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

 

[dporte17]

buzzp:

"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?"

To be precise, the Law in Ontario (although similar, each Province is unique) states that anyone performing engineering must be licenced or have their work supervised by a licenced engineer. They then define engineering as:
["practice of professional engineering" means any act of designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising wherein the safeguarding of life, health, property or the public welfare is concerned and that requires the application of engineering principles, but does not include practising as a natural scientist; ("exercice de la profession d'ingénieur&quot] Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O 1990, Section 1 - Definitions.

So yes, if that product that they are designing can endanger the life, health, property or the public welfare. The only problem that we have is when the products have the engineering done elsewhere. A very good example of this is the Canadian auto industry. We build and sell cars that are engineered by non-licenced engineers, but if that design is modified when in production by someone in Canada (like a plant based design engineer) that engineering work must be supervised by a licenced engineer or else there is a violation of the law.

"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."

Yes there is whistleblower protection in the states, but it is not as strong as the Canadian system due to the lack of the mandatory licence. For example, if a company doubts an engineer's (call him EngA) decision in Canada, they can get the work reviewed by another engineer (EngB) to get them to approve it, but that second person is bound by a strickly enforced code of ethics. Say EngA is right. So EngB reviews this and approves it. EngA then reports EngB for misconduct and he is disciplined.
In the US, if EngC (non-licenced, but degreed and qualified for the job) reviews this and approves it, then the company can rightfully claim that they have pursued due diligence and had another qualified person review and approve the design because they are covered by and industrial exemption, even if the second person is wrong! So EngA can then use the whisleblower laws, and in the end a non-technical court will judge if EngA was right.

What if it isn't so clean cut. What if it was a judgement call of going with a 1.4 or a 1.6 factor of safety on something like then front end of a car at the cost of a several million dollars? Would it affect someone's life? If you made 3,000,000 of those cars it very well might! If you were EngA would you have more confidence going up against your employer in such a situation if you were going to be judged by a group of people who appreciate what a 1.4 factor of safety represents or a court of non-technical people? I know what sort of backing I would like to have.

Dave

 

[GregLocock]

Without wishing to inflame an old wound, perhaps the difference between industry exempt industries, and the rest, is that we build prototypes and test them exhaustively. This gives us several (typically three major) iterations to get the design right.

Also:

Supposing you are designing a 1 litre engined econobox car. Market research has indicated that you would attain class leadership for safety with a 3 star NCAP rating. For this you would need an airbag, but not side bags or anything very sophisticated. However, it is obvious that fitting these additional known technologies would make the car safer, and would bring it up to the safety standard of other larger cars.

How would the stamping PE comply with his code of ethics (problem: we are going to sell a car that is less safe /by design/ than other cars), when the safer car will be much more expensive than others in its class and so probably won't be bought in sufficient quantities to be profitable?



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Bbird]

dporte17,

I enjoy reading your definition of Engineering Act. Since it has some French in it I take it might have an European connection. Yes I can confirm that definition is pretty accurate for the folks at this side of the river.

On the matter of safety factor there may be a loop hole in your industry. In structural engineering the safety factors are published by the code. A design deviating from the code effectively exposes the engineer to criticism. If an engineer follow the code and the design proves inadequate then the profession is criticised but the engineer is exonerated as he is adhering to the published and accepted good engineering practice.

Different countries can use different safety factors. This is controlled by stating in the contract the relevant codes and the latest edition at time of the contract awarded.

I can see in the automobile industry this can break down. Everybody knows that Volvo sells on the safety factor higher than the others. Cheap foreign cars can corner the market by cutting back cost with lower safety factor in compliance with law only at the source of manufacture.

 

[jsummerfield]

My company uses the term technical professional instead of engineer. However, unlike DarthDick, the company includes the letters PE on business cards, etc. if we send a copy of our current packet registration card to the department secretary when we order cards.

Presetnly I work offshore, have no Texas office and carry no cards. In my autosignature I sign my email John Summerfield, PE


John

 

[QCE]

"Since it has some French in it I take it might have an European connection."

Of course, since everyone in Canada sits around in igloo's speaking only in English.

 

[ietech]

Hi QCE:

I think BBirds comment was meant in a friendly way, at least that's the way I saw it. I also enjoyed deporte17's post and came to the same conclusion.

Learning about differences in licensing requirements from different geographic locations is interesting and possibly valuable to some folks.

Actually aren't there more igloos in the US i.e. Alaska. Where some of the folks speak English and MANY don't.

 

[Bbird]

QCE,

When I mean European connection I mean education system leading to the title of "Ingenieur" which is a 5-year academic studies practised by most of the European countries including France. American and British do a shorter engineering course and the engineers do not enjoy the similar standing as the Ingenieur even though the two are in the same profession but in different countries.

 

[QCE]

It was meant to be a funny way of saying that we speak French here in Canada. I could make the same statement,

"Since it has some English in it I take it might have an European connection."

However my spell check does have an "American English" and no "Canadian French".

What I'm trying to say is that it is not a European connection thing. It is that we translate everything into both of our national languages because we are bilingual.

 

[ietech]

I appologize for missing the humor in your post, I get it now.

Yes you are right there is a tremendous French influence in parts of Canada -- Ontario I think --- am I correct. It must be great to speak two laguages fluently. I'm envious

 

[HamishMcTavish]

Bbird,

Not sure where you are coming from with the statement that the Ingenieur in France is more highly regarded. There is equivalence between Chartered status in the UK and EurIng status in the rest of Europe.

Regards, HM

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

 

[GregLocock]

I think he means in a day to day fashion. I would say that engineers in Australia are more highly respected by the establishment and by the general populace than they are in the UK, for example.




Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[Bbird]

HamishMcTavish,

UK engineers consider the chartered status is equivalent to the EutIng and can certainly apply to become one. However Europeans look upon an Ingenieur more of a learned person and many are addressed as Ingenieur Giovanni instead of Mr. Giovanne. They are called Ingenieur on the day graduating from the university.

In UK the word engineer is not be used as an official title. The frequent use of the 4-letter word by our site engineers is not conducive to the image of a learned person either. May be our engineering professions have to blame for insisting on being practical before qualifying us as a chartered engineer.

I am luck in a sense that my work leads me into contact with engineers from various countries. While the qualification and title are not a sure indication to the person's skill and ability the engineering profession is indeed treated differently by in different countries.

Japanese produces excellent engineers in all disciplines of engineering but licensing aspect is non-existent. They also care less about the formal qualification. Any Japanese colleague care to enlighten us here?

 

[buzzp]

In South America they use Engineer in place of Mr. Mrs. Miss as well.

 

[BigH]

What an interesting post - for lots of reasons. As to Americans who think that Canadians sit in igloos and speaking only English - well, at least we do not carry out snow skis on our car up to Ontario in June/July!! Seriously, from first hand experience, Canada has other languages too - Inuit and that hard one on the ears "Newfie".

Do engineers really need to be licensed? First, I suppose that in US/Canada the major reason we, who have the license and are in the field of providing consulting/construction/designing to the public do it because it is mandatory . I have no problem with that - it is like other licenses (I am PE in ME and P.Eng. in Ontario). But, for those who think that it helps in status, think again. Canada Passport applications overseas will not allow a professional engineer sign as a guarantor - but they will allow a banker or a mayor of a town. We don't really get the public respect because we do not really demand it, in my view. Those in the early posts are correct that engineers in other countries are in the top 3 or so of the most respected jobs. Who do the young girls want to marry? Engineers/Doctors. Indonesian engineers use Eng. in front of their name like many European countries do. Some are very good engineers - many are not qualified for it. I ran into one who ran a soils lab and didn't even know the theory of consolidation. Likewise with the Indian IITs. They produce some mighty fine analytical engineers but most do not gain any practicality in their studies - gratefully, many do as they practice. (As an aside - many students use Harvard, Yale, Cornell as a fall-back university when they can't get into an IIT - I live in the same town as IIT-Kharagpur).

On the other hand, many have expounded that many of the great inventions are by non-engineers. They are right - but many of the great inventions were at a time that industry and the public weren't so heavily regulated. In looking at the original thought that Terzaghi, Peck, Casagrandes, others gave to geotechnical engineering - I'm not so sure that they could do it now with all the regulation that there is - the world of codes and specifications. Things have changed and I don't think that regulations promote innovative thinking - to the degree that could be produced earlier.)

In the long run, if licensed (or registered) professional engineers, by use of the PE/PEng, can use this to upgrade the profession in the eyes of the real public, then it will be good. But, it isn't absolutely necessary to do engineering work in all fields unless the end-product is proven for the safety of the public and in this, a PE/PEng review of the work (take the Boeing example) should be paramount. But the public needs to recognize this - most don't.

(what a ramble, I know!)

 

[steve1]

I am a civil/structural PE who works mainly in the industrial sector where I interface with mechanical and electrical types.

The following is not an indictment, just an observation.

One point that I haven't see raised in this discussion is the sense of "freedom" that non PE engineers have. Over my twenty five year career I have seen many non PE, non accredited degree, designer types use the excuse that "they're not the engineer" when problems with their designs arise. That to me is the real crux of the problem. PE's feel bound by law to take responsibilty for their work, non PE's have a built in excuse when things go wrong.

Personally I blame the bean counters for this state of affairs. Why hire a PE when there's a less expensive designer (my term), who knows how to operate the CAD, or an analysis program, that's willing to draw up plans beyound their ability to do so.

As a example. Just recently I was in a discussion with a mechanical design engineer who had drawn up a set of plans for a fairly elaborate equipment skid. When I questioned him about the lifting lugs, his response was, "If there's a problem, it's not my fault. I'm not the engineer".

 

[buzzp]

Steve1
You hit on something which is an assumption; "that's willing to draw up plans beyound their ability to do so." So any designer/engineer/whatever without a PE can not do the quality of work that a PE can do? Hogwash.

 

[jsummerfield]

Steve1 hits one of the messages from the PE boards. If a job requires a stamp, supervise the work. Do not stamp work not performed under your supervision. If a stamp is required, the engineer who perfoms the work should stamp her own work; or have the document checked by the PE.

Where a stamp is required it makes sense that the lead engineer, engineering manager or department manager requires PE registration. I was a department supervisor without a license when Texas strengthened the requirements in 1992. If you want to be a supervisor get licensed.

John Summerfield, PE
Texas 80134

 

[CRG]

The whole issue of occupational licensing raises my ire.

First, I believe that most professional occupations that require licensing result in limiting the number of people in the profession and thus protect inflated salaries. This results in people in our society having fewer and more expensive choices when professional consultation is required. If a profession requires some threshold test to pass in order to become licensed, then the test should be an accurate means to test the competency of the people in the profession and those wanting to enter the profession. This is not the case with the PE exam in the United States. If passing the test demonstrates the minimum relevant skills required by the profession, there would not be a need to see how people performed on the test to determine what the criteria is to pass the test (they curve the test scores).

I am a licensed professional engineer that is angered with the testing requirements for the PE license. For that mater, all professional exams that are gate keepers to a profession make me angry. This is not sour grapes; I take test and score much better than my knowledge or IQ merits. Both EIT and PE exams were passed first time and with scores to brag about; however, I am not proud because the scoring was curved. If the exam was indeed a test of minimum required knowledge, curving the results would be unthinkable.

So, in order to ensure that a the ability to pass a test is a measure of the minimum skill required for a given profession, why not have the professionals take the exam every few years to keep their professional license in addition to taking it in the first place to first get their license. This would work for doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc. Once working professionals are required to pass the licensing test every few years, I believe that the professional boards would ensure that the testing is relevant. This levels the playing field between first time examinees and existing professionals, and would help to ensure that the passing the test is relevant to the minimum skills required by the profession. Curving the test scores should not be method to determine who passes. If the test is a relevant indicator, it would place the public at risk to curve the resulting scores.

CRG

 

[sirmick]

The fact that you have to have 5 PEs vouch for your work over a 5 year period to me is rediculous. I have been out of school over 5 years. I have passed the EIT. I haven't worked with PEs.

Thus, in Alabama, there is no way for me to even take the PE test, unless I was going to solicit for false references.

 

[QCE]

CRG,

FYI:
My engineering association is thinking of making professional engineer's show continuing education credits to prove they are keeping up their level of knowledge.