Washington State Board; license by comity to non-tested foreign PE's 3

[Electic]

This change was proposed some time ago in our State Professional Engineering Journal and now is being proposed as a revision CR-102 to the Revised Code of Washington RCW 34.05.320

The purpose given for this change is to address applicants that are seeking licensure in Washington State that are currently licensed in Non-U.S. jurisdiction. License mobility for eligible Canadian Professional Engineers will be promoted with adoption of the new rule.

It is inoteworthy that an engineer can obtain licensure in Canada without writing the Fundamentals of Engineering or Professional Engineering test (but is required to write a morals and ethics test regarding Intelectual property etc.)

It is possible for graduates of American Schools to obtain licensure in Canada, and with this proposed change it would be possible for those graduates to obtain Washington State license and then other state licenses by comity.

I have written objections to this apparent breach of standard to the State Board, but they are proceeding full speed ahead, eager to collect more license fees.

My personal experience includes working for Canadian Engineering firms, working for Canadian customers and working in Canada (I obtained a BC license). It is very clear to anyone remotely familiar to this work that the cultures are different including the expectation of professional duty. There are different engineering and construction laws in Canada governing these fields that do not exist in Washington State. I am not commenting on which is better; however to ignore the difference could be dangerous to the public and catastrophic to engineering careers. It is very easy to imagine that foreign engineers will submit unrealistic proposals based on a different expectation of service.

I predict that our State Board will learn the different expectations with time, and then subject Washington State Engineers to new corrective regulations, in the meantime how many projects will get mis-funded or lost?

At this time, there is no restriction on foreign engineers, other than to pass the same PE and FE test that in state engineers are required to pass.

 

[Ron]

Where is your state engineering society? Are they asleep?

This erosion of the engineering profession is not in the best interest of the public.

Please call the National Society of Professional Engineers and implore them to get involved in your state.

 

[Electic]

I am not aware of our State's Engineering Society, however the Board of Registration that is proposing this change, does seem to be asleep to the consequences.

I believe that NSPE has long been negotiating IN FAVOR of this comity arrangement. On the surface it seems honorable, to increase the supply of engineers (and possible enrolment in NSPE).

However; when differences in licensing requirements and jurisdictional laws governing PE behaviour are fully understood; this clearly is a revision that could harm the public while cancelling 10 years of engineering careers.

 

[Ron]

If NSPE is in favor of something this ludicrous, they need their collective head examined. I can't see any good to come of this. We don't need an influx of engineers...there are already too many of them out of work. Couple that with the outsourcing to overseas cheap engineering, and it makes one wonder why anyone would want to become a "Professional Engineer".

 

[TGS4]

Electic - you have committed a sin of omission in your original post. You state

It is inoteworthy that an engineer can obtain licensure in Canada without writing the Fundamentals of Engineering or Professional Engineering test (but is required to write a morals and ethics test regarding Intelectual property etc.)

yet you do not mention that there are significant additional requirements for licensure in Canada.

You seem to hold the FE Exam as some magic talisman that wards off unworthy engineering practitioners. Why? What's so magical about this test? Wouldn't a 4-year degree at an accredited (Note for all - Canada's universities are all accredited by a national organization that represents the interests of the Provincial Professional Associations) university mean more to the quality of an engineer than passing a test?

Regarding "foreign" applicants - and Americans coming to Canada would be considered foreign - there are rigorous standards that are applied to evaluate the quality of the education. In the event that the eduction quality cannot be accurately verified, then confirmatory exams are imposed. I know several engineers who had to take these confirmatory exams. After going through that process, more than one of my friends who wrote them told me that they wished that they had just written the FE Exam.

Ron - why is this an "erosion"?

I don't think that this has anything to do with the quantity of engineers. These are individual who are already engineers that are probably already competing for work on your turf, just like you can compete for work on their turf. In my opinion, this is making sure that the engineers are all "in-the-fold" and can be dealt with, in the event of a problem or ethical issue, internal to the Professional Engineering community. Dealing with "outsiders" requires significant and expensive use of the legal system, but dealing with "insiders" can be done "internally".

 

[stevenal]

A PE is expected to practice within his/her area of competence. An engineer first licensed in BC and then Washington by comity would be expected to get competent in the Washington expectations of professional duty.

And anyone submitting unrealistic proposals will be weeded out in the market.

 

[Ron]

TGS4...the engineering profession in the US gets continually eroded in that many more pseudo-engineering endeavors are being called "engineering" without appropriate consideration to licensure for the public good. Further, as the requirements to become licensed in the US are reduced , it puts the public at risk for more technical failures than already occur.

It is often difficult to convince a non-engineer how faulty their logic might be, when their technical background does not support the ability to understand fully the technical concept. When such people are allowed to function in the stead of qualified engineers, it becomes downright dangerous in many respects.

No, the FE and PE are not the "be all, end all" for engineers, but the typical US process is fairly good at weeding out the lesser qualified individuals. When you couple graduation from an accredited university, passing two reasonably rigorous examinations, and spending four years in an internship, the expectation closer approximates reality, with the result being a reasonably qualified individual who can then spend the remainder of his or her career learning all that needs to be learned as an engineer. The foundation is good at that point.

I know many Canadian engineers (P.Eng.). I was a partner with a respected Canadian engineering firm for 5 years. Perhaps the educational vetting process for engineering in Canada is much better than in the US, thus the feeling that there is no need for further technical proficiency testing. I also know that of the P.Eng.'s that I've worked with, I would certainly rank them at least equivalent to the engineers I know who have gone through the US process. In short, the processes are different, but the result is similar. I think the concern here is that you can't pick pieces and parts of the two systems and expect the same result that you would get with either of them independently.

 

[Electic]

TGS4- my office is located within 20 miles of the Canadian border and for the past 29 years I have observed engineers (and contractors) mispercieving the border as an opportunity to make a quick buck. The present licensing standard to require the FE exam, somehow separates the sincere individuals from those that are not sincere, and as a requirement of all resident engineers; I am at a loss as to why non-residents should be exempt.

Most engineering schools in the USA are ABET accredited and yet every State still requires a FE test for licensure. To forgoe this requirement is an errosion, as there are many degreed engineers that do not pass this test. The test may or may not be a magic talisman, but it does qualify who is sincere.

The laws governing engineering practice are different between the Province of BC and Washington State; are you suggesting the Laws of Washington State now be modified to accomodate the engineering challenges that have occured in BC?

Stevenal: "anyone submitting unrealistic proposals will be weeded out in the market" is a naive statement. I have worked with many Canadian P.Eng's, including being employed by a Canadian company doing business in Wa State; in general it requires about five years to these individuals to climatize to the expectations of Washington State. Why be licensed at all if this is arbitrary? I predict the 'weeding out' process to require similar 5 years of potentially destructive time.

 

[stevenal]

Guess I'm naive. If I received an unrealistic proposal, I would reject it and move to the next. No five years of weeding is required, they fail to get the work right away.

 

[Electic]

stevenal, I am glad you are not naive, however; I have yet to find a customer that would turn down an engineering proposal that included only 80% of the cost of delivering an adequately complete the job. I say that from the perspective of a small consultant often completing jobs for a small percentage of what large firms have proposed. I have been consulting 21 years so perhaps that customer will still come in the future.

Back on topic, what incentive or advantage to the public will be gained when the Washington State Board exempts foreigner engineers from the PE test that is required of resident engineers? If the Foreign Engineers are equal, writing the same test shouldn't be an encumbrance.

 

[TGS4]

Electic - is it comity that you have an issue with? it's a case of, if you recognize my credentials, then I will recognize yours. Undoubtedly, in this global economy, there are instances where there are differences in achieving the same standard, so some form of compromise is required.

What would have been the consequences to your business if, in applying for your P.Eng., the review board had said "graduate from an accredited Canadian university, and then we'll talk"? Obviously that's not reasonable.

On the other hand, if, as your mentioned in your original post, locals (Washingtonians) could be able to do an end-run around the FE Exam. In my opinion, that's a bad consequence for everyone, and the boards should put a stop to that.

BTW, because the laws of every State/Province are different, I wholeheartedly support writing a laws/ethics exam in order to receive your P.E./P.Eng. Am I correct that this is the PE Exam you speak of?

 

[Electic]

TGS4: Some of my jargon is a bit mixed as the terms have changed since I wrote what was then called an EIT exam and PE exam. Now the EIT exam is called the "fundamentals of engineering" or FE, to be in alignment with NCEES testing standards. That covers much of what is supposed to be learned in college, is typically written near when a student graduates, and in my opinion was more comprehensive than typical college class tests. When I wrote it, there were several highly regarded 'Straight A" students that did not pass the test.

The PE test consists of technical problems and may only be written after accumulating four years of professional experience. Documenting the experience can be a challenge if one works where there are not many licensed engineers. There are many engineering jobs that do not require a PE license in Washington State, often within larger organizations where work will be reviewed by others or where another PE will over see the work and take responsability. I thought that passing the PE test demonstrated a broad understanding, and was some assurance to the public that the licensee was capable of taking responsability. Some of this sounds a little pompous or exclusionary, but for the most part it has worked, I've been told that was the heritage of this system and I live by it.

I have written the BC ethics exam and there may now be such requirement added to Washington State licensees.

I am not opposed to comity, but the requirements should be the same or very similar from the different jurisdictions. BC construction law and cultural expectations are different than what exists in Washington State; we do not have stat decs, the requirement for PE's is not promoted by our state board and some of the methods of putting liens on construction for professional payment are different. It is difficult to speak of this inequity as both jurisdictions are assuming the other side matches their expectations. That has not been my experience.

It is easy to visualize Washington State imposing more laws on PE's and performance to match the foreign engineers, and possibly losing comity with other states that do not agree with their exemption from testing for foreign engineers.

 

[TGS4]

Electic - thanks for your opinions. It is good to hear from the folks "in the trenches" rather than just the rhetoric from the officials.

One advantage (and yes, I see it as an advantage) is that there is no such thing as an industrial exemption in Canada for licensure. If you practice engineering, and call yourself an engineer, then you have to be licensed. Full stop. There are features in our monthly Professional Association magazine that describe the work that the Association does to keep non-practicing "engineers" out.

BTW, have you checked out what Texas has for comity with Canadian jurisdictions? I have started to check that out, as it would be an advantage for me to be registered in Texas...

 

[Electic]

TGS4: within Washington state there is also a state law requiring anyone practicing engineering to be licensed, or to be working under a licensed engineer. That has little practical effect on employment at large industries like Boeing or the power companies, as generally there is someone on board with a license.

That law has a large effect on small consultants like myself; and that is where I believe the protections are intended, offering service to the public. But at times the law can be toothless, in that the State Board will allow electricians or anyone else to do 'design work' providing they do not use the word 'engineering'. There has been no effort to define engineering.

I believe that Texas stands alone and does not offer much by comity or through subscription to NCEES. I would expect that if you are a licensed engineer in Canada, that you would need to document your experience according to Texas requirements, and then write the EIT and PE tests in Texas. The tests may be written in succession and not require 4 years apart. This opinion is based on rumors and what the other states have required, and should be verified by checking the Texas website.

 

[moltenmetal]

TGS4, not quite accurate. Ontario has both an industrial exemption clause and a C of A process which allows one P.Eng. to take responsibility for an essentially unlimited number of non-engineers or non-licensed folks. The IE is narrowly written and basically unenforced, to the point that only 20-25% of eng grads here bother to go on to licensure. I haven't read the BC or Alberta Acts so don't know their status for sure.

Canadian eng regulators approve university programs rather than making every applicant write a fundamentals exam prior to licensure. If you didn't graduate from an approved Canadian program, you may get degree equivalency (if your uni and program are well known)or you may be required to write between one and ten 3-hour fundamentals exams. In Ontario, about 70% of the foreign-trained engineers applying for licensure are given equivalency without writing any fundamentals exams. All write the Profeesional Practice (ethics and law) exam which also functions as a de-facto test of written English aptitude. As long as the experience AND mentorship/internship (Canadian experience under a P.Eng.)requirements remain in place, I'm personally OK with this system of granting licenses.

I'd like to see our Act better enforced against the unlicensed and non-engineers, though, but we engineers are too cheap to pay for it. And too many of our engineering leaders profit directly from the status quo.

Comity with other jurisdictions is by negotiation. There is no single Canadian license and no single American license because neither states nor provinces all agree, so comity/reciprocity agreements ACROSS national borders is pleasantly surprising when it's possible.

 

[photoengineer]

Electic,

Boeing is exempt from the Washington State Board of Registration under the industrial exemption. Whether or not we have PEs on staff (we do), the engineering that goes into airplanes is not subject to the Washington State laws on engineering. It's all in support of our own products.

Cedar Bluff Engineering

http://cedarbluffengineering.webs.com

 

[Electic]

moltenmetal: thanks for the facts. I have no issue with the technical abilities of the Canadian Engineers I have worked amongst, and also I have no issue with the way they complete work to the cultural expectations within their areas. Most American Engineering Schools are recognized by most Canadian provincial boards, that was something I checked carefully as I expected to work in Canada, that is where I was born.

The grey areas are: what does the public and governing agencies expect in terms of job completion and thoroughness. I have been told that some Canadian jurisdictions require a listing of design professionals on all non-single family residential building permits; a practice that sometimes leads to 'rubber stamping'. I completed a few projects for a Canadian consultant and the expectation was that if the design worked on a previous project, I didn't need to re-calculate that. The effect of these cultural expectations, was that professional engineering fees on these projects would be but a fraction of the expectation in Washington State.

By the way, Washington State has been working with NSPE for the past 10 years to accomplish what is now about to happen; in the interest of 'globalization'. Neither the Washington State Board, or NSPE is able to show how this globalization will benefit the public. Globalization includes engineers from far eastern countries that have little vested interest in our society and are willing to work for $15 per day. That sounds like a good reason to quit NSPE.

 

[Electic]

photoengineer: Thanks for the comment. I previously worked at the power company where also, PE licensing was a non-issue.

This does affect independent consultants greatly.

 

[Electic]

Update on this proposed rule change.

We have made this known to about 50 engineers locally and without exception they are opposed to granting Comity to Foreign engineers that have not passed the PE test. This 100% result is opposite to the State Board's claim that the rule change is supported by a survey. In fact that State Board's survey failed to state the foreign engineers were untested.

There has been considerable comments rendered to our state Board. Traditionally these would be collected by the Executive Director, however, this fellow wittingly or not has a tradition of smoothing out the comments for the Board. He would not identify which comments from a hearing were given by foreign spokespeople, instead reporting that "support and opposition was approximately equal".

Due to lack of confidence in the process, we asked permission to speak at a general Board meeting. Upon hearing our comments the State Board has tabled the matter for a couple of months and will vote on the rule change in September.

Since then we have determined conclusively that ABET accreditation (USA) is acceptable for Canadian Licensure, so the Board's claim that Canadian education is more rigorous (mirrored by some on this forum) is baseless. This was previously known to some who have applied for licenses in both jurisdictions, ignored by the Board, and now verified (again). It seems downright silly that our Board Executive Director would quote in the Seattle Times that foreign experience and education were more rigorous that domestic: what schools was he thinking about?

There has been a lot of double and inconsistent talk from our State Board, including that this will be used only in isolated cases of esteemed engineers (that is not in the wording), that it is heavily supported by survey (52% of 3000 members in a State with over 20,000 engineers is not heavy support, especially on a compromised survey) and that this will have little effect on anyone on either side of the border.

With a little deeper digging it now seems this is being proposed as a misunderstood requirement of "NAFTA" under some agreement called the Washington Accord. I have not found a copy of the Washington Accord, though there is much commentary about it on the internet and a special website dedicated to this.

Our small group is not opposed to foreign engineers working in Washington State, in fact that is already common practice with several dozen engineers crossing the border daily from the suburbs of Vancouver to work in NW Washington State; and many dozen Canadian Engineering companies also working in Washington State. We are opposed to the double standard that would automatically grant every foreign engineer Washington Licensure without have passed the same examinations that will continue to be required of residents. Many credentialed engineers from Canada, do not want the double standard either, as that could diminish their credibility.

It is also interesting that this rule change is being heavily promoted and advocated amongst Canadians (i.e: APPEGA Magazine)in the interest of "license mobility", yet there is ZERO effort on the part of these individuals to open engineering opportunities up in Canada, where they might have some influence. Engineering is presently constricted by Canadian Immigration, Customs and Licensing requirements, those are true trade "barriers" and not technical requirements. It is overdue that all parties involved learn a bit more about the other side, and also distinguish between arbitrary international trade barriers and technical requirements.

 

[GregLocock]

Want cheese with that?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?