Revamping the PE liscensing Process? 9

[PSE]

Several posts, primarily within the Professional Ethics Forum, deal with either trying to define who an Engineer is, or liscensing. Is the only "true Engineer" a liscensed one? Given the relative diversity of potential engineering occupations (if not titles), should liscensing bodies (worldwide) expand, or re-define the scope of liscensure? In the US it seems (from my exposure) that the majority of Engineers do their jobs under the "Industrial Exemption" rule rather than persue liscensure. Some may not know how their work "fits" in with the current liscensing categories or simply find it more convienient. Should international "reciprocity" rules be established for liscensed individuals?

Regards,

PSE

 

[Rich2001]

Here is some information on international reciprocity. Copied from the United States Council for International Engineering Practice website

http://www.usciep.org/

E-commerce and globalization of the world's economy have increased opportunities for engineers to work on international projects. Although technology easily overcomes geographical borders, legal barriers exist. Barriers include legitimate concerns of language, ethics, local engineering codes and standards, and the establishment of a multinational set of minimum requirements for engineering practice privileges. Some barriers, however, are based more on turf protection than concerns for the public welfare.

USCIEP's counterparts in other countries are developing agreements and alliances to remove unnecessary barriers.

Two international organizations — the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Engineer Coordinating Committee and the Engineers Mobility Forum (EMF) — seek to improve mobility by establishing two decentralized international registries. The APEC and EMF registries will list engineers from the APEC and EMF member countries who meet minimum qualifications for licensure. The minimum standards include engineering education requirements, professional experience, compliance with home jurisdiction requirements, having a verified record of responsible charge, and demonstrating a commitment to continuing education.

The ultimate goal of the registry is to streamline the process for experienced professional engineers who want to obtain practice privileges in countries that are members of the APEC Engineer project and EMF. The registries are "decentralized," meaning each country operates its own section of the registry and writes its own "assessment statement," a document that describes the admission requirements for the registry in that country. In each country, a Monitoring Committee is formed to develop an assessment statement, review applications for admission to the registry and function as the point of contact for all matters relating to the registry.

The registry will list those engineers from a participating country who apply for recognition and who meet the qualification standards prescribed by the assessment statement for the engineer's country of residence. Engineers who are accepted onto the register of their own countries are not automatically eligible for practice privileges in any other APEC or EMF country. They must also meet the local jurisdictional requirements of each country.

One anticipated advantage of being listed in the registry is that membership will be a recognized credential and that each engineer's complete record will be in the home database. The record can then be sent to another participating country when an engineer applies for practice privileges there.

After reviewing the minimum criteria for the international registry, the USCIEP has determined that participation in the APEC and EMF registries is a unique opportunity that serves the best interests of the professional engineers and the licensing authorities in the United States. The registry being supported by USCIEP does not relax any requirements for licensure within the U.S. It does not override the jurisdiction of state licensing boards. It does allow for the U.S. to be represented throughout the world with organizations that address inter-country mobility of professional engineers. And it does enhance the opportunity for licensed U.S. engineers to practice outside the U.S. borders.

In 2001, the APEC Engineer Coordinating Committee and the EMF Coordinating Committee authorized the USCIEP to establish a section of the registry in the United States. The USCIEP International Registry of Professional Engineers is the official APEC and EMF registry for the United States and began operation in January 2002.

There are other Mutual Recognition Agreements, for example Licensed Members of ASCE (Civil Engineers) can registered in Australia.
And there is the European Engineer (Eur Ing) registration in the European Union.

 

[mainepepmp]

Overall, it's a gray area, and as a result, likely a strong contributing factor to the current situation.

The crux of the issue, for me at least, is that I look upon engineering as a profession, and as such, expect that professionals practicing in this profession should demonstrate a commitment to the profession in a manner analogous to those that practice medicine, law, accounting, etc.

For the last half-century or so in the U.S., the tangible way to demonstrate this commitment is through licensure as a P.E. Ergo, P.E. Exam = Medical Boards = Bar Exam = CPA Exam.

The whole situation sometimes reminds me of the adage "if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it must be a duck" -- practicing engineering is only one half of the equation (maybe the "walking" portion?).

Licensure, along with practice, is what it takes to embody the "engineering professional" in my book.

 

[GregLocock]

Really. Well I hope you trust us non licensed engineers to design the car you drive every day.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[AUME]

Some states are currently addressing, or have addressed, this very issue. For example, Texas just released a letter from the state attorney general stating engineers practicing within the industrial exemption without a license may not use the title of engineer on letters, business cards, etc.

Personally, I think each of us should be licensed and elliminate the degredation of the title. Ultimately, this would result is a smaller workforce, greater recognition and higher pay scales. The licensure process is not that difficult. If you were a half decent student, then you will do fine. This seems to me to be the point of the process: elliminate those individuals whom we all know that 'skated by' in school.

 

[PSE]

For some additional information regarding my starting this thread, please check out the following link.

http://www.nspe.org/etweb/1!-00modlic.asp

It appears that the NSPE is attempting to overhaul some of it's licensing procedures in an attempt to accomodate greater diversity within the engineering discipline. The article lists several additional disciplines for potential licensure but does it go far enough? Should some or all of the following possibilites be considered as legitimate or where might they fit in?

Nuclear Engineering
Biomedical or Genetic Engineering
Quality Engineering
Optical Engineering
Semiconductor/MEMS/Nanotechnology Engineering
Software Engineering

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to the path to licensure? Should an individual "certified" by another organization (ASQC, SME etc) be given different consideration?

My spin , two cents or

Consider giving greater breadth to the number of licensed disciplines than those outlined in the article.

Consider allowing individuals with sufficient relative experience (a rather nebulous term that would need definition by the licensing board), to apply directly for a PE license. This would follow along the lines of what they propose for MS and PHD level individuals. If a BS + FE exam + 4 years experience + PE exam = a professional engineer (minimum requirements), Could not a BS + >10 years be equivalent?

Regards,

PSE

 

[mainepepmp]

I need to read the article, and mull over the remaining disciplines, but I discount both Quality Engineering and Software Engineering from the list because neither area has sufficient reliance on advanced math (read: Calculus) to be comparable to EE, ME, CE, ChemEng, etc. that make up today's existing licensed areas.

Yes, I realize Quality Engineering relies on a ton of statistics theory that EE, ME, etc. don't, but I've found myself having to learn that on my own in order to effectively practice in my area of expertise. Thus, I see QE's core as a subset of the existing licensed areas, and their cores missing from QE.

Yes, I also know that Software Engineering can require mastery of Calculus, depending on if one is developing from scratch. In general, though, I've observed that the discipline includes little, if any, advanced math education for the majority of people that practice it, based on my experience.

WRT licensure based on experience, I'm all for it, provided the candidate either passes the same written exams OR sits for an oral exam with their state's examining board AND that board does more than just share war stories with the candidate (i.e.--asks some substantive questions that will demonstrate the candidate's ability to think on their feet and demonstrate mastery of the fundamentals).

I'll go along with substitution of experience for education as a prequalifier (most certifying bodies for other disciplines that I'm familiar with allow it, some in the converse direction, too), but feel strongly about the need to demonstrate the ability to pass exams.

Doubtful that oral exams would/could reemerge, but it's a thought, and one that makes things a little easier for the experienced but not formally educated practicing "engineer".

 

[stressriser]

I find you comments on advanced math interesting, mainpump. I could not recall a calculus formula if my life depended on it. After spending a year or so studying for the PE exam, I only had to use it once. It is also not required on the exam itself, I hear most calculations are solved with algebra, trig, and geometry. It depends on what you end up doing for a living, I guess. I know the EEs I worked with had to use it extensively. I am currently reading Howard Anton's Calc book, none of it is very familiar. I have recently given up on my PE license.

 

[GregLocock]

I'd strongly oppose allowing PhD students any credit for their academic time to count towards a real life licensing scheme. Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[mainepepmp]

BS, MS, and PhD should hold exact same weight wrt qualifying for exam, and existing treatment of degreed individuals should be maintained.

I, too, have rarely ever solved Calculus problems as part of my job, and those I did never required me to go beyond 1st or 2nd order diff eq's or integrals.

What I have done, though, is used its basic tenets to interpret, better understand, and explain the root principles behind various models and techniques built into canned programs and lookup tables that I use on the job.

I have also brought added value and innovation to my employers by being able to understand mathematical expressions as published in the "IEEE Transactions On..." well enough to adapt bits and pieces of this progressive thought into their operational and business practices as a way to add efficiency and new revenue.

I'm admittedly unfamiliar with ASME and ASCE journals, etc., so perhaps things are different in those disciplines. I'm also unfamiliar with the ME, CE, etc. PE exam curricula, and while Calculus has a presence in the EE curriculum, it might not be as prevalent in those areas.

 

[PSE]

Greg, Maine,

I agree that academic credentials alone should not be sufficient for becoming a PE. It can be amazing at how quickly theory can break down within the real world (We can't ignore the contributions of certain constraints). I do not think that the internship period should be shortened based upon academic credential. About the Final PE exam, should there be expanded types based upon the diversity of engineering practice? Mainepepmp's thought of an oral exam or perhaps a practical interview is also intriguing. It may be difficult to match the practical experience of a review board with the practicing discipline of the candidate unless a larger pool of reviewers is available.

Regards

 

[mainepepmp]

My thoughts on the oral exam aren't original. It used to be an option in many (most? all?) states up until the late 1980's/early 1990's.

I'm unsure of the drivers behind it being done away with. It could have been something that NSPE pushed for, or something the state boards decided to do because they were hard-pressed to find available competent examiners. I knew at one time, but I didn't write it down, and now I forget!

Would any forum members that were either involved with or are familiar with the NSPE (I think) and state PE boards' discontinuance of the oral exam format in the late 1980's please provide insight into the drivers behind the decision?

 

[reichertc]

Up in Canada, there is an experience requirement prior to getting professional status. Student work at the Masters and PhD can be used towards fulfilling that experience, however, I do not believe that ALL of the experience requirements can be fulfilled by education. I think it generally relates to the quality of the experience. Is the student doing actual engineering? I personally have a friend who is just finishing up his PhD, and I had the chance to have him show me around his lab. He is not just learning "theory", but is actually developing new concepts to be used in product design. If he was working in the private sector doing R&D it would be considered engineering experience, why not while he is in school?

Also note that in Canada, teaching engineering is condidered practicing. I believe that professional status here can be obtained through a combination of education and teaching. (Don't quote me on that one though.)

On the subject of advanced math, I don't do too much calculus anymore. I don't think that it is required that all engineers be capable of doing highly complex math. What I do use every day are the disciplined thought processes that solving complex math problems requires. And I am capable of picking up a technical report, and have a good understanding of the techniques being used. And if I really have to, I can grind my way through a complex problem. It takes me three times as long as it takes our co-op students to do it, but I can do it.

 

[GregLocock]

Your experience may differ, but in my book PhD students see very little of the real stuff that your licensing system is aimed at - can I design this thing to be safe- failing that can I recognise my limitations and find someone else to do it? I may be exaggerating, but surely the PE scheme came about as a result of bridges falling down and boilers exploding, not as a pat on the back for a good theoretical understanding of the physics.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

Reichertc,

While I believe lab work certainly has its merits in helping someone apply theory, I believe that experience in working outside a "controlled" environment may be worth far more. To use a definition from one of my professors (I do not recall the exact wording or emphasis so I won't quote him)

If you can concieve of something new you are an Inventor.
If you understand the theory behind it you are a Scientist.
If you can create a product from it you are a Designer.
If you can do all of the above AND build the thing, THEN you are an Engineer.

Regards

 

[PM]

In Canada I doubt there is any industrial exemption. If you present yourself as a professional engineer, then you are liable to prosecution. Certainly there are thousands of individuals that claim to be engineers by virtue of the fact that they graduated with a college degree in engineering, or they apprenticed as a train driver or they operate boilers and engines in ships and so on. Some industrial applications of engineers are embodied in statutes thus recognising an industrial classification, but this should not be construed to equal a statutory exemption to the engineering professions statutes. Some jurisdictions now have statutes conferring "right to title" designations upon technicians and technologists. These are not laws granting right to practice engineering, but merely a right to call oneself something without fear of prosecution.

Seems a lot of people want to jump on the band wagon, presumably because they want to share the credibility earned over the decades by professional engineers. A lot of these people aren't even bone fide technologist so they may even have difficulty being recognised as CET's let alone P.Eng.'s.

Why don't all these unlisenced engineers who are engaged in engineering related technologies establish an associated and get recognized as engineering technologists, etc? It would create less public confusion, attract public goodwill to their own group and probably facilitate better compensation than PEng.'s typically get now.

 

[reichertc]

No, Canada does not have an industrial exemption. To represent yourself as a professional engineer, you need to meet certain minimum requirements of the provincial engineering associations. Misrepresenting yourself as a professional engineer is a prosecutable offense up here. You tread on thin ice if you even call yourself an engineer up here. (Certain exemptions for "military" engineers, train engineers, power engineers, etc.)

There are a large number of design documents up here that require the stamp of a professional engineer. An interesting developement is that recently, Alberta's engineering association introduced the "Registered Professional Technologist (Engineering)" or RPT(Eng) designation. This designation can be attained by fulfilling several requirements. First, the applicant must be a Registered Engineering Technologist (RET). Second, they must be nominated by the technologists association. Third, the RPT(Eng) can only apply for "limited scope of practice". Within this defined scope of practice, the technologist can do anything an engineer can. I don't know if this practice has been adopted right accross Canada or not.

There are several classes of engineering technologists and technicians in Alberta, and I believe that they can get stamps to put on drawings and documents, but my understanding is that without the RPT(Eng) designation, a professional engineer still needs to take responsibility for the final document. It is probably because of this that many engineering technologists (especially the ones who have been practicing for quite a few years) do not even bother to apply for status as an RET or a CET (Certified Engineering Technologist). What good is it to put a technologists stamp on a document if an engineer still needs to put a stamp on it? Perhaps now that RET's with appropriate experience and knowledge can get the "professional" designation required to take responsibility for their work, more technologists will pursue getting there RET designation.

On a sad note, I personally know of a few engineers who got their professional status just so they could take advantage of our associations (excellent) group insurance policy. A few years back, a "continuing competency" program was implemented so that an engineer needs to contially be working to advance their knowledge. No more can we meet the minimum requirements, attain professional status, and rest on our laurels for the rest of our career.

Sorry for the ramble there. Just thought some of you might be interested in how things work up here...

 

[RDK]

Regarding the comment about do I trust the non-licensed engineer’s to design the car I drive.

In a word NO. I don’t trust the designers of the aircraft I fly in if they are not licensed either.

When you stamp a drawing, you are stating “I am qualified and I am taking personal professional responsibility for this design!”

If you hide behind the industrial exemption you are not taking professional responsibility.

Regarding the RET’s in Alberta. If they are good enough to do some design on heir own then let them get the professional registration the same as I did.

What we have is some individuals, no doubt talented and intelligent enough to get a P.Eng, but who for what ever reason decided to take the short route through a community collage and now want the benefits of being a professional without the education and experience.

Would you let a nurse operate on you? While some might be as knowledgeable and capable as some doctors I would prefer that a real doctor perform the operation. Same as when I go into a building, into a car or fly in an airplane I hope a real engineer designed it ,one who is not afraid to take responsibility for his (or her) design.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[stressriser]

Let me ask,
It is obvious I can not obtain my PE license, regardless of my experience, since I have never worked for a registered engineer.

Since I have "hidden" behind the industrial exemption for 16 years, should I keep my title..."Director of Engineering"? or should I change it.

Director of Design?

Should my company be allowed to even have an engineering department since we employ no PEs?

 

[Rich2001]

It is obvious I can not obtain my PE license, regardless of my experience, since I have never worked for a registered engineer.

This may or may not be true, you need to check with your board. In any case you may be able to take the exam and register in a different jurisdiction then after receiving your PE apply though comity in your jurisdiction. I hate to say this but it is how you play the game.

Since I have "hidden" behind the industrial exemption for 16 years, should I keep my title..."Director of Engineering"? or should I change it.

Should my company be allowed to even have an engineering department since we employ no PEs?

Once again it is upto your juridiction. In some states you can use the title both internally and externally from your company, in other staes only internally. Some state states will not even let you have this on your business cards.