Dwayne,
One thing I've learned from the discussions about PE licensing is that there's a lot of variation in the breadth and depth of education, training, and experience that civil engineers are getting. Over the past three decades, my career has been mainly in the transportation and dam sectors, and civil engineers in these sectors are routinely involved in highway, traffic, structural, geotechnical, and water resources engineering. Nearly 100% of the hundreds of civil engineers in these sectors that I've interacted with have a PE, if they have the prerequisite 3-4 years of experience. And as I mentioned in another thread, of the dozens of engineers in my firm who took the PE exam over the years, nearly 100% passed it on their first try. When I took the PE exam in the 1990s, I found it easy to pass on the first try, and I didn't have to do much studying for the exam because my professional experience had prepared me well for the exam.
If there are civil engineers in other sectors who struggle to get their PE, that would seem to reflect gaps in their education, training, and experience which need to be remedied, not that the exam isn't aligned with civil engineering practice or is too difficult.
As far as the length of the PE exam, for comparison, I would go back to the requirements for getting a medical license. Doctors have to pass four exams - USMLE-1 (1 day), USMLE-2 CK (1 day), USMLE-2 CS (1 day), and USMLE-3 (2 days) - totaling 5 days of exams, as compared to only 1 day for the PE exam.
I don't expect that a requirement to periodically retake the PE exam would be popular, but, at least in the transportation and dam sectors, I expect that the passing rate would be close to 100%. I recognize that many engineers would need to do some review before the exam, and, in my opinion, engineers should periodically being doing that anyway, through continuing education.
------------------------------
Irfan A. Alvi, P.E., M.ASCE
President & Chief Engineer
Alvi Associates, Inc.
Towson, Maryland
www.alviassociates.comialvi@...------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 01-13-2020 11:15
From: Dwayne Culp
Subject: How can the (civil) engineering profession influence licensure exemption organizations to value licensing and what are the possible value propositions to the organization?
I am commenting on Irfan Alvi's comment on the PE exam.
"If anything, I would make the PE test more rigorous and expand it to 2 days rather than 1 day, plus I think there should be a requirement to retake and pass the PE test every ~10 years in order to maintain the PE license."
Making the PE exam 2 days instead of one, I can maybe see the point of. If you wish to make the test more rigorous, it needs to be brought closer to the end of the formal study, not made further away. Right after college, the PE test will be the easiest test you take that year. 4-year later, it is a nightmare for most.
Making engineers retake a one or two day test every 10-years is a sure way to ensure that 10-years after they graduate, the number of registered PE's in the 10-20 years experience range will quickly become a very small percent. It would be a shame that that just when the PE's are perfecting their trade, they give it up because of rigorous test that most will fail. I understand this because I took too long between classes in Ph.D. and failed the first midterm, even though I knew the content because I no longer knew how to prepare for a test. Given that it takes 10,000 hours of work to become proficient at something, about the time the engineer would become proficient, they would have to take a test on things that they are not proficient in in order to continue to do the things they have finally perfected. I think that that would be huge mistake.
Most engineers only focus on a very small portion of the things tested in the PE test. They know the part on the PE test that they do for the jurisdictions that they work in. For the rest of the items, they know enough to talk about it intelligently to another expert. The PE test is extremely generic, and hopelessly academic in nature because it has to be in order to be used across the US.
Continuing education is the way that PEs stay current on the new methods and processes, stay current on the knowledge that they need to be proficient at what they do, and keep their base of knowledge up. It is person specific, and driven by what a specific PE needs to continue to perfect their skills. It is a much more appropriate system than requiring a generic test be passed. I might be able to agree with making the continuing education reporting system more rigorous, as long as we are not taking it totaling into the realm of formal tested material.
------------------------------
Dwayne Culp, Ph.D., Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Culp Engineering, LLC
Rosenberg TX
Original Message:
Sent: 01-10-2020 07:38
From: Irfan Alvi
Subject: How can the (civil) engineering profession influence licensure exemption organizations to value licensing and what are the possible value propositions to the organization?
I agree that experience and references are important prerequisites for obtaining a PE, but I don't consider them to be substitutes for passing a standardized test. Some engineers have experience which sounds good on paper, but in actuality it doesn't provide sufficient breadth and depth of knowledge and skill. And references often serve more as character references rather than knowledge/skill references.
If anything, I would make the PE test more rigorous and expand it to 2 days rather than 1 day, plus I think there should be a requirement to retake and pass the PE test every ~10 years in order to maintain the PE license.
------------------------------
Irfan A. Alvi, P.E., M.ASCE
President & Chief Engineer
Alvi Associates, Inc.
Towson, Maryland
www.alviassociates.com
<maskemail>ialvi@...</maskemail>
Original Message:
Sent: 01-09-2020 18:12
From: Mitchell Winkler
Subject: How can the (civil) engineering profession influence licensure exemption organizations to value licensing and what are the possible value propositions to the organization?
I think a big opportunity to increase the number of licensed engineers working in exempt industries is for the states and engineering profession writ large is to rethink the licensing process to ensure that licensing requirements align with the desired end in mind. I see the latter being a demonstration of technical competence, sound judgement, and strong ethical standing. I think this rethink needs to start with the PE exam. From my experience having worked in an exempt industry, the fact that one has an undergraduate degree with a decent GPA is generally enough evidence that a graduate new hire is competent to solve idealized civil engineering problems as assessed in the PE exam unless it's changed from when I took it. The same should hold true for a graduate new working for an employer that performs engineering services for the public. I think experience and the assessment by one's peers is a far better indicator of an individual's ability than passing a standardized test.
Recognizing the status quo will not be easy to change I think there are several value propositions in today's world that could appeal to exempt employers. The first value proposition being a benefit they can offer their engineers to enable future job flexibility. This may sound counter intuitive, but this can be important for employers trying to attract and retain top talent in a dynamic business or business subject to cyclical market conditions. If PE licensing is encouraged and supported – while not needed - the employees benefit from having a credential that expands their future marketability if needed. The second value proposition is one of staff assessment; and employers using the PE licensing process as a means of assessing the competence of graduate new hires. On this second point the more important element would be on the references and not necessarily on the PE exam. The third value proposition is the increased self-awareness of what it means to be an engineer that results from the licensing process and a positive impact it could have on an employer's bottom line
------------------------------
Mitchell Winkler P.E., M.ASCE
Houston, TX
Original Message:
Sent: 01-06-2020 20:42
From: Mitchell Winkler
Subject: How can the (civil) engineering profession influence licensure exemption organizations to value licensing and what are the possible value propositions to the organization?
We've had a great discussion on the topic of licensing prompted by Stu Walesh's post seeking feedback from unlicensed civil engineers who have worked in in a licensure exemption organizations and his view that licensure exemption cultures can be personally debilitating for engineers and seriously damaging for society. This has spawned a wide ranging conversation on the relatively low number of civil engineering grads that seek licensure, the role of licensing vs other factors such as culture on the safety of industrial products and activities, the importance of the PE exam, the timing of this exam and preparation requirements, the content of the this exam and the prior FE exam and the differences in professional recognition across different professions. To allow us to be more specific, a suggestion is that we follow up on each of these topics in turn with this topic being the first.
------------------------------
Mitchell Winkler P.E., M.ASCE
Houston, TX
------------------------------