I disagree that licensure should be made discipline-specific for several reasons. My primary reason is pride. “Once a person has passed the PE exam—any PE exam—it is then completely up to that person to define his or her own limits of practice.” The P.E. exam, given only after a preliminary (qualifying) exam and four years to experience under the tutelage of a qualified P.E., is more than a limited certification. The true measure of what is considered in the P.E. exam process includes the recommendations of supervisors and soon-to-be colleagues. The Board of Engineers must first vote on the character of the applicant before the exam is given.

I am proud of the authority I have earned. I do not have to run back to Momma for permission each time I do something slightly different than previously permitted. We are also all subject to discipline, including revocation of our license, for “practice outside of one’s field of expertise.” So while I have been granted authority, I also have given responsibility for determining whether I am competent to go beyond that on which I was merely tested. Who else can have greater knowledge or understanding of what is required than I who have studied the specific problems of the engagement?

A second reason is practicability. The practice of engineering is not subject to a strict hierarchy of fields of practice. I agree that specialties are becoming increasingly complex, but disagree that the degree of overlap is less than in the past. If I need to brush up on some elements of dynamic loading relating to an element of a larger structural design, I do not need to go back to college for a degree in mechanical engineering. Likewise, the mechanical engineer does not necessarily need to get a second degree in civil engineering to anchor a motor to a foundation. Both examples do contain dangers and require the engineer to understand when to get help from another specialist.

If indeed “the logical next step is to make licensure discipline-specific when it comes to actual practice,” then the following logical step is to require re-testing every five years. What is taught in colleges today will be outdated in five years. What is tested on the P.E. exam today is already outdated. And yet the point is made, if today’s P.E. exam is on how engineering was practiced a decade ago, what is being tested is not specific knowledge, but how to use knowledge. I am proud of my P.E.

Anonymous wrote:
The misguided concept of self-regulation fosters the practice of structural engineering by civil engineers without the education or experience to properly do so. This problem is compounded by the lack of structural code enforcement in many US jurisdictions. Without some form of checks and balances the public is subjected to erroneous design, which is often both excessively wasteful and dangerous; too much structure for gravity loads and none for lateral loads. Building officials should require that every set of construction drawings permitted contain a narrative describing the load path for the building. If it was required, I would be be surprised if more often than not a vivid description of the entrance drive would be provided replete with a side bar discussing the manholes.

I cannot promise to respond to every comment here, but I do plan to monitor the discussion and chime in when I am able. I encourage others to share their thoughts!

fplotnick:

Thanks for posting your comments. I am proud of my PE, too--but we obviously cannot allow such pride to outweigh our primary obligation, which is to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. The whole rationale for engineering licensure is that modest constraints on those who are genuinely competent and ethical is a reasonable trade-off for protecting the unwary from those who are incompetent, unethical, or both.

You say that you have been "given responsibility for determining whether I am competent to go beyond that on which I was merely tested." How, exactly, can you objectively and accurately do that? As I wrote in the January 24 issue, psychological research indicates that people have an inherent tendency to overestimate their own capabilities. As a result, our self-assessments of competence are unavoidably subjective and often unreliable.

Consequently, there is a case to be made that engineers should, indeed, be reexamined at some interval over the course of their careers. However, I am not taking that position myself, because the purpose of the PE exam--as I stated in the article--is to evaluate whether an individual is competent in the fundamentals of a particular discipline, not every conceivable nuance. In order to do so, a properly developed test must indeed not only gauge the candidate's (discipline-specific) knowledge, but also his or her (discipline-specific) skills--"how to use knowledge," as you put it.

The bottom line is still the simple fact that all PE exams are discipline-specific, so all PE licenses should also be discipline-specific. Frankly, I have yet to see a solid argument to the contrary; certainly no one (so far) claims that discipline-specific licensure would adversely affect the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

What used to be tested on the PE exams was judgment and the ability to get to a proper solution to a problem. The reality of the real world, contrary to academia and tests, is you never start out with enough information to solve a problem.
If each potential discipline has a separate test then schools will start teaching tests and not engineering. What the schools and profession should push is the idea you don't take projects beyond your ability. Those who think self-policing won't work do so, at least in part if truth be known, because they know it won't work for themselves.
If the profession again promotes the idea of acting honorably then the problem goes away.

I recently became a registered engineer in the State of Alaska. Alaska registers engineers by discipline. The board asked me to comment on this approach as they were considering changing their laws to eliminate discipline-specific licensure. I stated that as a mechanical engineer that I worked primarily with instrumentation and control systems, I was not qualified in the area of heavy rotating equipment or heat exchange design. On the other hand much of my work is electrical in nature but I am not qualified to work on high voltage switchgear either.

I feel that engineering disciplines cover such a broad range of expertise that is senseless to authorize the of practice of any specific activity based strictly on the basis education and examination. Engineers still must self-regulate their activities even if they practice strictly within the conventional definition of their discipline.

This brings me to my final point which is there are no clear objective definitions of the disciplines. Yes there are many areas of practice that clearly fall into a specific discipline. However there are many other areas of expertise that do not fit clearly into a specific discipline. Qualified, competent and experienced instrumentation and controls engineers registered by examination in one state cannot be registered in Alaska because the state's discipline-specific licensure policy does not recognize that discipline. I believe the Alaska board is working to rectify this issue, but the NCEES seems to pushing the states to move the other way.

I do not believe discipline-specific licensure is practical nor do I believe is enforceable. What I would like the NCEES to do is work on a common continuing education policy.

It's interesting that the article was written by a structural PE. Structural PE's are a group of elitists who do not understand the world of engineering. As a PE, rest assured no owner will pay me to design a 30 story building So why are the structural engineers so concerned that when I design a flitch beam for a homeowner that is adding an addition to their house, it is the structural engineer who should be consulted and not me?

Structural engineers -- the market drives the business of engineering. Business-wise, PE's are unable to insure themselves if there is no level of competency which is vetted by the insurance carriers. If there is no insurance, how do I get business? OK there is that small percentage that fall through the cracks or are dishonest, but there will always be charlatans no matter how many tests are given.

Structural PE's, stop being eletitst. The system works. Believe in your fellow PE.

I agree with many of the previous posts. As a PE myself (civil), I see little value in having the licensure be discipline specific. Contrary to the article, an engineering project may be assigned to one discipline, but the resolution may cover multiple small aspects of adjacent/complimentary disciplines (i.e. - civil, geo-tech, structural). Structural engineers have pushed for greater separation from the rest of the engineering community (yes, I do agree much of this is due to arrogance), and this may be to their professional detriment. Having an engineer that is totally myopic brings little value to the project team, and can be counterproductive to the project cycle. Lawyers, doctors and accountants are given much leeway into how far they drift into other disciplines, and just like engineers, at some point these professionals much recommend to the client that they seek additional professional assistance if it is beyond the working knowledge of the professional giving advice/council.

It would helpful for carrying on the discussion if all commenters could identify themselves, but you are certainly welcome to remain anonymous if that is your preference. All feedback is welcome!

Anonymous 6/14/2011 4:45 PM CDT: Each discipline already has a separate test, and education is also discipline-specific to a certain extent. Are there any degrees given in "generic engineering" these days?

Anonymous 6/14/2011 5:13 PM CDT: I acknowledged in the article that "a certain amount of self-regulation is inevitable." I also suggested that the NCEES test specifications can serve as, in your words, "clear objective definitions of the disciplines." My understanding is that Alaska is not adopting generic licensure; rather, 15 disciplines will now be recognized (based on the various NCEES exams) vs. only 6 currently.

georgestan, Anonymous 6/15/2011 11:34 AM CDT: I must take exception to your presumptive allegation that any and all structural engineers who advocate discipline-specific licensure in general and/or structural licensure in particular are being "elitist" or acting out of "arrogance." This is uncharitable at best, especially since the primary motivation is consistently stated to be the protection of the public, a far weightier consideration than "the business of engineering."

I am still looking for viable answers to these simple questions:
1. If each individual is the best judge of his/her own competence, why are PE exams required?
2. If generic PE licensure is appropriate, why are all PE exams discipline-specific?
3. How would discipline-specific PE licensure diminish the safety, health, and welfare of the public?

6/15/11 11:34 is/was Sean. I don't have an ENR account.

1. If each individual is the best judge of his/her own competence, why are PE exams required? Your logic here is faulty. An engineer must qualify as an engineer before he/she can be trusted to judge their competence limits. The only way currently to qualify as an engineer is through the FE/PE process. As I noted in my previous post, this is similar to how CPA’s, lawyers, doctors qualify and practice.
2. If generic PE licensure is appropriate, why are all PE exams discipline-specific? I’m not advocating for an electrical engineer designing a storm sewer system. But, for example, it’s completely appropriate for a civil engineer to be able to design a foundation system and structural system up to his/her competence limits.
3. How would discipline-specific PE licensure diminish the safety, health, and welfare of the public? Not diminish, but complicate. Engineers are supposed to have a wide knowledge base. For a simple owner to hire multiple engineers is costly, can lengthen the design process and can present dangers itself. Who is advocating for the owner in this situation. How is a simple owner to know/understand the limits of his/her design consultants and plan for those coordination issues? For complicated building/projects, the design consultants are usually separated into their unique disciplines due to the size and complexity already.
Why do you need it changed? How many buildings have fallen down due to the current system? How has the public been endangered because of how licensing is currently being handled?

To help answer some of the rhetorical questions:

I am still looking for viable answers to these simple questions:
1. If each individual is the best judge of his/her own competence, why are PE exams required?

Your previous article in ENR started this self-inflicted diatribe that has logical holes in it. You write, “psychological research indicates that people have an inherent tendency to overestimate their own capabilities. As a result, our self-assessments of competence are unavoidably subjective and often unreliable.” That does not make sense. You have indicted every living human being based on your interpretation that “psychological research” shows that competency is inflated, including yourself! As a PE, my rational mind insists that you provide evidence that the hypothesis is indeed in practice with PEs before kowtowing to generalities the entire civilization possesses. How do you think the discipline specific PE exam fits into solving your conjecture? Elitist? Arrogance? Say no more.

2. If generic PE licensure is appropriate, why are all PE exams discipline-specific?

The NCEES exams provide a “knowledge” focus and affords functioning within your competency based on experience. The NCEES exams ferret out those who do not have the self-discipline for professional accomplishment. The NCEES exam pass rate for first time takers hovers around 60%. For repeat takers it is around 35%. The PE is earned and not given away frivolously to good guessers while taking the exam. Further, it would be impossible to have a “one test fits all” paradigm since there are not that many brilliant people in the world. The NCEES exams and Model Rules are by far “tried and true” and work.


3. How would discipline-specific PE licensure diminish the safety, health, and welfare of the public?

Discipline specific PE licensure (by way of Structural PEs, etc.) is wrong. It will diminish safety, health, and welfare of the public when narrow-minded focus on discipline specific pursuits will allow PEs to hide behind their intellectual barriers. I want a structural engineer to know geotech and make sure buildings don’t sink; to understand mechanical systems and how moisture affects corrosion of building components; and on and on. I’ve sat in enough rooms where one engineer points to another and says it’s the other discipline’s fault. Once again, the manner in which engineering is practiced is that the safety, health, and welfare of the public is managed by the business of engineering. Nobody buys professional services from people who do not have the competency to sell it. It's an industry and not a "mom and pop" shop. Doctors, lawyers, PEs, all have standards they must abide by. To put another series of letters behind one’s name does not assure competency nor the welfare of the public. However, practice, experience, integrity, self-discipline, and hard work are the only measures that prove competency exists.

Sean:

1. I agree that the purpose of the PE exam is to assess whether someone is minimally competent to practice engineering. However, since the exam is always discipline-specific, what it really assesses is whether someone is minimally competent to practice that particular discipline of engineering--not engineering in some hypothetical generic sense. By contrast, CPAs, lawyers, and doctors all take a uniform test to become licensed.

2. You did not actually answer the question. In most jurisdictions, an electrical engineer can legally design a storm sewer system as long as he/she honestly believes that he/she is competent to do so. Incompetence will only be detected and addressed if and when something goes wrong. Whether a civil engineer has demonstrated the competence "to design a foundation system and structural system" depends on which PE exam he/she has passed. Four of the five NCEES Civil exams include only 10% structural content--less than one hour's worth--covering (at most) determinate analysis and design of concrete and steel beams, slabs, footings, and earth retaining structures subject to dead, live, and construction loads.

3. I disagree with your statement that "Engineers are supposed to have a wide knowledge base." While there is certainly a breadth component to engineering knowledge, each of us is only presumed to be a skilled expert in our particular discipline. It is simply not possible for someone to attain competence in any and every aspect of engineering across the board. It does not serve the public interest to create a false impression to the contrary, which is precisely what generic licensure does.

Many engineers can tell numerous stories about instances when they were hired to diagnose and/or correct the mistakes of others who (knowingly or unknowingly) practiced outside their areas of competence. Do we really need buildings to start falling down and people to be endangered before we acknowledge the reality of how engineers are licensed today and implement practice restrictions accordingly? Why not be proactive for the sake of the safety, health, and welfare of the public? That is, after all, our most fundamental responsibility.

Thanks for the dialogue.

georgestan:

My questions were not rhetorical, they were serious. You are the one throwing around terms like "diatribe" and "elitist" in an apparent effort to dismiss my (rational) arguments out of hand and marginalize my point of view.

1. It is not "indict[ing] every living human being" to recognize what Clint Eastwood said as Dirty Harry--"A man's got to know his limitations." PE exams provide an objective way for individuals to demonstrate their competence in a particular discipline so that they do not have to rely entirely on subjective self-assessment. Passing a structural exam showed that I have the ability to discern which aspects of structural engineering I can competently tackle, but indicated nothing about my competence (or lack thereof) outside of structural engineering.

2. You did not actually answer the question, either; in fact, you agreed with me that a generic PE exam is not feasible. Generic licensure should be based on a generic exam, as in accounting, law, and medicine; discipline-specific exams call for discipline-specific licensure.

3. I agree that there needs to be a balance between breadth and depth, but I obviously am taking the position that licensure needs to be based primarily on depth, since that is how the exams are set up. It is simply not true that "Nobody buys professional services from people who do not have the competency to sell it." The public, by and large, does not understand the distinctions between engineering disciplines; and unfortunately, some clients assume (wrongly) that having a PE license qualifies someone to do any and every type of engineering.

Thanks for the dialogue.

hey....when are you guys gonna quit talking about "what a PE you are"?

how about taking responsibility for faulty designs and quit hiding behind "that's the way we analyize it"?

or how about taking full financial responsibility for your design rather than trying to limit your liability to the amount of your fee?

You apparently drifted way off center in your response to my comments. The use of the word “diatribe” (a piece of writing that angrily attacks something) for your ENR article is accurate; and, “elitist” (the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources) are accurate and not meant to be pejorative.

To be clear, you have not presented a rational argument and I have not marginalized your point of view. Your point of view is your’s, and my point of view is mine. It’s illogical to say that I marginalized your point of view, it’s still your point of view, isn’t it? And, I’m maintaining mine. There are many points of view so when you’re standing on stage, understand that everybody is not buying what you are selling.

I ask you for evidence for your “rational” argument and you give me hyperbole. Your response by quoting “Dirty Harry”, a fictional vigilante cop, is the best evidence that you have for your touting that “psychological research indicates …” . At best, your arguments are specious.

I don’t agree with any of the points that you make simply because we are at different ends of the spectrum – light years away. And that’s OK.

Your assessment of the world of engineering and those clients that are not savvy purveyors of professional services are an interpretation of living life on the fringe edge of reality. Deal with the 95% percentile of all those rational clients and, once again, stay away from hyperbole. Understand business.

You avoid responding to the “rational” observations that I present. Ignoring them does not make them go away.

I poked you in the eye and you cried.

I am the guy in the room that challenges what is said to assure that single minded views are not always the best. In conclusion, the argument can be won by saying that discipline specific PEs by way of structural PEs is wrong.

georgestan:

Please show me precisely where either of my Viewpoint pieces on licensure "angrily attack[ed] something," expressed "the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority," or used "hyperbole." I think that a fair and objective reading of those texts will reveal no anger, arrogance, or exaggeration; just sincere concern for the safety, health, and welfare of the public and a desire for greater consistency between how engineers are tested and how their practice is regulated.

Since you claim that I "have not presented a rational argument," I will spell out the core of my case one more time:

1. PEs have demonstrated their competence to practice by means of NCEES exams.
2. All NCEES exams cover a specific discipline.
3. Therefore, PEs have demonstrated their competence to practice in a specific discipline.
4. PEs should only be authorized to practice in areas in which they have demonstrated their competence.
5. Therefore, PEs should only be authorized to practice in a specific discipline.

You may not be convinced, but it is ridiculous to assert that "the argument can be won [simply] by saying that discipline specific PEs by way of structural PEs is wrong." You still have to show why it is wrong; i.e., explain why generic PE licensure should be maintained despite the discipline-specific nature of the PE exams. Calling my arguments "specious" without actually rebutting any of them would not score you any points if this were a formal debate. 1-3 are facts, so in order to dispute 5, you have to deny 4. Why should PEs be authorized to practice in areas in which they have not demonstrated their competence?

I am the guy in the room who is challenging the status quo; you are the one defending it, which is certainly your right. I respect your willingness to speak up for what you believe, but perhaps we should just agree to disagree at this point. Thanks again.

Jon,
Some good points have been presented by the people who took the time to respond, but you continue to ignore these points in favor of your own perception of reality. Because of this, this is not constructive or worthy of my time. Which is a shame, because this could have been an interesting discussion.

I disagree with the author's final claim that P.E. licenses be discipline-specific and thus restricted within this definition. It seems the author is making a conscious, forward look at specialization within the field and is trying to prepare for it.

I disagree with the author and think engineering associations can prepare for training of advancements within the field by adjusting their exams. Another commenter has suggested re-testing every five years. Unless the field is surrounded with failure and mistakes, then I think the current continuing education systems that our professional fields use to show ongoing training is adequate. Of course we should not wait to see failure to adjust! And I commend the author for taking a stance that acknowledges advancements and the possibility that exams will not be able to account for and adequately test/measure competence in these areas. This is an indication that engineering associations need to present themselves as taking into consideration testing for discipline-specific areas. I said initially I think engineering associations can account for and adequately test/measure competence if they stay in tune with the profession's needs.

I also agree with another commenter that addressed professional ethics that permit the professional to choose what level of competence within their field they can meet. It permits the engineer to acknowledge that certain work which is within their competence range and to complete that work or redirect it to others as fit. It permits the professional to self-assess. This is a privilege that when taken away devalues the services that a professional can perform. This leads the consumer to have search out specialized services when it is likely that in many instances there are many engineers that can provide services to fulfill that customer's needs, but are restricted due to license limitations. This opinion is in disagreement with the author's view that specialization to the extent the author is suggesting is currently necessary.

The author has presented a valid argument and defends it well in the comments. This alone leads me to believe the discussion is important and should be further addressed by professional engineers.

a54 - http://architect54.com

Anonymous 6/16/2011 11:35 PM CDT: I have sincerely attempted to address the key points that have been raised in the comments here. Which specific ones have I (unintentionally) overlooked? I happen to think that the discussion has been quite interesting so far.

a54: Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am obviously not comfortable with the current system in most jurisdictions, which grants PEs the complete liberty to self-assess their competence across the board. I think that reasonable limitations on this freedom are appropriate for the sake of the safety, health, and welfare of the public in light of the discipline-specific nature of engineering education, experience, and (especially) examination. Of course, each PE would still be responsible for self-assessing his/her competence within the scope of his/her discipline.

Discipline-specific licensure seems like a good way to help insure that Engineers practice within their area of expertise. Unfortunately it’s not that simple. In my experience, I am more likely to see Engineers practice outside the limits of their expertise while staying within their “area of expertise.” It is very difficult for an individual to assess their own competency limits. Most overestimate their competence. As a result, the Engineer that is minimally competent to pass the exam may overestimate their ability and take on work that is beyond their expertise even though they are licensed in that specific discipline. I’ve seen this scenario more than once. Discipline-specific licensure will not help this problem.

To help you connect the dots, the following is offered:

1. Your initial tenant in your discussion is that “psychological research…” shows that competencies may be exaggerated ergo, PEs should undergo specialized testing making the current system obsolete and in dire need of remediation.

2. You ask for recruits to join your cause. You do not want other points of view.

3. As an engineer, we rely on science and data. I ask for empirical data. You provide hyperbole (“Dirty Harry” quotation).

4. You do not accept the logical representation that the “practice” and “business” of engineering provides the public. You ignore it. Provide fact based literature that support your cause.

5. You have an underlying theme through your writing that the practice of engineering is full of PEs who are hacks and can only be corrected if they all pass a 8-hour test in their single, myopic, specialty.

6. You dismiss the NCEES statistics and insist that the exam is not a good indicator of knowledge, since there is only potentially one hour of examination as it relates to structural information. (Then why are you so proud of your NCEES test accomplishment?)

7. You praise your 8-hour accomplishment for the structural PE. Elitist! (See definition of elitist as previously described.)

8. Your point of view is your point of view. There are others.

9. It is singular. There is no opinion that helps you understand the other side of the argument.

10. It is not rational – it lacks empirically based data.

It appears as though you seem to lack the level of competency to acknowledge that the competency in your view is flawed by the manner in which you have stated it. All aside, thanks for the effort.

Anonymous 6/20/2011 11:30 AM CDT: I agree that discipline-specific licensure will not prevent incomptence by those who practice within the scope of the exam(s) that they have passed. Unfortunately, the Dunning-Kruger effect is still going to manifest itself. I just think that engineers have a better chance of correctly assessing their own competence within their own discipline.

georgestan:

1. My conclusion is not that "PEs should undergo specialized testing," it is that PEs should be restricted to practicing in accordance with the specialized testing that they already undergo.

2. Where do I "ask for recruits"? Where do I state that I "do not want other points of view"?

3. As engineers, we also rely on reasoning and judgment. What kind of "empirical data" are you seeking? The "Dirty Harry" quotation was not hyperbole, it was an (admittedly weak) attempt to inject some humor into the discussion.

4. I do not understand what you mean here. Please clarify.

5. With all due respect, this is your personal interpretation of what I have written. There are no such sentiments in the text itself.

6. Which NCEES statistics have I dismissed? Do you think that one hour of testing is sufficient for someone to demonstrate competence in any discipline of engineering?

7. I stated, "Passing a structural exam showed that I have the ability to discern which aspects of structural engineering I can competently tackle, but indicated nothing about my competence (or lack thereof) outside of structural engineering." I did not say that I "deserve favored treatment" or that I am superior to anyone; in fact, I acknowledged my lack of qualifications for engineering disciplines other than structural.

8. I never said otherwise.

9. Again, I am not sure what you mean here. I fully understand the other side of the argument, but I disagree with it.

10. Rational and empirical are not the same thing; in fact, rationalism and empiricism are diametrically opposed movements in the history of philosophy. My case is not empirical, but it most certainly is rational.

I ask yet again: Why should PEs be authorized to practice in areas in which they have not demonstrated their competence?

Interesting article and commentary. I for one support separate licensure. I have personally seen too many engineers trying to practice outside their level of competence and it will only be time until something tragic happens. Once a bridge collapses or a building falls down it is too late to point fingers.

I know of an Electrical Engineer who thought he could perform Structural Engineering. In the end it cost him quite a bit because there was a problem, which luckily was caught before anyone was hurt, but the entire building needed to be reinforced, from the outside. Now he knows better and doesn’t touch anything other than Electrical. I believe there is a case study for a building down in Florida which was designed by ‘Rocket Scientists’ from NASA who were layed off, their lifelong goal of always being a Structural Engineer, the building collapsed and people died. How many other engineers out there think that because they took a class here or there they can practice in another discipline? If anyone is looking for stories or problems they are not that hard to find but there are also a great deal which are swept under the rug by the insurance companies which want to keep them quiet. Go talk to your local code official and I am sure they will enlighten you as to problems they have seen when Engineers practice outside their tested discipline.

Again, I have to ask the question why does NCEES have different tests if it doesn’t matter in the end. I have heard time and time again of people finding the easiest PE exam they can take, if they have education and / or experience in that field doesn’t matter, just so that they can be a PE and then do whatever they want. Do we need to count the bodies or shall we try to provide a better product to the public so their safety is the number one priority. Business really has nothing to do with providing for the health safety and welfare of the public. We have a duty first and if we can make money providing that duty that is a bonus. I know personally I fight every single day for what is right.

I am very confused at the statement that Structural Engineers are elitist. In my opinion Structural Engineering is one place where every single day we save lives. If you are unsure about that when you walk into your office building or home and come out alive we have done our job. We see the importance of what we do and we are trying to raise the bar. I am unsure how trying to provide a better product or to require more testing, education and / or experience is such a bad thing. Why are we trying for the lowest common denominator rather than trying to be the best we can. If you go in and see a doctor don’t you want someone who has more testing, education and experience to operate on you? Why is this any different with Engineering? Shouldn’t we be striving to raise the bar? If anyone thinks that I am elitist then I counter with you are elitist for thinking that. I am just trying to do my job the best way that I can right now. I do not think I am better than anyone else only that I can provide a different skill set.

Is there a reason why we can’t all work as a TEAM in our respective disciplines to get projects done? As was stated previously one person cannot do it all so we do need to work together with other Engineering Professionals. I for one realize my limitations and know that I can’t do Mechanical or Electrical etc. so why try. If everyone can see their limitation they there is no reason to be scared of having discipline specific licensure.

I suspect that people simply do not like being told what they cannot or should not do. Pride and ego are mightly foes.

I am still waiting for someone to offer a good reason why PEs should be authorized to practice in areas in which they have not demonstrated their competence. The emphasis is on the word DEMONSTRATED.

The best reason to not have a structural licensure is that all the PEs providing poor quality structural engineering designs provides a great source of income for the real structural engineers in the form of failure investigations and litigation.

The downside of this issue is that people, people with families and lives to live, will get hurt, maimed, or killed. But what the heck, that’s a small price to pay for protecting what is assumed to be our right to practice how, what, and where we may.

The demise of engineering as a profession hinges on the abolishment of the PE exam as the stopping point for credentialing. Let each area of engineering offer specialty credentialing and unique qualifications. Every engineer who fancies themselves able to perform in multiple areas shouldn’t be troubled by having to take an extra exam to ‘prove’ themselves.

I’m guessing that those engineers who are so troubled by the idea of advanced credentialing for structural engineers are those that are most afraid of being found out as be less than qualified or competent to be structural engineers.

Jon,

Have you taken the 16 hour SE exam?

I see you use the SECB tag.
Which isn't the same as the MLSE.

Anonymous 6/27/2011 4:22 PM CDT: No, I have not taken a 16-hour structural exam, which is why I do not put "SE" after my name. For my PE license, I passed the 8-hour NCEES Structural I exam, back when it was still half multiple-choice questions and half essay problems. I limit the scope of my current practice accordingly.

In light of several comments that might suggest otherwise, I would like to point out that this Viewpoint piece never once mentions structural engineering or advocates structural licensure in particular. My argument here is that ALL engineering licensure should be discipline-specific, because all three of the components on which it is based--education, experience, and (especially) examination--are already discipline-specific.

Where will we draw the line? A smart and hard-working engineer can study all the topics covered by the SE exams in enough detail to pass the exams. However, in all likelihood most will go back to the specialized structural field in which they regularly work after passing the exam.

10 years after passing the SE exam, should a DOT bridge engineer take on side work designing wood or light gage steel residential construction? Should an engineer with a low-rise wood residential practice take on a 60-story high-rise? Should a high-rise specialist take on a steel mill building with 450 ton capacity hot metal crane runways when business gets slow?

The answer to all these questions is obviously no. Or maybe, in the case of a few exceptions. But the SE exam requirement will not solve or prevent practice beyond one's competency. The answer still lies with individuals personally restricting themselves to practice within their competence, even with an SE license.

I imagine the new solution proposed 20 years from now will be specialized-specialty PE's for bridge structural engineers, high rise structural engineers, heavy industrial structural engineers. What then? Then you'll have "what-ifs" of railroad bridge engineers working out of practice designing wooden covered bridges. Or segmental concrete bridge specialists stretching their limits and designing steel suspension bridges.

By the time I retire, I fully expect that designing a simple low rise structure will require the services of a Bolting Technology PE, a Welding PE, a Structural Masonry PE, a Structural Concrete Foundations PE, and Steel Framing PE, and a Light Gage Steel Framing and Deck PE.

Public safety will not necessarily be improved, but project costs, complexity, and coordination will certainly increase.

A California SE from LA is probably as up to date as anyone on seismic codes and state of the art seismic practice. But is snow drifting and ponding for a Great Lakes-area project very obvious on his radar screen if he's spent his entire career working in the LA area - probably not.

Ditto for a Texas engineer who spends his entire career specializing in foundations on expansive soils. Would he be qualified to do an ocean-front condo or residence in Miami?

Both engineers in these examples could well pass the SE exam. Does that make them any more qualified to work on the projects in the examples, especially if those projects come up 20 years after taking the SE exam and forgetting the parts they haven't needed to use for two decades?

Again - it all falls back on personal responsibility.

Personally, I've always found the threat of getting sued and losing my house to be an additional deterrent to practicing in areas where I don't have experience!

Anonymous 7/7/2011 8:35 PM CDT: You asked, "Where will we draw the line?" Obviously my answer is that we should draw it at the boundaries of the various disciplines as defined by the NCEES exam specifications. I already acknowledged that discipline-specific licensure will not prevent incompetence by those who practice within the scope of the exam(s) that they have passed, but I still think that engineers have a better chance of correctly assessing their own competence within their own discipline.

The statement that there is less overlap among disciplines than in the past, if true
must be due to man made anti immigrant discipline silos against nature for nature has no disciplines. Our codes, standards, recommended practices, whatever, are the product like our tax code of various special interest groups that are never reformed unless there is some crisis.


To illustrate both 3 mile island and deepwater horizon were boiler explosions. In the
case of 3 mile island, the boiler (called reactor) ran out of water and since a nuclear reactor was not required to have a water gauge, unlike a boiler, the operators using
their reason inferred the reactor was in danger of being damaged by too much water
and thus shut off the pumps. In the case of deepwater horizon, the boiler shell is the
undersea formation and the drilling crew for reasons that will probably be forever unknown continued operations in the face of growing indications that a boiler explosion aka a blowout in oil speak was imminent .

There are several problems with NCEES:
1. It is run by non-engineers. Its board refuses to become involved in specific issues. Final decisions re. our engineering licenses are made by executive director Jerry Carter, who is NOT an engineer.
2. In the past they facilitated licensure. Now NCEES -- with its self-serving model laws -- has become a major obstacle.

As a older engineer, I took my examinations before there were NCEES exams. They -- citing their "model law" -- refuse to recognize them, even though they DID recognize them in the past. They also refuse to accept the testimony of the executive secretary (a P.E.) of the state board whose exams I passed that their exams were equivalent to the NCEES exams.