Professional and Career Topics

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

Leuba, C. J. 1971. A Road to Creativity – Arthur Morgan – Engineer, Educator, Administrator, North Quincy, MA: Christopher Publishing House.

He "did it all" -- started his own firm, revolutionized Minnesota drainage laws, created the Miami Conservancy District with its detention reservoirs, helped found the TVA, and served as a college president.

Stu

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

William:

Thank you for the additional info/ideas.

Board certifications: As you may know, ASCE is taking the route you suggest. This year, they officially abandoned their almost two-decade initiative to broaden and deepen the education required for licensure and move to a civil engineering-centric credentialing approach.

Boeing 737 MAX failures: I am tracking this case and waiting for more NTSB results. They do an amazing job of analyzing disasters, including causes, and making useful recommendations.

Regarding Boeing, last month the FAA informed Boeing that the company will cease inspecting its own aircraft – FAA will conduct the inspections. The new approach will apply until the FAA "is confident that, at minimum, Boeing has a fully functional quality control and verification processes in place; delivery processes are similarly functional and stable; and Boeing's 737 MAX compliance, design, and production processes meet all regulatory standards and conditions for delegation and ensure the safety of the public."   

This action seems to provide an opportunity for FAA to require that design and other engineering functions be under the guidance and with the approval of accountable, competent, and licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection.

Do you know if FAA has such authority? Can it over-ride state licensure laws? Has it ever done so?

A search of the FAA website did not answer my question.

Stu

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Stu,

Some specific answers to your questions follow below, but first some general comments on this thread. There have been two points in this discussion that really resonate with me.

Shirley Clark writes "Unfortunately, I don't think it is just the unlicensed community where problems exist in bad design. Dr. Blumberg (who has an undergraduate degree in engineering) studied these challenges and noted that it is more tied to corporate culture. Bad culture can exist in both the regulated and unregulated sector."

And William Kitch writes "Finally, I'd like to point out that professional registration is not guarantor of either professional competence or ethical behavior.  It is, by it's nature, a minimum standard.  If you think it inoculates engineers against unethical practice, just do a quick check of the enforcement actions in your state and you'll be quickly disabused of this notion."

While not meaning to be dismissive of professional registration, one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs each year at renewal time. This has been true for me as a me as a PE. I know that I have a duty to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public and have the awareness to not work outside of my area of competency.

If the desire is to achieve safe, functional, and time or cost-effective outcomes I think what's required is a combination of individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom  and no tolerance for non-compliance. Also of vital importance is that safety is a shared value across all interfaces. When one of these things breaks down, is missing or ambiguous, the likelihood of an unwanted outcome is increased. It's a systems problem and the system is only as good as its weakest link. Note, I've used safety as a proxy for both people and the environment.

With respect to your specific questions

Oil and gas development in the US offshore falls under a combination of state and federal jurisdictions. The state zone extends from the coastline to 3 nm offshore and the federal zone outwards to 200 nm. Historically, exploration drilling activity has taken place in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific coast and Alaska. Active offshore producing wells today are in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California, and Alaska (Cook Inlet and Beaufort Sea). At the time of the Macondo blow out and spill I don't believe there was a requirement for PE sign off on a well construction plan. This changed post-Macondo and the Feds instituted a new rule requiring certification signed by a registered professional engineer that the casing and cementing design is appropriate for the intended purpose and conditions. The number of wells drilled in the US offshore is in excess of 50,000.

Mitch

Stu,

Some specific answers to your questions follow below, but first some general comments on this thread. There have been two points in this discussion that really resonate with me.

Shirley Clark writes "Unfortunately, I don't think it is just the unlicensed community where problems exist in bad design. Dr. Blumberg (who has an undergraduate degree in engineering) studied these challenges and noted that it is more tied to corporate culture. Bad culture can exist in both the regulated and unregulated sector."

And William Kitch writes "Finally, I'd like to point out that professional registration is not guarantor of either professional competence or ethical behavior.  It is, by it's nature, a minimum standard.  If you think it inoculates engineers against unethical practice, just do a quick check of the enforcement actions in your state and you'll be quickly disabused of this notion."

While not meaning to be dismissive of professional registration, one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs each year at renewal time. This has been true for me as a me as a PE. I know that I have a duty to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public and have the awareness to not work outside of my area of competency.

If the desire is to achieve safe, functional, and time or cost-effective outcomes I think what's required is a combination of individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom  and no tolerance for non-compliance. Also of vital importance is that safety is a shared value across all interfaces. When one of these things breaks down, is missing or ambiguous, the likelihood of an unwanted outcome is increased. It's a systems problem and the system is only as good as its weakest link. Note, I've used safety as a proxy for both people and the environment.

With respect to your specific questions

Oil and gas development in the US offshore falls under a combination of state and federal jurisdictions. The state zone extends from the coastline to 3 nm offshore and the federal zone outwards to 200 nm. Historically, exploration drilling activity has taken place in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific coast and Alaska. Active offshore producing wells today are in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California, and Alaska (Cook Inlet and Beaufort Sea). At the time of the Macondo blow out and spill I don't believe there was a requirement for PE sign off on a well construction plan. This changed post-Macondo and the Feds instituted a new rule requiring certification signed by a registered professional engineer that the casing and cementing design is appropriate for the intended purpose and conditions. The number of wells drilled in the US offshore is in excess of 50,000.

Mitch

Great topic! Readers of this forum may be predominantly licensed engineers, making it difficult to gain insight here. I believe Jesse is the only respondent from the target group thus far. Still, there has been a lot of good discussion. This topic and similar ones are important and deserve more time and attention. 

I believe that our profession would benefit if licensure was almost ubiquitous. Mitch stated the value of licensure well ("…one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs…"). Interestingly, many of the unlicensed Civil Engineers that I know are also not professionally active*; many treat their employment as a "job" as opposed to a "profession." The combination is not conducive to a culture of (also stolen from Mitch!) "… individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom and no tolerance for non-compliance." (*Based solely on my anecdotal observations, this trend does not seem to hold as strongly for other engineering disciplines; I have no idea why.)

With that in mind, why don't more engineers pursue licensure? I always encourage graduates to pursue licensure for their own benefit, not that of their employer. Benefits may not be obvious at first, but the increased opportunities are always good. Very few graduates from ABET accredited engineering programs would have difficulty passing the FE and PE exams if sufficiently motivated to prepare. Licensure fees are not prohibitive in the states I am licensed in. Continuing education requirements might seem ominous, but I don't think they really are. Maybe design experience requirements under a PE limit some? I have run across that a few times and occasionally provided supportive letters for licensure as someone who was familiar with the applicant's work, but not a direct supervisor. Still, I can't imagine this is a widespread barrier. I did run across a construction company once who prohibited their engineers from holding a license for liability reasons; I don't think that is common. I remain perplexed that so many forgo licensure when the potential benefits seem - to me - to greatly outweigh the costs. But, the numbers suggest that it it me who is in the dark; I am hopeful someone can shed some light so that we can identify - then hopefully remove - the barriers.

 BTW, my experience with licensure and academia contrasts strongly with what Mark describes; I hope my experiences are closer to the norm than his!

 Great discussion, Stu.

Don

Stu,

Some specific answers to your questions follow below, but first some general comments on this thread. There have been two points in this discussion that really resonate with me.

Shirley Clark writes "Unfortunately, I don't think it is just the unlicensed community where problems exist in bad design. Dr. Blumberg (who has an undergraduate degree in engineering) studied these challenges and noted that it is more tied to corporate culture. Bad culture can exist in both the regulated and unregulated sector."

And William Kitch writes "Finally, I'd like to point out that professional registration is not guarantor of either professional competence or ethical behavior.  It is, by it's nature, a minimum standard.  If you think it inoculates engineers against unethical practice, just do a quick check of the enforcement actions in your state and you'll be quickly disabused of this notion."

While not meaning to be dismissive of professional registration, one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs each year at renewal time. This has been true for me as a me as a PE. I know that I have a duty to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public and have the awareness to not work outside of my area of competency.

If the desire is to achieve safe, functional, and time or cost-effective outcomes I think what's required is a combination of individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom  and no tolerance for non-compliance. Also of vital importance is that safety is a shared value across all interfaces. When one of these things breaks down, is missing or ambiguous, the likelihood of an unwanted outcome is increased. It's a systems problem and the system is only as good as its weakest link. Note, I've used safety as a proxy for both people and the environment.

With respect to your specific questions

Oil and gas development in the US offshore falls under a combination of state and federal jurisdictions. The state zone extends from the coastline to 3 nm offshore and the federal zone outwards to 200 nm. Historically, exploration drilling activity has taken place in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific coast and Alaska. Active offshore producing wells today are in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California, and Alaska (Cook Inlet and Beaufort Sea). At the time of the Macondo blow out and spill I don't believe there was a requirement for PE sign off on a well construction plan. This changed post-Macondo and the Feds instituted a new rule requiring certification signed by a registered professional engineer that the casing and cementing design is appropriate for the intended purpose and conditions. The number of wells drilled in the US offshore is in excess of 50,000.

Mitch

Don:

Thank you for sharing ideas and a big question: Why don't more engineers pursue licensure?

Allow me to share an answer, for your and other's consideration, based on my studies.

The short answer is that about 80 percent of engineering graduates work in that exemption environment where licensure is not required and is sometimes disparaged.

Now for the long answer. Most aspiring engineers, as students, don't suddenly make a "no licensure" decision. They slip into it. They didn't realize that when they started to study engineering, especially in majors other than civil engineering, that their deans (only one-third licensed), instructors through professors (overall small percent licensed), curriculum, co-op/internship programs, summer jobs, and co-curricular activities were preparing them to work, as non-licensed engineer employees, in exemption organizations. They were recruited, taught, counseled, mentored, and influenced largely by members of the exemption community and spent four or more years in colleges whose principal client is that culture.

Even once employed, some may not initially fully understand that their employer's zeal for profit will likely take precedence, big time, over public protection regardless of what many academics and practitioners frequently said about ethics. And, they may not realize that there are other ways to practice or be involved in engineering.

If all graduate engineers working in the licensure exemption community had to do it over, now fully informed, many, if not most would probably go right back into that environment. It offers many advantages and disadvantages and many would find the former more compelling than the latter. I often hear energetic defenses of exemption laws.

More bluntly, the licensure exemption world is where the majority of engineering jobs are, engineering colleges knowingly or unknowingly serve that world, and bottom-line oriented businesses determine the working conditions. It's all legal and understandable. In my view it is also very unfortunate because it causes unnecessary risk to the public. By the way, I love capitalism, but like Socrates said, in all things we should seek the "golden mean."

My thoughts.

Stu

Great topic! Readers of this forum may be predominantly licensed engineers, making it difficult to gain insight here. I believe Jesse is the only respondent from the target group thus far. Still, there has been a lot of good discussion. This topic and similar ones are important and deserve more time and attention. 

I believe that our profession would benefit if licensure was almost ubiquitous. Mitch stated the value of licensure well ("…one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs…"). Interestingly, many of the unlicensed Civil Engineers that I know are also not professionally active*; many treat their employment as a "job" as opposed to a "profession." The combination is not conducive to a culture of (also stolen from Mitch!) "… individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom and no tolerance for non-compliance." (*Based solely on my anecdotal observations, this trend does not seem to hold as strongly for other engineering disciplines; I have no idea why.)

With that in mind, why don't more engineers pursue licensure? I always encourage graduates to pursue licensure for their own benefit, not that of their employer. Benefits may not be obvious at first, but the increased opportunities are always good. Very few graduates from ABET accredited engineering programs would have difficulty passing the FE and PE exams if sufficiently motivated to prepare. Licensure fees are not prohibitive in the states I am licensed in. Continuing education requirements might seem ominous, but I don't think they really are. Maybe design experience requirements under a PE limit some? I have run across that a few times and occasionally provided supportive letters for licensure as someone who was familiar with the applicant's work, but not a direct supervisor. Still, I can't imagine this is a widespread barrier. I did run across a construction company once who prohibited their engineers from holding a license for liability reasons; I don't think that is common. I remain perplexed that so many forgo licensure when the potential benefits seem - to me - to greatly outweigh the costs. But, the numbers suggest that it it me who is in the dark; I am hopeful someone can shed some light so that we can identify - then hopefully remove - the barriers.

 BTW, my experience with licensure and academia contrasts strongly with what Mark describes; I hope my experiences are closer to the norm than his!

 Great discussion, Stu.

Don

Stu,

Some specific answers to your questions follow below, but first some general comments on this thread. There have been two points in this discussion that really resonate with me.

Shirley Clark writes "Unfortunately, I don't think it is just the unlicensed community where problems exist in bad design. Dr. Blumberg (who has an undergraduate degree in engineering) studied these challenges and noted that it is more tied to corporate culture. Bad culture can exist in both the regulated and unregulated sector."

And William Kitch writes "Finally, I'd like to point out that professional registration is not guarantor of either professional competence or ethical behavior.  It is, by it's nature, a minimum standard.  If you think it inoculates engineers against unethical practice, just do a quick check of the enforcement actions in your state and you'll be quickly disabused of this notion."

While not meaning to be dismissive of professional registration, one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs each year at renewal time. This has been true for me as a me as a PE. I know that I have a duty to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public and have the awareness to not work outside of my area of competency.

If the desire is to achieve safe, functional, and time or cost-effective outcomes I think what's required is a combination of individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom  and no tolerance for non-compliance. Also of vital importance is that safety is a shared value across all interfaces. When one of these things breaks down, is missing or ambiguous, the likelihood of an unwanted outcome is increased. It's a systems problem and the system is only as good as its weakest link. Note, I've used safety as a proxy for both people and the environment.

With respect to your specific questions

Oil and gas development in the US offshore falls under a combination of state and federal jurisdictions. The state zone extends from the coastline to 3 nm offshore and the federal zone outwards to 200 nm. Historically, exploration drilling activity has taken place in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific coast and Alaska. Active offshore producing wells today are in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California, and Alaska (Cook Inlet and Beaufort Sea). At the time of the Macondo blow out and spill I don't believe there was a requirement for PE sign off on a well construction plan. This changed post-Macondo and the Feds instituted a new rule requiring certification signed by a registered professional engineer that the casing and cementing design is appropriate for the intended purpose and conditions. The number of wells drilled in the US offshore is in excess of 50,000.

Mitch

Don:

Thank you for sharing ideas and a big question: Why don't more engineers pursue licensure?

Allow me to share an answer, for your and other's consideration, based on my studies.

The short answer is that about 80 percent of engineering graduates work in that exemption environment where licensure is not required and is sometimes disparaged.

Now for the long answer. Most aspiring engineers, as students, don't suddenly make a "no licensure" decision. They slip into it. They didn't realize that when they started to study engineering, especially in majors other than civil engineering, that their deans (only one-third licensed), instructors through professors (overall small percent licensed), curriculum, co-op/internship programs, summer jobs, and co-curricular activities were preparing them to work, as non-licensed engineer employees, in exemption organizations. They were recruited, taught, counseled, mentored, and influenced largely by members of the exemption community and spent four or more years in colleges whose principal client is that culture.

Even once employed, some may not initially fully understand that their employer's zeal for profit will likely take precedence, big time, over public protection regardless of what many academics and practitioners frequently said about ethics. And, they may not realize that there are other ways to practice or be involved in engineering.

If all graduate engineers working in the licensure exemption community had to do it over, now fully informed, many, if not most would probably go right back into that environment. It offers many advantages and disadvantages and many would find the former more compelling than the latter. I often hear energetic defenses of exemption laws.

More bluntly, the licensure exemption world is where the majority of engineering jobs are, engineering colleges knowingly or unknowingly serve that world, and bottom-line oriented businesses determine the working conditions. It's all legal and understandable. In my view it is also very unfortunate because it causes unnecessary risk to the public. By the way, I love capitalism, but like Socrates said, in all things we should seek the "golden mean."

My thoughts.

Stu

Great topic! Readers of this forum may be predominantly licensed engineers, making it difficult to gain insight here. I believe Jesse is the only respondent from the target group thus far. Still, there has been a lot of good discussion. This topic and similar ones are important and deserve more time and attention. 

I believe that our profession would benefit if licensure was almost ubiquitous. Mitch stated the value of licensure well ("…one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs…"). Interestingly, many of the unlicensed Civil Engineers that I know are also not professionally active*; many treat their employment as a "job" as opposed to a "profession." The combination is not conducive to a culture of (also stolen from Mitch!) "… individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom and no tolerance for non-compliance." (*Based solely on my anecdotal observations, this trend does not seem to hold as strongly for other engineering disciplines; I have no idea why.)

With that in mind, why don't more engineers pursue licensure? I always encourage graduates to pursue licensure for their own benefit, not that of their employer. Benefits may not be obvious at first, but the increased opportunities are always good. Very few graduates from ABET accredited engineering programs would have difficulty passing the FE and PE exams if sufficiently motivated to prepare. Licensure fees are not prohibitive in the states I am licensed in. Continuing education requirements might seem ominous, but I don't think they really are. Maybe design experience requirements under a PE limit some? I have run across that a few times and occasionally provided supportive letters for licensure as someone who was familiar with the applicant's work, but not a direct supervisor. Still, I can't imagine this is a widespread barrier. I did run across a construction company once who prohibited their engineers from holding a license for liability reasons; I don't think that is common. I remain perplexed that so many forgo licensure when the potential benefits seem - to me - to greatly outweigh the costs. But, the numbers suggest that it it me who is in the dark; I am hopeful someone can shed some light so that we can identify - then hopefully remove - the barriers.

 BTW, my experience with licensure and academia contrasts strongly with what Mark describes; I hope my experiences are closer to the norm than his!

 Great discussion, Stu.

Don

Stu,

Some specific answers to your questions follow below, but first some general comments on this thread. There have been two points in this discussion that really resonate with me.

Shirley Clark writes "Unfortunately, I don't think it is just the unlicensed community where problems exist in bad design. Dr. Blumberg (who has an undergraduate degree in engineering) studied these challenges and noted that it is more tied to corporate culture. Bad culture can exist in both the regulated and unregulated sector."

And William Kitch writes "Finally, I'd like to point out that professional registration is not guarantor of either professional competence or ethical behavior.  It is, by it's nature, a minimum standard.  If you think it inoculates engineers against unethical practice, just do a quick check of the enforcement actions in your state and you'll be quickly disabused of this notion."

While not meaning to be dismissive of professional registration, one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs each year at renewal time. This has been true for me as a me as a PE. I know that I have a duty to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public and have the awareness to not work outside of my area of competency.

If the desire is to achieve safe, functional, and time or cost-effective outcomes I think what's required is a combination of individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom  and no tolerance for non-compliance. Also of vital importance is that safety is a shared value across all interfaces. When one of these things breaks down, is missing or ambiguous, the likelihood of an unwanted outcome is increased. It's a systems problem and the system is only as good as its weakest link. Note, I've used safety as a proxy for both people and the environment.

With respect to your specific questions

Oil and gas development in the US offshore falls under a combination of state and federal jurisdictions. The state zone extends from the coastline to 3 nm offshore and the federal zone outwards to 200 nm. Historically, exploration drilling activity has taken place in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific coast and Alaska. Active offshore producing wells today are in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California, and Alaska (Cook Inlet and Beaufort Sea). At the time of the Macondo blow out and spill I don't believe there was a requirement for PE sign off on a well construction plan. This changed post-Macondo and the Feds instituted a new rule requiring certification signed by a registered professional engineer that the casing and cementing design is appropriate for the intended purpose and conditions. The number of wells drilled in the US offshore is in excess of 50,000.

Mitch

Don:

Thank you for sharing ideas and a big question: Why don't more engineers pursue licensure?

Allow me to share an answer, for your and other's consideration, based on my studies.

The short answer is that about 80 percent of engineering graduates work in that exemption environment where licensure is not required and is sometimes disparaged.

Now for the long answer. Most aspiring engineers, as students, don't suddenly make a "no licensure" decision. They slip into it. They didn't realize that when they started to study engineering, especially in majors other than civil engineering, that their deans (only one-third licensed), instructors through professors (overall small percent licensed), curriculum, co-op/internship programs, summer jobs, and co-curricular activities were preparing them to work, as non-licensed engineer employees, in exemption organizations. They were recruited, taught, counseled, mentored, and influenced largely by members of the exemption community and spent four or more years in colleges whose principal client is that culture.

Even once employed, some may not initially fully understand that their employer's zeal for profit will likely take precedence, big time, over public protection regardless of what many academics and practitioners frequently said about ethics. And, they may not realize that there are other ways to practice or be involved in engineering.

If all graduate engineers working in the licensure exemption community had to do it over, now fully informed, many, if not most would probably go right back into that environment. It offers many advantages and disadvantages and many would find the former more compelling than the latter. I often hear energetic defenses of exemption laws.

More bluntly, the licensure exemption world is where the majority of engineering jobs are, engineering colleges knowingly or unknowingly serve that world, and bottom-line oriented businesses determine the working conditions. It's all legal and understandable. In my view it is also very unfortunate because it causes unnecessary risk to the public. By the way, I love capitalism, but like Socrates said, in all things we should seek the "golden mean."

My thoughts.

Stu

Great topic! Readers of this forum may be predominantly licensed engineers, making it difficult to gain insight here. I believe Jesse is the only respondent from the target group thus far. Still, there has been a lot of good discussion. This topic and similar ones are important and deserve more time and attention. 

I believe that our profession would benefit if licensure was almost ubiquitous. Mitch stated the value of licensure well ("…one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs…"). Interestingly, many of the unlicensed Civil Engineers that I know are also not professionally active*; many treat their employment as a "job" as opposed to a "profession." The combination is not conducive to a culture of (also stolen from Mitch!) "… individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom and no tolerance for non-compliance." (*Based solely on my anecdotal observations, this trend does not seem to hold as strongly for other engineering disciplines; I have no idea why.)

With that in mind, why don't more engineers pursue licensure? I always encourage graduates to pursue licensure for their own benefit, not that of their employer. Benefits may not be obvious at first, but the increased opportunities are always good. Very few graduates from ABET accredited engineering programs would have difficulty passing the FE and PE exams if sufficiently motivated to prepare. Licensure fees are not prohibitive in the states I am licensed in. Continuing education requirements might seem ominous, but I don't think they really are. Maybe design experience requirements under a PE limit some? I have run across that a few times and occasionally provided supportive letters for licensure as someone who was familiar with the applicant's work, but not a direct supervisor. Still, I can't imagine this is a widespread barrier. I did run across a construction company once who prohibited their engineers from holding a license for liability reasons; I don't think that is common. I remain perplexed that so many forgo licensure when the potential benefits seem - to me - to greatly outweigh the costs. But, the numbers suggest that it it me who is in the dark; I am hopeful someone can shed some light so that we can identify - then hopefully remove - the barriers.

 BTW, my experience with licensure and academia contrasts strongly with what Mark describes; I hope my experiences are closer to the norm than his!

 Great discussion, Stu.

Don

Stu,

Some specific answers to your questions follow below, but first some general comments on this thread. There have been two points in this discussion that really resonate with me.

Shirley Clark writes "Unfortunately, I don't think it is just the unlicensed community where problems exist in bad design. Dr. Blumberg (who has an undergraduate degree in engineering) studied these challenges and noted that it is more tied to corporate culture. Bad culture can exist in both the regulated and unregulated sector."

And William Kitch writes "Finally, I'd like to point out that professional registration is not guarantor of either professional competence or ethical behavior.  It is, by it's nature, a minimum standard.  If you think it inoculates engineers against unethical practice, just do a quick check of the enforcement actions in your state and you'll be quickly disabused of this notion."

While not meaning to be dismissive of professional registration, one of its greatest values may be in the ethical awareness it creates and the reinforcement that occurs each year at renewal time. This has been true for me as a me as a PE. I know that I have a duty to protect the safety, health and welfare of the public and have the awareness to not work outside of my area of competency.

If the desire is to achieve safe, functional, and time or cost-effective outcomes I think what's required is a combination of individuals possessing engineering competence and a strong ethical compass and organizations having an unwavering safety culture from top to bottom  and no tolerance for non-compliance. Also of vital importance is that safety is a shared value across all interfaces. When one of these things breaks down, is missing or ambiguous, the likelihood of an unwanted outcome is increased. It's a systems problem and the system is only as good as its weakest link. Note, I've used safety as a proxy for both people and the environment.

With respect to your specific questions

Oil and gas development in the US offshore falls under a combination of state and federal jurisdictions. The state zone extends from the coastline to 3 nm offshore and the federal zone outwards to 200 nm. Historically, exploration drilling activity has taken place in the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific coast and Alaska. Active offshore producing wells today are in the Gulf of Mexico, offshore California, and Alaska (Cook Inlet and Beaufort Sea). At the time of the Macondo blow out and spill I don't believe there was a requirement for PE sign off on a well construction plan. This changed post-Macondo and the Feds instituted a new rule requiring certification signed by a registered professional engineer that the casing and cementing design is appropriate for the intended purpose and conditions. The number of wells drilled in the US offshore is in excess of 50,000.

Mitch

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• PE exam 2019: average across disciplines 56%, range 40% to 85% (https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/pass-rates/)
• State Bar Exams for 2017: average national pass rate 59%, range 44% - 81% (https://lawschooli.com/bar-exam-pass-rate-by-state/)
• NCLEX Exam for Registered Nurses, 2019: average national pass rate 76% (https://www.ncsbn.org/Table_of_Pass_Rates_2019.htm)
• US Medical Licensing Exam (DOs and MDs), 2018:  (https://www.usmle.org/performance-data/default.aspx)
  • For graduates of US medical schools: average over 4 parts of exam 95%, range 94% to 97%
  • For graduates of Non-US medical schools: average over 4 parts of exam 78%, range 73% to 86%

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• PE exam 2019: average across disciplines 56%, range 40% to 85% (https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/pass-rates/)
• State Bar Exams for 2017: average national pass rate 59%, range 44% - 81% (https://lawschooli.com/bar-exam-pass-rate-by-state/)
• NCLEX Exam for Registered Nurses, 2019: average national pass rate 76% (https://www.ncsbn.org/Table_of_Pass_Rates_2019.htm)
• US Medical Licensing Exam (DOs and MDs), 2018:  (https://www.usmle.org/performance-data/default.aspx)
  • For graduates of US medical schools: average over 4 parts of exam 95%, range 94% to 97%
  • For graduates of Non-US medical schools: average over 4 parts of exam 78%, range 73% to 86%

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• PE exam 2019: average across disciplines 56%, range 40% to 85% (https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/pass-rates/)
• State Bar Exams for 2017: average national pass rate 59%, range 44% - 81% (https://lawschooli.com/bar-exam-pass-rate-by-state/)
• NCLEX Exam for Registered Nurses, 2019: average national pass rate 76% (https://www.ncsbn.org/Table_of_Pass_Rates_2019.htm)
• US Medical Licensing Exam (DOs and MDs), 2018:  (https://www.usmle.org/performance-data/default.aspx)
  • For graduates of US medical schools: average over 4 parts of exam 95%, range 94% to 97%
  • For graduates of Non-US medical schools: average over 4 parts of exam 78%, range 73% to 86%

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

• PE exam 2019: average across disciplines 56%, range 40% to 85% (https://ncees.org/engineering/pe/pass-rates/)
• State Bar Exams for 2017: average national pass rate 59%, range 44% - 81% (https://lawschooli.com/bar-exam-pass-rate-by-state/)
• NCLEX Exam for Registered Nurses, 2019: average national pass rate 76% (https://www.ncsbn.org/Table_of_Pass_Rates_2019.htm)
• US Medical Licensing Exam (DOs and MDs), 2018:  (https://www.usmle.org/performance-data/default.aspx)
  • For graduates of US medical schools: average over 4 parts of exam 95%, range 94% to 97%
  • For graduates of Non-US medical schools: average over 4 parts of exam 78%, range 73% to 86%

• Civil Engineering: 57,320
• Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
• Electrical Engineering: 10,283

Dear Colleagues:

I agree with much of what Stuart has said.  I would also add that many academics are looking or expect exemptions from licensure. For most states, PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam.  In many cases, these applicants do not have an undergraduate engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, but complete PhD in engineering (i.e., mainly research oriented degrees).  Research degrees do not necessarily give an individual a foundation in engineering. Academic institutions do not require all PhD candidates to complete basic coursework in engineering. So, the professions end up with PhDs with PEs who may not be as well prepared to practice engineering, in some cases, not qualified to practice engineering altogether.  There are other cases, where PhDs have acquired their undergraduate engineering degrees from overseas and from non-ABET accredited engineering programs.  These programs often do not have the rigor of American based engineering programs.  Some of them are political degrees. 

To add insult to injury, ASCE for the last decade or more, has promoted this Body of Knowledge that include acquiring a master's degree before an individual can obtain a PE license.   I agree with this concept, except that many of the professors who will teach these courses are not PE, themselves.  I also know PhDs who have failed the PP exam but teach and conduct research.  So, PEs will be taught by non-PEs in advanced areas of engineering.  So, what will they be taught; how to be research engineers? Something is amiss. Research is most often theoretical and not very practical. Typically, it is unproven. PE's need advanced engineering knowledge including methods and procedures that have been validated and proven. We really need to be taught this by other PE's (who have completed all their exam requirements).  When we look at other professions such as the medical field, we find that medical doctors are taught by medical doctors, not PhDs.  Although some may have a PhD, they also have MDs.  If you are sick you go to a practitioner, an MD, not a researcher. In the law profession, lawyers who hold JDs are taught by other JDs, not researchers.  But for some strange reason, engineers are taught by non-practitioners, non-PEs. Again, something is amiss.  It is sometimes hard to take ASCE seriously when they talk about raising the bar. Are they raising the bar?

Personally, I completed my PE before my PhD, therefore, I completed both exams plus a law/ethics exam.  I have worked overseas in an academic and administrative capacity, so I have seen a lot of PhD applicants to civil engineering programs.

Finally, I would say that most exemptions for licensure do not protect the public.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

Spinden's article is historically based, broad, deep, and well documented. As suggested by its title, his article does not present U.S. engineering in a laudatory manner. However, he has considerable empathy for all of engineering.

He contends that U.S. engineering has failed for decades to adequately embrace licensure, failed to repeal the industrial exemption and thus placed the public at unnecessary risk, and failed to achieve full profession status.

Professor Spinden notes that civil engineering is somewhat of an exception, being the only engineering discipline to sometimes stem the tide but was usually successfully resisted by the capitalist lobby and other engineering disciplines and entities that did not value licensure while supporting engineering licensure exemptions.

As an example of opposition encountered by ASCE from within civil engineering, the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) formally opposes ASCE's former attempt to raise the education requirements for engineering licensure. As a pan-engineering example, 11 engineering societies led by ASME also oppose raising those those education requirements as does the Engineering Dean's Council within the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE).

ASCE has a rough row to hoe but has often led the engineering society pack as it is now doing by trying to further implement its increasingly accepted Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge.

Best wishes for success with your course -- looks like your students will hear the whole story.

Stu

------------------------------
Stu Walesh PhD, PE
Consultant - Teacher - Author
219-242-1704
www.HelpingYouEngineerYour
Future.com

Original Message:
Sent: 04-22-2020 10:55 PM
From: William Kitch
Subject: Unlicensed engineers working for licensure exemption organizations

Stu et al.  I was reworking my professional licensure  module of my Professional Practice class and started down a rabbit hole about the history of professional engineering licensure.  In the journey, I ran across this interested article, Spinden (2015).  The Enigma of Engineering's Industrial Exemption to Licensure: The Exception that Swallowed A Profession. UMKC Law Review, 83:3.   I think you'd find it useful in your research on the topic.

------------------------------
William Kitch Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Angelo State University
San Angelo TX

Original Message:
Sent: 12-09-2019 09:40 AM
From: Stuart Walesh
Subject: Unlicensed engineers working for licensure exemption organizations

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.

If you have foregone licensure and worked for a licensure exemption business, please consider sharing your positive and/or negative experiences. I am also interested in knowing when and why you choose the non-licensure option.

Thank you.

My research into the history of U.S. engineering led me to the realization that less than half of civil engineering graduates are PEs. I hope to start a sharing of views and experiences about working as an unlicensed civil engineer in a licensure exemption organization.

Full disclosure: I do not believe that all engineering graduates, regardless of their highest degree, should be licensed. Engineers, CEs and others, who chose to forego licensure can fulfill many other varied and useful roles, such as:

• Perform mostly technical work indefinitely under the supervision of licensed engineers
• Teach primarily engineering science courses in contrast with engineering design and practice offerings
• Conduct research and development within or outside of academia
• Market engineering services or engineered products
• Start an engineering business that produces a product not subject to current laws or rules requiring engineering licensure
• Start a non-engineering business utilizing science, analysis, and design knowledge and skills acquired during undergraduate engineering studies
• Move on to medicine, law, or some other professional program outside of engineering, after earning a baccalaureate degree in engineering

The preceding options aside, many unlicensed engineers, including unlicensed civil engineers, work for industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations operating under state and territory licensure exemption laws. I recently developed a deeper and broader view of how personally debilitating, for engineers, and seriously damaging, for society, engineering licensure exemption cultures can be. Notice that I said "can."

More specifically, up to 80 percent of the U.S. engineering community is practicing in situations where, very often, engineering ethics codes don't apply or are weakly administered and too many engineering decisions are made by "management" whose primary focus is the bottom line. Those engineers frequently work in environments where engineering is performed without the guidance of a competent and accountable licensed engineers whose paramount responsibility is public protection. In my view, this falls embarrassingly and frighteningly short of where engineering should be, given its potential for positive and negative impacts on the public. That is not how a profession functions.