Several states currently have separate PE licenses for each discipline. Others do not. I have heard that some structural engineers are advocating separate licensing for their specific discipline. Lets hear from the forum readers on what they think about this. I personally am torn about the issue of separate discipline licensing even though I am licensed in some states that have it.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Separate Discipline PE Licensing? 3
- Thread starter EddyC
- Start date
-
1
- #4
For structural engineers in the USA, there is now a movement afoot to create a structural "certification". This is the result of an effort to alter tha way engineers are licensed.
It goes like this: Doctors are certified by a board that reviews their qualifications, education, experience, references, etc. and then "certifies" them. This doesn't license them in a state, it simply creates a monitored and professional statement about the person.
A state, then, can see that certification and know for a fact that they have the proper credentials to get licensed, and they do.
For engineers, and specifically structural engineers, the certification goal is to create a consensus amoung professionals as to how qualified a particular engineer is. The movement to create a national license will never happen. This is because the entire US constitution would have to be amended to allow it. One state cannot tell another state that it MUST recognize its licensed engineers. Won't ever happen.
But by setting up a certification process, then all states can buy in to that system and individually license the engineer based on that certification....sort of like what the NCEES does currently in keeping a file on you. But now the structural certification is focused on one discipline, and instead of just a file of info, they go the next step and make the certifying statement that the person is qualified. NCEES doesn't render an opinion, it just streamlines the info-communication process.
It goes like this: Doctors are certified by a board that reviews their qualifications, education, experience, references, etc. and then "certifies" them. This doesn't license them in a state, it simply creates a monitored and professional statement about the person.
A state, then, can see that certification and know for a fact that they have the proper credentials to get licensed, and they do.
For engineers, and specifically structural engineers, the certification goal is to create a consensus amoung professionals as to how qualified a particular engineer is. The movement to create a national license will never happen. This is because the entire US constitution would have to be amended to allow it. One state cannot tell another state that it MUST recognize its licensed engineers. Won't ever happen.
But by setting up a certification process, then all states can buy in to that system and individually license the engineer based on that certification....sort of like what the NCEES does currently in keeping a file on you. But now the structural certification is focused on one discipline, and instead of just a file of info, they go the next step and make the certifying statement that the person is qualified. NCEES doesn't render an opinion, it just streamlines the info-communication process.
-
1
- #5
As a licensed engineer, I totally support PE licensing for each engineering discipline, versus the old model of having a PE license apply to general engineering applications. A licensed professional engineer should practice by their specialty, as they were trained. Having a PE license that is for general engineering use is not effective and frankly is misleading.
Hiring a PE that is licensed to a specific engineering discipline can be held responsible and accountable for particular aspects of a project.
Hiring a PE that is licensed to a specific engineering discipline can be held responsible and accountable for particular aspects of a project.
-
1
- #6
I can see some potential benefits to a certification process (I am not licensed). For the public viewpoint it would help to define the engineer's role by technical competency (just as there are "specialist" attorneys and doctors). It is still up to the individual as to whether or not to accept a work or to state that it falls outside their area of expertise. Dual licensing could also be an option provided the individual meets both the academic and experience etc, to be fully licensed in multiple disciplines.
Regards,
Regards,
moltenmetal
Chemical
Much of our work is cross-disciplinary. Compartmentalizing engineers doesn't give them adequate credit for what they know about other disciplines. A mechanical engineer can do some of the things a chemical engineer can do, and vice versa. Same goes for civil and structural, structural and mechanical, mechanical/chemical and electrical, electrical and computer/systems etc. etc.
Engineering is a self-regulated profession. I take this to mean that the practitioners are the only ones qualified to judge their competence, and the practitioners regulate THEMSELVES by practicing only within their competence. Stray outside your competence and cause problems for someone and you can lose your license- career-terminating accountability, administered by a board of your peers. Isn't that good enough for public protection? Ultimately that's how the doctors do it too.
Engineering is a self-regulated profession. I take this to mean that the practitioners are the only ones qualified to judge their competence, and the practitioners regulate THEMSELVES by practicing only within their competence. Stray outside your competence and cause problems for someone and you can lose your license- career-terminating accountability, administered by a board of your peers. Isn't that good enough for public protection? Ultimately that's how the doctors do it too.
moltenmetal, I agree that much of our work is cross-disciplinary. Question becomes how far to go outside of your trained discipline before another's expertise is required. Certifications can help establish those boundary lines. We might know something beyond the basics of other disciplines but you can still get burned by not knowing the details.
Regards,
Regards,
Slugger926
Bioengineer
How about Agricultural and BIosystems Engineers that have Mechanical, Electrical, Civil, Industrial, and Chemical aspects covered on their PE test?
I have designed multi-disiplined projects such as digital scales with fiber optic isolations between the scales and office computers. Also the scales covered geotechnical and structural engineering for E-80 loading on railroads. Some of the scales I designed also had mechanical engineering for cyclonic dust collection, conveyor belts for grain transportation to bins, and hydralics for some scales to hook on to a truck and lift it up to 80 degrees to empty them in between full and empty weights.
I have also designed projects involving single, two-phase, and three-phase electric power for internet providers for their equipment, and their HVAC units. About the only thing I haven't designed are any hard core chemical engineering projects.
Every project that I have designed has been straight forward. I would be smart enough that if something got really complecated in an area to refer that portion of the project on to a more specifically trained engineer, or obtain the training myself.
Thank goodness my PE is diversified, or I might would have to take 4 or 5 PE tests in some states in order to do basic jobs.
I have designed multi-disiplined projects such as digital scales with fiber optic isolations between the scales and office computers. Also the scales covered geotechnical and structural engineering for E-80 loading on railroads. Some of the scales I designed also had mechanical engineering for cyclonic dust collection, conveyor belts for grain transportation to bins, and hydralics for some scales to hook on to a truck and lift it up to 80 degrees to empty them in between full and empty weights.
I have also designed projects involving single, two-phase, and three-phase electric power for internet providers for their equipment, and their HVAC units. About the only thing I haven't designed are any hard core chemical engineering projects.
Every project that I have designed has been straight forward. I would be smart enough that if something got really complecated in an area to refer that portion of the project on to a more specifically trained engineer, or obtain the training myself.
Thank goodness my PE is diversified, or I might would have to take 4 or 5 PE tests in some states in order to do basic jobs.
As a licensed engineer, I support PE licensing for each engineering discipline, I am currently licensed in two disciplines. Preparing for each exam sharpens one's skills, look at it as a personnel assessment tool. Remember the passing score of the exam is set at the minimum competences that other licensed professionals believe is needed to work in the discipline.
Political reality is that separate discipline licensing will not work. Because of the overlaps between the disciplines it is nearly impossible to draw a clear line between them.
If states were forced to licensed by engineering discipline then they would have to draw the line somewhere. The lines, of course, would be drawn in favor of the most politically powerful disciplines (in order - civil, mechanical, electrical).
So before someone decides if they are for separate discipline licensing, look at you own discipline and decide if it is political powerful enough to protect its turf or even exist.
Generic licensing is the only thing that makes sense.
If states were forced to licensed by engineering discipline then they would have to draw the line somewhere. The lines, of course, would be drawn in favor of the most politically powerful disciplines (in order - civil, mechanical, electrical).
So before someone decides if they are for separate discipline licensing, look at you own discipline and decide if it is political powerful enough to protect its turf or even exist.
Generic licensing is the only thing that makes sense.
Generic PE licensing no longer applies. If you review the NCEES (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying) web site ( to obtain a PE license today requires you to declare a specific engineering discipline so that you can take a Principles and Practice of Engineering exam to fulfill the requirements for licensure. If you review the current exams, there is no generic PE exam as in the past.
While there is no longer a general PE exam, "generic licensing" is used by most states. States that have generic licensing leave it to the discretion of the licensed engineer to stay within their area of expertise. This is the best way to do it IMO. The NCEES model law is the best engineering licensure "template". It is best on a generic licensing model.
- Thread starter
- #15
I have noticed overlap between engineering disciplines in the past. I previously held a job where I had to work on objects that could be described either as small moving structures or large machines. It was impossible to clearly delineate which part of the object should be designed by a structural engineer or a mechanical engineer or both. Although the aerospace industry is exempt from PE licensure, I have seen positions for a "Stress Analyst" listed that stated that the applicant should be either an Aerospace or Mechanical or Civil Engineer with stress & strain experience. I have also designed high-pressure steam power piping layouts in the past using the ASME B31.1 Code. This type of work is usually classified as "mechanical" but could be properly done by a "structural" engineer as well. Such situations complicate the issue of separate discipline licensing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
