When Jon Nelson, P.E. was asked to serve as chairman of the Engineering Licensure Qualifications Task Force (ELQTF) in late 2000, he didn’t fully appreciate the scope of the task he was undertaking.

“The initial reason for this task force,” explained Nelson to his audience at the 2003 ASCE convention, “is that a number of questions were being asked by various individuals and engineering associations concerning the licensure system within our profession and no one had definitive answers.  It was soon realized that it was time for a comprehensive assessment including broad representation by the profession.  Something that apparently had not been done for decades.”

Nelson related that the task force, assembled by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), was asked to study the current licensure system and identify suitable changes or enhancements to that system. The effort spanned all of 2001 and 2002 and parts of 2003.

“We were charged with summarizing the positions of the participating societies and hopefully pulling them all together into some kind of a concensus,” said Nelson, Vice President of Tetra-Tech FHC and President-Elect of NCEES. “We first needed to identify and clearly understand the issues.  We then researched and discussed them in detail, formulated ideas, and gathered feedback from the profession before reconciling the positions into a consensus.”

This proved to be a very lengthy process considering that 11 engineering societies had agreed to participate.

A number of items were already providing an interesting backdrop to the task force’s investigation into the issues. For instance, only 15 to 20 percent of engineers are licensed. A question being asked was, “Is that bad?”.

In addition, licensing issues kept being raised by individuals within the profession. There was concern over the impediments to becoming licensed as well as the relevance of licensure in the 21st Century, especially with the emerging specialization areas that are arising out of areas that are already considered as specialized fields in engineering.

“The deliberation of the issues, determining the relevance of each issue, and identifying the committee’s recommendations took a lot of time,” related Nelson. “Naturally, this was an intense period of time that involved discussion at many levels.”

The task force spent a considerable amount of time and effort considering the current perception of engineers as it relates to other professions. There was a strong sentiment that perceptions are partially formed based upon licensure requirements.

Among the licensure systems that were reviewed by the task force were those in accounting, architecture, landscape architecture, law, medicine and nursing. Another source of information came from reviewing the Canadian engineering licensing system. Nelson commented that many facets of the Canadian model were of significant interest as noted in the March 2003 ELQTF report:

Although both systems are predicated on the basis of education, examination, and experience, there are significant differences in their philosophies and implementation. The Canadian system requires applicants to demonstrate experience and knowledge of a broad range of engineering and engineering-related (impact of engineering on society) concepts to obtain a license. In contrast, the present U.S. system emphasizes principally the technical: technical education, technical examinations, and technical experience.
 
What is an Engineer?
Unfortunately for educated and/or licensed engineers, anyone in the United States can claim to be an engineer. In some areas outside of civil and structural engineering, as little as a four-hour course and a certificate may entitle an individual to be classified as an “engineer.” This is one of the reasons that so many of the engineering disciplines are involved in this discussion. However, there are even disagreements on the definition of an engineer within the field of civil engineering.

It may be a simple question, but, as Nelson explained, it has no simple answer. It is, therefore, the crux of the problem facing educational institutions as well.

“There is increasing pressure from the public demanding that students, including engineers, be able to graduate in four years,” explained Nelson. “As has been debated extensively in ASCE concerning Policy 465 and the Body of Knowledge (see related article), engineering graduates need more than just a math and science education to succeed. We are realizing the immense value of the so-called ‘soft skills’ required by successful engineers.”

“Combine this,” continued Nelson, “with the splintering and specialization that has become a reality in our profession and it was clear to the task force that engineering education is falling behind. The task force felt that the four year, 128 credit hour programs of today cannot adequately address the knowledges needed to prepare undergraduates for entry into licensed practice.  Some topic areas are being lost altogether.  Surveying is an example of a very important subject that is being dropped by many civil engineering programs due to the credit hour limitations.”

Nelson explained that this problem was, and is, the driving force behind the argument to require additional education beyond the Bachelors degree as a requirement for licensure.

Another proposal that has been discussed is changing the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination from a pass/fail to a sectioned test that would require students to demonstrate technical competence in each of the fundamental areas. The student would be required to pass all sections before being licensed.  “If a common set of core subjects cannot be identified and required by accreditation, use of the FE exam to demonstrate competence in the core areas was a possibility that was discussed,” said Nelson. SLDT