have too many PE requirement postings....

 

[JoeTank]

metengr,
What you propose is already required in order to offer engineering services to the public.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[Tobalcane]

Sorry mentengr, we are beating a dead horse here. But to answer your question, in my opinion pharmacist, lawyers, dentists, and doctors serve the public “directly” where industrial exempt engineers deal with the public “indirectly”. We design stuff, but other people use it for the public. All of the doctor’s tools were engineered, but it is the doctor who will use it on the patient. We do not have services that the general public can use or want to pay use to do for them. It is different for Civil Engr and Structural Engr because what they design is on a very large scale (buildings and bridges). Also, these are places where large congregation of people will be using. There will be a large fatality if their designs fail.

For us industrial exempt engineers who worked hard for our degrees are at the mercy of the companies who hire us. If they have to cut over head and once the design is done, they don’t really need the engineers any more. They can replace the engineers with designers with an engineer title. The company can call anybody and I mean anybody an engineer, from the sales people (sales engineer) to the janitor (janitorial engineer).

I’m not against having the PE. The reason that I’m going for mine is to separate my self from the designer or technician. I have been in an engineering group where one of the guys had his only degree in hotel management, go figure.


Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[EddyC]

The purpose of licensing is to help protect the public. It is not meant to be a weapon against the competition.

 

[moltenmetal]

Please remember that the US is not the only jurisdiction in the world, nor on this forum. In Canada, there is no general exception from licensure. The default position is that an engineer must be licensed to provide engineering services to the public. The only alternative to licensure is to provide engineering services under the direction of a professional engineer who takes professional responsibility for your work. Each province has a professional engineering Act which gives this the force of law.

That said, licensure of engineers in industry is far from complete, and there are lots of non-licensed and non-engineers doing what would be defined as professional engineering. Why is that? A lack of enforcement on the part of the professional engineering bodies because it's expensive, and because enforcement on this issue raises the hackles of powerful people in industry who have the ear of their masters in the provincial governments. The other reason? Our largest trading partner has a general exception from licensure for engineers in industry, and most people assume our regulatory regime is the same.

Is licensure a good thing? In concept, yes- it's protective of the public safety in a proactive way, unlike liability insurance which merely compensates the victims after the harm has been done. Most engineering is not trivial- it represents a harm to the public (i.e. individuals, their businesses and/or their property) if done incompetently, therefore licensure is in the public interest.

That's great for the public, but what about the licencees? A license is only good for the licencees if it does what a license is supposed to do: severely limit the practice of non-licensed people, and provide a defensible, exclusive right to practice for the licensees. Currently our license fails to do that for about 75% of professional engineers. The license in this case imposes fees and responsibilities on the licencees without offering anything in return, and is therefore worse than worthless. But our licensure regime CAN be fixed, if we engineers have the will to do so!

 

[Tobalcane]

In an industry (defense, automotive, printed circuit board,…etc) where a PE is not required and most people in that industry don’t even know what a PE is, having the two letters after your name is not a weapon but a distinction that this person cares about the public and his career. In defense, it is just another piece of credential so that you are put in a better light. Is this wrong? Absolutely. Does it make you a better engineer? No it does not. But in the world of credentials it is important. When Tom, Dick, and Harry hands out their business cards to a client or new acquaintance, it is gracefully received, but when John Smith P.E. hands his business card, John will get the raised eye brow of interest. Not because John is a better engineer, but a person who cares about the public and his career.

“Perhaps to reduce the supply and weed out engineers that look at engineering as an occupation (activity that occupies ones time to earn a living) versus a profession (occupation that requires special education), we should mandate a PE license or federal certification to work as an engineer?”

Let me ask this question…if we engineers can not induce the importance of having the title of Engineer to the company, how are we going to induce the importance of having a Professional Engineer? Right now we can not even regulate who can call them selves’ engineers. If we can not control a simple simple simple (yes I said it thrice) title, how are we going to control the whole profession?

“In Canada, there is no general exception from licensure. The default position is that an engineer must be licensed to provide engineering services to the public. The only alternative to licensure is to provide engineering services under the direction of a professional engineer who takes professional responsibility for your work. Each province has a professional engineering Act which gives this the force of law.”

I’m no political major so I may be completely wrong, but Canada is more of a socialist country where USA is more of a capitalist country. I can see in a socialist environment that the people have more of a say of controlling the companies in their country for the good of the people. Here in the states, it is more of the people have no control and any say would be in the best interest of the company. For companies to pay more for PEs thus reducing their profit margin by a fraction is not good, so why would they want to start hiring PEs? There is no reason for companies to be in favor of regulating engineers in the USA. Well you would say for the safety of the public. If you don’t know it yet, but most products have to be tested for public safety by the Underwriters Lab (UL) and in most industries there are specifications and regulations that have to be followed for the purpose of public safety. Why even need a PE? We already have mechanisms in place so that most of all designs have to comply with regulations to protect the public.


Well back to work....

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[EddyC]

A lack of engineers getting licensed is not really the major problem in the engineering profession. The real problems are shorter schedules, smaller budgets, flat salaries, no mentoring, etc. Quality of a design can only be assured when these items (as well as licensing) are addressed. Looks like there's going to have to be some major engineering failures before society and the business community recognize this.

The engineering community has done a poor job of promoting licensure. I mentioned licensing to a recent engineering graduate. She said: "Isn't that for folks going into construction?" Her father who is also an engineer and who has his own biomedical company stated that the use of the engineer title is essentially unregulated (He is wrong). Waxing poetically about "protecting the public" is counterproductive. I have yet to meet any engineer who does his/her job with the intent of harming anyone. To state otherwise is insulting. If you want to encourage licensing, you have to promote its advantages, not insult those who haven't obtained their's yet.

Even in the world of consulting (where there is no industrial exemption) most "design individuals" are unlicensed. Why? Because they are offering their services to their employer and not to the public. You can have a scenario of a consulting firm with 100 "design individuals" and 1 PE, and you would be in conformance with the current state laws governing engineering practice. So it seems that there is an exemption in the consulting world as well as in industry.

Lets encourage licensing to all qualified individuals. I do to everyone that I meet. But lets do it for the right reasons. Lets clearly state its advantages. We shouldn't put down anyone for not being a PE anymore than someone with a masters degree puts down someone with a bachelors.

 

[QCE]

Did Ford have a driver's license?
Did John Deere have a driver's license?
Maybe we don't need those either.

It's not purposely creating a shortage, it is purposely letting companies know who is qualified to be an engineer and who is not. If the company chooses to pay people more for being qualified then it will be.

PS: Did John Deere invent the steel plow?

 

[JoeTank]

EddyC,

You state..."Even in the world of consulting (where there is no industrial exemption) most "design individuals" are unlicensed. Why? Because they are offering their services to their employer and not to the public. You can have a scenario of a consulting firm with 100 "design individuals" and 1 PE, and you would be in conformance with the current state laws governing engineering practice. So it seems that there is an exemption in the consulting world as well as in industry."

Normally, a design team at a consulting firm does not consist of all PEs. The "design individuals" are a vital and necessary part of the engineering group. They are not lesser team members. They just bring a different set of skills to bear. In my experience, they often have more hands-on experience and are of great value to the overall process.

With regards to the 1:100 example, I do not believe that such a situation conforms to any state's PE requirements. No PE could supervise such a large number team.

A PE that rubber-stamps the work of others, no matter how big the team, is violating all the precepts of the PE regulations, including the ethical matters. When it happens, we all end up looking bad. Such a situation in the consulting world does not constitute an "exemption", it signifies fraud and deceit by a rubber-stamping, needs-to be-reported, embarassment-to-us-all, sorry Professional Engineer.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[profengmen]

QCE,
good point, no, Ford did not have a drivers license or a PE license. Further proof that neither is needed, thank you for pointing that out.

Perhaps to reduce the supply snipped from the second paragraph of the beginning thread, pretty strong proof of creating a shortage, that's what reducing a supply does. When OPEC reduces the supply of oil, the price goes up.

John Deere developed the first "self scouring steel plow", which made a significant improvement in productivity, and yes, he did it without a drivers license and a PE license; thank you again for pointing out that neither is needed.

It's not purposely creating a shortage, it is purposely letting companies know who is qualified to be an engineer and who is not. If the company chooses to pay people more for being qualified then it will be.

Wrong, is is porposefully creating a shortage as stated in the beginning of this thread, that was one of the points of the thread. "to reduce the supply". If the supply is saturated, it will reduce itself through the lowering of wages and the loss of interest by college entrants.

The PE does not at all let companies know who is qualified and who is not; it only let's them know who passed the test and received references. It says nothing about qualifications toward that companies particular need, that needs to be proven through performance. Don't tell me a PE has never been fired for poor performance. It also does not tell who is NOT qualified, only poor performance tells a company who is not qualified, the thousands of industrial exempt engineers already proved you wrong on that one.


Steve,
A PE that rubber-stamps the work of others, no matter how big the team, is violating all the precepts of the PE regulations,

Really? I thought that's what they did, are you saying that they can only stamp their own drawings?

 

[PSE]

profengmen,

I believe what stevebraun was indicating is "rubber-stamping" would be to put one's stamp on a drawing without reviewing it. A PE can stamp other's work but it should not be done automatically.

Aside from that, I do agree that a PE or a certification means basically the same thing as a degree. The individual has been deemed to at least meet the minimum requirements. The license is a display to the public that the individual may be trusted to hold the public welfare foremost in their work. Just as there are "bad" doctors and "shady" lawyers, PE's or certified individuals will not be immune from having a few bad apples.

As a way to control supply, unfeasible. The only way to protect your job is to do it as well as you possibly can. If you are valued by your employer you will retain your position. If your employer is valued in the marketplace it will stay in business.

Regards,

 

[QCE]

It's pretty tough to argue with a person that doesn't understand your sarcasm. I'm not so sure you would drive if the blind man driving beside you didn't have his driver's license. I'm not so sure you would let a doctor operate on you with out a license to prove his skills. I'm not so sure you would hire a lawyer that said I don't have the proper degree to be licensed but I'm really good.

So why would someone hire an engineer that doesn't have the correct degree to see if they can prove themselves when they can hire someone with an engineering degree and certification from a state board.

 

[metengr]

PSE;
Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. Having a PE is not the same as having a degree. Yes, I do have a PE and busted my but to get it.

No, I don't believe that by not having a PE makes you a lesser engineer. Obtaining a PE means you are interested in furthering your engineering career, and have demonstrated by examination and experience that you can practice the profession of engineering to protect the public health and welfare.

The argument regarding companies hiring engineers with just engineering degrees is fine. But I will tell you this, put up to equally qualified engineering candidates and I would bet the candidate that posses a PE will have a better shot at employment.

 

[PSE]

metengr,

I have no doubt that in your view, the PE means that you are interested in furthering your engineering career. Would it mean so in the eyes of the public? Or would it mean that like a doctor, dentist, lawyer, you have met a series of criteria that allows you to publicly practice? The public at large being ignorant as to what that criteria is. The document may be on the wall, but you don't really know the type of service you will get until you actually use it.

Equally qualified engineering candidates for a position do not exist in my view. Technical competency is only part of the assessment. PE or no, they have to be able to fit as part of my team. It would be inappropriate to not consider overall personality and the "feel" you get from interviewing someone. If you know your group mix, you know the type of individual needed to fill a particular opening.

I do believe that the PE is a worthy goal for career achievement. I simply find it irritating at best when someone proposes forcing or mandating it as a control mechanism.

Regards,