Master's First, Then PE License 17

[EddyC]

ASCE is proposing a revision to the licensing process. They want engineers to get master's degrees before being allowed to get PE Licenses. How do the readers of this forum feel about this?

 

[buzzp]

I think its a bunch of hooey. Is the ASCE a civil or chemical engineering society or something else? Do they give their reasoning as to what issues this will solve or any reference as to why this is coming about?

 

[zdas04]

That is the path I took, but I wouldn't recommend it. Graduate school is mostly pointless mathmatics with zero real world influence. I like arithmetic so I found it fun (yes, Virginia, I am a sick puppy), but it has nothing to do with my Engineering Practice and added nothing to by ability to pass the PE. The math on the PE is much closer to algebra than esoteric solutions to obscure partial differential equations.

I looked up ASCE on Google, and it is Civil. Maybe they are getting so specialized in that field that the Masters is common to differentiate a dam guy from a road guy from a soils guy. If they're seriously proposing needing a Masters for all PE's someone needs to speak for other disciplines.

David

 

[GregLocock]

That is quite ridiculous,in general, for engineers. I know many engineers who rarely use anything from their third year at university.

My third year papers were:

Analysis of structures using partial differentials (plate bending and so on)

Useful insights, but no direct use in my career so far

Design of reinforced concrete structures

Helpful when designing composite structures but again, no direct use

Mechanics of Prime movers

The theoretical foundation of my career.

Surveying

No use whatever. I did it because it is easy, fun, and a certain young lady was going to do it.

So I use about a 1/4-1/2 of my final year topics, and would guess that that is an usually high proportion.

So what is the probability that the average engineer would ever use his Masters?

On the other hand this could be a ploy to (a) restrict numbers and (b) boost the profitability of universities.

The counter argument is that more time at university would give a better foundation. I think you could get much the same effect by chopping out the quite ridiculous level of maths that is taught. I have heard it said that in Australia an engineer does about 3/4 of the maths required for a maths degree.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[harney]

ASCE's official policy statement (with "Issues" and "Rationale") on "Academic Prerequisites for Licensure and Professional Practice" can be found at:

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/policy_details.cfm?hdlid=15

Note that ASCE is a professional organization (not a governing body) for civil engineers, and can only "support" and "encourage" employers, organizations, etc in this practice. ASCE is not affiliated with the State PE Licensing Boards and cannot mandate such a change.

A main issue is the diversification and specialization of some "sub-fields" of civil engineering (environmental, geotechnical, etc). The specialized knowledge (arguably) required for practice in these fields cannot be taught at the undergraduate level. I'm not sure this is ASCE's main motivation, however, since fields have effectively policed themselves quite well--firms are just reluctant to hire without an advanced degree (e.g., geotechnical engineering--it is currently very difficult to practice without having an MSCE).

Whether the extra post-graduate education is "worth it" is probably a matter of chosen field and type of practice. My post-graduate education in civil and geotechnical engineering has been invaluable, but I certainly understand how it may not be as valuable to others practicing in different disciplines, or in other positions.

 

[SB63]

The return on investment for a MS is not worth it. I have not seen engineers with a MS significantly paid more than BS engineers. I would jump on a MS in a heartbeat if I felt it would significantly help me, can't see it though. It appears that the people proposing this are academics who want more business. All the esoteric schooling is not as good as the experience of being there doing the job and this is recognized by the people signing checks.

 

[haynewp]

I have 7 years experience with PE license. I started back last year to get a masters, and was very disappointed. I was spending all my time drawing graphs and writing mathcad sheets for homework. It has been so impractical so far that I do not believe it will be much help to me where I currently work nor anywhere I worked before. I am not sure I am going back.

The extra money for getting a masters in my field and in my area is not there either. Some companies require it, I am not sure why. I know some engineers with a masters degree that aren't nearly as good as some I know without one.

 

[jproj]

My undergrad was in chemical engineering and I am currently working on my masters in environmental engineering. While my experiences may be the exception rather than the rule, I have found very little of my classwork to be esoteric or full of pointless mathmatics. In fact, nearly all of my professors have tried to focus on current industry practices (with theoretical explanations for the "why").

That being said, I really think a masters pre-requisite for the PE is utter nonsense. There are PLENTY of sound engineers out there who have years of experience in their field, but don't have a masters. Could the ASCE just be thinking of ways to elevate the prestiege of the PE (just speculating... I didn't read the article)?

 

[StressGuy]

Truth be told, it doesn't really matter. The PE means so little in this country, since most engineering is done under industry exemption. If they raise that bar, it will only serve to decrease the number of PE's and further reduce their value.

I have my PE even though I don't really need it to do my job. I don't have a masters and doubt I'd ever consider a master's in engineering. If I'd had to get a masters to get my PE, I'm pretty sure I'd never get one.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[DRC1]

Actually, Civils do quite a bit of work that is not under any exemption. Some states require engineering firms to be owned by PE's.
I have read much of ASCE's position on this issue. The theroy is that if engineers were to require an advanced degree as doctors & lawyers do now, our status and paychecks would rise to similar levels.
I don't support this logic. First the reasons that doctors and lawyers make a lot of money have little to do with an advanced degree. As far as prestige, I hear a lot more lawyer jokes than engineer jokes.
Finally the important part of the doctor or lawyer trainig that ASCE overlooks is the apprenticeship. Residency for doctors, clerking for lawyers. It is a structured post graduate training program. If engineeers had such a program, esp. if the training program took engineers into different aspects of their work, the quality of engineering would improve.
I have known many enginners. Many good ones have no degrees, but a lot of common sense. Many bad ones have master and Docterates, but no common sense.
I also don't think common sense is as common as it used to be.

 

[StressGuy]

I think eliminating the industrial exemption would go a lot farther than advanced degrees to raising the prestige and value of engineering. From that, you would then put engineers in a position where advanced degrees and education would be of more value.

Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas

All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.

 

[GregLocock]

Be careful what you wish for. Releasing a flood of ex exempt PEs on the market when manufacturing takes a downturn may not do much for the bottom line of your nice little monopoly!



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[JoeTank]

Mr. Locock,
To what monopoly are you referring? I'm a PE in private practice and have seen nothing that suggests we PEs have a monoploy on anything. Many non-PEs are employed in my world. I'd even guess that most engineers in consulting firms are not licensed when first hired. Most see the value of licensure and obtain it within a few years thereafter though. In the end it is often a personal choice. I have noted many engineers that choose not to be licensed, but still work in non-non-exempt roles.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[GregLocock]

Doesn't your state have a no-compete clause? Doesn't it have artificial barriers to entry?

Many do, even if yours doesn't.

If so, it is a monopoly. Monopolies are not necessarily a bad thing, but they are still monopolies.






Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[JoeTank]

Are you referring to the old requirements in the ethics code to not compete based on fees? The prohibition to not compete on a fee basis disappeared in the 1970s. Quite a few states now require quality based selection processes in which fees may be considered, but cannot be the prime consideration in selection.

There are no barriers that I know of regarding submittal of a qualifications statement/proposal. I trust that you are not referring to the requirement to be licensed as a PE as equal to a barrier to compete for public projects.

Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants

http://www.tankindustry.com

 

[EddyC]

I'm the person who originally started this thread. Looks like there's a variety of opinions on this topic. My personal belief is that a masters degree can be of help in certain work environments, but not all. I don't however think that a masters should be a prerequisite for PE licensure. I believe that ASCE is hoping to make engineers look more professional, by requiring the masters degree. I don't think that masters degrees or elimination of the industrial exemption will have any effect upon the way the public views (and compensates) engineers. Its basically being caused by supply and demand, not ignorance of the profession. As a side note, I think that elimination of the industrial exemption would only result in corporations having a PE review & stamp their designs for a modest fee. The bulk of the work would still be done by unlicensed persons. Whether you look at industry or consulting (exempt vs. non-exempt) the vast majority of engineering is being done by unlicensed persons. The state laws only regulate who can call themselves engineers, not who can do engineering. The majority of the engineering that is being done in the consulting firms that I worked for is being done by unlicensed persons, regardless of title. As far as the comparison to doctors, I think that many folks are misinformed about the current state of the medical profession. Medicine is no longer the lucrative profession that it was a generation ago. HMOs and managed care destroyed the income potential that doctors used to have. The old timers just want to stretch their careers to retirement. The new doctors are wondering how they are ever going to pay off their debts. I know many doctors, young and old. Their gripes sound exactly like the ones we engineers have. The fact is, its a terrible time in US history to be a worker of any kind.

 

[jproj]

"The fact is, its a terrible time in US history to be a worker of any kind."

I completely disagree with the above statement. I'm a design engineer (no masters degree, no PE) in a small company and I don't think I've ever been as busy as I've been over the last 3 months. That's in contrast to times in the past where I've had to make work for myself just to occupy the time.

 

[denoid]

I saw the below editorial in an on-line newsletter I received today relative to the above discussion. (FYI - don't shoot the messenger):



Guidelines for future engineers: What do you think?

By Cathy Bazán-Arias, Ph.D., E.I.T.
I think that it is the duty of today's professional engineers to review their career paths and to develop guidelines for future professional licensing so that our profession maintains and, if possible, increases its prestige. For this reason, I support initiatives such as the American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Policy Statement 465 (PS 465).

As of April 2004, PS 465 reads: "The American Society of Civil Engineers supports the attainment of a Body of Knowledge for entry into the practice of civil engineering at the professional level. This would be accomplished through the adoption of appropriate engineering education and experience requirements as a prerequisite for licensure." The document targets future generations of civil engineers, and the ASCE recognizes that full implementation of this policy could require 10 to 20 years. However, I think the spirit of PS 465 affects the engineers of today in all fields.

The Body of Knowledge recommended by PS 465 consists of a combination of a bachelor's degree, and additional education and experience. But what is meant by "additional education?" According to PS 465, additional education refers to "a master's degree or approximately 30 coordinated graduate or upper level undergraduate credits or the equivalent agency/organization/professional society courses providing equal quality and rigor." Appropriate experience is "based upon broad technical and professional practice guidelines that provide sufficient flexibility for a wide range of roles in engineering practice."

Several of my colleagues misinterpret the above to mean that a master's degree should be required for licensing. This is not the case. PS 465 states that engineers should achieve a level of expertise in the depth and breadth of their profession to become licensed. This likely will require a combination of education beyond a bachelor's degree and practical experience in the work force.

So, why is more education needed? A bachelor's degree in civil engineering provides a solid foundation that enables graduates to enter the work force and to apply fundamental knowledge to engineering projects. However, some academic institutions opine that "fundamental knowledge" means fewer credit programs with more "focused" classes. Others think that it comprises about 130 credits to cover the breadth (if not depth) of the basic knowledge required for an engineer in 2004. Regardless, there seems to be a consensus that a licensed engineer needs knowledge beyond a four-year degree. If this is true today, what can we expect 20 years from now?

Change is inevitable and constant. And expanding our existing civil infrastructure in an innovative and economical fashion, dealing with new construction materials, and developing "intelligent equipment" are just some of the challenges for future civil engineers. I believe that current professional engineers have a wealth of experience in dealing with similar challenges. They should examine their own histories and devise and support measures to promote a continued level of excellence in the practice of engineering. What do you think? Please write to me at civilconnection@cenews.com.

 

[Tobalcane]

I think in most states, one does not need a college degree to become a PE (just many numbers of years of engineering experience to by pass the bachelor requirement). The ASCE does not even address this issue. Is the ASCE also trying to get rid of this by pass way of getting the PE?

 

[SB63]

Again, it's the academics that are pushing for more requirements. I recently, (in the past year), put together my application for PE exam and honestly feel that this was harder than the test. The experience has to be there and written properly because the state engineering board can see through the fluff. My state engineering board is very picky and has the reputation of not letting anyone take the PE exam without slam dunk proper credentials. The state boards should tell ASCE to take a hike because the state boards are already making it harder for entry in to the licensed ranks by their screening process. Sure they have it on the books that a person can get licensed without college. In practice, I doubt any board worth it's salt would accept that.