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

 

[AUME]

Rick Kitson,

I think you are using a poor example when you comment on aircraft design. The FAA governs the business, and they do a much more stringent job than any state board. In addition, any design that is issued from a manufacturer that will be used on any US registered aircraft must be signed off my an individual with MRB authority. To gain MRB authority takes much more work than getting a PE license. I would also argue that aircraft design is much more detailed and pure engineering design than any civil design I have worked. A thumb to the wind is not close enough in that business.

On a totally different topic: What is the deal with people putting MBA after their names as of late? I understand PHD, and possibly PE. But hell, let's be honest, everybody and their brother has got an MBA. And in general, they got it because it was easy, and they thought it would give them a leg up. Maybe it is a gripe of mine, but I find it arrogant and silly. You give me a choice between two engineers, one with a masters in engineering and one with an MBA, I will take the one with the masters in engineering. Likewise, two engineers with an MBA, I will take the one who does not have MBA next to his name.

 

[PSE]

For our Canadian Bretheren,

It appears from the postings that Canada may have a more clear cut process for liscensing the engineering profession. Here in the US it appears considerably more ambiguous (hence my start to this thread). Requirements vary by state and there may (or may not) be reciprocity agreements between various states. The "Industrial Exemption" places product liability on the manufacturer of a product rather than on the individual who stamps or approves a drawing. According to the NSPE website, upwards of 75% of engineers practicing in the US do so under this exemption. Would it be even practical to try and redress this imbalance? I do not know of any companies that actively encourage their engineering staff to persue liscensure. Anybody know of a few (likely public works companies)? They may be out there perhaps in a different industrial segment than where my career has taken me.

There also appear to be areas of engineering that may not be sufficiently addressed by the current liscensing process (my Aug 20 posting). Hopefully the NSPE and the ABET (Accredidation Board of Engineering Technology) organizations here in the US will review and determine if changes are needed (my opinion is that changes are warranted). Stressriser's post is not off base. There may be some students or experienced individuals who end up surprised to find out that they cannot apply for or receive a PE because the engineering degree that they received was not from an ABET certified curriculum (required by some states).

Regards

 

[RDK]

AUME

I used the aircraft example as one example of the industrial exemption. I do a lot of work in support of the aeronautical industry and am aware of the stringent safety standards in that industry. My point was that signing off as a professional engineer does put the individual on the line. The US industrial exemption does not do this for any manufactured product. In Canada the designs would have to be signed off by a professional engineer.

If a state board is lax in granting the registrations and there is a US federal qualification that is stricter, that is a topic for a different thread. Why not make the requirement for professional registration as an aeronautical engineer dependant on the federal qualification?

As to your comment regarding the use of the MBA. That also is a topic for a different thread, however I use the MBA as it is a degree that I worked hard to obtain, it is relevant to the work I do and not everyone has one (although it is much more common now than in 1983 when I got mine.) I did not take it because it was easier or to get a leg up. I took the degree because it was relevant to the career direction I wanted to take. If I had wanted to be a technical design type then I would have taken a MSc.

The purpose of any education is to train your mind. A MSc will further your technical training and an MBA will open your mind to the areas where a manager must operate.

I too, would hire a MSc over an MBA for a technical engineering position. If the work was not overly technical but more managerial then the MBA would be the preferred candidate.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[AUME]

RDK

The MRB signoff for aerospace products in the US does put the individual on the line with the company. In fact, a PE and an individual with MRB authority are seen no differently within torte law.

The topic of conversation is revamping the PE process. Would one not want to know that different options exist in gaining licensure that may be better (or worse; i.e. a debate), in order to determine what may be the best way to revamp the licensure process? If that is not the case, we should re-title the thread, "Let's complain about the PE process." I figureed with your MBA, you could connect the dots. I will be more explicit next time to help out.

Arrogance and title shopping is a different thread, I agree. I do find your comments interesting. I especially like your idea that your education was gained to train your mind. I agree whole heartedly. I assume you mean that you did it for your own self improvement, which is an admirable pursuit. But, if it was just to train yourself, why advertise it?

This is the last comment I have on the topic, and I will try to get back to the PE process. An individual with a Phd carries the title after his/her name because they are a professor. It is not our present day twisted idea of a job title. The historical expectation was that these individuals were teachers, and therefore "professed," or lived, their trade so that others may benefit from their knowledge. The Phd after their name was to signify respect for their role within society (maybe not necessarily the individual). It is my humble opinion that an MBA may have been hard earned for what ever reason, but is not something to be revered. Therefore, to use it in self promotion is arrogant and destructive.

 

[butelja]

With respect to the aircraft industry. In the event of a critical design flaw that causes a crash, whether or not there is 1 P.E. to act as a sacrificial goat is IRRELEVANT. Anyone with common sense knows that the air disaster plaintiff's attorneys will go after the manufacturer(s) of every bolt, nut, and rivet on the plane in addition to the primary manufacturer, because they are the ones with the money. In the name of risk management, the primary manufacturer that doesn't enforce strict competence and adherence to government regulations will not be in business. So, if a P.E. were tied to the incident and imprisoned, you would have removed 1 bad apple. If it is possible for 1 person alone to cause a failure, the design process has bigger problems than that 1 person.

 

[AUME]

I think your example raises a very good point. The PE process has created a system that instills a great deal of trust in a few individuals. It has also created a system through the industrial exemption that allows for product failure due to companies having deeper pockets.

I have worked within the manufacturing, aerospace and civil/structural industries. I think the PE boards could learn a great deal from the aerospace industries. When I did aero structural work, each design went through thorough review, with a least four engineers signatures. In my manufacturing work, the review ended at the conceptual stage. In my civil work, I could stamp my own designs without review.

Just because I passed a couple of eight hour exams, does not mean that I will not make mistakes from time-to-time. I do not wish to create a bureaucratic mess (i.e. arguably aircraft industry), but a happy median must exist that ensures higher quality and safety.

 

[VoyageofDiscovery]

If the term Professional Engineer is meant to protect the public, what happened at Firestone and why was it allowed to happen in the respective countries.

As a licensed professional engineer, I believe it is one's own ability that determines what one should venture into. One needs to sleep at night, licensed or not.

On the other hand it is up to the licensing boards to ensure the minimum qualifications protect the public. So the reality is if licensing is a requirement then get licenced!

Perhaps the Firestone fiasco may not have happened if someone put his/her neck on the line.

WRT the issue of using the term "engineer". Licensing makes you a "professional engineer". That to me, ends any debate.

 

[GregLocock]

Generally automotive engineers in the USA are not PE licensed, or more accurately they do not need contractually to be one as part of their job. Elsewhere in the world of course a PE is practically meaningless.

I think you will find that the Firestone thing had much more to do with lawyers than it did with engineers.


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[MASSEY]

AUME, I think you are too hard on RDK for putting the MBA after his NAME. I appreciate knowing more about him and his perspective. If it is part of his chosen title, then he should attach it boldly, as we all do with our NAME. But your frankness is also admirable.

Greg, a PE is not practically meaningless elsewhere in the world, of course.

Stressriser, in some states, as in mine, you need five people to verify your work history, three of which have to be PE's. The requirements say nothing of working under, or for a PE.

As I have stated in other threads, I think all engineers should endeavor to be licensed in their chosen field of engineering, or die trying.

I think Canada's approach is better for all of us.

 

[GregLocock]

What do you mean?

In Australia a PE is meaningless

In Japan a PE is meaningless

In Europe a PE is meaningless

Since we don't know what a PE exam involves we can't possibly consider it as a qualification when interviewing (not that I ever pay much attention to quals when I'm interviewing anyway).


Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[rbcoulter]

Kinda a lot like a catch-22. If those doing the hiring aren't PEs, which is usually the case within industry, then they want know what is on the exam. LOL

 

[MASSEY]

Greg,

I was going to drop it but that second star compelled me to do a 5 minute internet search to find the following websites that discuss being licensed, registered, or chartered in:

Australia-

http://wwweng.murdoch.edu.au/courses/Engp26.htm

Japan-

http://www.dfat.gov.au/apec/prof_services/japan_eng.html

Europe-

http://www.engc.org.uk/

I would ride in a car you designed part of. But I would bet that same car that at many points between when that car was encased in a side of a mountain as iron ore to when it is driven off of an assembly line that there are many PE stamps on prints.

Just consider the process of getting the petrol or fuel to power the car. Don't you think the insurance companies of off shore drilling platforms would like the designed components of such a rig certified by a PE.

It's a big world. It has many viewpoints.

 

[phillyboy]

Greg:

PE is NOT meaningless outside of US. To name a few, Canada and Australia both have some forms of reciprocal agreements with US Engineering Broads.

From your posts, I think you may be an engineer from the UK. Personal experience has also confirmed that US PEs have no problems in obtaining Chartered Engineer licensure with the UK Engineering Council. Although the process is not automatic, but it is relatively simple.

You lack of understanding in the US licensure process is not surprising. You are probably familiar with the licensing process in England where the critical and final part of the licensing process consists of an interview by a panel. The panel is often made up of senior engineers working in the industry or teaching academia. Since there are no standard sets of questions asked in the interview, the passing or failing of a candidate is purely based on his luck and the mood of the interviewing panel. After speaking to recent Chartered Engineers, many of them told me the interview consisted of mainly managerial questions. Technical questions are often not asked as many of the interviewers are managers themselves who have gave up designing for management tasks in the company. Oh, one exception is the UK Institution of Structural Engineers (IStrucE) where they licensed Chartered Engineer by written examinations. I think they recognized that unqualified structural engineers designing buildings and structures in UK can be detrimental to the public. I wonder why other Engineering Institutions in the UK (IEE, IMechE, CIBSE) do not follow the IStrucE licensing practice. Perhaps, they think the IStrucE licensing process is unnecessary and does not ensure the quality of its licensed engineers.

The US licensing on the other hand is based on stringent written testing procedures. All tests of all disciplines (not just structural) are administered to the candidates are the same across the country. Accepting the US system is not foolproof, but it does a relatively good job of setting minimum competency for the purpose of licensing engineers.

Interesting, many engineers in the US do not agree with the system and some organizations, NSPE is one of them, even proposing to have the current procedures changed to allow more engineers to be licensed. Anyway, I drop my membership because I strongly oppose to NSPE's action.

I believe the process of engineering licensure in the US is at least as good as the one in UK and most other countries if not better. Please do not make statements that you have no idea of what you are talking about.

 

[GregLocock]

Well putting me in the wrong country by approximately 180 degrees in spherical coordinates is not a great start for someone criticising my accuracy.

"Please do not make statements that you have no idea of what you are talking about. " That was exactly my point. In practice, in my field (automotive, obviously), PE is meaningless, in Australia. The Institute may have arranged reciprocity, well, good for them. The Institute is meaningless as well. Once, in 20 years, have I been asked whether I was a member of the Institute. That was not in the automotive industry, and I was asked for interest's sake, the answer would not have affected whether I would have got the job. Similarly, I do not ask interviewees whether they are members.

I realise you are proud of having achieved PE status, and that it is a necessary part of your professional standing. I wish, in fact, that we had the Canadian system over here, and that the term engineer had a specific legal meaning, so that all Engineers in every industry had to have passed the PE or an equivalent process, or gained CEng status. However, that hasn't happened yet and I see no particular sign that it will.

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[owg]

"I realize you are proud of having achieved PE status, and that it is a necessary part of your professional standing. I wish, in fact, that we had the Canadian system over here, and that the term engineer had a specific legal meaning, so that all Engineers in every industry had to have passed the PE or an equivalent process, or gained CEng status. However, that hasn't happened yet and I see no particular sign that it will."

That sure is not the way it is in Canada. More than 50% of engineers in Ontario are not registered with the local regulating organization peo.
HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[GregLocock]

Please note weasel word "and". I did not imply that all Engineers in Canada are licensed. Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Binary]

My two cents...

I think licensure is a great thing, something I'm sorry I don't have. Why don't I? I've not been fortunate enough to have been hired by companies where I had the opportunity to work with PE's and therefore obtain the requisite recommendations. It matters not a bit what my skill level is or whether I could pass the PE test or whether I have sound judgement...lacking those recommendations I cannot be licensed.

Hence, I for one, would hate to see a move toward licensing being universally required.

 

[RDK]

OWG

While 50% of graduates of an engineering school may not be P.Eng’s, they are NOT engineers unless they are registered with their local association.

Having an engineering degree does not make you an engineer in Canada. Practicing engineering does not make you an engineer in Canada. The ONLY way to be an engineer in Canada is to be a member of one of the professional associations. That is the wording of the various engineering acts. You may disagree with this statement, you may disagree as to whether or not this should be the law, but this is the position that the Manitoba association has taken on more than one occasion. I personally fully support this position.

If you or someone you know is practicing engineering and is not a member of the association then this is in contravention of the law.

You are required both as a matter of law and of professional ethics (which as a member of the association you are required by law to follow) to report this to the proper authorities, in your case the PEO.

phillyboy

The reciprocity agreements between Canada and the US are practically meaningless. The associations in both Canada and the US do not respect the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NFTA). This requires that there be mobility of professional manpower and reciprocity in professional licensing. As far as I know, only Texas will accept my Canadian license and then the Texas license is not transferable to other states.

In Canada getting a personal license in another province is simply a matter of applying. Acceptance is automatic after the receiving association verifies registration in the home province. (I have had registration in three different provinces, currently registered in two.) When I applied in Alberta, my acceptance letter was faxed to me within two weeks of mailing my application.

Does anyone have any experience in transferring licenses internationally?

Is there any state that will accept me without a long drawn out application process? (24 years as a P.Eng and graduate of an accredited university) Will this license then be transferable to any of the other 49 states?

gittings00

If licensure was universally required then you would have worked in proximity to other professional engineers and therefore had the necessary references.

In Canada, licensure is a provincial matter, the federal government is not bound by the laws of the province. Therefore federal civil service engineers are not required to be licensed, however virtually 100% of the ones that I worked with were. (myself included for the first 15 years). There is also a specific exemption (at least in Manitoba) for military engineers while on active duty with the Canadian Armed Forces. There registration is also almost 100% of qualified personnel. (12 of my 15 years of government service was as a civilian employee of DND)




Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[phillyboy]

RDK

I am not sure if any other Engineering States Boards will give full reciprocation except Texas. However, I am sure that several States specially those that share the boarders will exempt PEng from having to take the EIT. The EIT is a bitch exam if you have been out of school for a long time. The PE exam will still be mandatory.

Most the States will also accept your Canadian experiences, references, and degrees earned in Canada. You need to check with NCEES for any detailed information on each particular State requirements for PEng. They are the main body in the US who creates and administered the examinations. They also conduct a periodic survey to ask each State Board on their licensure requirements. I can't find the recent one on their webpage

http://www.ncees.org

but I can email you the 2000 survey.

Almost all international reciprocations are not automatic. The acceptance is usually on a case by case basis. I was lucky enough to apply successfully with the UK Engineering Council as a Chartered Engineer when my company sent me to Asia on an overseas assignment. Licensure is a big deal in Asia so I had no choice but to apply. The whole concept of Licensure is very much different in Asia and maybe Europe as well because legal liabilities do not fall on the individual engineer. Therefore, licensure in Asia and Europe is more to do with one's status. I hope I don't generate a heated debate by saying so but that is my opinion.

So you success in reciprocating with a UK Professional Institution depends on which one you are applying to. They all have different entry requirements. Some will accept your experiences, degrees and references while another will not. In your case, you would have apply as corporate member of the "Institution of Civil Engineers" or "Institution of Structural Engineers". Upon successful admissions, they will registered you with the UK Engineering Council. You can find each of the relevant institutions at

http://www.engc.org.uk

Hope this help.

 

[BobPE]

phillyboy:

I agree with your observations of engineers overseas. I have many friends from India and the engineer there is educated similar to engineers in the states however; they are held in a higher status than doctors.

It would be nice if we could get out act together here in the states. I think if we did, compensation would also follow. I love engineering, but when people ask if they should go into the field, my answer is usually no, not if they are interested in a respected high wage field.

we have a long way to go, and I think we should look to get the industrial exempt engineers on board with licensure. By doing this we become a greater force under our own control, demanding a wage that is comsensurate with our role in life. Licensure will eliminate the non-engineer from the field which in my experience is a major factor in lower wages since they perform illegal engineering and are many times hidden by the industrial exemption.

Just my thoughts...

BobPE