Are Licensing Requirements Helping or Hurting The AEC Industry?
Are Licensing Requirements Helping or Hurting The AEC Industry?
This is a great question from Colten Johnson, PE . I knew posting a comment wouldn't do justice to how I see this issue, so here's an article.
As often happens with larger issues, we narrow our responses to a comment. 100 characters, max. Not even 100 words. Let alone pages or minutes of dialogue. How are we to get the fullness of our thoughts across?
Plus, most comments are from the hip. There is no well-thought-out response, only emotion. That emotion then lives forever on the internet.
While my line of thinking will evolve, it's my current thought on licensing in the AEC industry.
First, a little history. Licensing is a new phenomenon. Dating back to 1907 in Wyoming, after some con-men (most likely) put forward some surveys and took some land. Finding the exact story of how this went down is difficult. What we can say is that 1907 was the first issuance of a license.
In 1929, California became the second state to require a Civil Engineering license. Following the St. Francis dam failure that killed 491 people.
Then over time, requirements have increased. Adding more disciplines like electrical, mechanical, and plumbing. Licensure expanded to other industries, like barbers, doctors, and contractors. The merits of which can be debated elsewhere.
Are these requirements still necessary today? A good question and one that should arise from time to time. Here's my answer.
Short Answer: yes.
Long Answer:
Should licensure exist, yes. How should they be awarded, this is where the nuance lies. In a world full of scammers, liars, and cheats, especially on the internet, I believe the system we have for licensure is good (for the most part).
What most don't realize, is that you need 5 references from other PE's to say you are qualified to also be licensed. It can't be a person off the street. They have to have credentials. Others must vouch that you are qualified.
Recommended by LinkedIn
I believe that this is a good system. And should remain in place. Helping reduce fraud and keep dumb people out of engineering. Let's face it, most aren't cut out to be engineers. It is a small portion of the population for a reason. In fact, 192,474 engineers graduated from college in 2022, compared to 4.11 Million total college graduates in the same year (4.68%).
I also believe that the testing should remain in place. I've known some folks who couldn't pass the FE or PE tests and for good reason. They were not qualified to be engineers. I worked alongside them when they were interns. Seeing firsthand how dumb they were.
It's not "nice", but it is true. Some people are dumb and aren't cut out to be engineers. When people's lives are on the line through our designs, I'd say you need to be intelligent. Personally, I wouldn't want some schmuck off the street to design my skyscraper. I'd want a guy who's done it before and is a licensed Structural Engineer (SE) to be in charge of the design. SE is a hard designation to get and if I'm putting hundreds of millions on the line, that gives me a lot of confidence.
The college thing is interesting too. Because college does weed out people who aren't meant to be engineers. The curriculum is difficult and a lot don't make the grade. Then again, finances shouldn't be a roadblock. The same argument can be made for doctors, but I digress.
Now, as for the college requirement for licensure. In most states, they have a replacement path for college. Typically it's working for 10 years, you can sit for the PE. Again, varies by state. I would look to amend this so that you can sit for your Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) at 5 years of working under a PE. Once passed, you can then take the PE after the required 4 years of work experience and 5 recommendations.
At the end of the day, a large segment of our work as engineers is about following regulations. Reading and researching codes. Filling out forms. Interpreting paperwork and paying fees. If you can't follow the simple (not easy) task of becoming licensed should you then be able to practice?
Now, I am leaving the FE exam to prove your general knowledge of engineering systems. Again, this is a weeder exam. Understanding statistics and general engineering principles is a good thing. Plus, if you don't pass this, then you'll figure out what lane you belong in, as a PE is not in your future.
To me, this exam says that you understand engineering principles. Again, vetting qualified individuals. The PE is discipline-specific. As it should be.
My Take:
Testing requirements stay. As should the continuing education.
College I could take or leave so long as the testing doesn't change.
The 5 recommendations should also stay. This keeps the industry better because of it.
Lastly, not everyone deserves to be an engineer. We shouldn't lower our standards to fit the whims of dumb, unqualified people. At the end of the day, we are in charge of people's lives. And in higher quantities than any other profession.
Engineering New Frontiers
2dI agree that college should be dropped as a requirement for licensing. The exams should be sufficiently difficult that someone really has to know their stuff to pass. As I believe I said in a comment recently, I do not think the exams are hard, at least the one I took (Mechanical TFS) wasnt hard at all. The difficulty would need to approach what I have heard from the SE before I would reduce other requirements. If one is inclined to have licensing at all. For what its worth, I am opposed to national licensing in general, but that is a more political stance rather than a good or bad for the profession thing.
A Seasoned Program Manager addressing the Global Development challenges through Research & Innovation at Purdue | Certified Project Manager | INDOT Construction 🦺 Project Manager | FE,PE & PMP Exam Coach | Founder
2dVery informative. This article hits the nail right on the head. Just that I see a lot of inconsistency in the licensing requirements amongst the states. Can’t we have some uniformity in the licensing requirements? Secondly can we remove the PE test taking approval process by the licensing board? Some states like Texas have removed it. Lastly can we also decouple the FE and PE exams and let them run independently. Because there are very experienced engineers like us who may not need the FE exams.
Licensed, Experienced, Professional, & Structural Engineer.
2dThere is a difference between a licensed engineer and a practicing engineer. It's a poor assumption that an individual will leave the profession if their path does not include licensure.
Structural Engineering Entrepreneur | Designing Engineering Excellence with 21st Century Technology
2dI'm glad it sparked an article response! I agree that you won't get to the bottom of this with just posts and comments. Just keep the conversation going and steer the industry in the direction you desire!