An interesting discussion.
As background before I weigh in, I spent the first 25 years of my career as a practicing engineering. The majority of this as a USAF civil engineering officers where PE registration was not required. My professional engineering career did also include significant time in the private sector where registration was essential. For the past 15 years I have been a full-time academic and done some consulting. I'm currently registered in CO, CA & TX. I have taught a professional practices class, which includes a section on professional registration, for the past 15 years.
I agree that there are many professional roles for engineers. I would venture to guess that most do not require professional registration.
One thing that is critical to understanding this situation is that PE registration is under the jurisdiction of the States, not the federal government. We have, therefore, 50+ different interpretations of what is required for professional registration and of registered engineers. Additionally, the interstate commerce clause of the constitution prevents states from requiring the design of a device built in state A to be reviewed and approved by an engineer registered in state B. This is why you will find no PE stamps on the designs for automobile parts, for example. This is also why the majority of registered engineers work in the civil construction industry. Because civil works are by their nature fixed in the jurisdiction of a specific state, that state has the ability to regulate who designs and constructs the facility. No so with, cars, medical equipment, computer software . . . The vast majority of engineers pursue professional registration because it is in their financial interest to do so. While ethics, professionalism, and prestige are part of the motivation, fiscal interests really drive registration numbers. For example, the current numbers for active PE license holders in California (which documents registration by discipline) are:
- Civil Engineering: 57,320
- Mechanical Engineering: 15,323
- Electrical Engineering: 10,283
Now there are almost certainly many more electrical and mechanical engineers working professionally in California than civil engineers. However, the only EE and ME professionals who really need registration are those working in the facilities design and construction business, or other areas (such as litigation) where there's either an express requirement for registration or other strong incentive. This is not to say that engineers working in the aerospace business, for example, are any less professional or ethical than those working in the civil/infrastructure/construction business. Outside of the civil/infrastructure/construction business (where state laws have jurisdiction) the quality and ethics of design professionals is supported by professional certifications from organizations such at SAE, AIAA, AIA, ASHRAE, EPRI, etc. So it's not really fair to expect engineers to pursue professional registration where it's not legally required and there's no monetary benefit.
Concerning registration of engineering faculty, I believe Mark is wrong in stating PhDs are exempt from taking the FE exam. That's not true for CA or TX, and I just briefly reviewed the CO statute and I didn't see any such exemption. (Almost all states have some sort of alternative qualification path which usually require extensive experience, but none of these are tied to having a PhD, as far as I know.) The balance of researchers versus practitioners in academia is an issue. The business of higher education is not well aligned to support the hiring and advancement of practicing professionals. For research institutions the finances are driven by acquiring research funding. For teaching institutions, the finances are driven by the number of student taught. It is extremely hard to find a PhD who has the professional practice experience to qualify for registration in most states. People like Mark any myself who came to academia after extensive professional practice careers are few and far between. We can't expect most faculty to have extensive professional practice experience unless and until we're willing to change the model to something like the medical school model, where most faculty are working professionals who also teach. (I'd love to pursue such a model.)
In fact, I can make the case that it would be detrimental to require all faculty to hold professional registration. I know a number engineering faculty who's background started in the sciences. They are invaluable members of their departments and the diversity they bring to engineering education is powerful.
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.
I'll close by saying I'm proud to be a registered professional engineer. I encourage my faculty and students to pursue professional registration. But it's not the path for all. There are plenty of fulfilling engineering careers where professional registration is neither required nor beneficial.
------------------------------
William Kitch Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE
Angelo State University
San Angelo TX
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 12-13-2019 12:32
From: Mark Vanarelli
Subject: Unlicensed engineers working for licensure exemption organizations
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.
------------------------------
Mark J. Vanarelli, PhD, PE, PG, BCEE, D.WRE, M.ASCE
Adjunct Professor/Colorado School of Mines and
Former Department Head of Civil Engineering & Associate Professor
University of Kurdistan Hewler
Broomfield CO, USA
Original Message:
Sent: 12-09-2019 09:40
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.
------------------------------
Stu Walesh PhD, PE
Consultant - Teacher - Author
219-242-1704
www.HelpingYouEngineerYourFuture.com
------------------------------