I'm wondering what other folks think about this. Do you think that we should have 1 PE license good for the whole USA? Or shall we keep the current state license sysytem? I'm wondering if a single national license has ever been pursued with the government and if not, how would one go about fighting for it?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
National PE License? 11
- Thread starter EddyC
- Start date
I am not sure about the legal ramifications of a national PE license. Supposedly, if a failure occurs that is traced to an incorrect engineering decision, the legal and economic liabilities are determined in a state court, and the sanction of suspending or removing a person's PE license can be made by a state authority . If there is a national PE license, a state authority would not be able to change the licensee's status directly and would at best offer a recomendation of censure to the national authority.
I am not arguing for a national license, simply to have my one home jurisdiction license recognized by all other jurisdictions.
I do not have a national driver’s license. I have a Manitoba one and it is automatically recognised in North Dakota.
If I get a driving conviction in the state court in North Dakota, I will have in addition to paying the North Dakota fine, be accessed demerits against my Manitoba driver’s license.
Driving laws and conditions are different in North Dakota than they are here in Manitoba. I am responsible for obeying the laws that exist in wherever I am driving and in adjusting my driving to suit conditions.
Yes it is a courtesy that is extended to me as a visitor in North Dakota and yes if I moved to North Dakota I would have to go and get a North Dakota license. It would involve simply surrendering my Manitoba license and getting a North Dakota one (at least that is what happens in moving to another Canadian province.)
When I first got my license North Dakota had no say in the standards I had to meet and the testing of me to those standards.
No one seems to have problem with this for driver’s licenses. Now substitute the words engineering license for driver’s license and there is a big problem.
If a Florida engineer put a water line 1 m deep in North Dakota, then firstly no reputable contractor would install it without making clear the reason for his protest, but the Florida engineer would be guilty of unethical conduct because he was doing work in which he was unqualified to do. The North Dakota authorities would discipline him and the Florida authorities would ensure that the discipline was carried out.
No the only real reason that I can see for separate licenses is that it protects North Dakota from having to compete against us Manitobans. Too bad no one recognises that that also restricts North Dakota from competing for Manitoba work.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
I do not have a national driver’s license. I have a Manitoba one and it is automatically recognised in North Dakota.
If I get a driving conviction in the state court in North Dakota, I will have in addition to paying the North Dakota fine, be accessed demerits against my Manitoba driver’s license.
Driving laws and conditions are different in North Dakota than they are here in Manitoba. I am responsible for obeying the laws that exist in wherever I am driving and in adjusting my driving to suit conditions.
Yes it is a courtesy that is extended to me as a visitor in North Dakota and yes if I moved to North Dakota I would have to go and get a North Dakota license. It would involve simply surrendering my Manitoba license and getting a North Dakota one (at least that is what happens in moving to another Canadian province.)
When I first got my license North Dakota had no say in the standards I had to meet and the testing of me to those standards.
No one seems to have problem with this for driver’s licenses. Now substitute the words engineering license for driver’s license and there is a big problem.
If a Florida engineer put a water line 1 m deep in North Dakota, then firstly no reputable contractor would install it without making clear the reason for his protest, but the Florida engineer would be guilty of unethical conduct because he was doing work in which he was unqualified to do. The North Dakota authorities would discipline him and the Florida authorities would ensure that the discipline was carried out.
No the only real reason that I can see for separate licenses is that it protects North Dakota from having to compete against us Manitobans. Too bad no one recognises that that also restricts North Dakota from competing for Manitoba work.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
-
2
- Thread starter
- #23
Folks,
Let me amplify my original post a little further:
a) You take your PE exam and pass.
b) You get a single national license and stamp, marked "USA" instead of "State Of ..."
c) The single national license is administered by all 50 states. If you do anything unethical, the affected state disciplines you. The others act accordingly.
What I'm really trying to do is get rid of the voluminous paperwork, numerous stamps and fees.
A single national license would also make it easier to eliminate the industrial exemption, since manufacturing companies are involved in interstate commerce, thereby needing PEs who are licensed in every state.
I would like to differ on the "easier to eliminate industrial exemption" comment. In my opinion, the industrial exemption has nothing to do with portability. In my opinion, it has to do with certain industries/companies wanting worker bee engineers, not engineering professionals, in their employ, with its ramifications (which can include cost). I know it is a hopeless battle, but, for example, would you use an unlicensed doctor because he worked for a large hospital rather than as a sole practitioner.
Knowing the feedback this can get, I know lots of highly qualified unlicensed engineers and unqualified licensed engineers, but this does not change my opinion. There are also competant and incompetant doctors, but it is an issue of professionalism.
Sorry to shift the topic of this thread.
Knowing the feedback this can get, I know lots of highly qualified unlicensed engineers and unqualified licensed engineers, but this does not change my opinion. There are also competant and incompetant doctors, but it is an issue of professionalism.
Sorry to shift the topic of this thread.
cb4,
You state... "I would like to differ on the "easier to eliminate industrial exemption" comment. In my opinion, the industrial exemption has nothing to do with portability. In my opinion, it has to do with certain industries/companies wanting worker bee engineers, not engineering professionals, in their employ, with its ramifications (which can include cost)."
Regarding the desire for "worker bee engineers, not engineering professionals", I'd like to offer the possibility that these firms do not feel there is a difference; hence, they have no desire either way. Yes, subsidizing PE fees is an expense, but a minor one in my view.
Whether the degreed engineer is licensed or not, the quantity and quality of the work remains the same for the employer. So, how would an employer in a manufacturing business that never encounters the need for a PE to sign and seal his own work ever get to a point of encouraging or discouraging the PE license. In the absence of a need for the PE signature, I suspect the employer would be pretty much neutral on the issue.
My work is generally construction related and the submittal of drawings to clients and their engineerring consultants is very routine. As such, many manufactured products have to bear a PE seal just to obtain building permits. It looks to me that the "industrial exemption" is shrinking day by day, but I would like to hear what you and the others may offer in that regard.
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
You state... "I would like to differ on the "easier to eliminate industrial exemption" comment. In my opinion, the industrial exemption has nothing to do with portability. In my opinion, it has to do with certain industries/companies wanting worker bee engineers, not engineering professionals, in their employ, with its ramifications (which can include cost)."
Regarding the desire for "worker bee engineers, not engineering professionals", I'd like to offer the possibility that these firms do not feel there is a difference; hence, they have no desire either way. Yes, subsidizing PE fees is an expense, but a minor one in my view.
Whether the degreed engineer is licensed or not, the quantity and quality of the work remains the same for the employer. So, how would an employer in a manufacturing business that never encounters the need for a PE to sign and seal his own work ever get to a point of encouraging or discouraging the PE license. In the absence of a need for the PE signature, I suspect the employer would be pretty much neutral on the issue.
My work is generally construction related and the submittal of drawings to clients and their engineerring consultants is very routine. As such, many manufactured products have to bear a PE seal just to obtain building permits. It looks to me that the "industrial exemption" is shrinking day by day, but I would like to hear what you and the others may offer in that regard.
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
GregLocock
Automotive
I am an engineering professional, not a worker bee, and not a PE.
I sign stuff off that will kill members of the public if it is done incorrectly, and mine is the /only/ technical signature on that report. Sure, there are other signatures on the report, but they are there for organisational reasons.
The /only/ difference in a practical sense is that my external liability and responsibility is assumed by the company I work for.
Cheers
Greg Locock
I sign stuff off that will kill members of the public if it is done incorrectly, and mine is the /only/ technical signature on that report. Sure, there are other signatures on the report, but they are there for organisational reasons.
The /only/ difference in a practical sense is that my external liability and responsibility is assumed by the company I work for.
Cheers
Greg Locock
As I said, there are lots of very highly qualified and competent engineers that are not PEs (and of course unqualified ones that are). I still believe that we would be better treated and paid, as a profession, if all engineers were required to be licensed professional engineers, similar to doctors and lawyers (i.e no industrial exemption).
- Thread starter
- #28
cb4,
Are you talking about no one performing engineering unless they are a PE?
Or are you talking about no one calling themselves engineers unless they are licensed (even though they do engineering)?
Right now 78% of the people doing engineering are not licensed. Since many PEs rise to managerial levels, it would actually be higher than 78%.
Please clarify your view.
My view is it would be the same as doctors and lawyers. You could not be called and engineer unless you had a PE. You could, without a license, of course work as an intern, assistant, etc doing engineering work under the supervision of a licensed engineer. So, essentially, my view is to be called an engineer one must be licensed (this is not inconsistent with present law in many states) and all work should be performed under the supervision of licensed professional engineers. Think for example, of parallegals working with lawyers and various medical assistants and nurses working with medical doctors.
I do not believe this is going to happen, and if it was to happen, it would have to be a long and probably complex transition process. Clearly, you don't want to suddenly try to push engineers with 20 years experience, without having been required to pass a PE, to go out now and pass the exam to continue to do what they have been doing.
My point though was that I believe we would be better treated and paid as a profession in this scenario.
I do not believe this is going to happen, and if it was to happen, it would have to be a long and probably complex transition process. Clearly, you don't want to suddenly try to push engineers with 20 years experience, without having been required to pass a PE, to go out now and pass the exam to continue to do what they have been doing.
My point though was that I believe we would be better treated and paid as a profession in this scenario.
GregLocock
Automotive
I'm sure we all agree, to some extent. But, there seem little point on insisting on PE for all engineers when the PE process is broken at two fundamental levels.
(1) The PE exam. Hallo chaps, I've just spent X0000 dollars getting an accredited engineering degree, now you want to set me a multi-choice exam on some irrelevant disciplines using cook-book derived equations to see if I am academically qualified? Get real. Make the degree sufficiently rigorous so that in itself it contains all the necessary work - and if that includes a year learning how to do cook-book engineering, fine. That might even be useful. I'd have appreciated it.
(2) Personal liability in exempt industries. This is a bit more difficult, and I've mentioned it before. The crash performance of a production vehicle is dependent on the engineering work of between ten and several hundred engineers, many of whom are specialists, for three years before launch, and then for the life of the model, say 4 years. No one engineer could claim to have supervised all that work with a straight face. It is unlikely that one engineer would even work on that car for those seven years. The company's design process and manufacturing system is the thing that makes sure the car meets the crash regs, not some dude in an office with a license on the wall (to make a point somewhat aggressively).
Cheers
Greg Locock
(1) The PE exam. Hallo chaps, I've just spent X0000 dollars getting an accredited engineering degree, now you want to set me a multi-choice exam on some irrelevant disciplines using cook-book derived equations to see if I am academically qualified? Get real. Make the degree sufficiently rigorous so that in itself it contains all the necessary work - and if that includes a year learning how to do cook-book engineering, fine. That might even be useful. I'd have appreciated it.
(2) Personal liability in exempt industries. This is a bit more difficult, and I've mentioned it before. The crash performance of a production vehicle is dependent on the engineering work of between ten and several hundred engineers, many of whom are specialists, for three years before launch, and then for the life of the model, say 4 years. No one engineer could claim to have supervised all that work with a straight face. It is unlikely that one engineer would even work on that car for those seven years. The company's design process and manufacturing system is the thing that makes sure the car meets the crash regs, not some dude in an office with a license on the wall (to make a point somewhat aggressively).
Cheers
Greg Locock
Mr. Locock,
I'm sure this is just one more response to already meaningless arguement at this point. You and I could not possibly invest enough time and effort to convince enough people about the merits of the PE/PEng system. Both seem to have pluses and minuses. I guess it comes down to which system you tolerate. On one hand you give the license away with the engineering degree. On the other, you require a multiple guess exam format for licensure. Both seem to satisfy their respective Jurisdictions, but not the practioners of the other type. So, I guess we're each stuck until smarter folks than I solve this situation.
What still worries me though, neither system seems capable of keeping the incompetents out. And, that is the flaw with any system. So in the end, one would have to decide to abandon a flawed system for a differently flawed system. Since the local Jurisdictions probably drive this train, I don't forsee much movement for a long time.
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
I'm sure this is just one more response to already meaningless arguement at this point. You and I could not possibly invest enough time and effort to convince enough people about the merits of the PE/PEng system. Both seem to have pluses and minuses. I guess it comes down to which system you tolerate. On one hand you give the license away with the engineering degree. On the other, you require a multiple guess exam format for licensure. Both seem to satisfy their respective Jurisdictions, but not the practioners of the other type. So, I guess we're each stuck until smarter folks than I solve this situation.
What still worries me though, neither system seems capable of keeping the incompetents out. And, that is the flaw with any system. So in the end, one would have to decide to abandon a flawed system for a differently flawed system. Since the local Jurisdictions probably drive this train, I don't forsee much movement for a long time.
Steve Braune
Tank Industry Consultants
If all engineers were required to be licensed to practice, they could lose their licenses for incompetancy (e.g. similar to disbarment).
GregLockett, in general, having a PE adds no more or less liability for your acts. With respect to the auto industry example, I would like to see all of the engineers working on the project licensed. Are they professionals, or not.
GregLockett, in general, having a PE adds no more or less liability for your acts. With respect to the auto industry example, I would like to see all of the engineers working on the project licensed. Are they professionals, or not.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question