Discussion Thread

Christopher:

Like Bill Hayden, I appreciate the wide-open soapbox. 

"If I could change one thing in the world [within the U.S. engineering community]," to use your words, it would be to largely eliminate America's omnipresent engineering licensure exemption laws. I've concluded, based on studying the literature and on drawing on about a dozen disaster case studies described in Chapter 3 ("Disasters: Were Some Caused by Licensure-Exemption Cultures?"), that the bottom-line-first culture within some licensure-exempt engineering employers places the public at unnecessary risk. For decades, too many Americans have been killed, maimed, and injured, and much property has been damaged. Reason: Many engineering projects have not been produced under the guidance of and with engineering approved by competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection.

 Why raise this issue in civil engineering forum? For two reasons. Some CEs work for licensure exempt employers-I empathize with them and wonder why and how they do what they do.

 Second, some ASCE members have worked diligently, for over two decades, to reform the education and pre-licensure experience of CEs, with a hope that a few other disciplines might be stimulated to do the same. The goal was to raise the bar on preparation for professional practice and more effectively hold public protection paramount. ASCE members, as also members of NSPE, have attempted to reduce the adverse effects of licensure exemptions.

 Raising the licensure preparation bar and reducing licensure exemptions means major change, which, of course, is opposed by many. Accordingly, ASCE has occasionally put its reform effort on hold – like right now.

 In February, ASCE President Briaud convened a summit of civil engineering clients to obtain their views and use that input to decide if/how ASCE's two-decade reform effort should resume. We all have a stake in the results. My hope is for continued reform – ASCE and, more importantly, the public would benefit.

Thanks for the soapbox.

Stu Walesh

Christopher:

Like Bill Hayden, I appreciate the wide-open soapbox. 

"If I could change one thing in the world [within the U.S. engineering community]," to use your words, it would be to largely eliminate America's omnipresent engineering licensure exemption laws. I've concluded, based on studying the literature and on drawing on about a dozen disaster case studies described in Chapter 3 ("Disasters: Were Some Caused by Licensure-Exemption Cultures?"), that the bottom-line-first culture within some licensure-exempt engineering employers places the public at unnecessary risk. For decades, too many Americans have been killed, maimed, and injured, and much property has been damaged. Reason: Many engineering projects have not been produced under the guidance of and with engineering approved by competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection.

 Why raise this issue in civil engineering forum? For two reasons. Some CEs work for licensure exempt employers-I empathize with them and wonder why and how they do what they do.

 Second, some ASCE members have worked diligently, for over two decades, to reform the education and pre-licensure experience of CEs, with a hope that a few other disciplines might be stimulated to do the same. The goal was to raise the bar on preparation for professional practice and more effectively hold public protection paramount. ASCE members, as also members of NSPE, have attempted to reduce the adverse effects of licensure exemptions.

 Raising the licensure preparation bar and reducing licensure exemptions means major change, which, of course, is opposed by many. Accordingly, ASCE has occasionally put its reform effort on hold – like right now.

 In February, ASCE President Briaud convened a summit of civil engineering clients to obtain their views and use that input to decide if/how ASCE's two-decade reform effort should resume. We all have a stake in the results. My hope is for continued reform – ASCE and, more importantly, the public would benefit.

Thanks for the soapbox.

Stu Walesh

Christopher:

Like Bill Hayden, I appreciate the wide-open soapbox. 

"If I could change one thing in the world [within the U.S. engineering community]," to use your words, it would be to largely eliminate America's omnipresent engineering licensure exemption laws. I've concluded, based on studying the literature and on drawing on about a dozen disaster case studies described in Chapter 3 ("Disasters: Were Some Caused by Licensure-Exemption Cultures?"), that the bottom-line-first culture within some licensure-exempt engineering employers places the public at unnecessary risk. For decades, too many Americans have been killed, maimed, and injured, and much property has been damaged. Reason: Many engineering projects have not been produced under the guidance of and with engineering approved by competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection.

 Why raise this issue in civil engineering forum? For two reasons. Some CEs work for licensure exempt employers-I empathize with them and wonder why and how they do what they do.

 Second, some ASCE members have worked diligently, for over two decades, to reform the education and pre-licensure experience of CEs, with a hope that a few other disciplines might be stimulated to do the same. The goal was to raise the bar on preparation for professional practice and more effectively hold public protection paramount. ASCE members, as also members of NSPE, have attempted to reduce the adverse effects of licensure exemptions.

 Raising the licensure preparation bar and reducing licensure exemptions means major change, which, of course, is opposed by many. Accordingly, ASCE has occasionally put its reform effort on hold – like right now.

 In February, ASCE President Briaud convened a summit of civil engineering clients to obtain their views and use that input to decide if/how ASCE's two-decade reform effort should resume. We all have a stake in the results. My hope is for continued reform – ASCE and, more importantly, the public would benefit.

Thanks for the soapbox.

Stu Walesh