Would required licensure be better for US engineers? 15

[Haf]

I have heard the argument that if all engineers were required to get a PE (or comparable professional licensure), the profession would be better off. I am interested to hear from engineers in countries where licensure is required (Canada, Europe, Australia, and others) to get some insight into this question. Ideally, I’d like to hear from people who have practiced engineering in a country that requires licensure and the US (which does not).

Frankly, I’ve seen the US slammed in several posts for not requiring licensure. I’m curious to know how much better things are for engineers in countries that require licensure. I’m also curious to know how much better public safety is in countries that require licensure.

Haf

 

[corgum]

I can't speak for how highly the engineering profession is regarded in the US compared to other countries because I haven't actually experienced the differences, if any; and I would guess that not many commenters here have, either. In any case, I have never been given cause to think of myself as being considered less of a professional than anyone else.

Granted, engineers here do not enjoy the higher salaries of dentists or medical doctors, who have highly restrictive medical school entry exams and formalized schemes for extended training requirements, all of which limit the number of graduates so as to assure high salaries more than anything else. That seems to be the real professional advantage that doctors and dentists have --- restrictive entry exams, which reduce the supply of doctors and dentists, which increases their income, which in turn engenders a form of respect.

Now consider, for example that a dentist’s work consists almost entirely of being a cross between a mechanic and a small parts grinder. A surgeon, regarded by many as next to godliness, is little more than an eyeball mechanic and a sloppy tailor who relies on nature to clean up the rough edges of his work. Internists can order dozens of lab tests and order expensive pills after problems get serious, but they usually can’t prevent much of anything. The medical profession thrives on heroics, not prevention.

Suppose we severely restricted the number of engineers, so that all we had time to do was firedrills to patch problems; and we set ourselves up like doctors – avoiding the design and preventive phases --- and make our services available only after something goes wrong – the bridge breaks, or the airplane crashes -- would we get more respect? Read carefully – the answer is, unbelievably, yes(!), at least in this hypothetical framework. Is it ethical? Of course not; but remember how the highly respected medical profession works. Is that ethical then?

So why are we less respected for busting our buns to design and provide good things for the world? Once again, I can only conclude that it all comes down to exclusivity, an air of superiority, and money. So I will concentrate on these within the context of the original question about licensing.

Today’s practice of licensing engineers does not accomplish anything to make engineers superior, because almost nobody is denied a license after they’ve already spent an exorbitant amount on college tuition. In other words, the tests are largely a formality. Sure, they weed out a few, but darned few.

Today’s practice of licensing engineers does nothing to make the profession more exclusive because, as mentioned above, licenses come after the degree and do nothing to limit the input of engineering students. Meanwhile, the engineering colleges do all they can to increase the number of students, including the lowering of their standards, despite ABET.

Today’s practice of licensing engineers does not cover all types of engineering. Until all practicing engineers of all types are required by law to undergo a medical doctor-like entry exam and training process in order to be certified to practice in the state, companies will keep flagging down people off the highway and call them engineers.

So, if the logic is to improve the profession and/or its image by licensing, then the license needs to be made mandatory by the laws of every state; and the exam must be moved to the front of the engineering education process. The exam has to come first, and it has to be hard enough to eliminate at least half of the applicants. Otherwise, it fails to accomplish the goals.

It is difficult to see how such a thing could be implemented. Opposition would be fierce. The engineering schools would fight it, because they would lose most of their students. Half of them would probably close. Companies would fight it because they would have to pay more for engineers. Or would they just outsource to countries where the supposedly more highly respected engineers earn a fraction of the salaries in the USA and queue up at the US embassies for the chance to relocate here?

It gets to be a complicated thing to change.

Your turn.....

 

[patdaly]

"In the US any idiot can call himself an engineer. Anyone wonder why the profession is not as highly thought of in the US as is the case elsewhere?"

Not exactly the case, for in most states, non-licensed Engineers cannot identify themselves as such. In my state, Illinois, I cannot even use the term Engineering in the name of my company.

Tell you what, without starting a flame war here, just how many of the great advances of humanity were created by a P.E.? Given the typical P.E.'s reluctance to push the boundries, would Man be currently flying?

My point is, the US system appears to me, an optimal system of checks and balances, that is, not artifically increasing the cost of consumer goods or smothering innovation, without letting us mere mortal unlicensed Engineers design structures that might collapse.

Corgum- excellent post, cuts straight to the heart!

 

[buzzp]

Mandatory license requirements in the US would NOT help engineering at all. It is fine the way it is.

It is NOT illegal for an engineer to call himself an engineer if he does not have a PE. It is illegal for him/her to use engineer in the company name. If you tell me it is illegal then you are very confused because every engineers business card I have seen, PE or not, has engineer in their title. Now if I hand these out to the public trying to get some consulting business, yes its illegal.

 

[IRstuff]

"In the US any idiot can call himself an engineer. Anyone wonder why the profession is not as highly thought of in the US as is the case elsewhere?"

Not relevant. Americans have historically been less than respectful of intellectuals, engineers and scientists. While engineering accomplishments have been admired and praised, engineers have never been considered to be relevant to the average man.

"Yankee ingenuity" has, for more than 200 yrs, been a slam meaning unsophisticated country folk outsmarting or our-engineering the professionals. This comes directly from the colonization of America by what would now be considered religious fundamentalists. While the religious aspects have diminished somewhat, the anti-intellectual aspect remains strong.


As for the rest of the world, let's not forget that Alfred Nobel did not consider engineering to be worthy enough for awarding a Nobel Prize

TTFN

 

[buzzp]

Engineering is not comparable to Doctors or Dentists(?) because of the length of time they go to college. To be a Doc requires a minimum of 6 years (think its actually 8). Now if you have your PhD (most engineers don't) then it is a fair comparison.

 

[corgum]

patdaly,
Thank you. You make some good points, yourself.

IRstuff,
It may be a good thing that there is no Nobel Prize for Engineering, given they have awarded their Peace Prize to a terrorist thug. I imagine they might award an Engineering Prize to Al Gore for inventing the Internet.

Any other suggestions for an Engineering No Bell Prize anyone? Nothing serious, please. By rights, it should be in a new thread.

 

[jsummerfield]

I have been to foreign countries where Engineer is a title. This was more visible in the mid-east than Mexico where I am now. Construction mechanics or other craft technicians may be PROMOTED to the title of field engineer in some countries. The title engineer is not always an indication that a person has an engineering degree.

Some states require a professional engineering license to use the title engineer for the individual or business on any communication such as business card unless registered. This limits those who can be called an engineer. Typically, someone without a degree cannot become registered. Thus, this provides differentiation at least within the states that enforce such rules. The requirements to become registered do not necessarily include an engineering degree. Most states require passing the fundamentals of engineering and principles and practices examinations. The principles and practices examinations include safety issues. Some states have assorted exemptions.

The skill level and safety aspect is wide open. Much of what many engineers do pertains to codes, standards, material selection, installation design, etc. and little calculation beyond expenses. One can refresh and learn new information while studying for the exams. A related topic is continuing education requirements after becoming licensed. PE registration fees are among some state general revenue.

I have mixed feelings on the requirements. I too have met registered engineers who were not very good. Some may practice outside their expertise. Some do not know anything about ethics. I only became registered after my state of residence enacted strong engineering title and examination restrictions.

Take the fundamentals of engineering exam while still in school or as soon as possible after out of school. This is a broad exam. The principles and practices exam concentrates on the industry practices, codes, and such issues that you actually work with on a regular basis. Step up to the plate and get registered – or don’t.


John

 

[owg]

Corgum - In addition to being recognized for inventing the Internet, Al Gore is famous for his work on digital music. Who can forget the famous algorithm.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[Heydave]

I see it in some ways similar to a cab license in a large city. It implies certain MIMIMUM standards that are important only for POLITICAL and SAFETY reasons. It does not imply any maximum level of performance or innovation. It does increase cost to society both through the selection process minimising supply and added beurocratic burdons. When the state budgets run short, professionals such as registered engineers are often taxed with special fees. If registration were completely eliminated, then minimum safety standards would be lost. If registration were universal, then innovation would suffer and costs would go up. Competition would be lost. The system we have now in the US is pretty good but there needs to be a better distinction between engineering that needs to insure mimimum standards are met and engineering for innovation. As is often stated, anyone can call themselves engineers. Many, particularly some registered engineers, find this problematic. Unregistered engineers cannot call themselves PE. In my opinion, that is all that is needed and PEs should be proud of that distinction. I find efforts toward universal registration anticompetitive, very short sighted, and smelling as bad as lawyers advertizing for accident victims.
As far as ethics are concerned, the most ethically challenged engineers I have worked with have all been registered. The registration seems to eliminate the need to earn trust.
As for helping engineering in general, what is needed is a professional organization that seems to really care about the people in the profession. Engineers are more at the mercy of corporate greed than other professions. Univeral registration or unionization look to be as effective as bandaids on cancer in the long run.

 

[DarthDick]

Heydave,

I am a "victim" of corporate greed. Actually, it's corporate spinelessness. I am a PE and the company I work for no longer puts "PE" on business cards for registered engineers. This is a result of being turned into the state board for using the term "engineer" for anyone with a degree. In Texas (where I work and am registered), only registered engineers may use the term "engineer", as I understand it. So our management decided to call everyone with a degree and no license "technical professional". And If you have a license, you get "Registered Professional Engineer" in tiny letters under your name. I don't know anything more now than I did before I was registered. But I did endure the process and am liable for anything I stamp. I don't make more money than other engineers that are not registered. And I, like many others, know engineers without PE that are brilliant. They don't want it, don't need it, and that's fine.

On another topic, Texas will soon implement continuing education for registered engineers. Depending how the board implements this, I think is long overdue.

 

[Bbird]

I would welcome a restricted use of term "engineer". Here in UK it is loosely use by everybody.

The guy comes to fix the central heating is called an engineer and so is the guy who install the telephone socket. The washing machine was deliveried by an engineer. Some trade unions refer to their members as engineers. Also the gas company sends out engineer to read our gas meters to prepare the bills.

Engineer is called "Ingenieur" in Europe and it is a protected term with a similar standing to Architect and Doctor.

 

[hydrae]

I have a reverse story of DarthDick

I was working in a section of a company, where my manager and I had a disagreement, I stuck to my guns, promotion time came and went several times and no promotion.
Got my PE, and company policy kicked in, all PE's are E3 or E4, by getting the PE I got a double promotion.
Permanent plant shutdown came soon after, I was in the first half to go, not unexpected.

Hydrae

 

[QCE]

Bbird and IRstuff

You guys know what you are talking about.

The PE is to show people who are engineers. In US and Britian anybody can call themselves engineers and it is hard to respect the term engineer when everyone is an somethingengineer. (sanitation engineer, coffee engineer, etc) Only if you have a degree from a "recognized", "certified" university can you register to be a PE in Canada.

I agree that there are smart people with skills to design stuff but years in your garage or at a technical school is not the same as an engineering degree. People with engineering degrees are engineers and people without engineers degrees should not be called engineers. They are free to call themselves designers or any other word they wish to use. That is the reason for the PE. In countries were this is true engineers are highly respected. In countries were the garbage man is an engineer, it maybe isn't so respected.

With regards to the original question:

If I had to pick a designer for a complex design and had to choose between a certified PE that was certain to have completed his degree at a proper university or a generic engineer with no proof that he had done anything but apply for a job with engineer in the title. Then I'm afraid I would pick the PE and maybe the design would be better and safer and maybe it wouldn't but at least you know.

QCE

 

[Bbird]

We look at the $ or £ signs, the thing dearest to our heart, then answer to the post has to be an absolute "yes".

I don't know how exactly the PE system is covered in the North American continent but if everything works as it supposes to be then a licensed engineer will be deemed to have an adequate insurance covering his professional work, either arranged himself or by his emplyer . An unlicensed engineer can carry out work for a client but I doubt very much if his work is adequately covered by the professional indemnity provision.

In an event of a law suit against professional misconduct it is pretty clear to everybody that the client, in choosing an unlicensed engineer in preference to an licensed professional, has accepted a quality of work dissimilar to if not lower than the common standard of the industry.

Also the insurance industry is unlikely to provide an identical arrangement for licensed and unlicensed engineer as the latter must carry a higher degree of risk.

 

[SeanDotson]

buzzp wote

"Engineering is not comparable to Doctors or Dentists(?) because of the length of time they go to college. To be a Doc requires a minimum of 6 years (think its actually 8). Now if you have your PhD (most engineers don't) then it is a fair comparison."

Why not? To obtain your PE you have to go to college for 4-5 years, pass the EIT and then work in the engineering field for a min of 5 years. This is just like a doctor who goes to school for 4 years (undergrad) then goes to medical school for a few more (residency) practiing his trade. He is then allowed to take his exams (Boards) to be certified as a doctor. Strictly speaking it takes 10 years to become a Licensed Engineer while only 6-8 to become a doctor.

The same goes for lawyers.

Yet the tern "engineer' get's thrown around like anyone could do it. Do I sounds pissed off? Yes I am. I worked my butt off to be an a damn good engineer. I earned the title. Now any idiot with an AS degree and apply for a job and become a Designer Engineer. Bull. He's a designer. Let's be honest. maybe a great designer but a designer none the less.

Everyone always states "I know a lot of super smart guys with no degrees". Great, that's what makes this world a wonderful place. Of course the opposite is true to. I have worked with a a few degreed engineers who are menance to anyone who comes near anything they built.



Sean Dotson, PE
Inventor Tutorials & More

http://www.sdotson.com

 

[buzzp]

I dont believe either of us know what it takes to be a doctor but I can't imagine that I could (undergrad) be a doctor in as little as two years (already went four for undergrad). I can study law or medicine for two years, including my residency for a doctor, and be licensed. I just don't think this is the case.
To get a PE only takes nine years in common cases unless your undergrad was on the five year plan. In any case, I still do not acknowledge the comparisons between docs, lawyers, and engineers. I still believe that an engineer is one who holds a minimum of a BS degree from an accredited instiution, PE or not.

 

[dporte17]

I don't agree with the view that purpose of the PE (P.Eng for me in Canada) is to limit admittance to the profession only to those who have a high enough level of knowledge/competence to conduct professional engineering. In my opinion the real power of the PE and demanding it is to regulate the profession on an ongoing basis. Lets not confuse the question in the post about mandatory regulation with a mandatory exam! If the exam process is not working, lets change it! Mandatory regulation provides future regulatory ability.

Several people have posted to this forum at one time or another with stories of very good non-degreed engineer and very bad degreed engineers. There will always be those people, and I will not try to refute those experiences, but I did want to bring up this sidebar. That discussion brings up what the requirements are to become a P.Eng. In Canada you can get a Licence (and hence be entitled to call yourself a P.Eng) without a degree by demonstrating a suitable level of experience (see

http://www.peo.on.ca/

and follow the "licensing and registration" menu to limited licences. The licences are limited because of the specific application of experience. If the person leaves that situation and starts in another situation, they need to apply for another licence for that situation). Each case is reviewed by a board and evaluated on it's own facts.

In the Canadian system you can have non-P.Eng employees doing design, but have a P.Eng "signing-off" (taking responsibility in one form or another which may or may not include using their seal" the final design. There are two simple fundamental concepts that makes this system superior. First, there is a measure of accountability in the system. That P.Eng puts themselves on the line when authorizing a design.

Secondly and perhaps more powerfully, that P.Eng has the support of the law behind them when they decide that something is not suitable to expose the public to. If their employer decides that they don't like that and decide to try to get around it, there is protection build in to prevent that. (Including grounds for wrongful dismissal if they are turfed for something like that) You can argue that the tort system in the US and fear of "going to the press" will deter that, but those both exist equally in Canada, this just provides better grounds for the Engineer because they are already supported by the law.

So yes, I think that the US should adopt a mandatory licensure system. I think it would serve to empower the Professional Engineers in the country and raise the status of the profession.

 

[SeanDotson]

Buzzp,

4 years undergrad + 4-5 years medical school plus residency = 8-9 years for a MD.

4 years undergrad + 5 years OTJ training = 9 years for a PE

Still not sure why you don't see them as being equal.

I'm certinaly not saying that a engineer (with no PE) with 10 years experience is an idiot. Far from it.

Let me ask you this however? Would you allow a person who had had 10 years working in a Dr's office but with no formal MD work on you? Of course not and the law forbids the person from practicing medicine. You might however let them take your temperature or blood pressure etc..

This is the same reason we have PEs. They have proven (the same way a MD does when he takes his Boards) that he knows what he's doing. This is espicially important when the public safety is at risk.


Sean Dotson, PE
Inventor Tutorials & More

http://www.sdotson.com

 

[buzzp]

I normally would not answer that because I do not liking the comparison but to humor you: I would likely let the unlicensed doc diagnose me, as long as he made it through med school and had his diploma hanging on the wall.

BTW, I think there should be more years on the Dr since the residency is not accounted for. Who knows what the time involved is? I don't but always thought about 10-12 years by the time they are done.

dporte17,
Am I understanding Canadas ways correctly that if I work for a company as a design engineer designing products for say consumers (to sell in Walmart, radio shack, etc), that I have to have my work signed by a PE?

"There are two simple fundamental concepts that makes this system superior. First, there is a measure of accountability in the system. That P.Eng puts themselves on the line when authorizing a design."

The same thing goes in the states this is why they have insurance. On your second note (not duplicated here), there are plenty of other ways to shut down a bad design, contact the customer, etc. There is whistleblower protection in the states if you wish to go the route around your employer.
I do not buy either of your arguments.

 

[Bbird]

Buzzp,

May I inject an consideration here?

Structural engineers are often involved in design and implementation of works affecting the public safety. They have to carry professional insurances to cover any mistake and wrongdoing. This responsibility can force a PE to take a strong stance if he considers his design is being compromised through no fault of his own.

An electrical engineer may not share the same experience, especially if he works on products for a manufacturer. If the goods is faulty the product could be banned but the manufacturer is seldom sued, let alone his employee, the electrical engineer.

Some folks have to treat the formal qualifications like PE and licensing aspect more serious than the others.

If a PE stamps the design he will have to shoulder the responsibility and we expect him to check the design to his satisfaction.

Also if a PE makes a serious mistake by bringing his profession into disrepute we expect his licence will be withdrawn.

Different diciplines of engineers can have different ideas on PE. I can understand, say for an electronic engineer working on telecommunication or computer, will not have much to do with or influenced by the PE title.

However if your own house were among a group of buildings just levelled off after a minor earthquake you may want to know what proof the designer has got to show that he was qualified to design your property. You can sue an unlicensed engineer and bankrupt him but you still lose the house. If the PE were the designer you can get the house back through his insurance in a successful law suit.