Re: "Sanitation engineers" and the like...get rid of them. IMO if you don't have an accredited engineering degree, it's baloney to call yourself an "engineer". Naturally one could make exceptions in rare circumstances but I do believe it dilutes the profession to have someone with no engineering background being CALLED an engineer. I have nothing but respect for my field engineer, who has been working with elevators for much longer than I've been alive. When it comes to practical experience and ability to troubleshoot a problem, he is the king - but he doesn't have an engineering degree and would be unable to handle a lot of the tasks that a graduate mechanical or electrical engineer would be expected to have. He's great at what he does, but he's no engineer. In the US, some of our field engineers have associate's degrees or even a bachelor's in engineering, but some do not. In Canada, our field engineers have to have an engineering degree and P.Eng or they cannot call themselves engineers legally. If not they have to call themselves "field support associate" or something along those lines.
Re: Calling oneself an engineer sans PE...not so much in agreement, mainly because the overwhelming majority of mechanical, electrical, materials, and chemical engineers work in exempt industry and thus had have no need for a PE. Most of them are damned good at what they do, and it would be an insult to make them out as "less of an engineer" because they had no reason to go through the often-laborious process of getting a PE. I am a mechanical engineer and I do believe I've earned the right to call myself such.
Re: requiring a PE. If the system were changed to require a PE without grandfathering in the engineers in exempt industry, there would be uproar. Are you really in favor of making a 60 year old mechanical engineer with nearly 40 years of experience, a huge list of patents, and a master's degree struggle through re-learning chemistry and circuits in order to pass the EIT? Also, what will you do for the huge number of engineers from exempt industry who lack ANYONE in their organization with a PE to recommend them? I have two PEs who can vouch for me, and one has an expired license (he never uses it, so he didn't renew it), plus two with a Canadian P.Eng, which my state board will not accept as equivalent to the US PEs. Heck, I don't know how the hell I'll find the three endorsers with a PE that I'm going to need, since by my state board's definition I only have one (and he's in a different area of engineering than me - he's electrical, I'm mechanical). If suddenly the 150+ engineers in my organization all needed a PE, it would be utter mayhem.
I've said it before, but I would be in favor of a system like the Canadians have. Everyone who wishes to practice the engineering profession has to have a P.Eng. Those with an accredited engineering degree automatically have an EIT-type credential, and after I believe 4 years of supervised, appropriate engineering work experience they take a 2 hour ethics exam and when they pass, they get the P.Eng. Those who do not have an approved engineering degree have to take a variety of exams to prove competence but in large part the initial part of the engineering credential is handled by strict requirements for engineering undergraduate education. Those without the P.Eng can't legally call themselves "engineers", but engineers in every field typically have a P.Eng and can mentor and endorse the applications of the EITs. The system is streamlined and is pretty much the same from province to province. I'm not necessarily in favor of having the only testing be an ethics exam, but maybe we could do away with the FE exam for people with an ABET-accredited degree, and streamline the process for taking the PE exam while providing more options for depth in each area. Changes would need to be made to the way things are done, and it would have to be consistent from state to state. I would also suggest state boards allowing non-PEs to endorse applications. It is onerous for those of us in exempt industry to find endorsers with PEs these days.
Value of licensure is clear for the Civils in the group. I'm well aware of that. By making it a de facto requirement for most jobs in the field, it makes it easy to have a defined early career progression that includes work under the supervision of a licensed PE, who can later endorse the EIT when they apply for licensure.
However, try convincing a bunch of mechanical engineers in the aerospace industry (for example) that they MUST run out and get a PE. They'll have to first take a test with stuff they haven't needed to remember since their undergrad days. When they make it to the PE, unless their experience is in machine design, HVAC, or fluids/thermo, they'll need to take an expensive review course to learn one of those areas. Oh, and by the way, they'll have to do all of this with none of their supervisors or colleagues having the PE and being available to vouch for the quality of their work. Good luck with that...
