Master's Degree or equivalent requirements - Your Thoughts

[PJ3346]

http://ncees.org/Audience_Landing_Pages/Students.php

Please refer to the above link and read paragraph "Changes to Education requirements." What are your thoughts on the additional education requirements that will be enacted in 2020? Overall I think it is a good thing, it will make the title of Professional Engineer more exclusive, and I think as engineers, because of the exclusivity, it will also help salaries. I also believe that it will advance it into the realm of where Dr.'s are and Lawyers. So what are your thoughts?

 

[McEngr]

I think it is good for the profession, but I don't think it will help salaries. I believe engineers are not paid properly because of the lack of regulation on projects completed by incompetent engineers that short change the industry.

 

[snickerd3]

it will be interesting to see if ALL the states adopt the recommendation from NCEES. that could cause some issues with geting licenses in multiple states.

 

[soma]

It is a good move as it will make PE more exclusive but at the same time it will be much more expensive. It costs anywhere between 40-60K to earn a masters degree full time. But exclusiveness only comes with a price.

Any guidance from NCEES on license renewals from 2020 ? I mean what about the engineers who have obtained license on bachelors degree and are renewing it every two years. Do they have to complete masters degree to be able to renew their licenses starting 2020 ?

 

[snickerd3]

From what I've read about it, it would only apply to those just getting their first licenses. everyone who already is a PE would not have to go back to school

 

[willsee]

Won't increase salaries as long as industrial exemption exists.

 

[PJ3346]

It is a good move as it will make PE more exclusive but at the same time it will be much more expensive. It costs anywhere between 40-60K to earn a masters degree full time. But exclusiveness only comes with a price.

Any guidance from NCEES on license renewals from 2020 ? I mean what about the engineers who have obtained license on bachelors degree and are renewing it every two years. Do they have to complete masters degree to be able to renew their licenses starting 2020 ?

I agree with snickerd3, I think all current PE's would be grandfathered in. It would be impossible to make all current PE's to go back to college to earn a Master's Degree, especially if they are running their own firm. It would essentially strip your right to practice engineering in your respective state which would do more harm than good.

 

[solomonb]

I do not think that it will have any real bearing. There are too many engineers who DO NOT have licenses or possess the industrial exemption. Because that is how the system for engnieers has been designed, the requirement to possess a graduate degree in order to be licensed will be obviated by those who do not have a degree, will not go back and get same or are close enough to retirement to be grandfathered.

There will likely be an impact by 2030, because by that time, most, if not all engineers will have possessed a graduate degree. The other question is "will all states abide" by this law? Don't think so--I am not convinced that this will have any real, tangential impact in the life time of the folks on this board today. 20 years from now, perhaps, however, it will take at least 20 years from 2020 for a real impact to be felt.

 

[Peele1]

What problems or issues would this address? None that I know of.

In the supply/demand curve, reducing the supply will eventually reduce the demand (basic theory of economics).

What this proposal will do is make the government and businesses that current hire Engineers and PE's demand that the law be changed so that they only need to have "engineers" work for them. We already have tons of people in all sorts of professions calling themselves "engineers". Tightening up the requirements to make it more exclusive will cause an even further dilution of the name Engineer.

Instead, what we need to do is petition the lawmakers to make laws limiting the use of the term Engineer. We need to petition them to require a real Engineer (EIT or PE) be required for more work, increasing the demand for Engineers.

Also, the term Engineer In Training is a horrible, horrible term. It is similar to Physician's Assistant. These two professions have essentially the same authority and responsibility, yet a title that makes them sound like juveniles. The diluted term engineer is perceived as better than the official term Engineer In Training, doesn't it?

Perceived order is PE>Engineer>engineer>EIT, even though this is not true.

I propose EIT be renamed to Registered Engineer. Then we'll have PE>RE>Engineer>engineer.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

What's wrong with in-training? That's essentially what you are - a young engineer getting the requisite experience to get licensed.

 

[Supe]

What problems or issues would this address? None that I know of.

In the supply/demand curve, reducing the supply will eventually reduce the demand (basic theory of economics).

What this proposal will do is make the government and businesses that current hire Engineers and PE's demand that the law be changed so that they only need to have "engineers" work for them. We already have tons of people in all sorts of professions calling themselves "engineers". Tightening up the requirements to make it more exclusive will cause an even further dilution of the name Engineer.

Instead, what we need to do is petition the lawmakers to make laws limiting the use of the term Engineer. We need to petition them to require a real Engineer (EIT or PE) be required for more work, increasing the demand for Engineers.

Also, the term Engineer In Training is a horrible, horrible term. It is similar to Physician's Assistant. These two professions have essentially the same authority and responsibility, yet a title that makes them sound like juveniles. The diluted term engineer is perceived as better than the official term Engineer In Training, doesn't it?

Perceived order is PE>Engineer>engineer>EIT, even though this is not true.

I propose EIT be renamed to Registered Engineer. Then we'll have PE>RE>Engineer>engineer.

If you're going to require EIT/PE for more work in industries that are presently exempt to where a new law will create a significant reduction in the available engineering workforce, the demand for PE's/EIT's will not increase, because 95% of the work will be outsourced. In fact, I can see it diluting the term Engineer even more, because companies will just begin hiring PE's who are willing to sign/stamp drawings that are outside of their area of expertise.

 

[adamgram]

I also believe that it will advance it into the realm of where Dr.'s are and Lawyers. So what are your thoughts?

Here's the problem that I see with this logic:

Medical school teaches doctors things like which medications can and can't be mixed, how to perform surgery, etc. These are things that Doctors will do on the job.

Similarly, Law School teaches lawyers how to practice law. Engineering is different. Engineering school (both undergraduate and graduate) teaches Physics. You then learn on the job how to actually be an engineer while you are an EIT.

Medicine/Law: 4 years of theoretical background through a Bio-Chem or English degree, followed by 4 years of practical education through Medical or Law school.

Engineering: 4 years of theoretical background through a Engineering (Physics) degree, followed by 4 years of practical education through an EIT position.

I think that the idea of requiring more education is good, but it's problematic to think that a Master's program, the way they are currently structured, can really play the same role that medical school or law school plays. I think it would be better to require some sort of real practical training, relevant to the specific engineering niche that you are working in and are going to take the exam in, that you are required to go through while working as an EIT.

 

[Jaylaw_PE]

i like this change, but i already have a PE and a master's degree.

i still don't consider myself an expert by any means, but i DO believe there are a number of people out there with PE's that aren't exactly qualified. When i went out to celebrate my taking the PE exam i told my buddies "well if at least 2 out of the last 5 questions were C, then i'm now qualified to design skyscrapers!" and they all laughed for a second before they went "umm... i don't know if i like that" of course having aced the ethics portion, i know im never going to stamp structural drawings because im not qualified, but i can see some people who would. in general more education = better engineers. its definitely not going to HURT.

as for usage of the term engineer it has gotten totally ridiculous with all the IT people claiming to be "engineers" and i do agree something needs to be done about it. What would happen if they called themselves doctors of servers or something like that haha!? we may never get rid of this, but we can educate people that just saying the word engineer doesnt make you an engineer. Make people more aware that P.E. is the standard much like M.D. is for doctors.

 

[knight1fox3]

as for usage of the term engineer it has gotten totally ridiculous with all the IT people claiming to be "engineers" and i do agree something needs to be done about it. What would happen if they called themselves doctors of servers or something like that haha!? we may never get rid of this, but we can educate people that just saying the word engineer doesnt make you an engineer. Make people more aware that P.E. is the standard much like M.D. is for doctors.

Well said. I've noticed this more and more. The term "engineer" being applied to almost any semi-technical area. It's one of my pet peeves actually just because we (engineers) know just how much work and dedication is involved with the title.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

Despite the fact many states regulate the use of the term 'engineer' to companies and employees, the term is still thrown around out there far too liberally.

I think the B+30/Masters thing is a good idea, a masters degree in my generation (I'm 32) is equivalent to a bachelors degree in my parents' era. Undergrad taught me the basics, grad school taught me how to think on my own and figure out solutions to open ended problems. It's valuable.

but we can educate people that just saying the word engineer doesnt make you an engineer. Make people more aware that P.E. is the standard much like M.D. is for doctors.

I agree with this. No one knows what a P.E. is. A lot of people I talk to think it has to deal with physical education. Yet everyone knows what it means when they see your business card and see M.D., PhD, Esq., CPA, GFY, etc. after your name.

I'm not out to toot my own horn, but a little acknowlegdement would be nice. I think my ex-wife put it best when she explained what I did to others. To paraphrase, Nobody thinks about the engineers until something breaks.

 

[Jaylaw_PE]

Despite the fact many states regulate the use of the term 'engineer' to companies and employees, the term is still thrown around out there far too liberally.

I think the B+30/Masters thing is a good idea, a masters degree in my generation (I'm 32) is equivalent to a bachelors degree in my parents' era. Undergrad taught me the basics, grad school taught me how to think on my own and figure out solutions to open ended problems. It's valuable.

but we can educate people that just saying the word engineer doesnt make you an engineer. Make people more aware that P.E. is the standard much like M.D. is for doctors.

I agree with this. No one knows what a P.E. is. A lot of people I talk to think it has to deal with physical education. Yet everyone knows what it means when they see your business card and see M.D., PhD, Esq., CPA, GFY, etc. after your name.

I'm not out to toot my own horn, but a little acknowlegdement would be nice. I think my ex-wife put it best when she explained what I did to others. To paraphrase, Nobody thinks about the engineers until something breaks.

Well my job is to fish through thousands of pages of asset listings (mechanical and electrical) and see which ones look like they are close to breaking based on install dates, hours of usage and maintenance tickets. And most of the data is only half there or half accurate. Then i have to determine what kind of units to replace them with.

until they hired me they had facilities people just blindly replacing everything based solely on install date and replacing everything 1:1 regardless of efficiency...

its kind of like being a baseball umpire. if i do my job, no one notices, but if something breaks...