Should all Engineers be Licensed?

Probably not. I have seen many unlicensed persons who know quite well what they are doing, compared to many licensed persons who know not a damned thing. Occupational licensing is usually a total Goddamned crock, assuming there is any God to do the damning.

Steve,

True, the NSPE does not 'license' any engineer. However, the are quite interested in protecting the definition of engineer, specifically a Registered Professional Engineer. (I am licensed in the State of Illinois) And they help develop and direct the exams that an engineer must pass to receive the P.E. title.

The issue is largely one of semantics. Are you an engineer because you received a degree from an accredited university and practice the trade in a regular job? Or must you be certified - registered as a Professional Engineer? Or are you an engineer because you have successfully designed and delivered engineering projects for more than 25 years?

From my personal experience, these are separate considerations. However, states require that you be licensed in order to sign off on drawings, etc. But why should that stop one from calling himself/herself an engineer. They simply may not be a Registered Professional Engineer.

And what does the P.E. title really mean? Does it mean that you know all or almost all about a given area of technology? Hardly! My response to people is that a P.E. license means that I know a relative amount about the technology and I know when I don't know the answer in other areas -- BUT that I know where to find the answers and make sense of it all.

Let me get back to your initial concern. At GlobalSpec, we don't create the news, and we don't try to add any particular slant to it either. We simply search for news that hopefully is of interest to you, and provide a link or two for you to get the whole story. In this case, NSPE is suing individual engineers (generally those that own an engineering firm) for performing engineering services without having a P.E. license behind their name. Possibly it is on behalf of the states, probably it is to defend the definition of the title Engineer. We didn't claim that it was right or wrong to do so, we just report. We do apologize, however, if the presentation was confusing.

Here's the link to the article in Machine Design -- you decide...http://machinedesign.com/article/hijacking-the-engineering-profession-0730

And comments from the engineer being sued...

Burt Siegal
President
Budd Engineering
Skokie, Ill.

A degree from an accredited engineering school and a job in your company's engineering department lets you call yourself an engineer, right? Think again. Professional engineers, a small fraction of the engineering community, are attempting to own the word "engineer" and are taking legal steps to have their way.

It is the relentless objective of the National Society of Professional Engineers that all engineers (other than Licensed Structural Engineers) become licensed PEs and pay annual licensing fees. In the mid-80s, they succeeded in amending the Illinois and many other states' P.E. Acts so that using the title "engineer" or any of its derivations implies you are a licensed professional engineer. They have tried, thus far without success, to have the manufacturing exemption deleted from the Act.

Actually licensed Structural engineers are PEs also and pay fees.

Also, you may note that he is being brought up by the Il Dept of Professional Regualtion, it is not a civil Law Suit. Therefore, the Dept. must believe he has violated the engineers practice act in Illinois, and that they have a strong case. He is trying to muddy the waters, as you know the State won't try to prosecute a non-violation. It is likely he has been pracicing as a consulting engineer, which is illegal. The exemption exist for engineers practicing research or design within a company for the sole use of that company in manufacturing of products, not to act as any form of contracted consultant. It is kind of surprisig how many mistakes or mistatements are incorporated into this article, it seems like they should have had a editor competent in the field review it before publishing, e.g. structural engineers must maintain a license as a civil engineer also, but all licensed engineers are professional engineers and must pay fees.

The state laws requiring registration are for the protection of the public. The state license is granted to those who have demonstrated by education, by experience, and by examination that they are capable of being in full charge of a project. The designation, "Engineer" is reserved for them to prevent unqualified people selling their services as engineers.

Whether it is desirable or not is in the eye of the beholder.

Ok, Thank you.

1) Mr. Siegal is not being sued, his State Enforcement Board is enforcing the law which simply means that Budd Engineering cannot be Budd Engineering unless the firm and its principal are licensed professional engineers. The state is prosecuting his firm he is not being sued.

2) Mr. Siegal correctly claims that the NSPE engages in LOBBYING the states in regards to the rules governing the practice of engineering. That is just the way things are done in the US, right or wrong.

3) This whole piece is Mr. Siegal expressing a case of sour grapes, a is purely his editorial opinion.

yes, mr. siegal is being sued. his wife, him and his company are involved in a civil law suit.

Okay, heres the low down on Siegal and IDFPR's prosecution of him and his firm.

Burton has practiced engineering for over 5 decades. He has never held a P.E. license in Illinois or any other state. His Firm, Budd Engineering has advertised in the business to business yellow pages for at LEAST two decades.

In Illinois, for an individual or company to offer ANY (except structural) kind of engineering services to the general public or other companies, there has to be a P.E. license held by the individual or someone in the company.

IF YOU WORK DIRECTLY FOR A CORPORATION AND PRACTICE ENGINEERING FOR THAT CORPORATION, YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HOLD A P.E.'s LICENSE!!!! There is an exemption in the professional engineering act for EMPLOYEES of corporations. My opinion as to why employees are exempt is because the corporation is liable for their engineering work product!!

YOU ARE AN ENGINEER IF YOU WENT TO SCHOOL FOR ENGINEERING AND YOU PRACTICE AN ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE. YOU DO NOT NEED A P.E.'S LICENSE TO REFER TO YOURSELF AS AN "ENGINEER".

There is in all practicality no such thing as "professional engineering" work product and "non-professional engineering" work product. The classes that engineering students take are not qualified or labeled "NON-P.E." or "P.E.". Sitting to take the test is something that engineering students elect to do or not do, but they ALL come from the SAME DAMN CLASSES, assuming they studied the same discipline. Phew!

Now that that is clear (I really hope) on to Mr. Burton Siegal of Skokie, Illinois and his drama of being "hijacked" as he states in an article titled by him... OY, the drama is so thick, i could just- anyway. Burton and his wife Rita founded Budd Engineering in 1959. Circa 1960, AFTER founding an ENGINEERING CORPORATION, he contacted the State of Illinois' regulatory body as to if he was doing anything illegal. He showed them some work product and purported that it was in no way a potential harm to the public and he should be exempt from the laws and be able to call himself an engineer. The department told him that as long as his work could not endanger the public he could use the term engineer.

He subsequently has participated in MANY disciplines on engineering and most likely practiced outside of his "mechanical engineering" discipline. He also told the Department that he would sit for the P.E.'s test as soon as he could... once his work load slowed. This sitting for the test NEVER happened. Go figure.

In 1989 the State of Illinois passed a new engineering act and this (I think again) banned the use of the term "engineer" or any of its derivatives when offering engineering services to the public unless there is an individual with a P.E.'s license involved in the offering-end of the deal.

Burton is saying if he is not allowed to continue practicing engineering in Illinois because of a cease and desist from the IDFPR then there will be "hundreds of thousands" of engineers out of work. This is NOT the case. IDFPR is prosecuting Burton because he owns a corporation and offers engineering services to OTHER corporations!! He is not an employee of any corp except Budd Engineering, which has no P.E. employed at it. Rita and Burton also have made it a practice of NOT carrying liability insurance to cover their engineering work product?! Why?? This effectively means that their engineerng work product must be covered by the unknowing corporation that recieves it.

Burton is not an employee of these corps he delivers engineering services to. They sign an "Engineering Services Agreement" usually, write checks to "Budd Engineering" and he refers to them as "clients". They also do not pay FICA or any other taxes on him or Rita. Illinois says he is NOT an employee of these corps. Rita, Burton and Budd Engineering DO NOT QUALIFY for the "employee" exemption in the engineering act. They also do not qualify for the "laboratory" exemption. There are other exemptions... of which they qualify for none as the Illinois Dept of Financial and Professional Regulation sees it. Most likely- game over! IDFPR is hopefuly gonna get it right (as I see it) this time and shut them down. Who would go to the yellow pages and look under P.E.'s and want an unlicensed person that charges $150 and more per hour. It's worked so far for Rita, Burton and Budd though.

P.S.- Steve S has the best and most correct answers of anyone on this site and he won't allow anyone to "bs" him. Rock on man!

Thank You, who ever you are, for clarifying what is happening with Mr. Burton and Budd Engineering. With these added details it does seem that he is trying to skirt the system that protects all parties involved (public, corporate, and individual engineer). Mr. Burton was also granted more than a reasonable period of time to rectify his corporation's license status. This type of flagrant disregard for the Law that you describe should be answered by every resource the Law has to muster.

But the question posed at the beginning of this blog was specifically:

Would the engineering profession be better off if it had a single association to monitor all engineers?

I still say to this question that it would not be beneficial to the engineering community to have an overseer monitor all engineers for the very reasons I mentioned earlier. This is not what the Illinois legislature, the NSPE, nor any other governing body is suggesting to do. It is the question asked here though.

Again, I thank you for the update and clarification.

Ok, Ok, Ok, LOL. I will answer the question posed in the beginning of this blog:

Would the engineering profession be better off if it had a single association to monitor all engineers?

ANSWER: YES!

REASON: It would allow engineers to move from state to state and continue to practice!! What jackass thought up a system that pits or distinguishes one state against another? Aren't all 50 states supposedly "United"? I know different states have different issues dependent on their weather/seismic issues etc., engineers should know all of this to be an engineer, or maybe, better define engineering disciplines- but still one governing body means it is easier for engineers.

Here are some examples of why the states should work "together" instead of "against":

1) When a corporation wants to move its headquarters, they solicit the states to see which one will give them "tax breaks" to move their facility to their state. After the tax break is up in 20 years they re-solicit the states to see where they can move now to kep the tax breaks going. Ain't that the US shootin' itself in the foot in the name corporations makin more money!

2) Doctors may not practice in states other than the one where they passed their qualifying test... this intimates to me that people throughout the U.S. vary in their anatomy as per what state they reside and a doctor from Indiana wouldn't have a clue as to how to treat a person from Illinois. Why have 50 different bodies regulating doctors in different fashions... the duplicity is foolish!

I know you understand these examples. Stop muddying the waters by bringing in the NSPE and what grandma thinks! You need to clearly define the question to receive an answer that everyone will stand behind.

BTW- please explain for my "ignorant brain" what "there are ten types of people, those who understand binary and those who don't" means. Pretty please! LOL

Well my principle argument against a single overseer hangs on the global words all engineers. As I mentioned in my post #24 and my initial post #1 some engineering disciplines do not require licensing. Those that do require licensing at least one of the engineers at the corporation must be licensed but not all of the engineers at the firm require a license, as you stated. Now for engineering disciplines that do require a license somewhere in the firm, an interstate overseer can have some advantages. Particularly in preventing the possible liability exposure that Mr. Burton was creating. But since only a sub-set of engineering disciplines require licensing and in those disciplines that do, there is no requirement for all engineers in the firm to have a license; I still say that not all engineers need to be supervised by a licensing board.

I also despise non sequitur arguments, particularly after both of my grandmothers died.

I end with one last rhetorical question, how does one write the number two in binary.

Oh u suck... lol. Just tell me how many times I need to ask for the answer on the binary thang, so I know how long 'til I have an answer :-) Obtuse doesn't work for me, I need the answer to slap me in the face.

U r not thinkin' outside your engineering box! Just because there is the faint possibility that one body may oversee engineers, does not mean that it would require ALL engineers be licensed... the best forum would be bringing all disciplines of engineers together and discussing what is best for the PUBLIC. Put all engineers' narcissism aside and focus on protecting the recipient of your work as (I think) the code of ethics for engineers dictates.

It is ridiculus that as advanced a society as we are, people like Burton can cause such confusion regarding the issue of an engineering graduate being able to call themself an engineer. They may call themself an engineer, but can not "offer" engineering services to the public- as per Illinois statute.

So the question then becomes whose standards do you hold the engineers who practice to? The standard of care in California is stricter than every other state in the US regarding seismic qualification for licensure as a Civil Engineer. However, due to the high population densities, public safety demand, specific State laws regarding the extent of the practice, financial resources and active seismicity, it makes sense. Some poorer of the States that lack the level of financial resources, public demand, population densities and/or level of active seismicity may not need the same level of qualifications. The State specific tests tend to be harder than the national exam also. So do we require everyone take all the state specific tests, as you can receive committy in any State for the national exam portion of your licensure and receive a license to practice in any State assuming you are exempted or pass the State specific testing. Additionally, State laws are not exactly the same regarding the extent of the practice, in some States engineering practice is required to represent Cities to provide public works (not the pirvate developers designer, but an independent City Engineer to review and approve public works). There are many more specific laws in each of the States that place specific requirements for/of the practices of engineers and various public agencies that have in some cases been on the code of regulations for over a century. All of those related laws would then need to be modified, or every engineer would need to be examined and licensed to meet every States requirements.

? what does corporations and state taxation of corporations have to do with engineers registration (By the way State and Federal Taxes are different, so corporations relocating for State benefits doesn't effect the US government). As it stands only a limited number of engineers are actually required to carry registration anyways. Most mechanical, electrical, computer, chemical, agricultural, industrial and other engineering disciplines aren't even required to be licensed to work, unless they practices as professional consultants or perform some public works related functions (only Civil Engineers have to be licensed everywhere I know of to practice Civil Engineering). So your blanket statement is fairly ignorant of the registration process and requirements. You would thus require all engineers in every discipline to be registered no matter the case. As it stands now many induuzstries and the people who work for them are fighting against California's registration laws to expand them to allow other engineers to practice in traditional Civil engineering functions within those industries, so they can get more competition in the labor force and so those people unqualified to pass the Civil exam can still practice within an exemption. That is one bureaucracy, now add in 49 others with each specific distinction, plus the Federal government which doesn't require any partuicular training or education from one agency to the next or utilize any consistent standards between agencies, so add in another 50 or 100 agencies with varying standards of practice for each discipline. The State's Practices are actually much more closely aligned than the federal governments various agencies standards of practice. So federalizing the practices to make them consistent would not work as the federal governemnt does actually require any licensures of any kind, and is less consistent thn the states. You could consider holding everyopne to the highest standards established, like California's civil Practice laws, but then everyone else is gonna bitch because there is no need to have the special knowledge in their areas. As far as practice goes, there is committy between States, and as long as you hold one of the licenses in a stricter state you can esasily receive Committy in every other state. For instance once you hold a Civil License in California you can apply and readily recieive committy in any other State you wish to practice in. You can also apply in california and only have to take the State special Seismic exam if you hold a NCEES exam based license. So basically, the most qualified engineers can readily practice in any State, and those with out the special knowledge for the local environments or conditions, such as seismic, might just have to pass a special exam portion of the licensure process.

Okay Burton,

You state some pretty serious things here... site your source(s)! If these are your opinions then state them as such.

Well? What's it gonna be? Opinions or facts with sources (and your mom doesn't count as a source in my opinion).

Actuually they could file law suits. Civil litigation through the courts is not required of the enforcement agency, the State board, but NPSE would have to sue individuals and organizations in order to bring the case into court and get a legal decision/precedent, this is equivalent to law then and enforceable by the agency in that State.

Oh, NSPE could file civil litigations and file complaints with the Board of Engineers, pretty much any organization or individual can do that. It may not be appropriate given their charter, but if the members want them to do that NSPE could. You can sue an unlicensed person for practicing engineering, you may not have a case, but you could file. Also, you can always file complaints for the board to investigate.

No.

Continue to assign this duty to the individual states as is now the case. The PE certification means more than just that a degree was obtained along with successful passing of several examinations.

It also means that the practitioner has not been disciplined for unethical practice, high crimes or misdemeanors, etc.

The individual states need to monitor these professionals before and after the licensing takes place. When an individual practices without a license, the public is put at risk. Historically, the intent of licensing was to protect the public from the dangers of bridge and building collapse, etc (Civil Engineering (originally meant "non-military") is the worlds second oldest profession).

Later, licensing was extended to other disciplines (Chemical, Mechanical, Electrical, etc) which did not yet exist as threats to public welfare in the 19th century.

How is the practice any different than law or medicine?

A good point was made earlier on that it is the firm not the individual that is being licensed for the sole purposes stated above (public welfare, not discrimination).

When a firm is engaged to perform services, the governing body wants to ensure the public that they are not going to be put at risk by failed works (such as mentioned above).

Guest (formerly known as &*!@^^$, aka "Honest Abe")

Actually, doctors, Lawyer, Engineers, etc.. are all individually licensed by the States to practice in each State they are licensed in, in conformance with their code of professional ethics and the Laws of the individual States. Many States like California have a higher or different standard of practice written into their Laws.

I'm with Steve S. We are registered by state licensing boards for good reason. It is illegal to call oneself an engineer if one is not licensed by the state. The states must have separate licenses because they have different requirements, my PE (Structural discipline) in PA does not require me to qualify for earthquake design to the extent that a California PE does; however, if I want to practice in CA, I would have to take their seismic exam.

There are people out there who have the ability to do engineering work but lack the license, they can perform under the supervision of a PE, it is the PE who seals the documents. To allow non-licensed people to offer their services would bring disaster, the charlatans would move in. That dude who sold bubble mortgages last year would move in design a couple of buildings and disappear before it was discovered that they couldn't be built built.

Although I am in favor, generally, of licensing, I have known of a few cases where the engineering license was not warranted by the individual who had acquired it. A license does not insure that the engineer is competent, but it does insure that there is someone to sue when the building collapses...

NO!

I am licensed in several states and do not believe the profession in the US would be best served by a single licensing group. Different states have differing concerns, that would not be adequately addressed by a national organization with centralized licensing powers. Alaska has cold, CA has seismic and soils issues, coastal states have hurricane and maritime issues, etc. One size does not fit all.

Nor should all "engineers" be required to be licensed. Only the "capital" P.E., Professional Engineers.

Why stop there...don't forget about spaying and neutering too! Oh, rabies and distemper shots are also important.

And these practices would require a veternarian licensed in that State to practice.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but unfortunately the model engineer for NCEES is declining to include sales as acceptable experience, though a numbe rof states have not accepted this model yet. So why bother licensure if you are just going to allow any experience to qualify.

Oh and by the way, Licensure is a government requirement with protections for Title and/or Practice written into State Laws. In the US at least, engineers are licensed by each State Engineering Board, not by any national organization. This is not a society thing like Planners or such, that doesn't have to be recognized legally by jurisdictions. Additionally, some State Boards use the NCEES exams, but also require additional state specific exams. thus the State of California has a much hard examinantion process for CEs than many other states due to the State-specific Special Seismic Exam. The federal governemnt does not have any standards or requirements for licensure of engineers (and actually does work in States with unlicensed engineers using the exemption States allow for the Federal employees or lands).

Now that we have things cleared up....

I think the system actually works pretty well. I feel very strongly that engineers that do work that effects the public health and safety should be licensed, even if they screw up and improperly design a bridge that falls down. The system is by no means perfect, but it is better than allowing people with no credentials to design bridges.

The only issue here is calling oneself an engineer. I can certainly see and understand the argument that a BS Engineering degree from a good school should be sufficient to call yourself a engineer. But on the other hand, why do we make lawyers pass the bar to practice? Why do we make Doctors get licensed? Why not engineers?

I am going to take heaps of abuse for this but....

I have a big problem when people with no formal engineering degree call themselves engineers. Audio engineers, broadcast engineers, building facility engineers, even technicians or non degreed people that have come up from being mechanics and learned some of the ropes.

I worked very hard for my engineering degree, and darn it I worked hard for my PE license as well, and then some 18 year old kid who dropped out of highschool but knows how to run a sound board or a camera can call himself an engineer? That pisses me off.

Mr. Siegal sounds like a very qualified guy. All he has to do is change the name to Siegal design, and the problem is over. Or a smart guy like that probably could pass the Illinois PE???

Steve, within some jurisdictions there are other licensed engineer categories beside the Professional Engineer and the Structural Engineer, which are termed Operating Engineer, Stationary Engineer, and Marine Engineer. Each are also involved with ensuring safety of the public to some degree (which is why the licensing classifications exist) and each group is represented by various trade associations or unions (which may or may not be worth the fees that they want to charge for their services).

I agree the system works somewhat well, with some degrees of imperfection, mostly in the way fees and dues are collected and used or mis-used, and the way some groups seek to protect their turf over promoting the public good. (LEED accredidation comes to mind!)

I have had the priveledge of working with some very good people with and without formal engineering "licensing", and I have worked with some "licensed" individuals who were useless and/or dangerous inspite of what paperwork they carried with them.

Should all engineers be registered? I still say NO. But if a person wants the priviledge or being a capital "E" Engineer, some accredidation, examination, and licensing is a necessary evil. The employers who need or want "engineering" expertise and help should understand and know what they need, and should take care in developing a relationship with the skills and weaknesses of the individual before making a hiring decision.

Not all engineers need licensing and/or accredidation, but people should know and understand what the various degrees, accredidations, and licenses indicate about an individual's backgrounds, skills, and limitations.

Sorry be being somewhat long winded, but this is not a simple issue. Then again, engineering cover a broad spectrum of activities and areas.

All those other licensures are sub classifications of professional engineer. Professional engioneer is a general term. Such as in the State of California, I am a Professional Engineer Licensed to practice as a Civil Engineer. Therefore, legally, I am allowed to call my self a Civil Engineer, and a professional engineer. Additionally, I work with licensed electrical engineers, this is another PE. They are allowed to call themselves electrical engineers and professional engineers. A licensed chemical engineer is allowed to call himself a chemical engineer and professional engineer on documents, in accordance with California State Law. An unlicensed engineer can not legally call himself any of the engineering classifications list, e.g. electrical engineer, civil engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, agricultural engineer, etc., under the professional engineers act, or professional or registered engineer. This is fairly consistent amongst the States.

Operating, stationary, and marine engineers are NOT sub classifications of professional engineer, and the first two do not require a 4 year BS degree. For example a stationary engineer needs to understand the safe and efficient operation of large "high" pressure boilers and refrigeration equipment. That was not taught in my engineering program, and was not part of either my EIT or Practice exams.

A State Licensed engineer is not a sub classification of PE, they are a classification of the specialty they work in, or a sub classification of one of the main classification much like geotechnical is a psecialty classification of Civil above Civil. But the title Professional Engineer may be used by any engineer licensed by the State Board of Engineers.

Not abuse here, but disagreement on some points. I'm going to generalize here, based on my experience.

Quote: "The only issue here is calling oneself an engineer. I can certainly see and understand the argument that a BS Engineering degree from a good school should be sufficient to call yourself a engineer. But on the other hand, why do we make lawyers pass the bar to practice? Why do we make Doctors get licensed? Why not engineers?"

Fashions change, back in the seventies, the structural engineering profs refused to acknowledge that they were performing high level trade training, they insisted on teaching engineering as an academic subject. The result was that we had grads who had designed all of the elements, the beams and columns etc. but had never worked on a complete structure, had not created a structure to perform it's given purpose, had not followed a load path from point of application to foundation. We had to teach them these skills. Allowing them to be in full charge of a project immediately would be dangerous for customers and employers.

Quote: "I have a big problem when people with no formal engineering degree call themselves engineers. Audio engineers, broadcast engineers, building facility engineers, even technicians or non degreed people that have come up from being mechanics and learned some of the ropes.

I worked very hard for my engineering degree, and darn it I worked hard for my PE license as well, and then some 18 year old kid who dropped out of highschool but knows how to run a sound board or a camera can call himself an engineer? That pisses me off."

I don't have a formal degree, but I have an EIT and PE by exam, for which, I worked darned hard too. But I had to show twelve years of qualifying experience instead of the four required with a degree. Since I started as a clerk in the drafting room moved on to the drawing board I guess I was a technician who moved up. I did take evening classes but they were definitely formatted as trade training and not considered equivalent to a formal degree here in the States. I was highly respected by my peers and supervisors. I had a very interesting career because I usually was given the most difficult jobs, it made life interesting. In fairness, my path in England was typical for the time (early nineteen fifties), university places were very scarce and expensive, and other educational systems were the norm.

I would suggest that we are in broad agreement that only people who have demonstrated their suitability should be licensed to be in full charge of an engineering project.

Although I am not yet a licensed or graduate engineer, I have known a lot of engineers and saved their professional hides numerous times, if only to prevent blame on myself and the crew and hazard to the recipients.

If this organization wants to monopolize professional engineers then it should also provide monetary renumeration for any and all losses due to their associates' mistakes. Add to that a review of the plans and products of their members' work.

I am certain they will disagree and wish to be held harmless, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. As bad as things are going, the last thing the public needs is another greedy enterprise to cost them more money for no true benefit.

If the society can't stand on it's own reputation then why should it monopolize the industry. Where is the integrity one should expect from a professional association? After all the moniker after your name is only an indication of competence and not an assurance. Your integrity is the only assurance that can be counted on.

I have dealt with other professional trade associations and found a lot of hype, and an unwilligness to police themselves. I have dropped my membership with them, for I do not wish to be associated with a ficticious organization that won't apply their rules to the senior members. My integrity is more important than their image, therefore my work, quality and my customers safety and satifaction will not be associated with them.

So in summary I say no, it wouldn't better.

B.

Remunerations for exemptions or mistakes is why engineers carry insurance, much like Doctors. Surprisingly, we many times do not fail in the design but get sued anyways, because many contractors insurance won't cover many type of their mistakes, but our insurance would cover those mistakes if they can demonstrate inadequate oversight or project control with respects to implementation of the design, even though this is not a legal responsibility, arbitration and courts frequently do not understand this well and assign some portion of the cost to the deeper pockets of those with insurance.

Let me also say I am getting a bit tired of comments from non engineers about how they know PE's that should not be licensed and how they have saved their butts etc, etc.

If a PE is incompetent, then report this person to the PE board. That is the way it works. But if you are not an engineer, who are you to judge that persons engineering competency? Let the board enforcement division decide that.

The FACT is that 99.9% of licensed professional engineers are extremely competent, but there are those who are not. Just like most doctors and lawyers are competent, but there are those that are not.

The general tone of these debates on CR4 are basically insulting to me and to my fellow licensed engineers and indeed engineers in general. I don't appreciate it.

Bring it on, I am sure I will hear about it now....

I'm with you on this one Steve, 100%. You get a GA from me. As you may have guessed from my original response, my Engineering work lies solely in the realm of a research facility. A PE license will not help my work and would predominantly test me on things that I will never use. But getting things to precisely move to nanometer precision and to generate kicker magnetic fields inside vacuum chambers to several Tesla requires an Engineering discipline and degree. While I'm certain that I would only require some brush up study time to obtain a PE license, obtaining my doctoral degree will assist my chosen career more. But it also galls me when people who know nothing of all of the other concerns my designs have had to anticipate, find some new wrinkle to their experimental setup and decide to take the credit for solving one of my hidden design problems. Particularly when they've modified the rig and never tell me, this happens all the time.

But as you may have guessed I have full respect for those who have obtained a PE license. But not all Engineering tasks require one.

Agreed, and indeed most engineers do not require a PE.

Hype is my gripe! 99.5%? Please!

You may know a thousand fine engineers. The bulk of engineers I have worked with and under reflect the large percentage of egomaniacs licensed as engineers.

One I worked with burned down 4 trucks ($1M lost revenue) because he was more interested in his title than the accuracy of his work. Worse, the Sr Engineer signed off on the plans. Blamed it on cut and paste error. Peoples lives are at stake and some engineers aren't putting a high enough weight on the accuracy of their work.

It's one thing to proud of your efforts and accomplishments, but to turn your head and ignore the damage caused by others in your profession, is another.

Should the subject at hand come to pass, I would want to see some higher level of responsibility from the association. Then it would be far better for the public at large than in recent history.

Headhunter out!

Or maybe licensure should not be for life. The NCEES has found a decline in skills of engineers the longer they wait after the 2 year minimum to take the licensure exams. Many licensed Engineers skills decline as they get more involved in the financial end of the business, marketing and management. Maybe they should require retesting every 12 years or 16 years. The problem is that there is a huge shortage in some fields of engineering, where licenses are needed, and most States are actually trying to get more people licensed and in the market. However, many States approach is not to allow the market shortage to force an adjustment in the wages upwards to be more competitive, which would promote engineering as a career and more people would take an interest in it as a career when balancing the effort (and cost of training) required to enter the field against the financial benefits and rewards.

As far as egomaniacs go, licensure only makes them responsible for design failures and sets a minimum standard they must have been capable of passing when they were young. This is why I promote re-examinations at regular intervals, then at least you know their knowledge is reasonably current and not a case of studying hard after college, and never using those skills again for 25 years. However, considering how many 50+ year old engineers are out there who have never seen many of the modern State exams or even solved a design problem in 25 years, it could cause a huge deficit in licensed engineers and thus in A/E corporations management.

Indeed! 99.5%

And people without engineering degrees or licenses are somehow less likely to burn down trucks, or engage in inaccurate work? Sorry but no...

EVERY engineer I know takes great pains to assure the accuracy of their work, but even then mistakes are made.

BTW, just for your info, there is a new initiative that is being pressed by the NSPE to make it mandatory for PE's either to have a masters degree, or an additional 30 hours of engineering courses post graduation. This might address your higher level I suppose.

Finally, what recent history? Thousands of bridges around the world hold up fine, air craft fly thousands of hours every day, buildings stand for years, cars and electrical gear, structures and tools that we all take for granted as safe, are only safe because engineers took the time to make them that way. The bridge in Minnesota collapsed after many years of service, and as much because of overload and poor maintenance as it was design. But feel free to blame the engineer because he could not foresee the future, did not make the bridge maintenance free, and did not design it for 1000 times the expected load.

Headhunter, don't be blaming all engineers because you had a couple bad experiences. I don't blame all mill wrights and mechanics for the shoddy workmanship (and downright dangerous decisions made) that I have suffered at the hands of a few.

Yes Engineers should be licensed. There must be a bar to judge everyone by. However control should not be monopolzied by one organization. That's a recipe for corruption.

amos

_______________________________________________________________________________

we all know there is a God. some people just don't like to admit it.