NSPE House of Delegates NSPE Board of Directors...OP 7.6 (formerly OP 80). December 11-16: House of...

- 1 -

TO: NSPE House of Delegates

NSPE Board of Directors

FROM: Mark J. Golden, FASAE, CAE

Executive Director and Corporate Secretary

DATE: November 16, 2015

RE: Member Input on Proposed Revisions to NSPE PP 168, PS 1737 and PS 1739

(Final Record)

On October 5, 2015, in accordance with direction from the House of Delegates, NSPE began soliciting

comments from NSPE members on proposed modifications to NSPE Professional Policy 168 and Position

Statements 1737 and 1739. The comment period closed on November 13, 2015. All comments, whether

received through the official portal established for member use on the NPSE website or through other

channels, are compiled in this document.

The remaining steps in the review process are as follows:

November 13: Comment period closes.

November 16: Final (Complete) record of comments distributed to the NSPE House of Delegates

and Board of Directors.

November 18: NSPE Board of Directors Conference call; consideration of COPA’s

recommendations.

November 30-December 4: Discussion of NSPE Board recommendation by House of Delegates

(listserv).

December 7-11: House of Delegates Electronic Ballot Opens on approval of revisions to PP 168

and recommending Board approval of revisions to PS 1737 and 1739, in accordance with NSPE

OP 7.6 (formerly OP 80).

December 11-16: House of Delegates voting on approval of revisions to PP 168 in accordance

with NSPE OP 7.6 (formerly OP 80).

Table of Contents

PP 168 Member Comments ............................................ 2

PS 1737 Member Comments ........................................ 52

PS 1739 Member Comments ........................................ 83

- 2 -

Professional Policy 168 – Member Comments

Name: Jon,Nelson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I strongly support not only the need for a policy such as PP 168 but also the policy statement as presented. NSPE is a leader in the engineering profession and, as such, must not only address current issues that affect the profession, but must also look to the future and advocate positions that address the changing world in which we live and in which engineers practice. It is clear that the world is trending towards greater complexity. I think that is true in a general sense but also as it pertains to technology and engineering. However, at the same time, higher education is being pressed to do more with less. Affordability issues are tending to drive credit hour requirements down, and though engineering education has responded well, important courses are being cut or combined resulting in a lower level of educational breadth. Technical depth is also being affected when it should be just the opposite. In addition, in recent years the soft skills necessary for engineering practice have had a greater emphasis, and rightly so, but these needs have also served to reduce the technical content of programs, or at least, have forced educators to decide between one or the other.

After some years of careful study, the National Academy of Engineering published a report in 2005 titled, ""Educating the Engineer of 2020."" It was a follow-up report to an initial work titled, ""The Engineer of 2020,"" which looked to the future of our profession. The NAE concluded that ""it is evident that the exploding body of science and engineering knowledge cannot be accommodated within the context of the traditional four-year baccalaureate degree."" That conclusion is well founded and, I believe, correct. I also believe that if our profession is to keep pace, additional education will be necessary to properly support licensed practice. Traditional 4-year degrees will still have their place and will still be valuable, but those aspiring to be licensed practitioners will need more knowledge along with a more structured approach to education by experience. Professional Policy 168 addresses in general terms the educational aspects of these needs. It is not so detailed to specify the exact requirements. Instead, it simply states the need. Others including NCEES, NSPE, and the discipline-specific societies will work out the details, but the policy statement is of critical importance to support the process. I believe PP 168 is well crafted and desperately needed. NSPE is a leader in the world of licensed practice, and this policy is of critical importance if NSPE is to continue to be that leader. Jon D. Nelson, P.E."

Name: Bradley Aldrich E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I encourage NSPE to retain PP-168 as amended by the L&QP Committee. As a past NSPE leader and currently a member of a board of professional regulation, I understand the critical need for such a policy. I've seen the dramatic expansion of the knowledge needed to competently practice has changed over the years. Those of us in the twilight of our careers have been able to keep up with the pace through continuing education and on the job experience. Our education was adequate to prepare us for licensed practice along with experience and examination (the three legs of the licensure stool). Today's engineering graduates are required to know substantially more than we did when we started out as the body of knowledge needed to practice competently is ever-expanding (and will continue to expand as technology and science evolve). We don't have a critical problem yet, but PP-168 is a forward-thinking policy that reminds us that we need to continually evaluate whether the combination of education, experience and examination is adequate to safeguard public health, safety

mailto:[email protected]


November 16, 2015 of 108

and welfare. At some point in the not to distant future, I believe we will need to expand requirements for licensure to ensure this public trust. This can mean additional education, additional years of experience prior to licensure, or some other combination of requirements to ensure that the individual granted a license is truly competent to practice. I hope that members consider these facts: 1. This isn't about us and our ability to practice. This is a recognition of the changing dynamic in engineering education and the ever-expanding body of knowledge needed to practice competently. 2. Universities are not failing our students. They do the best they can to fulfill our needs within four years of education, but it is getting increasingly difficult to do so. 3. There are no ""bodies in the street"" (yet) to demonstrate the need for change, but it would be a violation of our public trust if we waited until then to act. 4. Every other licensed profession remotely comparable to engineering has recognized that a four-year bachelor's degree is no longer adequate for professional practice. 5. You probably don't need education beyond a bachelor's degree to design subdivision drainage and some of the less technically sophisticated work that we do, but your license doesn't restrict you to only those things that you are adequately prepared to do. Your license grants you broad power to practice, sometimes outside your area of expertise. As a licensing board member, once I grant you your license, my only future contact with you if if someone files a complaint. Therefore, don't we have an obligation to make sure that each licensee is minimally qualified to practice in the broad arena that the license provides, to protect public health, safety and welfare? NSPE is the one organization that represents all professional engineers of all disciplines and is the leading voice on licensure issues. Therefore, our actions are carefully watched by other technical and professional organizations. We need to be very thoughtful about how we address this and other long-standing policies and positions of NSPE as our actions have a significant impact on our profession, now and in the future. PP-168 is precisely the type of issue where NSPE must provide leadership. PP-168 as amended should stand as a policy of NSPE." Name: David,Rodriguez E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Comments are good as is. Name: PeterMitchell E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the NSPE PP 168 as proposed. It has a good balance between formal college degree (Masters or higher) and alternate ways to obtain the same resulting additional formal education. The alternate method would need additional details for implementation, However implementation is not in the scope of the policy statement." Name: Thomas,Friese E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not agree that the basic knowledge to practice engineering is rapidly expanding causing a need for more mandatory education requirements for licensure and to maintain licensure. What is rapidly changing might be the way we conduct business and communicate, which is best learned on the job, not in the classroom. I do not agree with the original premise of Policy No. 168 so the suggested changes are seen as an improvement by me." Name: Dennis,Lang





E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "It appears that NSPE is backing off of the requirement for a Masters degree for licensure. I support that 100%. The real world needs engineers to get busy in their chosen field and use their skills on real work. The sooner an engineer can get to work and away from academia, the better off he is. Further, the requirement for continuing education has added burden to engineering firms during a time when most firms have become non-profits, just scraping by if that. I've worked for 44 years and this working environment has never been worse. Forget the continuing education. We can't afford it anymore." Name: Jason,Byler E-mail: [email protected] Commetn: I like the proposed change because it maintains additional requirements but is flexible in how they can be achieved. Name: Ed,Hudgens E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Recommend approval of current markup. Name: James,Simms E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the proposed revision in Policy No. 168. The requirement to obtain a Master's degree is unnecessary. Anyone can benefit from additional engineering courses, but the vast majority of skills and expertise in engineering is learned on the job. Theory is fine for the classroom, but real engineering is learned through experience and mentoring. " Name: Kevin,Hecksher E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "As far as changing ""could"" to ""should"" is a vernacular that state regulatory bodies will pick up on. This change will in effect cause states to change the minimum education requirements for licensure to now, at a minimum, for candidates to have a Master's degree. Professionally, I have run into many BS, MS, and PHDs, and I have not been impressed with the work product of the higher degreed engineers. Unfortunately, more book education does not equate to a better work product. I know many BS degreed PEs that produce much higher quality work product than their counterparts with higher degrees. I feel that it is misfortunate that our society feels that we need to increase education levels. It's not the education levels where the issues are at (as I have 3 children ranging from elementary to college), but the methods and the material that is being taught to todays children and college students. Without a reworking of the education system as a whole, our society will further degrade until the United States is ranked the lowest country for educating it's citizens."







Name: William,Keen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,"This is a stronger statement that the previous versions. Most engineering graduates with a BS degree today are educated as generalists and do need additional training or education to be proficient in many specializations. However, the requirement for additional education such as through a masters degree will likely fall short of its intended goal. One must only look at that the architectural profession for examples. There are many programs in the US that grant BA or BS degrees in architecture and release their graduates into the industry needing a Masters degree for licensure. They result? Many do pursue a Masters degree, but many also work as sub-professionals and are quite well compensated for it. Unless the nation's engineering schools all agree to stop awarding BS degrees. the goal of driving more engineers toward licensure and with more education will fail." Name: Ken,Dunn E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the changes LQPC proposes for PP168. Name: Colin,Maynard E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I believe that the modifications are in line with the direction that NCEES is going to be headed. Different disciplines may require different levels of education. Some may require advanced collegiate courses. Some may deem short courses or employer provided education as adequate. It is not inconceivable that a combination of the two will be adequate. Each discipline's technical society, in conjunction with NCEES (and NSPE), will need to develop a body of knowledge for use by the licensing boards to determine whether the applicants for licensure have sufficient education. However, it is clear that merely having an ABET accredited degree may be insufficient in some disciplines." Name: Michael,Higgins E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not feel that additional education prior to licensing is needed as the experience requirements should be adequate. Since the individual states are requiring significant more continuing education, it appears to me that those requirements are adequate." Name: L G (Skip) ,Lewis E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I approve of PP 168 ( and also PS 1737 & PS 1739) written as proposed. Name: Frederick,McNealy E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I would like to see the following deleted "", or profession and industry-based professional development""" Name: Allan,Coutts E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The proposed wording of NSPE Professional Policy No. 168 is based on the premise that additional education is necessary to practice engineering because there is has been an expansion of knowledge. I do not support this position. There will always be basic engineering problems that can be addressed through the current level of engineering education. There are more complicated engineering topics that require more education, training and experience; but to set the minimum education bar









higher to accommodate these efforts is inappropriate. It is better to reiterate that engineers must practice in their area of expertise and that topic is not the only consideration in determining an area of expertise. Additional education and training might also be necessary before an engineer should perform a specific scope. Setting a high education bar masked the need for engineers to self-police their competency to perform a given scope. In addition, raising the bar will increase the pressure to broaden licensing exemptions."

Name: Charles,Lilly E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I disagree with the requirement of holding a Masters Degree to obtain a license as a Professional Engineer at this time. NSPE has not clarified if this is for future registration or would include those already registered. More emphasis should be placed on experience. Also, those taking the Professional Engineering Examination should have the required experience prior to taking the exam. Those seeking specific registration in certain areas may be required to should continuing education.

I also disagree with exempting those holding a PhD or teaching at an approved Engineering University from taking the Fundamentals Examination.

The proposed revisions would seem to push more engineering graduates into a Master's Program to continually feed the University System.”

Name: Joseph,Taylor E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Please number me amongst those who do no support this proposed change. If the intent of Policy No. 168 is to require education beyond a B.S (which I support), then the education should be equivalent and on par with the educational requirements currently in place today, (i.e, formal university education with standardized curriculum regulated by a board). Is a Master’s Degree really too much to ask of professionals responsible for the safety of the public and wellbeing of the environment? Without a standard curriculum or regulatory board similar to ABET, who will decide what’s counts for additional education? Conversely, why even require “formal” education for licensure at all, if credit can be given for alternative instruction? Either have a bold policy No. 168, or get rid of it. These proposed changes water down the intent of the policy. (Joe Taylor, P.E., M.C.E)"

Name: Jeffrey,Fenn E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "As a working Engineer for 34+ years and a professional engineer for the past 13 years, I do not feel that additional college level education is either necessary or even desirable for new candidates. I am a strong believer of ongoing and continuing education, but as any professional can testify, most of what they know was not learned in College, but as part of OJT and work related specific industry education (the college education gave them the skills to develop the work skills, but much of college education is preparatory, rather than practical). That is the main reason that the EIT/FE can be taken as a new graduate, but the PE exam and registration requires time in the field. In many cases MS (or higher) candidates are overqualified for the PE work that is being performed and in most cases no closer to having the practical skills necessary to meet the requirements of being a Professional Engineer (there are exceptions to this in research and some fields, but the PE classification and function needs to meet all needs). As many know, there are a lot of university professors who are not PE, in part because they have never worked in the industry (outside academia) and have not developed the practical skills necessary."





Name: Wayne,Sutton E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "While it is a positive to require additional education such as a Masters degree, it is not required for electrical engineering. The Masters degree does not provide any benefit to the PE candidate. The further education does not teach the real word applications of horizontal/vertical engineering and construction. The basis for this engineering is provided in the 4 year ABET accredited curriculum. The application of civil, mechanical, life satefy, plumbing, architectural and electrical codes are learned on the job and are not taught in the classroom. I am not aware of but maybe 5 universities in the US that teaches these codes. The requirement for future education, ie Master's degree will further create generation gaps in the workplace. The electrical engineers coming into this field are far less than the engineers retiring. Adding this future burden will father increase the gap and greatly increase the costs a client will pay for current professional services two and three fold per the current market. I do not support the requirement of a Master's degree or anything of the like. Name: Robin,Whitworth E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Disagree with changes. I disagree that additional, formal education is required in order for all engineers to perform their work in a safe manner. Additional, unnecessary, education requirements will further erode the numbers of engineers continuing to work in engineering, and the number that pursue license. The only benefactors of this policy change in my opinion are educational institutions." Name: Marshal,Clark E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I whole heartedly support this revision. It is not (or at least should not) be an effort to make the licensing requirements more stringent but instead a recognition that with the development of more advanced analytical tools and computer modeling it is very difficult for an engineering curriculum to teach these skills on top of the basic engineering courses with in a four year program. Name: Jeffrey ,Wheaton, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I am adamantly opposed to this position taken by NSPE. If the current requirements for an ABET accredited degree have become inadequate, then it is up to ABET to enforce quality standards for the ABET accredited degree. The practice of engineering is not wholly developed in the academic requirements. It is a hybrid profession comprised of academic preparation and the absolutely essential apprenticeship portion of practical learning by working under a licensed engineer. In fact I have known non-degreed individuals who learned the trade by doing and operated in strict adherence to professional ethics whose work was beyond reproach, i.e. met or exceeded all relevant standards of care. In short the B.S. degree from an ABET accredited institution alone is sufficient scientific foundation to develop as a competent professional. If there is a problem with ABET accreditation, then that should be taken up with ABET and not by requiring more of what is alleged to be a diluted product." Name: Paul,Brown






E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The change from suggesting a master's degree to recommending formal and alternative approaches is a small step in the right direction, however, I continue to feel that strengthening the ABET accreditation process is a better approach than adding more education time. In my opinion, a B.S. in engineering should be sufficient education, and if universities are reducing undergraduate requirements and not properly preparing engineering B.S. graduates, then the problem is on the ABET accreditation side not on the PE licensing side and should be solved on the accreditation side. What I see in the United States generally is an excessive expectation of college education even for positions that don't require it and a parallel downgrade in the rigor of college education. This education inflation is leading our young people to mountains of college debt but does not improve their ability to perform the jobs that are actually available. It is disappointing to see the engineering profession, represented by the NSPE, NCEES, and others, promoting this trend. The only argument I have seen for requiring graduate studies for engineering licensure is comparison to other professions that require graduate education. Where are the facts to support the NSPE policy position??" Name: Michael,Spiegel E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am in total agreement that additional education is required in this day and age. My own courses for a Bach in civil engineering (not a Bach of Science in Engineering) was a 5-year course plus two summer camps That being said there is no thought being given as an ""educational"" benefit for accredited internship programs that many companies give. These programs, in my opinion, gives a truer and more realistic education to future engineers I am in agreement with the changes propsed but would like to see ""internships"" given an equal footing as certification courses By the way, I just celebrated by 52nd year as a Professional Engineer Name: Michael Spiegel, P.E."Hiram,Ribblett E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The whole subject of requiring additional education is being blown out of proportion. It is my belief that it is being driven by university faculty. The engineering profession has operated under a code of ethics for many years that requires an engineer to be competent in the field in which he practices. The state laws require this as well. Why are we making things more complicated and with more regulations than what is necessary? The whole idea of requiring additional education before licensure should be abandoned Name: G R,Talley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I like the revisions that take out graduate degrees as the main path. The current BS degree and then a time of industry experience is the correct way. No graduate degree is going to give a better insight than hands on experience.






Name: William Hollingsworth E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,"I disagree respectfully but strongly with requiring candidates for the PE licensing exam to have an MS degree. An ABET accredited BS degree in engineering, plus a set number of years of practice under the instruction of a licensed PE(s), plus recommendations from an appropriate number of licensed PEs, is sufficient. States already have continuing education requirements to help PEs maintain proficiency after they become licensed. Increasing the educational requirement before one can take the PE exam (at significant additional cost when many young engineers are struggling to raise families and pay off student loan debt) does not make sense. The existing system is not broken. When PEs make design errors, which occasionally happens, state licensing boards have processes in place to suspend those PEs' licenses if necessary, and in the case of heinous mistakes, to revoke their licenses altogether. The criminal and civil courts have processes in place to deal with cases that result in injury and damages. Pricing our profession out of reach of ordinary citizens will have severe unintended negative consequences. No disrespect intended towards those colleagues who are able to complete engineering MS and PhD degrees; but not all of us are so gifted and fortunate. Please do not attempt to impose unreasonable additional educational requirements on engineers before they can take the PE exam. An accredited BS degree in engineering, followed by experience (the best teacher), and recommendations from licensed PEs, is enough. Thank you for seeking input from the field on this important subject."

Name: Scott,Barnhill E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed educational changes.

Name: Daniel,Aucutt E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the alternate avenues of study, which may or may not lead to a Masters degree, or higher."

Name: Christopher,Guy E-mail: [email protected] Comment: No comment.

Name: Frank,Pierce E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am a State of California Registered Agricultural Engineer. My College BA is in History and Political Science. I started working in Ag and Civil Engineering in 1948 as a High School Student that received credit for the work. I was involved in the setup of the State Ag License in 1976 due to political science skills. My recommendation is that if an Engineer demonstrates his Capabilities and Experience to a sufficient level they should be considered as meeting the requirements. I am still working in the profession and also am a Nationally Registered Environmental Professional working in the Environmental area."

Name: John,Fuoto E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Once again, NSPE has the cart before the horse. What matters is having a sufficiently rigorous licensure EXAM, not increasing the level of formal education before such an exam can be taken."







Name: Cheryl,Scales E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not believe that an engineer needs a masters to be able to take the PE exam. This would exclude many of us who had no desire to go on for a masters degree and still wanted to practice engineering. I think the professional development hours are a good addition, but a Masters is not required for the kind of engineering I practice." Name: William,Forster E-mail: [email protected] Comment: A masters degree will not make a person any more able to perform or practice as a licensed engineer. A more realistic assessment would to be require additional on-hands mentorship or working under a licensed engineer as well as having to maintain a level of ongoing education requirements through a PDH's. Name: Gregg,Humphrey E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I am so tired of hearing that more education is needed beyond the four year bachelor's degree. I have not seen a dramatic difference in most engineer's abilities to practice at a competent level no matter what their education level is. One item which might be considered is to boost the undergraduate hours requirement back up to where it once was. Name: Theodore,Maynard E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I approve -especially the strike out regarding specialty certifications. Name: Knud,Hermansen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I am against requiring additional education for licensure. I have not seen any evidence that the public is harmed by the current requirement for only a B.S. degree. Name: Barry,Smith E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I have reviewed the proposed changes to NSPE Professional Policy No. 168. I am okay with these proposed changes. Name: peter,Beardsley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I think that the intent of the revision is an excellent approach to increasing the number and proficiency of engineers. I would like to see that additional education is accredited in some manner, whether ABET/EAC for a master's degree or additional coursework. I don't know exactly how accreditation language could be applied to ""industry-based professional development"" without creating and undue burden on an entity to review all those programs, but I think it would make the intent clearer. Perhaps referencing the professional society for that type of engineering. That would underline the point that the education should have a minimum level of professional quality. " Name: Victor Alan Werner E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I approve the wording as submitted










Name: Jeffrey,Arey E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I am in total agreement with the revisions to NSPE PP 168. Name: Marvin,Malm,PE, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I am a PE but not a College Graduate. That may be why I do not like requirements for all that Formal Education. If I applied now I would not qualify. It bothers me that some good Engineers are left out because of lack of formal education. I believe experience sometimes counts more than formal education. I think like an engineer. That is why I am one. Not because of my education! Name: George,Stanley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do not support the proposed policy (168). I see no reason to change our present requirements Name: Jesus,Sandoval E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Approve of the changes. Name: Jeff,Brittain E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do not support the additional education requirement. I believe the current requirements are adequate and further requirements will only make licensure less attainable and a bigger target for legislators to lessen the requirements for licensure. Name: Gerard,Stocker E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I am against requirement of a Masters or equivalent education. Name: John,DeLisle, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I strongly disagree with the NSA stance requiring additional formal education beyond a Bachelorette Degree. It has been my experience for many years that there are just as many incompetent licensed engineers with Master's Degrees as there are without. As many engineering students finance their own education, without the benefit of grants and scholarships like i did, requiring this additional formal education proves to be a hinderance to the student. I believe this will discourage future engineering talent from entering the engineering profession." Name: Ryan,Peterson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I disagree with the change which appears to require either a masters degree or equivalent formal education beyond a bachelors. My industry is municipal civil engineering, and virtually everything we do is learned on the job. A masters degree provides no additional benefit to our work. In fact, two engineers we had with masters have left the engineering profession entirely. The best engineers in our company have only a 4 year degree. It is their work ethic, energy, personality and creativity that make them excellent engineers. Not another set letters behind their name. Requiring that a future engineer spend more time in school (focusing likely on one small topic) and incurring










substantially more debt is directly counter to the often publicized statements that ""we need more engineers"". The best way to discourage good candidates is to make it take longer and cost more before they can start working. I have not seen any studies showing that we have a problem that needs to be solved by more schooling. I need sharp, pleasant, honest, hard working people ready to learn. A masters degree does not add anything to the list that I would find useful."

Name: Richard,Gale E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Unfortunately we are pricing ourselves out of relevance. Young engineers, or aspiring engineers I should say, are already wondering about the value of the 4 year degree, much less graduate work. If we make some graduate study a requirement for licensure I'm afraid we'll see a precipitous drop in membership AND licensure. Could we look at a graduated approach, that includes additional recognition of achievement and competence along the way to full licensure?"

Name: Geoffrey,Morris E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Support the proposed revisions.

Name: Steve,Chittenden E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am against the concept of requiring a master's degree or equivalent course work for licensure. I am also against specialty licenses (structural) or certifications. The present system has worked well. If anything, we should be pushing for more engineering courses in the undergraduate curriculum. A college education is already too expensive. Requiring a master's degree is going to discourage young people from pursuing engineering."

Name: Joseph,McLaughlin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The term ""profession and industry-based professional development"" seems to be undefined for an Organization that relies on Detail"" Just what does that mean and who is going to determine if the qualification has been met? Has the four year Apprenticeship been dropped?"

Name: Keith,Miller E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "To simplify this language, it is mandating PDH credits or advanced degrees (MS+) for EIs (EITs) to qualify to sit for the PE exam. In general, I can support this revision as long as it NEVER mandates that an MS degree be a prerequisite to be a PE. There is already a mandate that a PE candidate have a BS degree which I believe unfairly disqualifies many qualified individuals who, for whatever reason, do not hold this degree.

I do not believe having an advanced degree in any way trumps practical experience and I caution NSPE to be sure that they are not simply yielding to the lobbying efforts of the colleges and universities who are already burying our young professionals under mountains of debt. Sincerely, PS: On a related note, many (maybe all) states require a PE candidate demonstrate four years of experience AFTER passing their FE exam. If the required number of PEs will attest to a candidate's experience for four years, why can't that experience be prior to passing their FE? For a myriad of reasons, a PE candidate may not take and pass the FE during or immediately after obtaining their undergraduate degree. This rule makes no sense and should be revised in all states."







Name: Gary ,Kraft E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "What does ""profession and industry-based professional development"" mean and what does it consist of. This seems pretty vague! "

Name: Don,Phillips E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I think professional licensing of engineers should include a master degree.

Name: John,Alger E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I don't agree with the requirement for continuing education requirements as noted. I know several engineers that work in fields that they were never trained in from a scholastic perspective and they are good at what they do In fact, one engineer I work with has no degree and is way ahead of most engineers I meet in his technical approach, problem solving abilities, abilities to use math and formulas to derive at sound solutions and his concern for the public safety. Of all the engineers I know, this individual deserves to have a PE but can't because he does not have a Bachelors degree. What a shame. Back in the 70's he would have been able to take the test and become registered but not now. . All of the PE's I know, learned their new field working with others then took classes and training in that area to become proficient. Requiring a masters degree for example, does not guarantee that the scope of education actually matches the job requirements and all it does is make it harder to pay for your school loans. The pay in our industry is among the best right out of school with a bachelors but does not rise over time like other fields. Requiring a masters degree for example in addition to the grueling application process and the test seems to me to be extreme.

I can understand with structural engineers and Threshold engineers and there are provisions for those specialties. But for the rest of us, it is already difficult enough and we are not graduating enough engineers. Why do we want to add more financial and time barriers? In my case, I take more than the minimum continuing ed classes I need to keep current in my field plus the mandatory rules and ethics classes every two years. Most engineers that just do the minimum to keep their license current seem to have a hard time keeping busy with work. Today, you do need to know CAD and BIM, not to mention all of the laws and regulations governing our field and the actual technical aspects of your trade. Do you really think that some counselor at a college can figure out for me, what classes I need to take to get better at my job? We all know that school is a building block but the real education happens in the work place. I can see adding more work related time to the test requirement or adjusting the testing procedures to make them more job and field specific. Just consider the unbelievably wide range of topics a mechanical engineer must be proficient with just to pass the PE. In some cases, he will not use any of this. I design solar water heating systems. Little of my exam, had relevance to my field. I had questions on Steam power plants, and other topics outside my every day specialty. Thanks for considering my view point.” Name: Joseph,GRACI E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "If you require a master's degree to become a licensed engineer, you will reduce the number of licensed engineers by thousands. You might consider allowing those with BS degrees to test for the license and those with master's degrees to bypass the test. However, you must still retain the 5 years of experience requirement and the five approvals letters from other PEs that have supervised the engineer (in practice) to make sure we license engineers that have both education and experience. The masters degree without experience in the work place would not be a good idea. Joe Graci, P.E. 10-6-15"






Name: David,Klawitter E-mail: [email protected] Comment: “The higher education system is already over-priced and does not provide knowledge practical to Professional Engineering work. More benefit is provided via work experience. Therefore, a Master's Degree is not providing benefit, but is causing a financial toll on potential PEs. It might be more beneficial to focus on professional development/training (i.e. length of career under PE, preliminary PDHs)." Name: Melinda,Dejewski E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "It is absolutely wrong to require a masters degree to become a professional engineer. Many people go to college and start with a general engineering degree in a discipline such as civil or mechanical engineering. These disciplines allow a wide range of engineering practice. A civil engineer can specialize, if they so choose, in various types of civil engineering such as sanitary sewers, environmental, pavement, etc. By requiring a masters so early on in someone's career is not beneficial and potentially wasteful of their money. A person may not know what they are going to focus on until they have been working for a while especially if they are working for a large firm with multiple disciplines. I started out thinking I would be a structural engineer but ended up in municipal engineering. If I had gotten my masters in structures but switched to municipal, that masters would have been a complete waste of time and money. In addition, if I had gotten my masters after college but before my PE, it still would have been in the wrong area of civil engineering. I started at a large municipality and worked exclusively designing sewers so my masters would have been in sewers. But my career path actually took me to smaller municipalities where I work on more than just sewers. That masters would have also been a waste of time and money. I should get a masters, if I felt it was a benefit to my career, in either public works or finance. A masters degree really has no educational benefit other than proving you can go in-depth into a specific topic and write a large paper on it. It is not educating anyone further on the general principals of their specific engineering discipline that will make them a more educated engineer before they become a PE. The PE is not specific to the area within the engineering degree, it is for civil engineering or mechanical engineering or electrical engineering regardless of what the engineer is specifically practicing. Part of being a PE is the continuing education requirement already in place which is a good requirement. It ensures that engineers are continuing their education in their chosen specific field where they are working which is more beneficial to themselves and their employer. And if they switch to a new area, then they can take classes relating to that and not have spent 2 years of their life on something they may never use again. The only area that benefits from this proposed requirement is the universities who get more money as people have to enroll to get their masters. This is a irresponsible and unnecessary requirement." Name: William,Raatz E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support making a master's degree a prerequisite for licensure, and think the current policy revisions do not state this strongly enough. I think the alternative approaches would be difficult and time-consuming to evaluate, and in many cases, not adequate, and would recommend eliminating this option. " Name: Patrick,Eddy E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Looks good as proposed.






Name: Brian,Vinci E-maiL; [email protected] Comment: "I do not believe that additional academic requirements should be required for the PE; this policy should not be adopted. University and college engineering programs should, and currently do, prepare BS graduates with the knowledge required to begin the path to the PE license. The revisions to allow for alternative approaches seem to be a compromise to an academic requirement that was initially proposed. Those revisions make this policy redundant to existing requirements and should not be adopted. In order to become a PE, states require 4-5 years of professional experience. I do not believe that ""profession and industry-based professional development"" are substantially different than the required professional experience." Name: Debbie,Mann E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am not convinced that a problem exists that must be fixed. I debated in high school and a fundamental issue of winning a debate was: change is expensive. If the need for change is not clearly established, then the status quo should continue. I have not heard of any need for change. Are bridges falling down due to poor engineering? Are there other problems that can be traced back to inadequate education? Where is the need for change? I see no need demonstrated. I work in the construction industry as a design electrical engineer, where licensing is of great value. I have a masters in applied math and an engineering degree. I found that when entering the engineering field, that I basically knew very little beyond Ohm's Laws that applied to what I was asked to do. The biggest advantage I found from all the courses and theory was the development of a sense of things. The individual courses did not teach me about lighting levels, or real life situations. I was taught in college that there were nodes in circuits. There are no nodes – not really. Every piece of wire has resistance and basically is a resistor. And it can be a capacitor and if coiled, even an inductor. I had taken a course in tuned circuits and that did come in handy in order to understand the concept of interference. My fields class gave me a leg up in the concept of transformers and generators. But ultimately, the specifics from my college education did little for me. What did make a difference was learning how to learn and learning the large concepts. My bachelor's degree accomplished what I believe is the goal of an engineering education - teaching one how to think scientifically. I was an educator for many years. I had great reviews from my college students and still have a drawer full of cards from the high school students I taught prior to that. I loved college. Loved teaching math. But I am still not a fan for education for its own sake or to erect another hurdle. Don’t we have a shortage of engineers? Do we really need more hurdles? I am glad that Indiana allows people with other degrees to become licensed as professional engineers if they can pass the tests and have eight years of specific experience. I am a fan of learning by doing. I am a huge fan of licensure. When Indiana so foolishly decided to consider abolishing licensure for engineers, it was remarked that licensure generally came about state by state because somebody died. Is there a problem now? Is there a situation where a lack of knowledge has been demonstrated as being the source of a problem? Or even predicted with scientific evidence? The arguments I have seen thus far are that there is more science so there is a need for more y years of education. This is highly theoretical and I believe totally insufficent support for change.




I do not support change for the sake of change. Please, establish the need in terms of practicalities, physical events, demonstrated problems, and not merely in terms of theoretical arguments. And also demonstrate that coursework is the answer. And that there even is coursework available relative to the work that the engineer performs. Having to take a random engineering course, because there is nothing available even remotely related to one’s day to day work is expensive drudgery for many. Perhaps the problem is relevance. Perhaps the NCEES exams point to particular incompetencies that can be addressed with curriculum changes. Perhaps many engineering curriculums are inadequate and need to be revised. Or perhaps this whole situation is based on theoretical ideals and no concrete evidence exists that there is a problem or that if one exists that it can be solved by increasing educational requirements. 1. Demonstrate there is a problem. 2. Demonstrate that there is a relative and appropriate solution available. Please, please don’t make people go back to school to take some engineering class when there are no relevant classes available. And make sure that if such classes exist, that they are accessible to people with established careers and families." Name: Richard,Willoughby E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the comments and restructuring with the exception of the could/should swap. Name: Richard,Pikul E-mail: [email protected] Comment; "Approve of change concept to require more education. However, there is a major difference between the effort to obtain a Master's Degree versus the less specific options. In my opinion, the options need to be better defined."

Name: Rich,Evans E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I disagree. A 4-year ABET degree should remain the standard. Work experience should remain the standard for demonstrating experience and training beyond the 4-year degree to be qualified for licensure. If additional scrutiny is warranted, it should be applied to the review and approval of the post-degree work experience. I am not factoring in the rising cost of education into the decision though that further supports my position." Name: James ,Shiner E-mail: [email protected] Comment: This is a huge improvement. Requiring a master's degree to be a PE is not right or needed. Name: John,Krum E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "When I took the PE exam back in 1996 the State of Nevada required a combination of education and experience. Naturally, I had to complete my degree and pass the EIT exam. In order to take the PE exam I also had to have four years experience in my field of expertise and letters of







recommendation from several licensed engineers. These were the rules at that time. I believed it to be a reasonable combination of theory and 'real world' application. To maintain our PE in Nevada we are required to accumulate a certain number of professional development hours every two years. My question is would simple industry experience (employment in the industry) satisfy the 'alternative approach' or are we talking about something more formal? " Name: Randall Bernhardt E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not think the last paragraph should be stricken. I believe that certain disciplines should require specialty certification or licensure in order to protect the public. The idea that the NCEES PE exam with its 40 multiple choice questions of depth provides protection of the public from those who are below a level of minimal competency is at issue. I am not a doctor, lawyer or architect, but the examinations for those professions, I believe are much more exacting and therefore are more effective in delineating the minimally competent."

Name: Joe,Manous E-mail: ,[email protected] Comment: "I do not oppose moving the comments about specialty certification to another policy statement, but believe NSPE should continue to encourage continued professional development through continuing education and specialty certification either in this policy statement or in another. This is an important area for continued professional competency that I believe NSPE should continue to advocate.”

Name: Debbie,Mann E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I strongly suggest that a list be made of engineering careers which require licensing. Next to Each career, write the degree required, and then take that list and search the course catalogues of certified universities and see what courses exist that would augment the knowledge base of the professional in a meaningful manner. I went through the courses available at both Purdue and Rose Hulman University and there is NOTHING that would be relevant to the work that I do that was not part of my original education. I am a consulting engineer for construction drawings. I took computer engineering courses that taught me how to figure out programs. The programs I was taught were not the ones I use today. There are courses in AutoCad, but they are only vaguely related to what I do - I know this intimately because of having trained engineers to do what I do.

Basically the courses have not changed in the decades since I left school. I took parallel programming and computer architecture and a course in controls that included working with robotics. Great stuff - but only related to what I do in a vaguely conceptual manner.

Please, get down to the nuts and bolts on what you are asking. What skills do licensed professionals need and not have? Are their courses readily available in those skills?

Please do not take the upcoming engineers away from their careers and young families for what amounts to a lot of busy work. Thank you."

Name: Irina,Constantinescu E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "As my representative organization, please do NOT support additional education, support required experience.





While I firmly believe that education and licensure are both very important, I do not believe that a master's degree (or equivalent) should be required for licensure and practice. An additional degree is not necessarily helpful in correctly performing one's job and promoting the health and safety of the public or understanding the local requirements. What should always be required in addition to a bachelor's degree in an engineering field, is a certain amount of experience working with an already licensed professional. Beyond a bachelor's degree, experience is key, not more education. The world of academia does not always help one practice and understand real world scenarios. As my representative organization, please do NOT support additional education, support required experience." Name: Theodore,Weidner E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Happy to see this policy continue to be advanced and eager to see it implemented along with statements 1737 and 1739. We continue to be faced with growing complexity of our world and less time to provide the needed education to young engineers. Recent revelations in both the civil and mechanical fields demonstrate the need for well educated professionals in engineering who have a technical, liberal, and ethical education so the greater needs of society are addressed in accordance with the canons of the society. " Name: Stu,Walesh E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Collaborative forward-looking groups of engineers within ASCE, NSPE, and NAE have concluded in the past decade that the licensed engineer of the future needs a wider range of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Accomplishing that requires a broader and deeper formal education which should be nothing less than a recognized master's degree. Drop the other watered-down ""stuff"" from PP 168. Some fundamental questions come to mind about preparing engineers: If the engineer of the future needs to be very different from the engineer of today, and if creating that engineer requires a broader and deeper education, why do so many engineers and their professional societies still define the basic education as the bachelor’s degree? Why is most of engineering apparently satisfied with being the only profession with such a low education requirement? How do we justify continued use of a nearly century-old education model to prepare engineers for functioning effectively in the 21st century? Why doesn’t NSPE, the pan-engineering society, take the lead in bringing engineering up to the minimal education bar for licensure (master’s degree) required by essentially all professions? Consider attracting bright and motivated young people to engineering. How can we explain that engineering has the shortest length of formal education of all mainline professions? What smart and aspiring high school student would see that as a strength? What are the best and brightest high school students asking today about engineering and other professions, and what are they thinking about the answers? Assume some of them don’t like what they learn about engineering, especially its low formal education requirements and what that might mean for their futures. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for us, they have many options in the form of professions with higher formal education and preparation expectations – options like accounting, architecture, audiology, dentistry, law, medicine, occupational therapy, optometry, pharmacy, physical therapy, physician’s assistant, psychiatry, psychology, and veterinary medicine.




Some of us complain, Rodney Dangerfield style, that “engineers don’t get no respect.” Who is doing this to us? Not those other professions. We are doing it to ourselves by taking weak PC positions like PP 168. We are our own worst enemy."

Name: John,Marr E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Looks fine to me.

Name: Rick,Kaufmann E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes. Name: Kenneth,Kogut E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Aaccepted with strikeout comments Name: Ben,Coomes E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The revisions to Policy 168 appear well prepared and should be supportable by the vast majority of our membership with the removal of the ""masters or equivalent"" language. The removal of the certification language is also a move that seems better in line with our position that the engineering license is the key credential." Name: Stephen,Bolinski E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Regarding the LQPC proposed revisions for Professional Policy No. 168, I support all of the recommended changes." Name: Nijam,Uddin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree and support the proposed revisions.

Name: Harold,Hite E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Though I agree with this in general I have some reservations. I believe undergraduate education in engineering should be more general than it is growing to be, undergraduate degrees in Electrical Engineering rather than in Computer as an example. Graduate education in more specific fields is appropriate. However, we have trouble getting engineers to go through the licensure procedure as it is (because they can make a good living without it). We need to be careful adding more requirements that may limit the number who get licenses." Name: LeRoy ,Johnson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Agree with proposal.










Name: Keith,Peltason E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not support any of the changes proposed. The requiring of a master's degree will discourage engineers from becoming licensed and disproportionately adversely affect lower-income persons. I highly question the value of a master's degree. Additionally, this proposal would all but eliminate engineers working under an industrial exemption ever to become licensed. If someone believes engineers are not prepared enough by an undergraduate degree, then work to have the accredited engineering degree programs improve or become 5-year programs." Name: Davis,Flaten E-mail: [email protected] Comment: This document as written looks good and I can support it. Name: Bryce,Johnson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with the LQPC's proposed revisions to PP 168.. (Engineering Education Requirements w/Strikethroughs posted on the nspe website). - Bryce G. Johnson, PE. October 7, 2015." Name: Edmund,Segner E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree completely. Name: Lloyd,Brown E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not approve of the additional educational requirements proposed by PP 168 Engineering Education Requirements. Instead, I feel that the Engineering Curriculums should increase the number of Credit Hours required to graduate." Name: Brent,Rishel E-mail: [email protected] Comment: On the job professional development certainly needs to remain a primary option for license candidates. Requiring a master's degree or other higher education above and beyond the Bachelor's degree at the candidate's own expense would severely reduce the number people willing to pursue a Professional Engineer's license. Name: Roch,Shipley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the requirement of additional education for professional licensure. I also support coordination with NCEES so that the educational requirements are in accord with the standards of minimum competence. Please feel free to contact me if it would be helpful. I am 35 years past my PhD, 23 years since licensure, and 25 years in private practice consulting. Best regards." Name: Erin,Steever E-mail: [email protected]










Comment: I like the edit to allow on-the-job training as an alternative to the masters degree, while it may need to specify under a registered professional as I see the benefit to this." Name: Steven,Eubanks E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I endorse these changes. While educational needs are getting more technical and challenging, I have seen an ongoing trend in our profession for young engineers to focus on being very capable and qualified technical experts to the detriment of implementing these in real-life applications and developing broader problem solving skills. In my experience, industry experience is far more important than additional technical education in developing broad-visioned, well rounded engineers." Name: William,Atkinson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Having just gone through ASCE and NSPE trying to force our Licensure board into changing the statutory language to require a Masters or Equivalent, I have been deeply immersed in this issue for the past two years. Although this diversifies the path, it is still stating that a ""four year ABET/EAC degree"" is not enough. I believe that statement is fundamentally flawed in terms of a formal Educational requirement prior to licensure. The nature of the requirements of knowledge and skill for Professional Engineers does not lessen when they become licensed, but generally continues to expand as they specialize or generalize and the knowledge required to adequately protect the health, safety, and welfare continues to grow. Although this change allows for alternate approaches, the practice requirement currently provides the required base that most individuals need on top of a bachelors degree to be minimally competent. The deletion of the support for specialty certifications will unfortunately cause backlash among some societies, namely ASCE, who have been trying to diversify their revenue stream by creating and marketing these certifications. By doing so my view is that they are weakening the PE ""brand"" and value. It is not that these educational courses and paths are weakening the brand, but ASCE selling to states that these are the requirements to provide some services rather than a PE license could be detrimental to the licensing process and standards. Although this is a step in the right direction, in my mind, the strength of the accreditation process is key to our success in maintaining a minimum standard of education, I have yet to see masters or equivalent language which builds on that rather than actually weakening it by allowing paths that bypass the initial accreditation. In addition, NSPE supports the near term implementation of specialty certification programs beyond engineering licensure in appropriate engineering disciplines. Such specialty certification programs should require a master's degree or equivalent, additional specialized experience and documentation of technical proficiency in that discipline. Sincerely, Bill Atkinson P.E.

Name: Michael,Whelan E-mail: [email protected] Comment; "While I agree that today's engineering students are not taking the same number of credit hours in engineering as I did when I went to school, I do not think that college degree holders should be required to take additional classes, determine from an outside of the college/university group





such as NSPE or ASCE. I think the free market will ultimately determine the value of their college/university's degree is worth. If the free market determine that the college degree holder is not competent, these persons will be fired, and the word will get around the community and to the college/university donors. "

Name: Scott,Smith E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Engineering education without practical experience is very dangerous to public safety. I deal with PE's regularly who have Masters and Phd's who should not have PE's since they lack practical experience and common sense. Also the education requirement is being applied incorrectly to PE's applying for reciprocity. Verbiage needs to be added that current practicing PE's applying for reciprocity, comity, endorsement shall be evaluated based upon the laws in effect when they first obtained their PE."

Name: Stephen,Merry E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "This rewording to remove the requirement for a masters degree is a much better requirement,"

Name: Chris,Stone E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I strongly support the revised language proposed for PP-168. As a member of the Virginia PE Licensure Board who reviews PE applications, and as an owner of a 500 person A/E firm, I have witnessed first hand both the rapid expansion of knowledge required to practice in today's environment and the decreased readiness of today's graduates. In order for our profession to tackle the difficult engineering issues in the 21st century, we need strong innovative thinkers, not technicians. I encourage the HoD and the NSPE Board to support PP-168."

Name: Daniel,Morehead E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the proposed policy change.

Name: Charles,"Piersall, P.E." E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Concur with the updates. Name: Wayne ,Mcvicar E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Agree with proposed modifications Name; Elaine,Deremer Cook E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the revision with the strikeouts. Name: Angela Faye,Cross E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not currently hold a master's degree in engineering. Will I need to obtain one in order to maintain my license? If so, how soon do I need to do this?" Name: Edwin,"Lutgring,III" E-mail: [email protected]











Comment: I do not understand the need for the master's degree requirement in obtaining a Professional Engineering License. There are not enough engineering students, EITs etc getting their licenses while meeting current qualifications. Has there been an issue or increase in incidents showing that Licensed Engineers without master's are not adequately experienced? What is driving this?" Name: Eric,Flicker E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the changes proposed to PP 168. It is critical that NSPE remain an active and upfront organization supporting the increased educational requirements, recently affirmed by a 2-1 margin by NCEES is a policy statement.

Please do not be tempted by those who advocate that all graduate engineers need to become PE's. It is not about quantity of PE's or NSPE membership eligibility. Look at the other learned professions and their licensure paths and compare them to PE's. We set the standard in the 1920's but have not kept pace with the rest of professional practice.

NSPE has set the standard for all of these years. This is not the time to back off and succumb to ""numbers"" pressures. " Name: Patrick,Natale E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support PP 168 since the policy is consistent with several NSPE values such as: *. Protection of the public health, safety, and welfare above all other considerations * Ethical and competent practice of engineering * Innovation through the creative application of math, science and engineering * The PE license as the highest standard of professionalism in engineering * Continuous learning for professional growth * Growth in the number of licensed Professional Engineers * Teamwork, unity, and fellowship of all PEs across all disciplines * Commitment to the future of the licensed Professional Engineer Name: Matt,Dahlgren E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the amended policy statement. Name: Lee,Rausch E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I have never been in favor of additional education. Most of what I learned to become a proficient and competent engineer I learned outside of the formal classroom. It was either on the job experience or seminars and training after college. Additional education requirements come across as a money grab for the Universities. Name: Tim,Burnham E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The proposed comments, In my opinion, more accurately reflect the current nature of our industry. Learning happens in other areas that are not university classrooms. With regard to specialty certifications, I am strongly in support of the current approach of allowing PE's who can demonstrate qualifications to perform the work. Preventing an otherwise qualified person from performing work simply because they do not have a certification is short-sighted."







Name: Barry,Dunkley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes by the NSPE committee. Name: Randell,Riley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Additional ongoing continuing education is far more important than the push by the academic community for the Masters degree requirement. I have one, but I find that for 99 percent of the engineers I know that the additional education in a technical area is of limited value. Additional certification in specific fields requiring first the PE would be a better approach.” Name: Ken,Ferry E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The proposed revisions to NSPE Professional Policy No. 168 appears to me to be a good compromise for the near future with regard to the increasing number of specializations and additional certifications becoming available in the various fields of engineering practice. Name: Timothy,Klein E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I DO NOT agree with the need for candidates to ""meet additional academic requirements as a prerequisite for licensure and practice of engineering at the professional level."" The current requirement to have a Bachelor's degree with 4 years of experience is substantial. If NSPE can show that Professional Engineers are continually failing causing harm to the publis due to the lack of education I would agree but this is not true. I think a reality check is needed. The focus should be encouraging more engineers to become licensed, not increase the requirements to become licensed." Name: Drew,Hains E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Advanced degrees (Masters and above) may be needed for specific disciplines where the undergraduate programs have been watered down over the years. However, BS or BA degrees are sufficient in other disciplines. It is understood that it is hard parse by discipline, but there is certainly a divide between level of instruction by discipline. “ Name: Tracy,Davis E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Support the changes to still allow a bachelor's degree but with additional coursework or other training resources. Name: Bradley,Aldrich E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I encourage the NSPE House of Delegates to adopt the proposed revisions to PP-168. Even if you opposed additional educational requirements in the past, these revisions should address your concerns. There are many good arguments for adopting this revised policy statement, including:

1. The language in the new PP 168 is flexible enough for all engineering disciplines since it states “Future additional requirements should include options for both formal education (such as a master’s








degree in an engineering discipline) or alternative approaches (such as a baccalaureate degree plus additional course work, or profession and industry-based professional development)”.

2. NSPE has supported advancing the engineering education requirements for licensure for many years. This has allowed NSPE to remain a future-focused leader when it comes to protecting public health, safety, and welfare. The new, more flexible language allows NSPE to continue to be a key partner and leader in discussions of what constitutes suitable education for licensure for all disciplines.

3. In August 2015, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, which represents state licensure boards, passed a position statement (by a 2:1 margin) that calls for increased educational requirements for future licensure (NCEES Position Statement 35), keeping that organization in a leadership position on the always evolving issue). By maintaining its own NCEES-compatible policy, NSPE will ensure that the organization representing all professional engineers is in step with its historical partner for leadership in engineering licensure. 4. Licensure is a three-legged stool of education, experience and examination. Each leg must ensure that licensees are properly prepared to practice competently. Continually monitoring educational standards to ensure that the requirements are adequate to maintain that leg of the stool is precisely the kind of leadership that we expect from NSPE. The proposed PP-168 language does just that. " Name: Peter,Perkins E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "If the expanding body of knowledge is the criteria for requiring a masters degree and assuming the body of knowledge will continue to expand, what is the criteria for when a PhD will be required? And what after that? The expansion of knowledge as the criteria for increased education seems to put you on a course you will be unable to maintain." Name: Steven,Nicaise E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support this revision. Name: Linda,Moen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Thank you for continuing the comment period on this topic. I am not in favor of the additional education requirement to qualify persons for the PE test. 1) The engineering curriculum is appropriately challenging and preparatory now. In my experience, the best training comes in the actual workplace, where real-world engineering is taking place. The additional education requirement will cause many to stay in school longer, rather than start working as engineers. In my opinion, the greater benefit to our profession is to put the engineers to work. 2) The best time to benefit from continued education is after you have worked for several years and have chosen an area of expertise to focus on. That does not typically happen prior to working as an engineer, or even prior to taking the PE test. The continuing education requirements to maintain your PE license currently encourage continuing education. 3) We are currently in a struggle to recruit people to become engineers. Some students may not ever get to the real-world of engineering if the time and money required to complete the additional education requirements becomes too daunting. 4) The additional education requirement creates a dis-incentive to becoming a registered PE. In my field of civil engineering, there is a plan production incentive (engineers want to be able to seal their plans), but in many engineering fields the benefit will not outweigh the burden of this additional





education time and expense. I do not think it serves NSPE to decrease the pool of registered professional engineers. We already see a lack of other engineering disciplines in the PE records and in NSPE membership (that’s my perception, I have not checked this data) Thank you again for allowing the comment - I look forward to a prudent decision on this issue. " Name: Jill,FitzSimons E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Rather than further education, I feel that more work experience is necessary for qualified PE's. In the building and construction field, work experience seems to be more valuable than formal education. Also, for the ""equivalent"" to a masters degree, how many hours of professional development does that include? What types of additional course-work? It seems a bit vague." Name: Colin,Brown E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am not in favor of the additional education requirements as a prerequisite for licensure as a professional engineer. I feel the educational requirements as they currently exist are sufficient. Additionally, I feel this will discourage prospective engineers from pursuing engineering. It is difficult to find and hire professional engineers now and I feel the additional educational requirements would make it even more difficult." Name: Mark,Moreno E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I disagree with adding additional education to professional licensure. It is difficult enough getting students into the engineering field. Additional education requirements would only diminish the number of capable students. It would add an extra expense to becoming a professional engineer. Name: Craig,Pomeroy E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I disagree with any policy that attempts to mandate educational requirements beyond a bachelors degree. For many disciplines it is not necessary. Name: Scott,Sabol E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am a proponent of post-baccalaureate education, but not as a requirement for licensure until studies and research show that persons with such preparation provide notably safer designs than those without. The purpose of licensure, I believe, is to protect the public safety. I differentiate that from providing opportunties for better design, which I believe is a marketplace issue not a regulatory issue. Safe designs are the stuff of licensure, not necessarily good designs." Name: David,Simoneau E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I disagree with needing a Master's degree or similar education. We already have candidates go through 4 years of on the job learning (a great thing to do) and take an exam that tests the ability to perform the tasks required in the selected field (another great thing). While education is important to continue to grow, I don't think we will gain by putting another task in the mix. I know that I learned much more while working than I did when I was in college. I have enjoyed and approve of








continuing education, but I do not see the advantage of additional onset training unless it is in the work environment." Name: Josh,Szymanski E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not support the additional Engineering Education Requirements proposed. I feel that engineers are better served in the workplace working with and under experienced mentors and developing the specific skills they'll need to practice, typically in very narrow practice areas. The additional requirements come with cost, time, a limited ROI, and I see it as unlikely that they'll end up being specifically applicable when many students and young engineers aren't sure of their exact career path, emphasis, or what specific application of their degrees they'll be using, even within civil discipline programs. The engineers I work with on a daily basis are professional, up to speed, competent, and well educated and I do not see a significant issue in the marketplace necessitating the addition of another hurdle to what is already seen as a challenging career path that we're struggling to encourage people to pursue. Four years is enough to train the brain and be introduced to basic level concepts - none of these students, even Master's degree students, are leaving ready to independently engineer large scale or complicated solutions. I wouldn't expect them to be after another year or a few more outside classes. Time spent working in the field with qualified mentors is the next step and the reason work experience is typically required for licensure. Name: Andrew,Polahar E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I was in the last class to get a 5 year BChE at U of Louisville with 161 Semester hours. No way in my opinion is a 120 hour BS prepare you for being a professional. U of L now has a Masters of Engineering with 160 hours and 10 of that is a project. I had more classroom credits that did prepare me to be professional. Name: Paul,Kalvaitis E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I don't believe additional educational or work experience requirements should be necessary to obtain licensure. It seems to me a degree from an accredited school, acquisition of the EIT certification and then 4-5 years of experience under the supervision of a PE is sufficient preparation to take the PE exam. Added educational requirements in particular strike me as an undue financial burden." Name: Algirdas,Underys E-mail: [email protected] Comment: A agree with the strike-out version of Policy # 168 Name: Thomas,Smailus E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the removal of the wording tied to masters degrees and certifications from the policy, however, I'm also apposed to the policy as a whole and feel NSPE isn't the organization to specify educational requirements as other organizations already cover that ( ABET) and each of the States legislate the requirements within their borders. Basics do NOT change with advances in knowledge very much if at all. The basics of an engineering discipline, which is what FE licensing exams are there to test, do not change if new frontier knowledge is







gained. For example, basic chemistry is still basic chemistry, even if new sub-atomic particles are discovered. Requiring additional education for licensure doesn't support a common foundation for licensed engineers, but more likely ensures further fragmentation in the skill sets of freshly licensed engineers. If there is a core change, ABET will require the educational changes from degree granting institutions, and then NCEES will test for it. This is outside of what I expect NSPE's role to be - which is to try and unify and homologate PE licensure across the nation. PE exams, which require experience, already test for practical experience - that shouldn't become a further detailed fundamentals exam. Additionally, states that desire it, implement continuing education, which covers acquiring new knowledge as the frontiers of engineering knowledge are expanded. If this policy is intended to bring US licensed engineering up to a level comparable to many European engineers, where a US masters equivalent is the typical 'base engineering degree', then I'd recommend making that clear in this policy - that the point is to help attain a uniform international level of basic engineering competence. But unless there is a need for US based professional engineers to operate at such higher baseline knowledge levels, it doesn't make economic sense to impose the requirement to meet an international goal on domestic licensees across the board." Name: Scott,Conners E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Fellow Members: I have been a practicing engineer for 23 years. I chose my profession based on one simple decision. If I wanted to be an architect it would take 5 years. Civil Engineering could be accomplished in 4. To a 17 year old boy, that decision was a simple as how fast can you get me into the work force. As the cost of college continues to escalate to unreasonable amounts, it's more important now to ensure that get good young high school students to tip our way and make the decision to join the engineering profession.

I've watch this debate over the years as an active member of both MSPE and NSPE. Throughout many leadership opportunities I've had the ability to reach out and question our membership on this issue. I have found that 90% of engineers I have talked to believe that the 4 year degree and 4 year apprenticeship is sufficient. Furthermore, I don't believe that requiring an extra year of school is going to advance the salary of licensed engineers. I envision more debt for those hard working college students and a later start at paying off those loans. And many engineers that have an interest in being licensed may veer off course and choose a discipline of engineering that does not require licensure. Many of those disciplines are already more lucrative and they can be achieved with a standard 4 year degree.

Let's also remember that a 4 year engineering degree is one of the hardest 4 year programs a student can endure. These classes are advanced and many colleges and universities start their students off with very difficult classes to cull the herd. Obtaining a 4 year degree in engineering is a source of pride for me and I believe that Americans look upon our graduates with respect.

Please make sure to thoroughly engage our membership before taking on this significant change to our profession. It's already hard enough to push high school students into engineering without adding another year of debt and commitment to their dreams.

I pledge to provide more than just my opinion here. I'd be willing to serve on a national committee to help look into this further. Please let me know if I can help to engage our Michigan membership or to engage in national debate with our NSPE colleagues.

Sincerely, Scott Conners, P.E., City Engineer - Walker Michigan



Western Region VP, Michigan Society of Professional Engineers (MSPE) " Name: Richard,Gilbert E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "This provision: ..."", or profession and industry-based professional development)"" takes all potential value out of this recommendation. It suggests that something as thin as ""PDH""'s are sufficient to fulfill the requirement.

I recommend any approved additional coursework should be solely provided by an ABET accredited institution, with courses that are compliant with the requirements of an ABET accredited curriculum. Thank you." Name: Mark,Eatinger E-mail: [email protected] Comment; An Engineering Degree provide one with the logical ability to solve problems. The first job does not necessarily match the degree that you have. Most firms expect to teach and train new hires. I believe that requiring more education will further limit the supply of engineering graduates and keep some potentially good engineers from taking engineering. I am against requiring more education. Name: Shane,Smith E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Strongly disagree that a license should require additional formal education. Would rather see additional OJT requirements. Name: Shelia,Neumann E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I concur with additional training or education after the Bachelor's degree to enable the engineer to be current and have insight into new laws or regulations governing the profession while maintaining technical competence. Name: Vincent Amarosa E-mail: [email protected] Commetn: I agree with the changes --- Vince Name: Don,Comire E-mail: [email protected] Commetn: "I agree with the red-lines to the PP 168 to permit both master's degree, or B.S. with additional coursework or industry professional development for licensure." Name: Anthony,Puntin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am in full support of this policy as revised. I believe the professional engineer of today/future will require more formal education for entry into professional practice (i.e., licensure). The complexity of designs and the ever expanding body of knowledge required can't be accommodated in the traditional bachelors degree. Additional education for professional engineering candidates is necessary." Name: Jocelyne,Gray








E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with all the proposed changes. Additional education should not be limited to just a master's degree. Depending on the field of engineering, industry-based education may be more appropriate. The way the current exam is written, it is overtly academically based. NCEES needs to revamp how the exams are written to more appropriately reflect early career or taking the exam right at college graduation makes the only sense then education and experience are reviewed as distinct Name: Richard,Weber E-mail: [email protected] Comment: " I do believe that mandatory continuing education is essential for a PEs ongoing development. However, I believe that requiring additional under graduate or post graduate requirements will contribute to a drop in students entering the engineering profession. Increasing undergraduate graduate requirements or requiring post graduate requirements will lead to increased student loans for many potential engineering candidates and makes a career in engineering a much harder decision for many students who are entering college. I really appreciate the bachelor level classes that I received in college and I believe that I was fully prepared to apply my knowledge to an entry level engineering position. However, the industry specific training (formal and informal) that I received in a real work environment allowed me to apply and appreciate my college theory and book work as I developed real life engineering skills. In most Applications as well as Research Engineering positions the on the job training is equally valuable to our development. Career training often requires on-going class work and training - for topics that would likely not be taught at most engineering schools. I encourage NSPE to not adopt these more stringent formal education requirements. I do support NSPE's efforts to make sure that testing for PEs to stay current with the times including addressing NSPE's issues and concerns." Name: Curtis,Beck E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The phrase ""will be required"" should be changed to ""is required"" to make this a finding-of-fact instead of a forecast, and to lend some sort of urgency to the issue. Also, the phrase ""in the 21st century"" does not add significant meaning or value to the statement. The sentence should end after the word ""(licensure)""." Name: Tim ,Austin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the proposed modifications to PP 168. I would suggest one small edit; inserting the words, ""or educational"" between the words ""academic requirements"" Name: Edwin,Jones E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I graduated with a degree in Civil Engineering in 1975, so I am out of the loop concerning the current course load. One of my sons is in the accounting profession and is working toward his CPA. They require a minimum number of hours in accounting courses, plus some specific courses before you are eligible to sit for the exam. That requirement may serve our profession well also. A caveat, though. The additional costs may discourage some from seeking licensure. In my 40 years since graduation, I have been licensed 30 of those years, and have seldom seen a need for my license. Only when I have been providing information, designs, drawings,etc., for a governmental body have I







used my seal. However, I have been involved in industry, and not in private practice. The point being, if it takes more time/money to be licensed, and the applicant does not see a value in it, then why do it?" Name: Lawrence,Stalla E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I tend to favor restoration of the final struck-through paragraph of Professional Policy 168, less the words ""a master's degree or equivalent"". I think the subject of specialty certification programs, and their relationship to the basic requirements for engineering licensure, is an appropriate topic for an NSPE policy statement, and PP 168 appears to be a good venue for such a statement." Name: Nikhil Bodhankar E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "As many of you know, New York requires K-12 teachers to have a minimum of Masters degree. Extending that conversation, we are professional engineers and it is in our best interest to raise the standard of education. " Name: John,Eberly E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am not in support of the recommendation that candidates be required to pursue additional education to qualify for licensure. I believe that the current four year degree is adequate exposure to the formal educational system. Additional specialized education will not serve well for the preparation of professional engineers when there is already an established requirement for supervised on the job training through the licensure process. Creating niche categories of professional engineers is counter to the value of the engineering credential and a distinct disadvantage to the professional engineering candidate. The stated reason for the additional education is ridiculous on its face. If the information required for professional engineering practice is changing rapidly, what good is a master's degree in a specialization pursued at the beginning of a career? The more specialized the field, the sooner it's shelf life expires. NSPE would much better serve the profession by making efforts to reform continuing education requirements. Current state systems suffer from a lack of specificity and rigor, and the accumulation of ""continuing education hours"" becomes essentially an empty exercise. This education proposal seems to be attempting to create additional barriers to entry while avoiding the question of the true competency of professional engineers once in practice. This is not an effective way to extend the viability of an important credential when the industry faces challenges to the primacy of the P.E. and lagging interest in the profession by newly minted engineering graduates. I believe that the imposition of additional educational requirements will discourage candidates, reduce the number of professionals engaged in the industry, and delay entry of valuable talent unnecessarily. Name: Todd,Stritzke E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not agree with engineering student licensure candidates meeting additional academic requirements as a prerequisite for licensure and practice of engineering at the professional level. Most engineers practice in the “Industry” not at universities. If we want to better prepare






engineers for the profession, address on the job training opportunities. Adding academic criteria only supports larger graduate programs but does not better prepare engineers for world they work in." Name: Matthew,Nawn E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The opportunity for alternate professional advancement oppotunities aside from the Masters' Degree must be given equal merit in this proposal. For applicability in the professional engineering field, educational advancement is only as valuable as the ability of the individual to apply this knowledge in actual practice. Reciprocity for professional engineers who earned their licensure at a time when only a Bachelor's degree was required must be maintained.” Name: Neil,"Norman, PE" E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "In paragraph one we state that ""additional formal academic training"" will be required, but in the last paragraph we refer to industry based training that may not be formal academic training. I suggest that the wording in paragraph one be revised to read ""additional technical or management education"" will be required. As a comment, not a specific change request, how will the revised process for approval to take the PE test be handled in states where the PE test is already being offered at the time of graduation from the 4 year ABET curriculum? Neil Norman, PE, CEng.; , NSPE Past President Member, WA Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, Member WSPE Executive Committee." Name: Ryan,Johnson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Second paragraph second sentence. Remove the word ""Future"". It’s implied and unnecessary.

General comment - is additional education necessary for all disciplines? I don't think so. Consider placing focus fields where additional education is necessary. " Name: James,Justus E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Rather than make a generic stance on education, I think we should be more specific, and require that an engineering degree contain ""x"" hours of university instruction as a minimum. We're doing this because engineering degree programs are reducing the required hours. Then strike the line and say that an engineering degree requires ""x"" hours. I'm not an educator, nor completely up to speed on academic requirements, but the changes as written don't solve the problem, they will just encourage further erosion of the degree requirements. Also, I am a strong proponent of certification programs, rather than multiple licenses (such as an SE). I am a structural engineer, but we do not need to create licenses, we need to create practitioners certified in specialities if they so choose, following the medical and nursing models. We already are weak in our political and public clout, creating multiple licenses reduces our effectiveness even further."






Name: Richard,Wright E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not feel that additional education should be required to seek licensure. Rather, I think that the work experience requirement is far more valuable than the education requirement. While I do have an advanced degree, I don't think it is necessary to be a competent professional engineer. Requiring additional education will hamper any effort to recruit more professional engineers." Name: Thomas,Wassel E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the concept of what the Society is trying to achieve but I am concerned that pushing additional formal education beyond the Bachelor's degree is going to reduce the number of people pursuing this as a career. If this is truly the intention we need to reevaluate the profession and establish guidelines like the medical and legal professions, which would then require the time and costs that doctors and lawyers incur to become certified to practice their profession. We then would also need to establish a parallel system similar to nursing or legal that would handle routine work to allow the Engineer to devote themselves to the higher levels of engineering, which would be necessary to recoup the costs of becoming licensed. Much of the engineering practice does not require this level of formal education. Practical experience in the proper application of engineering principles is far more important that the expansion of the individual's understanding of a myriad of additional concepts. There should also be a means for a talented individual who has significant education or ability to become licensed. Many years ago we evaluated individuals on the basis or their understanding of engineering not their holding of a diploma. While practically the need for a college degree makes sense we do need to accommodate remarkable people who never finished their course of study but rather have significantly contributed to the practice of engineering " Name: Chris Richard E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The discussions regarding the breadth of engineering knowledge are largely based on the reduction in the hours required to receive an engineering degree. Rather than correct the actual cause of the problem by restoring those hours, some feel that the hours should be added at the “back end” of the BS degree. First question: while there has been a decline in the hours for an engineering degree, has there been a real and documented decline in the quality of engineer that have been produced under these reduced hours? By that I mean the PE, not the actual graduate. If they are getting the needed training during their intern years, then the combination of education and experience seems to be sufficient. I have not heard anywhere that the newly licensed PE’s are somehow a danger to the health, safety and welfare of the public. If they are, please produce the evidence. After all, that is what we should be concerned with. A few of the problems that may arise from the masters or the plus thirty route as I see it are:

• Reduced number of engineering students. Some may choose alternate professions rather than the additional course work in an already challenging curriculum.

• Reduced number of people on the licensure track. Because Universities will still

be graduating students from their undergraduate engineering programs, many





may choose to go directly to work at higher paying jobs in industry. This will create

a larger gap between those in industry and those that seek the licensure route. It

will be much harder to get those in industry to go back and get the additional

education after they have left school for any period of time. This will be even worse

if the master’s route is the only route. We will be creating a bigger gulf than

exists now.

• Specialization not needed: By requiring a master’s degree or 30 additional

hours after a Bachelor’s Degree, are we really making better engineers? The

courses that were deleted over the years were broader and created a better

engineering foundation than specialized graduate courses will in my opinion. Many

students, including myself, did not know what type of engineer we were going to

be once we graduated. That often depends on the type of work and jobs

available. Does a student that gets a master’s degree in structures make a

better traffic engineer (no bridge design) than someone without a master’s

degree? Does a master’s degree in structures better serve that engineer than two

years of training at a company that works on transportation projects? After both

get their PE, does the one that got the master’s automatically make the better

engineer? Are the public’s health, safety, and welfare truly protected by these

requirements?

• Comity: Since licensure is a state issue, we may end up with many comity issues

throughout the country depending on how each state addresses the issue. Too many

issues to mention here.

While I know that this is easier said than done, here is what may be a better approach without the issues

listed above. Take a position to work to change the ABET accreditation to require the desired hours in

the undergraduate degree. Make it a professional degreed program. I don’t know what’s involved and

even if it is possible, but has it been considered? If the hours which are needed are restored to the

undergraduate program, every graduate remains on the licensure track. There is no need to change any

of the registration laws since everyone will still be required to graduate from an ABET accredited

university. I know the arguments will be that adding hours will cost universities more money to graduate

engineers, but so will going for a Master’s Degree or taking 30 additional hours. If it is truly cost

prohibitive for some universities, then they may choose to discontinue the engineering programs. If that

does happen, I think it will be less costly to the profession than the proposed policy of a master’s degree

or Plus 30.

In summary; if there is documented evidence that the quality of licensed engineers has declined such

that the public’s health, safety, and welfare are jeopardized, then the course work needs to be restored

to the undergraduate program. If this is not the case, then we should do nothing. Either way, I do not

support the proposed language in the NSPE P.P. No. 168.

I believe the origin of the issue is more related to addressing a perceived loss of stature of engineers not necessarily the quality of engineers being licensed today. While that may be a problem, this is not the solution. Just my 2 cents.


Name: Heather R Klingman E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree 100%. I do not support the 30 plus or Masters Degree.

If a graduate does not have an interest in research and as Chris mentioned, does not really know what area of engineering he/she wants to go in, I don’t see a Master’s Degree being beneficial in that particular instance. I don’t know that this is the issue, but if the issue is that we are getting unqualified people passing the PE test, then this is not the way to solve that issue. The focus needs to be on the PE testing. If the issue is that the people coming out of school are not equipped with the knowledge that they need to pursue and engineer license, then we need to focus on the curriculum.

Name: Joshua Hays E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree. I do not support requiring a Master’s.

From a consultant point of view with a Master’s Degree, an engineering B.S. graduate is better off that first year after graduation working as an E.I. for an agency such as a DOT or consulting firm versus pursuing the M.S. after graduation. I like the current system where the M.S. is an option to the graduates. The graduates have the choice to go to work & gain experience or they can return to school and take the technical courses that interest them and/or specialize so to speak in a discipline of engineering. Like Chris said…the real issue should be reflecting on the current ABET accreditation hours and what could be done to restructure the programs so that those upper level “technical courses” are available & obtainable to the students during their undergraduate experience. Just my opinion. Name: Kent Fontenot E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I believe that graduating from an accredited university, having proper work experience, and passing the exam should be sufficient for PE status. While more education is attractive, most people are in school 4.5-5 years for the degree already and the masters would place a larger financial burden on people. If a change is desired, it is my opinion they should be looking at more years of experience. My thoughts. Thanks. Name: Blair Leblanc <[email protected]> E-mail: [email protected] Comment: This is stupid. There is no other way to describe it. Name: Glenn Orgeron E-mail: [email protected] Comment: First, I am not in favor of additional educational requirements for the engineering degree/essentially a Masters Degree requirement to obtain the PE designation. In discussions with over a dozen PE's, I have not found anyone who favors such a requirement. If we are seeking more PE's, making that credential more difficult to obtain is not the way to get more PE's. Industry types, who already seem to have no pressure to obtain the PE designation, will have even less reason to bother.








Name: Chris Stone E-mail: [email protected] Comment posted via the NSPE State Leader Listserve:

Fellow Professional Engineers: I appreciate the information on PP 168 that the Louisiana Engineering Society distributed. I know that NSPE and others (NCEES specifically) have been working hard to develop language that continues to support the future of our profession and professional licensure.

As a member of the Virginia PE Board I recently attended the NCEES Annual Meeting as a delegate where language similar to PP 168 was discussed in NCEES’s Position Statement 35 (PS 35). The language was discussed in the Engineering Forum, Zone meetings and debated by the delegates on the floor at the General Assembly Business Session. Like NSPE, NCEES identified several future pathways by which a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer might obtain the body of knowledge needed to meet the educational requirements for licensure. Ultimately the language in support of alternate pathways was ratified by the NCEES delegates and codified in NCEES PS 35. (http://ncees.org/about-ncees/publications/ps-35/)

NSPE’s PP 168 before you today supports the language recently adopted by NCEES (August, 2015). The recommendation on the table for consideration by the HoD is to make a significant change to the OLD PP 168. Professional Policy 168 is a new and fundamental change in direction. This is NOT B+30 or Masters or Equivalent (MOE). The new PP 168 before the HoD is fundamentally different in that the concept of a baccalaureate degree plus profession-and industry-based continuing professional development is advocated as an alternate pathway that should be further studied and considered. This pathway is NOT “equivalent” to a master’s degree, but entirely different, providing flexibility for utilizing practice-based activities. This change is in response to the needs of the industry and academia.

The language in the new PP 168 specifically states that “NSPE supports the concept of engineering licensure candidates meeting additional academic requirements as a prerequisite for licensure and practice of engineering at the professional level. Future additional requirements should include options for both formal education (such as a master’s degree in an engineering discipline) or alternative approaches (such as a baccalaureate degree plus additional course work, or profession and industry-based professional development).”

I urge you to vote in favor of the new language in PP 168 and allow us to continue to discuss ways (along with NCEES and ABET) to elevate the entire engineering profession, and Professional Engineers everywhere. Respectfully, Chris Stone Name: Susan Richard E-mail: [email protected] Comment posted via the NSPE State Leader Listserve

We appreciate Chris’s {Stone} input (above) on the motivation for these changes. However, our members are telling us that they do not agree. They do not agree that the concept of a baccalaureate degree plus profession-and industry-based continuing professional development as an alternate pathway to licensure should be further studied and considered. They may agree with Pathway C of NCEES PS 35 with modifications. Our discussions and the input we received has centered around working with ABET to require more hours for accreditation of programs, more in the realm of 135 hours. Any additional hours required post-undergraduate prior to licensure is opposed by our members. They fear this will lead to less engineering graduates seeking licensure, especially those that enter industry upon graduation.


http://ncees.org/about-ncees/publications/ps-35/

http://ncees.org/about-ncees/publications/ps-35/



Our members further question what problem this is seeking to solve. They state that they feel the quality of engineers being produced is excellent, and they see no hard evidence that instituting these changes would improve any perceived problem. This was presented to the HoD for our input and dissemination to our members. I feel we would be remiss if we don’t listen to them. We feel this could well lead to a loss of membership. Name: Brad Aldrich E-mail: [email protected] Comment posted via the NSPE State Leader Listserve Fellow Members of NSPE: I am asking for your support of the revisions to NSPE’s PP 168. I won’t repeat the important points that Chris Stone made in an email sent out earlier today, though I can tell you that my experience with this matter is similar to Chris’ {Stone}. I’ve served on the P.E. Board in Vermont for the past four years and have actively participated in NCEES as a board member and some years back as NSPE’s representative to NCEES. As an NSPE leader and past NSPE President, I’ve watched this issue evolve from its infancy into what is before you today. As Chris points out the changes that you are asked to consider significantly revise the current policy

statement. A great deal of thought went into these revisions to reflect “current thinking” on the issue of

future requirements for licensure. Similar thought and leadership went into the changes recently

adopted by NCEES. The proposed revisions to PP 168 align well with those of our most important

partner on licensure issues.

I ask each of you to put aside your feelings toward B+30 or MOE for a moment and thoughtfully consider

the language in the proposed policy. You should not confuse this vote as a referendum on B+30 or

MOE. The proposed PP 168 is a significant change from the past policy statement.

As professional engineers, we are trained to constantly assess, analyze and adapt to the changes around

us. As professional engineers we also know that there are often several paths to a good solution to the

problem at hand. PP 168 simply states that we have an obligation to constantly assess, analyze and

adapt to changing needs in educational standards for competent practice as a professional engineer. It

goes on to acknowledge that there are multiple good pathways to meet those needs. The world is

rapidly changing and the body of knowledge needed to competently practice is expanding on a daily

basis. PP 168 acknowledges these irrefutable facts and is a reminder to all of us that lifelong learning is

an essential obligation of anyone who chooses to practice as a licensed professional engineer.

I encourage each of you to support the proposed changes to PP 168 out of respect to the members who

have put an extraordinary amount of time, effort and thought into fully understanding the issues at

hand and as our duty to those who will follow us in the future.

Name: Monte Phillips E-mail: [email protected] Comment posted via the NSPE State Leader Listserve All We, as engineering professionals, are indebted to those who have gone before us to make the profession of engineering well respected in the eyes of the public. We have a responsibility to contribute to the future betterment of our profession. That is precisely what a large number of dedicated and well




respected professional engineers have been engaged in doing for over two decades. The proposed revisions to NSPE's PP 168, recommended by the Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee (LQPC) of NSPE, have been carefully developed by dedicated, respected professionals. The proposed language is compatible with the recent action taken by NCEES in the passage of Position Statement 35 and with the conclusion drawn by the National Academe of Engineering in its publication "Educating the Engineer of 2020." In approving Position Statement 35, which is compatible with the proposed LQPC language for PP 168, NCEES is working to fulfill its Vision and Mission which states, "The Vision of NCEES is to provide leadership in Professional Licensure of Engineers and Surveyors and to Shape the Future of Professional Licensure." The NCEES BOD, a well respected group of professional engineers, understood and acknowledged this expectation by endorsing NCEES's PS 35 and placing it on the consent agenda for their August 2015 Annual Meeting where it passed by a large majority. The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) has over 2000 peer-elected members, senior professionals in business, academia, and government who are among the world's most accomplished and respected engineers from all engineering disciplines. A careful documented study by NAE resulted in the publication "Educating the Engineer of 2020." The Body of Knowledge necessary for the professional practice of engineering has greatly expanded over the past several decades. NAE acknowledges and supports the conclusion that additional education for licensure beyond a baccalaureate degree will be necessary in the future with this quote - "IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE EXPLODING BODY OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE TRADITIONAL FOUR YEAR BACCALAUREATE DEGREE." PLEASE DO NOT LOOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR ENGINEERING PROFESSION. WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE OUR PROFESSION STRONGER AND BETTER EQUIPPED TO PROTECT THE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE PROFESSION OF ENGINEERING IN THE FUTURE, I IMPLORE YOU TO SUPPORT THE LANGUAGE FOR NSPE PP 168 PROPOSED BY LQPC. With Respect, Monte L. Phillips, Ph.D., P.E., Dist.M.ASCE, F.NSPE, F.NAFE Name: Monte Phillips E-mail: [email protected] Comment posted via the NSPE State Leader Listserve Susan, I wish you well in your plan/desire to require "more hours" for an EAC/ABET baccalaureate degree.

You may not be aware that ABET has not established a minimum semester hour requirement for an EAC/ABET accredited baccalaureate degree, i.e., currently there is no minimum number of semester hours required for an EAC/ABET baccalaureate degree. Attempts at establishing a minimum hour requirement for a baccalaureate degree have failed in the past.

Best Regards, Monte L. Phillips, Ph.D., P.E., Dist.M.ASCE, F.NSPE, F.NAFE Name: Susan Richard



E-mail: [email protected] Comment posted via the NSPE State Leader Listserve Monte, I appreciate that information. I have assisted the university in the accreditation process, and know it is a challenge to meet the outcomes when Board of Regents continually reduces hours for engineering degrees. We are hoping that there could be some way that the accreditation process could assist the university in reversing that trend and gaining back hours. We don’t know the way, but hope those more involved in that process can find the way. Regards, Susan Name: Chris Stone E-mail: [email protected] Comment posted via the NSPE State Leader Listserv Susan:

In addition to my last email to you which covers some of the rationale for PP 168 and ABET’s role and reluctance to change (which you can share with the HoD if you wish) I hope that the HoD would consider deferring the electronic voting on PP 168 and taking this matter up at the next NSPE Annual Meeting. PP 168 should be discussed openly, so that all opinions can be considered, weigh equally and all HoD members have the opportunity to be fully informed on the issues before casting their vote. This is too important.

With that said as a NSPE Past President, I do not have a vote, just an opinion. Respectfully, Chris Stone. Name: David,Rebbin E-mail: [email protected], Comment: I DISAGREE with the strikethroughs. I believe that a 4 year engineering degree (and passing the PE exam) is sufficient to possess a PE license. Name: Ray,Schwartz E-mail: [email protected], Comment: Looks good to me. Name: Carl,Roedel E-mail: [email protected], Comment: I DO NOT endorse the requirement of formal education as it puts significant financial and time commitments upon the engineer. I DO support requirements for profession and industry based professional development. Name: Michael,Ales E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I still oppose the drive to increase educational requirements for licensure across the board regardless of the credit hours required to earn the baccalaureate degree at a given institution. I teach at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. Our ABET programs require the completion of 173 credit hours to graduate. Some graduates of other schools won't match that total even with a completed Masters degree.








Name: Mark,Franklin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I disagree with the requirement to have a masters degree to becoming a Professional Engineer. I do not believe it will make the professional engineers any smarter or improve the safety of society. Instead I believe this additional requirement will drive away candidates interested in getting their PE. Realize there are many engineers in industry that do not need to have the credentials to perform their work, however we still want to have them apart of the professional engineering society. We have states now introducing bills to eliminate the requirement for engineers to have a license. With fewer members to support our beliefs, this could be reality." Name; Francis,Stanton Jr E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "If you consider that a PE has to take continuing education to maintain their skills, then it seems reasonable to ask the Engineer Intern to obtain PDHs over the 4 years of gaining experience after the FE exam, Mandating an engineer to obtain a Masters or Doctorate degree to become licensed becomes a barrier to becoming a PE. The benefit of PDHs will be the exposure to practical concepts not presented in higher degree programs. I would recommend that the Policy strongly focuses on the PDH aspect, and stresses the equivalent credit conversion from CEU to PDH (10:1) for post graduate course work. No additional degrees are needed, but post graduate degrees would receive the credit, as with the exiting PDH requirements in the model law." Name: Thomas,Vaughan E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The intense politicking that I have seen on this PP – and the assertion that we should support it because “dedicated experts” support it – makes me very suspicious that this is just the academics trying to squeeze more money out of students. This policy will not improve public perception of PE’s as a real profession like physicians or lawyers. If we expect to gain equivalent respect by educational accomplishments alone we would need to go to a doctoral level degree (like MD and JD). This policy would do nothing to distinguish PEs from the thousands of 4-year “engineers” in industry or even from somebody with a Microsoft “MCSE” certification. I have seen no good explanation for why this may be necessary: • “perhaps someday it might cause people to respect the profession” is not sufficient. • “engineering credit hours have been reduced” may be valid (my degree took ~140 credit hours). If so, then restore the requirements for an “engineering” degree, and people who don’t want to work this hard can get degrees in “science” or “technology” and go work in industry. This policy is NOT a well thought out approach: • What is the impact of Continuing Education? Factor that into the educational requirement! • The way the new FE exam has silo-ized disciplines (narrower academic focus) there should be plenty of time to cover the necessary technical topics in 4 years This policy is NOT a creative solution – If we want real change:





• Faculty should be practitioners (>50% time as practicing engineers) • Create a formal internship. Subsidized by employers? • Maybe convert “Engineering Schools” to entirely post-baccalaureate schools (like law or medicine) – but you MUST then stop 4 year schools from granting “engineering” degrees Name: James,Baker E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I disagree with all versions (original & strikethrough) of this statement for the following fundamental reasons. 1. To the best of my knowledge, research based data that would suggest today's 4-year ABET accredited education along with 4-years of experience is producing inferior engineers does not exist. For most states, an individual's journey to becoming a licensed professional engineer is 8 years. This length of time is comparable to other professions. 2. Most state licensure laws are ""practice"" laws requiring the engineer to only practice in those areas where they are competent. Some areas of employment require specialized education. Additional education for specialized areas of practice is warranted, but not for every engineering student. However, most do not. 3. I would argue that for the majority of engineers in this country, much of what is taught for a baccalaureate degree is not used in their careers. What percentage of engineers need to solve/understand ""differential equations"" in their work? Instead, the requirements for a 4 year degree should be refined to better accommodate tomorrow's engineering workforce. " Name: Frank,Pierce E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Very simply, I am a California Registered Ag Engineer and have been working in Ag and Civil engineering starting in 1948 when I was in High School. My degree is in Political Science from the Universidad De Las Americas, when it was in Mexico City. Because of my understanding in Political Science I have been able to accomplish successful engineering and technical projects an a number of countries, worked with Politicians in re-doing legislation and am on a number of Government Agency Advisory Committees. The issue is, you can have the best engineering and technical approach but do not understand the Politics, the projects do not get built, or modified. Engineering is the foundation of our social stability and healthy environment but is often not understood by the political establishment. Engineers need to have a good understanding of the political project environment. When I was Chairman of the American Society of Agricultural Engineer Pacific Region, my board of Directors were mostly College Professors. I continually pushed for the Engineering curriculum to include POLITICAL SCIENCE." Name: Melanie,Bond Cromes E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not support the proposed changes to require further education prior to applying for licensure. ABET accredited programs do an excellent job preparing students for work in engineering fields, but only practical experience in the field will make them better engineers worthy of licensing. I have worked with engineers who were primarily book-learned and their quality of work generally does not compare to those who have been in the field."



Name: Robert,Wolff E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not agree with the proposition that education beyond the ABET accredited bachelor's degree should be required to obtain a P.E. license. The solution to the problem of increasing complexity of the engineering profession is in the increasing the requirements for continuing education to renew one's license. Getting additional education to obtain a license does not hold professional engineers accountable for maintaining their expertise over an entire career. Currently, only 32 of the 50 states require continuing education and in some cases those that require continuing education do not establish standards to ensure the education is relevant to the P.E.'s profession. I believe require more education to get a P.E. misses the point of having people accountable to maintain their competency over their entire career." Name: Edmund,Jacobsen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the strike through Professional Policy No. 168 Name: Thomas,Conway E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,I do NOT agree that formal education above 4 years should be required. Name: Nicholas,Votaw E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I strongly believe that requiring master degree level education as a prerequisite for professional engineering licensure will actually be detrimental to our field and profession. First and foremost, as a practicing professional engineer in the design & construction industry, it is my strong belief that knowledge gained through practical experience is significantly more valuable individuals in our profession than additional academic education. It is common, if not expected, that an individual straight out of college will require full training in the practice of design engineering via mentorship and practical experience after they are hired. There is almost nothing they can do starting off without significant involvement from a senior engineer. Requiring additional academic only prolongs the amount of time before these professionals start the ""real"" training and I think will only lead to a field of what my grandfather termed ""educated idiots"". Also, as an engineer involved in the recruiting and staffing at our office, we are finding it extremely difficult to find qualified engineers. I believe that increasing the educational requirements will significantly deter and limit the amount of intelligent people from even entering the engineering field in the first place. Why would a student set forth on a very difficult engineering curriculum requiring 6+ years of increasingly expensive education when the return on the investment may not be as great as it is in other fields that do not require the rigor of engineering education? In summary, decreasing the quantity and diluting the skills of the talent pool in our industry can only be detrimental to our profession. I would recommend that pursuit of a more formal ""apprentice"" program that more clearly defines the skill sets required by a new FE engineer practicing in the field before he can sit for the PE exam after 4 years of practical work experience. “ Name: David,Steele E-mail: [email protected]







Comment: "I completely disagree with the current position statement on Engineering Education Requirements for Licensure. Engineering is already losing good students to more ""glamorous"" fields. Increasing licensure requirements by creating any sort of Masters/coursework requirement will only further reduce the pool of students and future PE's, while doing nothing to improve the quality of the licensed engineer. If you want create a position statement on education, then consider a statement on the content of the current engineering programs. Current graduate engineers are being trained to be excellent software operators that rarely have the ability to engage their brain and think. Graduates are always looking for ""a program"" to do the work for them, or they want a step by step example that they can follow exactly, just plugging in different numbers. They have been taught to get ""exact"" answers in an in-exact world. Also, most recent graduates are coming to us with grade-school writing skills and don't understand that the business world (even the engineering business world) still revolves around written communication. These comments are not based on experience with marginal candidates from questionable programs. Rather, these comments are drawn from years of first hand experience working with recent graduate engineers from the likes of Penn State, Ohio State, Drexel, Syracuse, etc. All graduated with extremely high GPA's, with more than half already having Masters degree's from ""accelerated"" Bachelor/Masters combined programs. Any position statement that only looks at the years of study, rather than the content studied, is counter-productive to increasing the ranks of professional engineers and does nothing to improve the quality of the licensed engineer." Name: Joseph,Carson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Please show me how the current requirements have not been adequate to protect public health and safety in the practice of engineering - i.e. ""if it ain't broke, don't fix it"" or if it is deficient, please show how the ""fix"" is appropriate and adequate." Name: David,Soukup E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,"I agree with the changes proposed in Professional Policy 168. My opinions reflect a Position Statement issued by the ASME Board of Governors, which has been endorsed by the Licensing That Works coalition made up of eleven other professional engineering societies. There is no evidence to suggest that earning a master’s degree or adding thirty credit hours will have a positive impact on the public’s health, safety and welfare. In the current version of the Policy, “academic” implies only university-based coursework could be used in achieving alternate education requirements. There are other continuing education programs that should be allowed. So I would like to see the words “or other educational” inserted after “academic” in paragraph 2.




Most graduate schools require a 3.0 grade point average for admission. If we say that a master’s degree is a requirement for professional practice, we are telling many of our students that they are not qualified for a license. The pathways that have been proposed to meet the “or equivalent” option of “master’s or equivalent” are not realistic. The “or equivalent” requirement of 30 semester credit hours, would translate to approximately 1,350 professional development hours, according to the formula in the NCEES Model Rule 240.30.D. It is not feasible for most early career engineers to accomplish this in the four years between the FE and PE exams. So, “alternative approaches” is acceptable in my opinion." Name: Dwight,Baker E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Support the recommended changes. Name: Lawrence ,Dwyer E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am fully in support of the changes to PP No. 168. They allow more flexibility in how the additional educational requirements are met, yet still maintain a high bar for qualifications. I think engineers, in general, sell ourselves short. Since we are highly educated and trained people, elevating our status is a good thing. “ Name: Anthony,Dougherty E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I don't think additional education should be required to sit for the PE exam. If anything, I think additional experience working in the industry should be required." Name: Kirk,Thompson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Delete the word ""both"" from the second sentence in the second paragraph. It implies you need a formal degree plus the alternative development methods. It makes it confusing." Name: Leonard,"Bernstein, PE, F.NSPE E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed revisions. Name: susan,Sprague E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not support this policy - it will make the process of licensure more difficult and expensive, possibly discouraging interested candidates, and hinder those seeking licensure by reciprocity in other states. I would suggest an additional 6 months or year of experience prior to applying for licensure rather than more education. I am not aware that education from ABET/EAC programs is so substandard as to result in rejected applications for licensure." Name: LUIS,SANTIAGO E-mail: [email protected]









Comment: I agree. Name: Bobbie,Shields E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the proposed revisions to NSPE's Professional Policy No. 168 for the following

reasons: 1. Engineering is all about the application of knowledge to solve problems - especially those related to the public's health, safety and welfare; 2. We must continue to improve engineering competency and the public's perception about that competency; 3. The knowledge to be acquired and the intellectual agility necessary to apply that knowledge, professionally, have surpassed that available in basic four-year engineering curriculum and most on-the-job learning situations. 4. The proposed revisions provide the necessary options to enhance engineering competence. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. - Bobbie Shields, P.E." Name: Thomas,Hulbert E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I generally agree with additional educational requirements but with caution. Our membership continues to decline but may not be the result of declining PE registration. It is a complex but critical issue. We need to focus on enhancing the reputation of engineering and strengthening the national recognition of our profession. We need enhancement to professionalism not roadblocks. Name: Harold,Schwartz E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I think the changes to NSPE Policy No. 168 are very good. I also believe that they are in line with the current trends. I also think it is excellent that the policies are reviewed periodically. Name: Gerald,Wilbanks E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do not think a formal requirement for additional education is needed for professional licensure. The need is for continuing education and practical work experience for an engineer to practice as a professional. There is no need for a Master's Degree or Equivalent (MOE) as proposed by certain segments of the profession. There may be certain very special fields of practice that need to be addressed, but certainly not the overall educational requirements."

Name: Patrick Kunz E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The Group 3 NSPE Professional Policy 168 and NSPE Position Statements 1737 and 1739 were discussed briefly at the Texas SPE Board Meeting on October 23, 2015. To date, we have received only one comment regarding the policies. This comment is as follows: (Other than this comment, Texas is neutral regarding the proposed Group 3 NSPE Professional Policy 168 and NSPE Position Statements 1737 and 1739).

“I've been in several phone conversations and a meeting at an Engineering College where this B.S.+30 was used to justify lowering the B.S. Degree requirements to 120 hours. From one phone conversation, the attached was sent to me on NCEES's position on the 120 hour Degree. I urge that NSPE include some baseline requirement (like 128







semester hours, per the attached) for a B.S. Degree in Engineering. Otherwise we risk little or no improvement in licensure with increased education beyond the B.S. Degree because the B.S. Degree requirements are lowered. “ The letter referenced above follows: To: Michael K. J. Miligan, Ph.D, P.E. Executive Director, ABET, Inc

From: Jerry T.Carter Executive Director, NCEES Date: June 14, 2011

During its recent meeting, the NCEES Board of Directors reviewed and discussed the elements of AABET's Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs with particular respect to Criterion 5. During this discussion, the NCEES Board expressed concern that the existing criteria for evaluating engineering programs for accreditation do not require a minimum number of years of study or a minimum number of semester hours in order to be awarded a degree from an EAC/ABET-accred ited baccalaureate program. NCEES recognizes the benefits in allowing individual programs to develop and implement assessment mechanisms to demonstrate that educational and student outcomes are being attained. However, NCEES is concerned that not providing a qualified definition of one year of academic study could result in undesired consequences, most notably a reduction in core engineering curricula. In 2010, NCEES developed and adopted the NCEES Engineering Education Standard, which is used to evaluate graduates of non-EAC/ABET programs who are seeking licensure as professional engineers. In order for a graduate of a non-EAC/ABET program to be deemed qualified to enter the professional practice, this standard requires evidence of the completion of 32 semester credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences, 48 semester credit hours of engineering topics and design courses, and 16 semester credit hours in a general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum. These are minimum requirements that the NCEES member boards have determined are necessary to demonstrate minimum competence and to be afforded to offer professional services that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. NCEES supports the outcomes-based assessment process adopted by ABET but also believes that certain aspects of the criteria, such as the minimum credit hours required, should revert to a prescriptive level to better ensure that the interest of the programs, the students, and the general public are well served. We also recognize that legislative bodies in some states are mandating a reduction in credits in all majors, and we believe that this change in Criterion 5 could be used to counter those attempts for engineering. Accordingly, NCEES would propose that Criterion 5 of the General Criteria for Engineering Programs be revised to state, "One year of study is defined as 32 semester credit hours, and programs must include at least four years (128 credit semester hours) of study." We request this recommendation be forwarded to the EAC for appropriate review and recommendations. If there are questions or if I can provide additional information, please let me know. For the Board, Jerry T. Carter, Executive Director, NCEES


Name: Lewis,Venard E-mail: ,[email protected] Comment: I have not seen evidence that recent graduates with Bachelor degrees are ill-prepared to enter the engineering profession. In my opinion, we should delete or sunset Professional Policy No. 168." Name: David,Martini E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The Minnesota Board of Directors has reviewed and discussed Professional Policy No. 168. Although no objections were raised regarding the proposed changes, the Minnesota Board of Directors believes this topic requires additional discussion in the future to gain better understanding of the issues associated with this policy and to develop more consensus." Name: Monica,Sartain E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the revisions being made to Policy No. 168, and believe they are consistent with and support the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare and the Ethical and competent practice of engineering. " Name: Michael,Brown E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I strongly support the proposed changes and believe that it is the right thing to do. Name: Davin,Wallace E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The rewording for increased emphasis on additional education requirements is a good incremental step. It is timely in that it correlates to the recent NCEES Position Statement 35, “Future Education Requirements for Engineering Licensure”. I would like to see the examples of alternate approaches better resemble the approaches mentioned in the NCEES PS 35 statement. The removal of the last paragraph from PP 168 seems appropriate. It seemed to conflict with the “Certifications Program” section of NSPE Position Statement No. 1737 which is adequate by its self. " Name: Randal,Riebel E-mail: [email protected] Comment: After reviewing the recommended revision to NSPE PP No. 168, GSPE believes that graduating from an accredited university, having proper work experience, and passing EIT and PE exams is more than enough to become a Professional Engineer. Making the requirements stricter will only limit future growth of PE's in the workplace. We as an organization should be looking at ways to add more PE's in the workplace and not less. GSPE is not in favor of this revision." Name: Mike,Silva E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Additional education beyond baccalaureate degree should not be a prerequisite for engineering licensure candidates. While I do like the proposed language of ""professional and industry-based professional development,"" couldn't that mean experience? And that is not a future requirement, it is existing. So that really does not include ""additional academic requirements."" I support changing the name of this PP to Engineering Knowledge Requirements, and similarly replace ""education"" with ""knowledge"" in the body as appropriate. If only given a choice between the







original or the proposed language, I would choose the proposed. However, my preference is to delete PP 168 completely." Name: Curtis,Beck E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the concept of additional academic requirements for engineering students as a prerequisite for licensure, however I wonder why NSPE does not include among the options an option similar to pathway ""C"" of NCEES PS-35? Of all the possible options, that one seems to have the most support among the NSPE membership, and I believe approval by the HOD of the revisions to PP-168 is more likely if the text is amended to include it." Name: Glenn,Knak E-mail: [email protected] Comment: These are the summary comments from the Kansas Society Executive Committee Professional Policy 168 – Engineering Requirements for Licensure “Policy 168 is endorsing future additional requirements such as a master’s degree in engineering. This is further supported by NSPE in policy 1737 as expressed in Qualifications a). where they state “NSPE supports the establishment of additional academic requirements…as outlined in NSPE Professional Policy No. 168.” At this time I cannot support the call for more than the bachelor’s degree in engineering.” “In 168, if the first statement is changed to – NSPE believes… beyond the four year.. MAY be required….” Name: Thomas,Vaughan E-mail: [email protected] Comment: MSPE sent a notice to members recommending they comment, and if they had difficulty they could send they to our BOD for bulk forwarding, like Louisiana. I did receive the following from a NON-member which I am passing along for what it is worth: Greetings Thomas,

I am not a member of MSPE but was passed along the 3 proposed updates by a colleague. Very quickly – I disagree with the item PP 168, proposing to require additional education as a prerequisite to apply for a PE. In the construction industry this is unnecessary and very rare. With the cost of education only rising, this is a burden with little to no benefit. Thank you so much for taking my feedback, have a great day. Best regards, Jay Toutant, PE, LEED AP HVAC Engineer Name: Phil,Gundvaldson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: As the Delegate for the South Dakota Engineering Society (SDES), I submit the following comments on behalf of SDES: SDES does not support the changes to the PP168. In addition, further clarification to the alternative approaches need to be defined. SDES believes that practical application of engineering disciplines provides more professional development towards a professional engineer licensure than additional formal engineering education.






In addition, higher education institutions require various credits to graduate with a degree in engineering. Furthermore, each state board has different standards and statutes required to obtain a professional engineering license as well as different continuing education requirements. Thus requiring additional education would not be standardized for individuals obtaining a professional license. SDES is not opposed to additional formal education requirements, but believes a more standardized and equivalent level is necessary across the board. Below are individual comments received: 1.Thanks for talking with me about the proposed changes to the requirements for PE licensing, specifically requiring education beyond BS to qualify for PE. My initial reaction is not supportive of the proposed change, but I don't know the full background and reasoning behind the proposal. Still, I've known many good, highly qualified PEs with ""only"" a BS degree who would not be eligible to become licensed, even though they are skilled, experienced, and knowledgeable of the fundamentals. Cynically, it could appear to be an attempt to pressure more engineers into more education (and the dollars associated with that). Projecting forward, does this logically progress to someday raising the requirement to PhD? What after that? It makes sense to have objective, knowledge based criteria. Obviously, there needs to be a basic degree level and testing. If engineers are graduated with BS degrees and considered qualified to do the work - and pass the tests-, why would they not be considered qualified for to be licensed? I don't support the increased degree level. Nor reducing the credit requirements for a degree. If too many marginal engineers are hitting the streets, it seems more productive and effective to tighten the requirements for becoming an engineer (graduating) in the first place. The lower the level you can weed 'em out at the better. Regards,Gregg Hanson 2. I am opposed to these proposed changes. They are obviously proposed by University Professors to make it MANDATORY for Engineers to take more courses. In fact, EXPERIENCE is MUCH more valuable than any course taught by University Professors (many of whom have ABSOLUTELY no work experience). Sincerely, C. Kent Miller, P.E. 3. PP 168 Engineering Education Requirements: Opposed to this entire policy. PS 1737 Licensure and Qualification for Practice: Support the proposed changes. PS 1739 Engineering Education: Support the changes except for the following: 7…It is the position of NSPE that jurisdictions should accept the precept that an engineer has fulfilled continuing professional obligations in all jurisdictions. Under this precept, each state and territorial jurisdiction would recognize as being “substantially equivalent” the continuing professional development standards of all other jurisdictions for the purpose of licensing by comity. I do not believe that comity for continuing professional development is, or should be, the same in all states. As an


example, states that have earthquake design requirements are totally different from states that don’t. Laurie Schultz 4. Am I reading this correctly, that the proposal to require the obtainment of an advanced degree in engineering Before a candidate can sit for the P.E. exam? If that is the case, I do not have any issues with the changes. I am opposed to this requirement. Kristi Honeywell, P.E. 5. While I do not fully support the requirement of a Master’s Degree to become licensed to practice engineering, I do see the value in requiring additional education and favor the “BS Degree + 30” idea. However, I wonder if this is truly needed for all 4-year degree graduates graduating from all schools. Before fully adopting and enforcing the requirement to have the 30 extra credit hours prior to sitting for the exam and/or being licensed as a professional -- In my opinion, it would be more beneficial to the profession of engineering and to those practicing in that profession if all ABET accredited schools assuredly and absolutely provided the same level of education and training and produced the same level of graduates equally prepared to become professional engineers. NSPE Position Statement No. 1739(1) states, “The National Society of Professional Engineers believes engineering educational programs must prepare graduates for the practice of engineering at a professional level. These programs should include certain elements that distinguish the engineering function, namely, the analysis, design, and synthesis of engineering systems. NSPE further believes that basic and advanced programs of study should be designed to provide engineering graduates with competent technical and managerial skills…” Are we 100% convinced that this is happening? There are numerous examples of some schools requiring 110 credit hours or less to graduate. If all ABET accredited schools were producing equally qualified graduates, one has to wonder if the “BS Degree + 30” would still be needed. Perhaps a thorough vetting of this question has already occurred within the upper ranks of NSPE at the national level and thus this communiqué is moot and the only alternative is the “BS Degree + 30” requirement to maintain a high level in the quality and responsible practice. If not, I would very much like to see every effort made by NSPE, NCEES, ASCE, and other such organizations to work very closely with ABET to assure engineering programs are all producing the same high quality graduates who are equally prepared to responsibly practice as professionals. A second point I would like to make is that what is happening now with traditional under graduate programs in engineering has already occurred within the accounting profession. A standard accounting degree now takes 5 years to graduate with a bachelor’s degree. Therefore, a new “regular” engineering degree (not a full-on Master’s program) should be earned through a five-year program – essentially achieving the same end as a “BS Degree + 30” requirement. Thank you for your time. Shannon R. Schultz - PE, CFM " Name: Susan,Richard E-mail: [email protected] In response to NSPE’s request that we provide input on the Group 3 PP and PS changes, the Louisiana Engineering Society Board of Direction considered the changes proposed in its meeting of November


13, 2015. The LES Board of Direction hereby submits the motion below to amend the proposed changes. The amendments proposed by LES are in green and highlighted in the motions. We offer these for consideration by the NSPE House of Delegates. Regards, Susan H. Richard, P.E., FNSPE NSPE Representative Motion from the Louisiana Engineering Society regarding PP No. 168 for Licensure The Board of Direction of the Louisiana Engineering Society hereby moves to amend the proposed changes to National Society of Professional Engineers Professional Policy 168 being forwarded by the LQPC PP No. 168—Engineering Education Requirements ADOPTED: 2002 LATEST REVISION: XXXX 2015 SUNSET DATE: XXXX 2022 NSPE CONTACT: LQPC With the continuing rapid expansion of knowledge required to practice in the basic as well as the many specialized areas of engineering, NSPE believes that additional engineering education, beyond the four year ABET/EAC degree, will be required in order to meet the formal academic preparation necessary for the practice of engineering at the professional level (licensure) in the 21st century. Therefore, NSPE supports the concept of engineering licensure candidates meeting additional academic requirements as a prerequisite for licensure and practice of engineering at the professional level. Possible additional requirements could include options for additional education (such as a master’s degree in an engineering discipline) or alternative approaches (such as a baccalaureate degree plus additional coursework, or profession and industry-based professional development).

Moved and passed this November 13, 2015 by the Louisiana Engineering Society Board of Direction.

- 52 -

Position Statement 1737 – Member Comments

Name: James Drago, E-mail: [email protected], Comment: Accept changes.

Name: Peter,Mitchell, E-mail: [email protected] Comment I support NSPE PS 1737 as currently proposed.

Name: David,Rodriguez, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Accept with comments.

Name: Thomas,Friese, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I disagree with Policy Statement No. 168 and do not agree with requiring additional education such as a masters degree for Licensure. If a faculty graduated from an ABET qualified program and holds a PhD from an ABET accredited program, I agree with foregoing the FE exam. But any PhD should not suffice."

Name: Ken,Dunn,. E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Para a conflicts with proposed changes to PP168. Recommend language emphasizing conformance to PP168 instead of emphasizing conformance PLUS restating the position. The latter virtually assures that this PS and PP168 will conflict at some point.

Name: Jason ,Byler, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I didn't realize there were testing exemptions if you had a doctoral degree or were a faculty member. I don't agree with those exemptions. There is no reason they shouldn't be taking the FE exam.

Name: Colin, Maynard, E-mail [email protected] Comment: "The changes seem to be reasonable and recognizes that ABET does not approve curricula, they approve programs.” Name: William,Keen, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Private practice salaries are already below what most graduates can get from jobs in industry, government or construction. Are professional engineers worth more in the marketplace if they have a MS degree? Probably not enough to raise private practice salaries to match those for engineers with BS degrees employed in industry. You're 22 with a BS in engineering. Are you likely to spend $10-15 more for an MS degree that's required for private practice when you can take a job in industry with a BS degree and still be ahead salary-wise?"










Name: L G (Skip),Lewis, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I approve of PS 1737 (and also PP 168 & PS 1739) written as proposed. Name: ,Lang,dennis E-maiL; [email protected] Comment: "No, everybody should have to take and pass the FE. Why should a professor be exempt other than he considers himself to good to take it, or is fearful of failing it and looking bad to everybody. I also think that all engineering professors should be licensed professionals who have passed the FE, had 4 years of meaningful experience under a PE, and have passed the PE exam. No, I am adamantly against requiring a MS to be licensed. That is foolish talk! I agree that PE should be sufficient. I have a number of additional credentials such as they are (LEED AP BD+C, CPESC, CPSWQ). NSPE should lobby against those credentials as a requirement for things PE's have traditionally done. EIT, EI are good titles for graduates who have passed the FE in the workplace working toward their PE." Name: Frederick,McNealy, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do not agree with the Section a. strike-through Name: Marshal,Clark E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes. Name: Robin,Whitworth, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Disagree with much of the policy before, and after the changes. Unique, local, technical challenges are the primary reason why licensing in different states is different. To avoid all engineers having to have expertise in all unique, local, technical challenges the laws should remain different. I disagree with the four year degree/program requirement which unnecessarily restricts ways of obtaining knowledge to colleges, and I strongly disagree with eliminating the requirement for professors to take the fundamentals in engineering test." Name: Wayne,Sutton, E-mail [email protected] Comment: "I do not support the mention of a degrees farther than a 4 year degree from an ABET accredited university or college. The further indication of GIVING A PhD A PE LICENSE IS OBSURD. The common requirement of a 4yr degree, taking the FE, 4 years of real world experience and PE exam is the cornerstone of becoming a PE. By furthering your education, you are given a PE without real world experience is where it is obsurd. The 4 years of real world experience, with the applicable codes, is the best of the program to become licensed. It is too often that academia and the real world clash with the real world winning. PhD's are excellent at the formulas and the calculated world. If they are to apply their knowledge without the 4 years real world code experience and not taking the competency exams, the professional liability insurance will increase to cover an incompetent real world engineer who was given a PE. What will happen to public safety since they only know how to calculate a formula and are not familiar with the applicable codes such as the National Electrical Code. It's a recipe for disaster with the public we are trying to protect, suffers the consequences."








Name Richard,Hallman, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I disagree with the exemption from the Fundamentals of Engineering exam for anyone with doctoral degree in engineering or related science. I would completely remove paragraphs d and e without overwhelming data to justify it. Such data may exist, but I have no knowledge of it." Name: Eric,Tappert, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "First of all, ABET is no longer the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, it's just ABET.

Secondly, one of the most important characteristics of an engineer in responsible charge is the ability to identify situations where expertise of other disciplines is required. This means that the engineer must have some knowledge of other areas of practice in order to recognize that an expert consultation is required. The fundamentals exam provides some testing of this broad based knowledge, as opposed to in-depth specific area knowledge. PhD programs are invariably very specific and do not provide basic education in other fields, thus a PhD holding candidate should not be permitted a waiver of the fundamentals exam.

As an aside, even the Bachelors degree has limited exposure to other areas of engineering. In the last 30 years or so, the requirements for a Bachelors degree have dropped from 145-150 semester credits to 120-125 semester credits, with the ""broadening"" courses eliminated (to the tune of 6 or 7 courses, for example EEs are no longer required to have statics and dynamics and strength of materials courses.). Just my two cents...E. Tappert, PE" Name: Jeffrey,Fenn E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support common law and uniform licensure requirements in all US jurisdictions. I do not agree with Qualification c. with respect to credit for teaching or advanced degrees. The intent of the work period between getting a BS/BET degree and licensure is to acquire practical industry/field experience and expand on what was taught in school (additional academic experience is not equivalent). By granting credit for additional scholastic activity, this is entirely outside the intent of the work experience. I am not clear on the difference between Qualifications d. and e., but disagree with both. The purpose of the FE is to confirm retention of key principles of engineering. As we all know, advanced classes and degrees do not always build on past education, but often expand specific skill sets. If the education does indeed build on the past, passing the FE should not be a challenge to those with the advanced degrees. Prove yourselves and take the exam. I agree with the Certification Programs and Professional Engineering Intern changes and direction, but as noted above, strongly disagree with recognition of advanced degrees as being qualifications for licensure as well as any expansion of educational requirements before licensure." Name: William,Hollingsworth, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I respectfully but strongly disagree with ""additional academic requirements beyond the bachelor’s degree, such as a master’s degree or equivalent, as a prerequisite for licensure."" An






ABET accredited BS degree in engineering, plus a set number of years of practice under the instruction of a licensed PE(s), plus recommendations from an appropriate number of licensed PEs, is sufficient." Name: Hiram,Ribblett E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "While I understand that you are requesting input in the strike through portions, I would like to comment on your policy of not requiring advanced degrees to take the FE and also the policy of wanting more than a BS for licensure. Both policies need rethought. Why, if a person has an advanced degree should they not be required to take the fundamentals exam? If they are that smart, then it shouldn't be a problem for them to pass it, and it is intended to assure the candidate is fundamentally sound in the profession. As to the wanting additional credits and/or advanced degrees, when you view this policy along with the aformentioned one of exonorating advanced degrees from the FE, it becomes apparent that the academic community is trying to be self serving. If engineering is becoming more complex, then ABET should be requiring more from the undergraduate degree. If something is broken, then fix it, don't make it worse." Name: Allan,Coutts E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The proposed changes to NSPE Position Statement No. 1737 are a positive improvement, which I support. There is one phrase needing work. This is in the Engineering Licensure section: “State licensure laws for design professionals …” Is the intent really to focus on design professionals, which is a very narrow term as compared with most definitions related to the “practice of engineering?” Consider updating this because many engineering practitioners still believe that “If I don’t design something that requires a stamped drawing for fabrication, I don’t practice engineering.” This completely misses the engineers who prepare analyses, procedures and permits that are necessary to demonstrate that a process is “safe” or adequate. Consider changing “design professionals” to “design and consulting professionals,” or a similar variation." Name: Scott,Barnhill E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I disagree with those with a Doctoral degree being dismissed from taking the FE exam. The advanced degree is so specialized that it is not a substitute fro knowledge of fundamental engineering principles. Name: James,Henry E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I disagree that Phd's should be excluded from the FE or any other exam required for licensure. I also disagree that individuals in academia should receive any exemption form requirements of becoming a licensed Engineer. Their lack of experience is hazardous to the general public should they be granted licensure based solely upon an academic knowledge base. Name: G R,Talley, E-mail: [email protected] Comment "I would strongly oppose this revision to the point of renouncing my membership. A graduate degree may make a professor but it does not make a professional engineer. This basically says that someone with a PHD is as qualified as a certified PE with 20 years experience. This was either thought up by someone from academia or the government. In either organization they think that book learning is equivalent to practice. Not having to take the test is the topper. If the PHD holder is that







smart then the test should be no problem to him other that it reflects real world problems that he has no experience in. As to the general PE qualification, I strongly disagree again. How can a Civil Engineer address a chemical engineering problem as well as a Chemical Engineer? This person is definitely less qualified than the field speciality engineer. We are dealing with facts not feelings." Name: Paul,Hansen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "In part a) you have ""or one assessed by ABET/EAC as substantially comparable"" In order to make this an acceptable standard across the United States, you need to clarify, because right now, ""substantially comparable"" varies from state to state depending on the particular board's interpretation/consensus/precedents/whims. For example, Illinois considers a B.S. in Physics or Chemistry plus four years of engineering experience as qualifying as an equivalent to a bachelors degree in engineering. Minnesota, on the other hand, will not consider anybody with a degree that does not say engineering for licensure - ever. (Although I would bet that there are no engineers licensed in Minnesota who would turn down a Nobel Prize in chemistry or physics if it were offered to them) On the same line, if a master's degree is required, must it necessarily be in engineering? It should be resolved and stated in your policy if a masters degree in chemistry, physics, or computer science an acceptable equivalent, assuming the prospective licensee has an acceptable level of experience in the practice of engineering. Requiring a master's degree for licensure will be far too restrictive - the profession will cut out many competent, professional individuals by doing so, and will restrict licensure to those who either a) can afford an uninterrupted education through the master's degree or b) who both work for an organization that is willing to subsidize post-graduate education and who live in an area where night classes towards a post-graduate degree are available. If the master's degree becomes a prerequisite to licensure, the argument that in-house engineers at manufacturing corporations should be licensed becomes invalid because of the unattainability of a masters degree for so many. If you are going to consider any type of ""on the job experience"" or other education in lieu of a master's degree in engineering - and, for the reasons above, I urge you to do so - you need to spell out an exact formula. Otherwise, each state will have its own interpretation of what is an equivalent to the master's degree, and there will be no commonality and licensure by comity will be nearly impossible. What you have proposed is a good starting point for a meaningful discussion. However, the document as it stands now is far away from being acceptable as a policy." Name: Robert ,Hoffman E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not agree with the concept of a doctoral recipient NOT having to take the EI or EIT portion of the testing requirements. The fundamentals sections of the test ensure some amount of broad base of knowledge in engineering. I also do not agree that a Masters degree is needed for licensure as there is already a requirement for several years of practice under a PE before one can take the professional part of the test. The wording




proposed is just a little less overt but will push the profession in that direction of requiring advanced degrees in order to be a PE. " Name: Daniel,Aucutt E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I understand the desire to have university professors and practicing engineers within industry become registered. I do not understand or support the elimination of the requirement to have these individuals pass the fundamentals of engineering exam. Name: Gregg,Humphrey E-mail: [email protected] Comment: You should not remove the ABET oversight on evaluating programs. There needs to be a definitive reviewing authority. Name: Eric,Michnovez E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "While I agree ""that additional engineering education, beyond the four year ABET/EAC degree, will be required..."" to practice Engineering in the future, we would be much better off to have practical, real world experience than additional classroom teaching. Expanding the requirements of the type of work candidates do in the 4 years already required of them to take the PE exam might be an option. But more schooling is not a panacea and will only serve to drive away potential engineering candidates. That being said, the strikethroughs do indicate a weakening of the previous firm position to require a master's degree or equivalent, and I support LQPC’s proposed revisions." Name: Theodore,Maynard E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I disagree that individuals with a doctorial degree should be exempt from the exams. Name: Knud,Hermansen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: My only comment is that an ETAC/ABET degree should be afforded equivalent status as an EAC/ABET degree. ETAC is applied engineering practice which is exactly what a P.E. is doing. Name: Barry,Smith, E-mail [email protected] Comment: ,I have reviewed NSPE Position Statement 1737: Licensure and Qualifications for Practice. I think engineers that have a PhD in Engineering should have at least the same 4 year practical application of their engineering education principles to be granted the title Professional Engineer without successfully passing the Principle of Engineering Fundamentals Exam. Name: Victor Alan Werner E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I approve the wording of the Position Statement as submitted Name: Jeffrey Arey E-mail: [email protected],










Comment: I have no objections to the revisions to NSPE PS 1737. Name: George Stanley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not support this position, All individuals should take and pass the EIT. I also believe that non-degreed individuals should be allowed to take both the EIT & PE after suitable experience under the direction of a PE. " Name: Jesus,Sandoval E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Approve of the changes. Name: Gerard,Stocker E-mail: [email protected] Comment: No specialty certification. Only licensed professional engineers. Some states license a P.E. in an area of specialty but we should not encourage any specialty licensing. Name: Geoffrey,Morris E-mail: [email protected] Comment: section d. under qualifications is worded funny. I believe you need to drop the word ""an"" before ""an earned a doctoral degree"". Otherwise I support the changes" Name: William,Coulbourne E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I believe the official name for ABET is ABET. It is no longer spelled out as though it is an acronym. Name: Steve,Chittenden E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Under item a, I think the master's degree or equivalent should be deleted." Name: Joseph,McLaughlin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not feel that ""additional academic requirements beyond the bachelor’s degree"" should be required unless the current Continuing Education requirements for Professional Engineers while an Engineer Intern serving a four year apprenticeship satisfies that requirement." Name: Keith,Miller E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I sent a message a short time ago responding to PP168. I believe some of my comments are more applicable to PS 1737. These comments include: a. I strongly disagree with NSPE supporting that an advanced degree be a prerequisite for becoming a PE. This can only be in response to lobbying efforts by the colleges and universities who are already burying young adults obtaining undergraduate degrees under mountains of debt. The requirement of a










BS degree already disqualifies many otherwise qualified PE candidates who are unable to obtain this degree for any number of reasons that may include financial. That doesn't necessarily mean they are unqualified to be PEs. Now we're talking about adding more academic requirements to the equation? For NSPE to endorse mandating that candidates bear additional time and cost burdens be qualify to be a PE is absurd. Higher education will never replace practical experience as a means of learning. b/c. While I agree with what is said in this section, I also know that some PE candidates do not take or pass the FE while they're in school or shortly after. Many states require that the four years of progressive experience accumulate after passing the FE. If a PE candidate practices a number of years under a PE who will attest to this experience, why doesn't that experience count for preparation to be a PE. This is a requirement that should be stricken from this type of law in every state. On a similar note and in reference to a statement I made in Section a. above, I caution being too generous with crediting advanced degree time as practical experience. No amount of time in the academic world compares to actual practice and to give more than 1/2 credit for practical experience requirements for holding a graduate degree should not be permitted, regardless of the degree held. d. I can support this statement. e. How is this different from d?" Name: John,Alger E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am guessing I am in the minority here but I don't agree that an individual that holds and advanced degree like a PHD, should be excused from taking the Fundamentals exam. I believe that the term after graduation, to qualify for the PE exam should be equal and apply to all. Our teachers are really bright people but I can attest to having some in college that were good at lecturing and speaking but really did not do much with regards to actually getting in the trenches and making or working on things. This is the only way to really get good in your area of practice. I am concerned that we are encouraging a process to bypass actual hands on experience in exchange for academia. you really need both but the hands on makes the class study more effective. Like I was told, Experience is a tough teacher because it gives the test first then the lesson later.” Name: Steve,Koetting E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I disagree that licensure education requirements should establish a masters degree in engineering or it's equivalent in order to achieve licensure. The majority of engineers do not have a masters degree in engineering and most states require 4 or more years of engineering practice in order to qualify as a licensed professional engineer candidate. NSPE's goal is to get more engineers licensed and this proposal seems counter to that established goal. Name: Joseph,GRACI E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Credit should not be given for teaching. Credit should only be given for education and/or experience in the work place. There is no evaluation process for teachers. I had many teachers that just regurgitated what was in the books but couldn't answer a question concerning the material. They also couldn't relate the book concepts to real life engineering. Remember they all gave us tests





where we ""didn't have to consider wind load"" and then the first thing we had to design was a building that had wind load. Education AND experience is a powerful tool. Either one alone is not. Joe Graci, P.E. 10-6-15 " Name: Melinda,Dejewski E-mail: [email protected] Comment: It is absolutely wrong to excuse anyone from having to take the Fundamentals test just because they have a doctoral degree. The requirements should be the same - 4 years of real world experience. Just being able to write lengthy papers and such does not make anyone a good engineer. Again, this is favoring the universities, not engineers in the workplace." Name: Patrick,Eddy E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Looks good as proposed. Name: James,Rabine E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Regarding passage of an EIT exam, the policy should recommend that those who have already passed a comparable state exam will be exempt from the requirement to pass the national standard exam." Name: Don,Phillips E-mail: [email protected] Comment: It would seem reasonable that an advanced degreed engineer be excused from the fundamental's examination. Name: Brian,Vinci E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Parts of the revision to this policy are good, but fundamentally I do not believe that additional academic requirements should be required for the PE as stated in Qualifications part a.; this policy and PP-168 should not be adopted. University and college engineering programs should, and currently do, prepare BS graduates with the knowledge required to begin the path to the PE license. Additionally, I do not believe that those with a Ph.D. should have an exemption to taking and passing the FE exam. There is no basis for this exemption - either we all pass the standard or there is no purpose to the standard. (Please note that I am a Ph.D. P.E.)" Name: Richard,Pikul E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I have a problem with the concept of avoiding the fundamentals of engineering exam. I am in favor of the exam being taken immediately after the undergraduate degree. Otherwise, refresher courses are available. How did this position statement slip by? Did I miss being asked to vote on this position?" Name: Steven,Richards E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,I think it is a mistake to exempt Ph.D.s from the experience requirements to sit for the exam. Just because someone spent the time in an academic environment is not equal to the time









someone spends in industrial environment. This is a serious shortfall in thinking that the academic world in some way mirrors real-life. We have serious shortfalls in teaching engineers as it is. We should not be looking to exempt a class of people without experience to train our future engineers. Academics should be excluded from consulting unless they possess a PE and have the appropriate liability insurance. We should be encouraging our Ph.D.s to become PEs. Name: John K,Marr E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Looks fine to me. Name: Rick,Kaufmann E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes. Name: Kenneth,Kogut E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Accepted as proposed Name: Stephen,Bolinski E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support all of the recommended changes regarding the LQPC's proposed revisions for NSPE Position statement 1737. Name: Nijam,Uddin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: “Qualifications paragraph e duplicates paragraph d and is unnecessary. Paragraph a should be modified to delete the words ""such as a master’s degree or equivalent"" as it conflicts with PP 168. otherwise I support the revision." Name: Harold,Hite E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I believe a person who has received a graduate engineering degree from an institution that offers an ABET accredited undergraduate degree should be qualified even if their undergraduate degree is not in engineering or is from a non-accredited institution. Name: LeRoy ,Johnson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Agree with proposal. Name: Keith,Peltason E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I concur with all proposed modifications Name: Davis, Flaten E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "While much of this document looks and appears good, I personally think that it still needs some work before I can support it. I'm not fully versed in the terminology associated with accreditation, but it needs to be clearly spelled out that a person can only become a licensed engineer











by first obtaining a bachelor's degree in engineering, not engineering technology, or just based upon experience working in an engineering-related position. In the Qualifications portion of the statement, it appears as though items d and e are so similar that they can be combined into one item. Finally, the idea of using the term ""engineer intern"" instead of ""engineer in training"" should be removed. Intern has long been used to identify individuals who have not graduated from college. To start referring to graduates as ""interns"" is actually rather insulting." Name: Edmund,Segner E-mail: , [email protected] Comment: I agree. Name: Bryce,Johnson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with LQPC's proposed revisions to PS 1737 (strikethroughs read on-line) with one exception. If a program must be assessed as substantially comparable to an ABET/EAC program, and it will not be assessed by ABET/EAC, then what entity would do the assessment? Does it go to the LQPC by governance that is already in place? Bryce G. Johnson, P.E. October 7, 2015." Name: Roch,Shipley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do NOT support the waiver of the Fundamentals (EI) exam. It is important that a licensed engineer have a broad background and knowledge of the basics in science, including engineering science, as well as mathematics. I took and passed the Fundamentals exam over 5 years beyond graduation with my Bachelor's. Preparation was a valuable experience." Name: Steven,Weist E-mail: [email protected] Comment: “I am against giving someone a pass just because they have a doctoral degree (PHD). Just because an engineer is more interested in going into industry to serve the public with their engineering skills, should not relegate them to having to take the Engineer in training test, while someone who has the perseverance to get a PHD should not have to take the test. I believe everyone should have to take that test to prove they have the basic knowledge base to work in industry and pursue their professional engineering license.” Name: Erin,Steever E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Interesting change, and while I find it a bit odd that we would allow a doctoral or professor to skip the FE exam, the importance is held more with the PE exam. I would support this change. " Name: Walter ,Hoffman E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the work of LQPC on the proposed revisions of 1737.








Name: Michael,Whelan E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I believe that PhD candidates need to that the Fundamental Examination for licensure. Ph.D. are highly specialized and do not cover the wide range of knowledge required for a Ph.D. degree. Name: Scott,Smith E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Engineering education without practical experience is very dangerous to public safety. I deal with PE's regularly who have Masters and Phd's who should not have PE's since they lack practical experience and common sense. Also the education requirement is being applied incorrectly to PE's applying for reciprocity. Verbiage needs to be added that current practicing PE's applying for reciprocity, comity, endorsement shall be evaluated based upon the laws in effect when they first obtained their PE." Name: Stephen,Merry E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not agree with any person seeking licensure should be exempt from taking the fundamentals exam. Many universities encourage taking the exam before graduation. Successful completion of a doctoral program requires many years of extremely hard work, but also enables many opportunities to take the exam. Licensure should be something that we are encouraging for all engineering students, not just a select few that decide to seek one." Name: Daniel,Morehead E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the proposed change in the NSPE Position Statement. Name: Charles,"Piersall, P.E. E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Concur with the updates. Name: Wayne,McVicar E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Agree with proposed modifications Name: Elaine,Deremer Cook E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the revision with the strikeouts. Name: Angela Faye,Cross E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with making the standards for licensing uniform. Will I need to take an examination to demonstrate proficiency in other disciplines? Will I need to obtain a master's degree to maintain my license? I don't think that anyone should be excused from taking the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam. Those with advanced education and experience should pass it more easily. I prefer the term Engineer Intern over Engineer In Training. Name: Edwin,"Lutgring, III"










E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes. Name: Lee,Rausch E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do not agree that advanced degrees should some how waive the requirement for the EI exam nor be counted towards the 4 years of experience required to obtain an engineering license. Additional education is not equivalent to actual real life work experience. It was too obvious in my college experience that many of the professors lacked real life knowledge of engineering and hence should not be given a pass on acquiring this experience. Name: Lee,Rausch E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do not agree that advanced degrees should some how waive the requirement for the EI exam nor be counted towards the 4 years of experience required to obtain an engineering license. Additional education is not equivalent to actual real life work experience. It was too obvious in my college experience that many of the professors lacked real life knowledge of engineering and hence should not be given a pass on acquiring this experience. Name: Tim,Burnham E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with all changes with the exception of removing the stipulation that ABET/EAC is responsible for assessing whether a program meets the requirements. Without stipulating who should do this analysis, the requirement loses it's effectiveness. A better way would be to stipulate ""by ABET/EAC or it's equivalent""" Name: Barry,Dunkley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the NSPE committee's comments with the exception that I think the various sections of NSPE should assist with enforcement and that part left in. Name: Randell,Riley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am opposed to the academic community being granted any type of waiver on the exams. Another years credit allowing them to take it earlier probably has merit. If you are going to teach and be an advocate for professional engineers, then you need to be one having gone through the same process as those that have.

Even military officers go to boot camp." Name: Ken,Ferry E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I fully agree with the proposed revisions to NSPE Position Statement 1737 as being clarifications of this statement.

Name: Drew,Hains E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The definition of practice engineering in the model law needs more clarity with respect with respect to work done by Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Several states, and FL specifically,










are struggling to understand that Naval Architecture is a engineering discipline. NSPE's Position statement should suggest that engineering disciplines listed in Appendix C of NSPE Body of Knowledge be included in the model law. "

Name: Tracy,Davis E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Support as proposed.

Name: Charles,McComas E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Qualifications, bullet a. - If not assessed by ABET/EAC, who would be qualified to state a degree is substantially comparable? This seems to be a money grab or an attempt to allow unaccredited degrees to be considered valid engineering degrees. I strongly disagree with proposed change.

Qualifications, bullet d. - Only Ph.D. in engineering should allow waiver of taking FE exam. Quit diluting our profession!

Qualifications, bullet e. - Strongly reject all proposed changes.

I do not believe these proposed changes are for the betterment of American engineers. If you want to be an engineer, get an engineering degree from an accredited university. If you do not have an engineering degree, prove you are capable and competent by passing the FE exam. Name: Peter,Perkins E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Opposing licensure by area of study seems contradictory to an expanding body of knowledge requiring more schooling. Name: Steven,Nicaise E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support this revision. Name: Brad,Wilder E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Item (e) should be revised to be consistent with item (d). The term ""Ph.D"" should be changed to ""earned doctoral degree"" to incorporate equivalent non-Ph.D. programs, e.g. Doctor of Engineering, Doctor of Engineering Science, et.al." Name: Mark,Moreno E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I disagree with adding additional education to professional licensure. It is difficult enough getting students into the engineering field. Additional education requirements would only diminish the number of capable students. It would add an extra expense to becoming a professional engineer. Name: Scott,Sabol E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am a licensed PE and an academic. Although the FE exam has become more constrained to areas of particular practice recently (a move that seems to contradict the importance of the broader ""body of knowledge"" initiative), there is still notable breadth. A PhD program is not noted









for its breadth but for its depth. I therefore do not support the idea of allowing a holder of a PhD to be excused from passing the FE exam. Similarly, I do not support the idea of allowing a faculty member to be excused from passing the FE exam. If a goal is to get more licensees, and to do that by getting more faculty to be licensed, this is not the best method. A better method might be to have positions supporting that colleges and universities reconsider their requirements that (almost) all tenure-track faculty hold doctorates. A mixture of masters-degree holding licensed PEs with substantial practice on the faculty rosters might be the better long-term solution." Name: Glenn,Landguth E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The following paragraphs seem to be saying essentially the same thing for two different classes of applicants. Why not use similar construction in the wording. Such as:

a. Permit non-licensed individuals who hold both a degree from an ABET/EAC-accredited undergraduate engineering degree program or its equivalent and a Ph.D. from an engineering program that is ABET/EAC accredited at the undergraduate level an earned doctoral degree in engineering or related science, from an institution that offers ABET/EAC accredited programs, to be excused from taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. b. Permit Engineering faculty who hold a degree from an ABET/EAC accredited undergraduate degree program, or hold a Ph.D. in engineering from an institution that offers an ABET/EAC accredited undergraduate degree program, to be excused from taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. Name: Thomas,Smailus E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I support the loosening of the requirements from PhD in Engineering to ""doctorate in engineering and related sciences"" - as the previous case was too restrictive. However, I question the motivation in allowing doctoral holding person from not having pass the FE exams - which are the foundational underpinning of Professional Engineers (especial in light of the push put forth in the BS+30 type position). If the foundational knowledge is indeed critical, it should be demonstrated by ALL licensed engineers. These exemptions seem to exist solely to facilitate faculty in obtaining a PE late in their careers without the burden of having to refresh their foundational knowledge. But if they don't have the knowledge, what are they doing that requires licensure to begin with - and is that licensure requirement even valid. Licensure for licensure sake isn't a supportable goal unless licensure ensures a consistent achievement and for that the FE exam should be passed by all." Name: Mark,Eatinger E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,I am against requiring more than a four year degree. Why would one that has a four year degree not have already taken the FE exam? Name: Shane,Smith E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Support national licensing requirements. Do no support additional higher education requirements or allowing higher education to bypass testing requirements.






Name: Shelia,Neumann E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I have reviewed the strikethroughs but disagree with a person who has an accredited degree and PhD from accredited program to not take the EIT. I think all engineers should take the written test as early as the undergraduate. So, I do not concur with the allowing of no EIT exam with PhD." Name: Richard,Gilbert E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I disagree with qualifications provisions d and e, specifically where they excuse certain individuals from taking and passing the FE exam. No matter what an applicants other qualifications, the FE is a reasonable minimum standard, and is not an excessive burden on those otherwise qualified. I disagree with the attempt to change EIT to EI. I think such a change has no substantive value." Name: Vincent,Amarosa E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes Name: Don,Comire E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the red-line mark ups for NSPE PS 1737. Name: Robert,Bartley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Comment that applies to PS 1737 Licensure and Qualifications for Practice: Suggest we promote a requirement for Engineering Supervisors to have a P.E. License. Name: Randall,Cooper E-mail: [email protected] Comment; I think we should keep the ABET/EAC assessments of the programs instead of leaving this open for interpretation by some other group. Name: Jonathan,Buiter E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do not believe that PhD's should be exempt from taking the FE exam. A PhD or MS degree program involves study of a very narrow range of material and does not necessarily imply knowledge of engineering fundamentals as required to protect public welfare. Name: Richard,Weber E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The Fundamentals of Engineering exam should be a requirement for all persons who wish to sit for the PE exam. Whether a person has an advanced degree in Engineering or is a qualified Engineering Faculty member - all should be proud to sit for the Fundamentals of Engineering exam to demonstrate by example the importance of maintaining high standards for our Professional Engineering applicants.










Name: Win ,Jones E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I would be in agreement with these modifications. Name: Nikhil Bbodhankar E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "To pursue PhD , one has to pass the qualifying exam. It does not matter whether you are a P.E. or not. So unless there is a mutual agreement , F.E. exam should be required for those having PhD's. " Name: Matthew,Phillips E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Under the Qualifications section, part D and E: All EI candidates should prove competency in the fundamentals tested for in the FE test. If Engineering faculty or someone holding a doctoral degree cannot pass the test, it seems the refresher course gained from studying for the test is time well spent." Name: Janet,Houthoofd E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "No one should be excused from taking the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. People with doctoral degrees or engineering faculty should not be excused. Otherwise, we seem to end up with various sorts of people claiming to be ""engineers"" that are really not engineers." Name: Todd,Stritzke E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not agree with Item d. Everyone should be required to meet the same requirements, including taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. Bypassing this requirement for convenience undermines the intent of having a bar in the first place." Name: Jeffrey,Wheaton E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I welcome the opportunity to pander to the patronizing of members by allowing input (after great deliberation) on this and other issues. It is worth noting that this isn't a vote and the actual decision as to policy statements and position papers continues to rest with a group that is quite removed from the thousands of members who fund the organization. On to the task of offering a strongly held and well thought out opinion. Item C. replaces practical work experience with class room time. After acquisition of fundamentals, additional class room time is a matter of diminishing returns. Engineering is a hybrid profession with three legs, basic science and math competency, experience in resolving problems in the real world, and adherence to some fundamental ethics. Item C. as proposed gives greater weight to the academic, beyond fundamental, as the expense of the practical experience. I'm going to throw a quote here, I know nothing of the author, but statements must stand on their own for to grant them greater import because of who said them is an unacceptable bias: ""For the things we have to learn before we can do them, we learn by doing them."" Hannah Arendt "" I don't believe you can educate to a skill or profession. You must actually do the work."" Jeff Wheaton








Item D is a blatant insult to all who do take and pass the FE test. Such a test should be no problem for someone with a doctoral degree. It is a test of how ""well rounded"" the individual is in the fundamentals of science and math (engineering). If an individual cannot take and pass the FE test, they have shown their technical foundation is insufficient. All should take the test. Item E is similar to item D - exceptions to standards long held and honored dilute the validity of the PE earned by fully meeting the standard, i.e. actually passing the two tests and getting verified work experience in profession. Again, the test should be retained as the final determinant of one's qualifications to be a Professional Engineer. As a former member of the L&PQ committee and witnessing the various lobbying activities of academics for special treatment in the form of these exemptions and even others, it has become apparent to me that the academic sector of Professional Engineers hold disproportionate influence within the society and are acting through the society in their own personal interests. This is human nature and not only should it be resisted, where it has been successful, it should be rescinded. Name: Ryan,Johnson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Refer to Qualifications -

Section a. remove ""or one assessed""....

Section d. Consider removing this section

Section c. Consider removing this section Name: John,Turkenburg E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Certainly a higher education will add value and credentials to a Licensure, however there is no replacement for real world experience. I believe it is critical that the applicant be exposed to real world applications that do not always get reflected in a pure academic education. I could see a reduction in the time spent working in their chosen field, say 2 year rather than the current 4 years. Looking back at my time in college there were several young PHD professors and student that could have used some real world experience.” Name: Richard,Wright E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "As I stated in my comments on PP 168, I do not support additional education requirements from licensure. I also do not support waiving the FE exam requirement, as I fully understand that a doctoral candidate can get his degree without understanding the level of fundamentals that the FE exam tests for. Further, waiving this requirement runs counter to the goal of raising the standard of a PE."

Name: Blair Leblanc E-mail: [email protected] Comment: No one should be excused from taking the FE test. If I had to take it, everyone should. Besides, PHD holders are generally university instructors of some sort, and they are generally the worst practical engineers.






Name: Glenn Orgeron E-mail: [email protected] Comment: As for the granting of a waiver of the FE exam for individuals with a Ph.D., that seems contra to what we are doing. I think that may have to be considered more; if the FE exam is waived, would the 4 years of experience also wind up being waived? Is this just a clear path to a Ph.D. holder? Finally, with regard to the move toward "uniform licensure laws for all jurisdictions," that sounds a lot like NSPE trying to invade the province of the States. Although fine to review what/how other States deal with various licensure issues, I don't think that state engineering licensure boards should necessarily be encouraged to moved toward "uniform licensure laws." Name: Thomas ,Wassel E-mail: [email protected] Comment: There has been a push for several year to expand the requirement to have a PE license to more aspects of engineering. While the concept is understandable much care needs to be taken as to how the society pushes it preferences. According to the NCEES a PE is able to: Stamp and seal designs Bid for government contracts Be principal of a firm Perform consulting services Offer services to the public How do we proposal to deal with Software develop used for control of equipment? Much of what is written and employed today is done by none formally trained talented individuals who are not eligible to become licensed. Practically if the individual is not writing the code there is not oversight that is competent as the law requires, without review each line of code. While understanding the need for better oversight in the practice of Engineering we also do need to insure that we do not over regulate the area of Engineering in such a way that stifles growth and innovation. Our goal should be to improve the Practice of Engineering not segregate it to an elite few.” Name: David,Rebbin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes. Name: Ray,Schwartz E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Looks good to me. Name: Carl,Roedel E-mail: [email protected] Comment; "I DO NOT agree that additional academic requirements be imposed to be come a professional engineer outside of industry or profession based continued education (section A). I DO agree with the remaining requirements to be licensed (sections B thru E). I DO agree that a program for specialized training after becoming a professional engineer would be appropriate for those individuals seeking a license in multiple fields as opposed to highly specialized testing for each discipline.







I DO NOT agree with the engineering intern designation as proposed. In the industry, engineering intern refers to an individual that is working to become an engineer, perhaps completing some portion of their education. An EIT, refers to a ABET graduate who has achieved the designation as an engineer who is looking to better themselves in the field." Name: Rickey,Caldwell E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Few MS and PhD programs are ABET/EAC accredited fewer than 30. If an MS earner has a peer reviewed published article based on a master thesis work then that individual should be credited one year time towards their 4 year training experience. A Ph.D. earner should be credited an additional year towards experience. Instead of using EI or EIT as designations the term LLE (limited licensed engineer) should be used. To lay people Engineering Intern appears to be someone who has not earned a degree. Engineering In Training has similar connotations. Other fields use the LL designation such as LLSW or LLMSW. " Name: Clare,Kirk E-mail: [email protected] Comment: NSPE should keep ""EIT,"" since repeatedly changing it is confusing candidates, the public and potential employers. EIT is well known and respected; when it changed to ""FE"" people didn't know what it was, and now if it changes to ""EI"" it will further confuse people." Name: Thomas,Vaughan E-mail: [email protected]," Comment: Engineering Licensure “... licensure ... “ This section is just “motherhood and apple pie” – does not “say” anything. We need a lot more effort to get PE’s recognized as a real profession. Doctors, lawyers, architects, accountants are so recognized but most people don’t see much difference between my “PE “ and somebody else’s “MCSE”. THIS is what we need to be working on. MAYBE we need a need a different term: e.g.”Licensed Engineer” vs. “Professional Engineer” (everybody claims to be “professional” and half the world claims to be “engineers” including train drivers) Licensure Law “... licensure of engineers only as a ""professional engineer"" and opposes licensure status by designated branches or specialties.” I strongly agree. The “PE” should become more like the “MD” (the license vs. degree). MDs (and DO’s) are physicians [& surgeons] first then internists, cardiac surgeons, etc. Lawyers are lawyers first and then criminal, corporate, patent, etc. attorneys. We should be PE’s first then civil, structural, electrical, etc. engineers. ALSO PEOPLE LIKE ME WORK ON PROBLEMS THAT CROSS MULTIPLE DISCIPLINES. THIS is an issue NSPE should concentrate on. Qualifications “a)... additional academic requirements beyond the bachelor’s degree,...” No! I oppose academic requirements beyond the bachelor’s degree and discussed this extensively in my comments on PP 168




“b) Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering ... prior to graduation.” Definitely ALL should take/pass the FE, but the exam should be taken AFTER graduation. That way it distinguishes those on a professional track (i.e. becoming EIT/interns) from those just going into industry. Taken in school the FE is just one more thing to tick off before graduation. Taking the FE before graduation seems to be the motivation for making the exam discipline specific. This is wrong. There should be SOME test qualification for PE’s that is a broad discipline-agnostic qualification that unifies PE’s of all disciplines. “c) ... credit allowed for graduate study of engineering or teaching “. No! The license should require experience! Study or teaching is not the same as actually practicing engineering. It might be better to encourage people to take advanced courses AFTER or WHILE getting practical experience (possibly like medical students doing rounds?). I don’t think one can really UNDERSTAND advanced topics without some practical experience to relate to. “d) ... earned doctoral degree in engineering ... excused from taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. “ No! The FE should be a broad discipline-agnostic common qualification to unify all engineers. A PhD doesn’t guarantee this. People should take the FE right after the baccalaureate, then move forward. The person has declared themselves to be on the PE track and would be an EIT while in grad school. “e) Engineering faculty ..., or hold a Ph.D. ... excused from taking the FE exam”. No! ENGINEERING faculty should qualify as practicing PEs before faculty appointment – the FE is part of this process. Certification Programs “... Professional engineering licensure is the only qualification ... oppose ... certification in lieu of or beyond licensure .... “ I am in general agreement with this statement. However POSSIBLY we should compromise on opposition to ANY requirement for certification. • California requiring extra seismic qualifications does not seem unreasonable and may avoid burdening the entire profession. • I have a brother who is a physician. His license is the only legal requirement to practice medicine, but no responsible hospital would allow him to perform brain surgery with additional qualifications, or even have hospital privileges without completing a “residency”. Something, in addition to a PE, but not in lieu of, may be appropriate in certain cases. I think this policy may need more thought - but for now it is a good start. Professional Engineer Intern “..., NSPE supports the use of the title engineer intern (EI), ....” Excellent. the “Intern” term is better, and is equivalent to medicine where interns perform the “supervised practice of medicine” as do EI/EIT’s. Name: Francis,Stanton Jr E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Para. (a) : The wording should be modified per revisions to Policy No. 168 to focus on continuing education through PDHs and not post graduate degree programs.



Para. (d), (e) : Professors who hold doctorate degrees should take the fundamentals exam if they have not taken it when they were undergraduates. This test shouldn't be difficult for them, and they should not get a FREE pass from the requirements. Professions who can not pass this part of the exam process, should not be licensed, and most likely will not get comity from other states that require passing the FE exam. Allowing this exemption does not serve the profession well. There are many Professors who provide consulting services in engineering and who are not licensed professionals. If our profession enforced the licensing laws for moonlighting professors, then maybe more of them will get licensed. "

Name: Melanie,Bond Cromes E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with the wording changes to the 'Licensure and Qualifications for Practice"" as outlined in position statement 1737." Name: Robert,Wolff E-mailL [email protected] Comment: "I disagree with including the following statement in Position Statement 1737: NSPE supports the establishment of additional academic requirements beyond the bachelor’s degree, such as a master’s degree or equivalent, as a prerequisite for licensure and practice of engineering at the professional level as outlined in NSPE Professional Policy No. 168. Why not let Policy Statement 168 stand alone on this issue? It should be deleted from 1737. I also don't understand the need for engineering faculty to be excused from taking the FE exam since the subjects of the exam are what they are teaching students. I know that ultimately a State will decide, but NSPE does not need to endorse this practice." Name: Don,Trumpie E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Dear NSPE, As a person who has path to licensure thus far has been far from standard, I feel that I must voice an opinion on the issue of education and experience requirements. I am glad that you have changed the model again to allow for other pathways to become a PE. I did not graduate from an ABET accredited program. I did however have capable professors, and I still paid a heavy monetary price for my education. After working for 10+ years in industrial and OEM settings, I felt that I was more than qualified to take the FE exam and apply for the title of EIT in Pennsylvania. There were more than a few hurdles on the way to achieving that. I passed the FE exam on the f irst attempt. This showed me that my education and experience was right on par with a graduate of an ABET program, even after being out of school for 10+ years. Although I have been doing controls engineering for many years, I have a few more years of post FE exam experience to acquire before I am allowed to sit for the PE exam in Pennsylvania. I am comfortable with waiting, as that shows me that the title of PE is not taken lightly.





With that stated, I do not think that we should make this an exclusive profession, and limit it to those who pursue knowledge through academia alone. The alternate pathways need to be simplified and consolidated nationally, not eliminated. There are many ways of gaining the knowledge and ability to properly and safely practice engineering. The multitude of career paths give us a great variety of experiences and wisdom as a group of professionals. There are other problems we could focus on, including the complete lack of compliance to regulations in some areas of the private industrial setting. There are many people with the title of engineer that make decisions that affect the working public on a daily basis. A lot of these people do not have a solid base to stand on and it shows in the quality of their designs. The bottom line is still the driving factor, but sometimes it would not cost anymore to do something properly, they just do not understand what it is they should be doing to protect people. Please feel free to contact me at any time or to connect with me on LinkedIn to see my background to get a better understanding of my career thus far. Thank you for all you do and God Bless, Don Trumpie Jr https://www.linkedin.com/pub/don-trumpie/a3/134/647" Name: Edmund,Jacobsen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the strike through NSPE Position Statement 1737 Name: Thomas,Conway E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do NOT agree that PhDs get to bypass the FE exam. PhDs are too focused and FE should remain general. Every one should take FE exam after graduating 4 years regardless of anticipated advanced degrees. Unintended consequence may be a net LOSS of future PEs who never finish PhD. Name: Nicholas ,Votaw E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I am in favor of this position with the exception of NSPE's stance on additional academic requirements for licensure under Professional Policy No. 168 which I have commented on directly under that proposal. Rather than require more academic education in part a. of this proposal, I suggest that part c. is expanded to include more formal definitions of the skill sets required by a new FE engineer within the four years of professional experience before he can sit for the PE exam. It is my opinion that this ""apprentice"" could be modeled after the architectural licensure requirements and define number of hours required for each skill, e.g. # of hours performing engineering calculations, # of hours spent in construction administration, # of hours spent reviewing shop drawings, etc. It is my strong belief that practical experience is of significant more value to a professional engineer's growth than academic education.” Name: Joseph,Carson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "There are, in my professional and public opinion, significant deficiiences in scope and implementation of engineering ethics which do not bode well for our unprecedented global civilization

https://www.linkedin.com/pub/don-trumpie/a3/134/647






sustaining to year 2100 - its collapse, with resultant deaths of many billions of people, is all too possible, given the unprecedented challenges it faces. Just because NSPE and its members do not comply with the NSPE code of ethics and State Engineering law by reporting reasonable evidence of the violation of NSPE code of ethics, State Engineering law, or State Engineering rules of professional conduct (except when it is their professional or economic interest to do so, but they do NOT do so when it could put them at any jeopardy or competetive disadvantage, can we be honest to each other?), does not mean NSPE should whitewash it by removing the requirement from its policy." Name: David,Soukup E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with the changes proposed in Position Statement 1737.

My opinions reflect a Position Statement issued by the ASME Board of Governors, which has been endorsed by the Licensing That Works coalition made up of eleven other professional engineering societies.

I believe that the concept of licensure of engineers only as “professional engineers” should remain and that unique requirements based on engineering discipline not be allowed.

Section a of “Qualifications” should be edited so its words are consistent with the changes proposed in Professional Policy 168.

So my comment on Professional Policy 168 should apply here as well. Namely that the words “or other educational” be inserted after “academic.”

Also the phrase “or alternative approaches (such as a baccalaureate degree plus additional coursework, or profession and industry-based professional development) should be added after “or equivalent,” Name: Mike,Meyers E-mail: [email protected] Comment: , PP 168 comments: How does the addition of this statement (“or alternative approaches (such as a baccalaureate degree plus additional course work, or profession and industry-based professional development)” help move NSPE in a “direction toward resolution, and not continuation, of what has been a divisive issue within the engineering industry”? That statement is non-definitive and will open up even more questions/discussions. Who will determine what additional course work or industry based professional development is acceptable? Is 2, 20, 200 hours of these items acceptable? I can see Pandora’s Box being opened with this open ended statement. Make a statement and stand by it. PS 1737 comments: Item “a”: “Establish the bachelor's degree in engineering from a program accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology/Engineering Accreditation Commission (ABET/EAC) or one assessed by ABET/EAC as substantially comparable…” Big question – if not ABET/EAC, who will be the final judge if the program is “substantially comparable”? Item “d”: Including the words “or related science” is very ambiguous. What will be acceptable and who (or what body) will determine if it is acceptable? I would suggest combining items “d” and “e”. They essentially say the same thing (with a little wordsmithing).




Name: Leonard,"Bernstein, PE, F.NSPE" E-mail: [email protected] Comment: As a non-tenure track professor without a Ph.D. in the College of Engineering in a major university, I have to respectfully disagree with the provision to exempt engineering faculty members with a Ph.D. from taking the Fundamentals of Engineering exam. I have found that most of the engineering faculty with a Ph.D. are so specialized with their individual research and subjects taught that they do not possess sufficient knowledge of the fundamental outside of their research and specific courses taught. While I do agree that all engineering faculty should be licensed, I feel that allowing some to bypass the Fundamentals of Engineering exam does a disservice to the engineering profession." Name: Susan,Sprague E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Do not support additional academic requirement beyond Bachelors as prerequisite for licensure. Support exempting PhD's from FE exam, without progressive engineering experience they will still have difficulty passing PE exam. Support experience earning right after earning degree rather than after passing FE. Do not support counting academic study time towards experience, except that teaching an advanced course could be comparable to experience, " Name: LUIS,SANTIAGO E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree. Name: Harold,Schwartz E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I have reviewed the suggested changes to NSPE Position Statement 1737 and agree with

the changes. They are very appropriate and simplify the ""Qualifications"" description." Name: Gerald,Wilbanks E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes.

Name: Parick Kunz E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The Group 3 NSPE Professional Policy 168 and NSPE Position Statements 1737 and 1739 were discussed briefly at the Texas SPE Board Meeting on October 23, 2015. To date, we have received only one comment regarding the policies. This comment is as follows: (Other than this comment, Texas is neutral regarding the proposed Group 3 NSPE Professional Policy 168 and NSPE Position Statements 1737 and 1739).

“I've been in several phone conversations and a meeting at an Engineering College where this B.S.+30 was used to justify lowering the B.S. Degree requirements to 120 hours. From one phone conversation, the attached was sent to me on NCEES's position on the 120 hour Degree. I urge that NSPE include some baseline requirement (like 128 semester hours, per the attached) for a B.S. Degree in Engineering. Otherwise we risk little or no improvement in licensure with increased education beyond the B.S. Degree because the B.S. Degree requirements are lowered. “ The letter referenced above follows: To: Michael K. J. Miligan, Ph.D, P.E. Executive Director, ABET, Inc








From: Jerry T.Carter Executive Director, NCEES

Date: June 14, 2011

During its recent meeting, the NCEES Board of Directors reviewed and discussed the elements of AABET's Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs with particular respect to Criterion 5. During this discussion, the NCEES Board expressed concern that the existing criteria for evaluating engineering programs for accreditation do not require a minimum number of years of study or a minimum number of semester hours in order to be awarded a degree from an EAC/ABET-accred ited baccalaureate program. NCEES recognizes the benefits in allowing individual programs to develop and implement assessment mechanisms to demonstrate that educational and student outcomes are being attained. However, NCEES is concerned that not providing a qualified definition of one year of academic study could result in undesired consequences, most notably a reduction in core engineering curricula. In 2010, NCEES developed and adopted the NCEES Engineering Education Standard, which is used to evaluate graduates of non-EAC/ABET programs who are seeking licensure as professional engineers. In order for a graduate of a non-EAC/ABET program to be deemed qualified to enter the professional practice, this standard requires evidence of the completion of 32 semester credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences, 48 semester credit hours of engineering topics and design courses, and 16 semester credit hours in a general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum. These are minimum requirements that the NCEES member boards have determined are necessary to demonstrate minimum competence and to be afforded to offer professional services that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public. NCEES supports the outcomes-based assessment process adopted by ABET but also believes that certain aspects of the criteria, such as the minimum credit hours required, should revert to a prescriptive level to better ensure that the interest of the programs, the students, and the general public are well served. We also recognize that legislative bodies in some states are mandating a reduction in credits in all majors, and we believe that this change in Criterion 5 could be used to counter those attempts for engineering. Accordingly, NCEES would propose that Criterion 5 of the General Criteria for Engineering Programs be revised to state, "One year of study is defined as 32 semester credit hours, and programs must include at least four years (128 credit semester hours) of study." We request this recommendation be forwarded to the EAC for appropriate review and recommendations. If there are questions or if I can provide additional information, please let me know. For the Board, Jerry T. Carter, Executive Director, NCEES

Name: Lewis,Venard

E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Delete the second sentence from Qualifications part a. in Position Statement 1737. Name: Mich,Brown E-mail: [email protected]




Comment: I don't know the reason or motivation for removing the ""Enforcement"" section. I think that is a responsibility of NSPE and every member of our profession. I think the NSPE and ASCE Code of Ethics requires us to assist with enforcement. The re-statement in this Position Statement only reinforces the obligation. I did not have any objections to the rest of the changes." Name: Davin,Wallace E-mail: [email protected] Comment: In Paragraph (a.) under the “Qualifications” section, there needs to be some clarification to identify the bachelor’s degree as a 4-year degree and not the 5-year (150 credit-hour) degree that has been proposed (NCEES Position Statement 35) as an alternative path for increasing the academic requirement. Also, the mid-sentence sub-note: “such as a master’s degree or equivalent”, can be removed from the sentence since it is already included as an outline in the referenced NSPE Professional Policy No. 168.

In paragraph (b.) it would be helpful to clarify ‘student’ as ‘student seeking a Bachelor’s of Science degree in engineering’, to distinguish these students - to whom the statement applies - from students of a masters, doctorial, or other alternate educational path.

In paragraph (d.) the revision to the later part of the paragraph makes the prior qualifier redundant as edited. The later reference to the doctoral degree by default qualifies as ‘a degree’ described in the prior qualifier. It’s confusing as edited and needs clarification.

In paragraph (e.) ‘Engineering Faculty’ should be qualified as ‘Full-Time Engineering Faculty’. The wording of the second qualifying statement should be worded the same as the ‘earned doctoral degree’ qualifier placed into paragraph (d.) in-order to reduce confusion and establish a consistent use of wording and phrases.

The 'Enforcement' section doesn't belong. That is a good removal. Name: Glenn,Knak E-mail: , [email protected] Comment: Position Statement 1737 – Licensure and Qualifications for Practice “Policy 1737 items d. and e. and exemptions for taking the F.E. exam, how does that impact foreign educated students and professors who may have their undergraduate degrees from foreign universities and thus non-ABET accredited programs?” “item a - removal of ABET/EAC as the one to assess a program in which a degree or program is a little confusing. If they do not establish this criteria who will? Also within this criteria they are still mentioning a master’s degree or equivalent. What is the equivalent?” “item b - Why does the FE have to be taken prior to graduation?” Name: Phil,Gundvaldson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,"As the Delegate for the South Dakota Engineering Society (SDES), I submit the following comments on behalf of SDES: SDES is in support of PS 1737 as amended. Below are individual comments received by members of SDES: 1. Thanks for talking with me about the proposed changes to the requirements for PE licensing, specifically requiring education beyond BS to qualify for PE.





My initial reaction is not supportive of the proposed change, but I don't know the full background and reasoning behind the proposal. Still, I've known many good, highly qualified PEs with ""only"" a BS degree who would not be eligible to become licensed, even though they are skilled, experienced, and knowledgeable of the fundamentals. Cynically, it could appear to be an attempt to pressure more engineers into more education (and the dollars associated with that). Projecting forward, does this logically progress to someday raising the requirement to PhD? What after that? It makes sense to have objective, knowledge based criteria. Obviously, there needs to be a basic degree level and testing. If engineers are graduated with BS degrees and considered qualified to do the work - and pass the tests-, why would they not be considered qualified for to be licensed? I don't support the increased degree level. Nor reducing the credit requirements for a degree. If too many marginal engineers are hitting the streets, it seems more productive and effective to tighten the requirements for becoming an engineer (graduating) in the first place. The lower the level you can weed 'em out at the better. Regards, Gregg Hanson 2. I am opposed to these proposed changes. They are obviously proposed by University Professors to make it MANDATORY for Engineers to take more courses. In fact, EXPERIENCE is MUCH more valuable than any course taught by University Professors (many of whom have ABSOLUTELY no work experience).C. Kent Miller, P.E. 3. PP 168 Engineering Education Requirements: Opposed to this entire policy. PS 1737 Licensure and Qualification for Practice: Support the proposed changes. PS 1739 Engineering Education: Support the changes except for the following: 7…It is the position of NSPE that jurisdictions should accept the precept that an engineer has fulfilled continuing professional obligations in all jurisdictions. Under this precept, each state and territorial jurisdiction would recognize as being “substantially equivalent” the continuing professional development standards of all other jurisdictions for the purpose of licensing by comity. I do not believe that comity for continuing professional development is, or should be, thesame in all states. As an example, states that have earthquake design requirements are totally different from states that don’t. Laurie Schultz 4. Am I reading this correctly, that the proposal to require the obtainment of an advanced degree in engineering Before a candidate can sit for the P.E. exam? If that is the case, I do not have any issues with the changes. I am opposed to this requirement. Kristi Honeywell, P.E. 5. While I do not fully support the requirement of a Master’s Degree to become licensed to practice engineering, I do see the value in requiring additional education and favor the “BS Degree + 30” idea. However, I wonder if this is truly needed for all 4-year degree graduates graduating from all schools. Before fully adopting and enforcing the requirement to have the 30 extra credit hours prior to sitting for the exam and/or being licensed as a professional -- In my opinion, it would be more beneficial to the profession of engineering and to those practicing in that profession if all ABET accredited schools


assuredly and absolutely provided the same level of education and training and produced the same level of graduates equally prepared to become professional engineers. NSPE Position Statement No. 1739(1) states, “The National Society of Professional Engineers believes engineering educational programs must prepare graduates for the practice of engineering at a professional level. These programs should include certain elements that distinguish the engineering function, namely, the analysis, design, and synthesis of engineering systems. NSPE further believes that basic and advanced programs of study should be designed to provide engineering graduates with competent technical and managerial skills…” Are we 100% convinced that this is happening? There are numerous examples of some schools requiring 110 credit hours or less to graduate. If all ABET accredited schools were producing equally qualified graduates, one has to wonder if the “BS Degree + 30” would still be needed. Perhaps a thorough vetting of this question has already occurred within the upper ranks of NSPE at the national level and thus this communiqué is moot and the only alternative is the “BS Degree + 30” requirement to maintain a high level in the quality and responsible practice. If not, I would very much like to see every effort made by NSPE, NCEES, ASCE, and other such organizations to work very closely with ABET to assure engineering programs are all producing the same high quality graduates who are equally prepared to responsibly practice as professionals. A second point I would like to make is that what is happening now with traditional under graduate programs in engineering has already occurred within the accounting profession. A standard accounting degree now takes 5 years to graduate with a bachelor’s degree. Therefore, a new “regular” engineering degree (not a full-on Master’s program) should be earned through a five-year program – essentially achieving the same end as a “BS Degree + 30” requirement. Thank you for your time. Shannon R. Schultz - PE, CFM Name: Susan,Richard E-mail: [email protected], Comment: In response to NSPE’s request that we provide input on the Group 3 PP and PS changes, the Louisiana Engineering Society Board of Direction considered the changes proposed in its meeting of November 13, 2015. The LES Board of Direction hereby submits the motion to amend the proposed changes. The amendments proposed by LES are in green and highlighted in the motions. We offer these for consideration by the NSPE House of Delegates. Regards, Susan H. Richard, P.E., FNSPE,NSPE Representative Motion from the Louisiana Engineering Society regarding PS No. 1737 The Board of Direction of the Louisiana Engineering Society hereby moves to amend the proposed changes to National Society of Professional Engineers Position Statement 1737 being forwarded by the LQPC. NSPE Position Statement No. 1737—Licensure and Qualifications for Practice ADOPTED: July 1999 LATEST REVISION: XXXX 2015 SUNSET DATE: XXXX 2017 NSPE CONTACT: Licensure and Qualifications for Practice Committee The licensing or registration of engineers in the United States and its jurisdictions has been a key goal of



NSPE since its founding in 1934. This position statement is made to expand and detail NSPE's Professional Policy No. 152, Licensure and Qualifications for Practice. Engineering Licensure ""Licensure as a professional engineer"" is the statutory process through which a person meets the legal requirements sufficient to be permitted by law to practice engineering in that jurisdiction. Licensing and registration are the terms used, often interchangeably, in the state statutes to establish these requirements. State licensure laws for design professionals are predicated upon and justified only as a means to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. The public interest is best served by the licensure of all qualified individuals within the engineering profession. Licensure Law NSPE endorses enactment of uniform licensure laws in all jurisdictions. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) has developed Model Laws as guides for use by engineering licensure (registration) boards and legislatures in the interest of achieving uniform laws for the licensure of engineers in all jurisdictions. NSPE endorses the NCEES Model Law definitions of the ""practice of engineering"" and the ""practice of land surveying"" and encourages enactment of Model Law provisions. NSPE endorses and supports the concept of licensure of engineers only as a ""professional engineer"" and opposes licensure status by designated branches or specialties. Qualifications NSPE encourages the adoption of the following provisions in all jurisdictions: a) Establish the bachelor's degree in engineering from a program accredited by the Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology/Engineering Accreditation Commission (ABET/EAC) or one assessed as substantially comparable, as the base educational requirement for licensure. NSPE supports the establishment of additional academic requirements beyond the bachelor’s degree, such as a master’s degree or equivalent, as a prerequisite for licensure and practice of engineering at the professional level as outlined in NSPE Professional Policy No. 168. b) Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering and Principles and Practice examinations as prepared and administered by NCEES. NSPE encourages all eligible students to take and pass the NCEES Fundamentals of Engineering examination prior to graduation. c) Obtain at least four years of professional experience after the degree described above, with experience credit allowed for graduate study of engineering or teaching of advanced engineering subjects in an ABET/EAC accredited engineering program. Certification Programs Following licensure as a professional engineer, individuals may voluntarily have their expertise in a specified field of engineering recognized through an appropriate specialty certification program. Such certification must not imply that other licensed professional engineers are less qualified for practice in a particular field of specialty. Professional engineering licensure is the only qualification for engineering practice. NSPE and its state societies will actively oppose attempts to enact any local, state, or federal legislation or rule that would mandate certification in lieu of or beyond licensure as a legal requirement for the performance of engineering services. Professional Engineer Intern


To more adequately reflect the educational achievement of candidates for licensure and their progression toward professional engineer status, NSPE supports the use of the title engineer intern (EI), formerly engineer in training (EIT), and will exercise its influence to secure appropriate changes in the statutes and literature of the profession to include the new title. Moved and passed this November 13, 2015 by the Louisiana Engineering Society Board of Direction.

- 83 -

Position Statement 1739 – Member Comments

Name: Peter,Mitchell E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Very well presented. I would add a formal link in a reference section for the NSPE BOK. Name: David,Rodriguez E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Accept as presented. Name: Jason,Byler E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The National Society of Professional Engineers, considers engineering education to be the foundation of the engineering profession."" Then why do you provide exemptions to the FE exam? I know people with doctoral degrees in engineering that don't have undergraduate or masters degrees in engineering, but you will give them exemptions to the FE exam which is intended to prove they are knowledgeable of the foundation of the engineering profession. “ Name: Ken,Dunn E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Section 2 seems to conflict with LQPC proposed changes to PP168. I find Section 3 changes specious. It is no longer normative; worse, it's not even clear that ethical practice is the POINT of the section." Name: Thomas,Friese E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I generally agree with Position Statement No. 1739, and particularly would like continuing education criteria to be standardized." Name: Colin,Maynard E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I believe that the revised Position Statement should be adopted. Name: L G (Skip),Lewis E-mail: [email protected],I approve of PS 1739 (and also PP 168 & PS 1737) written as proposed. Name: Michael,Higgins E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I strongly agree that those teaching engineering should hold PE licenses. I have come upon many faculty members that do not understand the ethics of professional engineering and therefore cannot convey this to their students. I have addressed this issue to some who do not understand the ethics involved in sealing work products and make the misconceived error that someone may seal something that they are not proficient in. Licensing would require those teaching to continue their education of engineering ethics so that they may accurately present this to their students.









Name: Dennis,Lang E-mail: [email protected] Comment: 1. Scope......I like the deletions made. 2. Graduate Study.....I agree with NSPE recommendations. 3. Professional........I like the deletion. 4. Support.....Federal support I am against. The government is broke and we are ruled by despots and incompetents. We have to stop spending money at the Federal level. NSPE should make it a rallying cry to the government that though we need all kinds of infrastructure improvements, we are broke and we can't spend money on that along with the foolishness that is Washington DC. It is a mess. No to Federal support for anything. Shoot it. State funding....same sentiment if state is taking in less money than it spends. 5-7 Support.....Excellent deletion. Somebody with some sense worked on this one. (Just kidding, you all do excellent work defending and promoting the profession.) 86 .......Like it. 7 Lifelong learning...........Since we have to do it, I like the wording. 8. Eng. BOK.........Excellent!" Name: Frederick,McNealy E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Section 1. - Delete ""cultural education in the humanities and social sciences"" -> the universities have already gutted the engineering degree programs to come in line with non-engineering degrees, why dilute the engineering degree education even more by substituting non-engineering course work into the engineering degree program. Section 3. Remove all changes to this section by removing all the strike throughs and delted the new proposed wording. Section 4. Delete paragraph b., then undelete the strike through paragraph ""a."" Deleted Section 6. Undelete this section in its entirety. " Name: Marshal,Clark E-mail: [email protected] Comment I support the changes however I think there is a typo with the item 86. I believe this should be 6. Name: Robin,Whitworth E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Disagree with most of the changes. With a huge variety in types of engineering branches and applications within the NSPE membership, NSPE providing a body of knowledge that no one will read is not near the value as guidance provided to young engineers and technicians. However, guidance was taken out, and a body of knowledge was added. Life long learning, as implemented in most states, does not add value to the engineer nor make its results safer. I disagree that it should be required and disagree that it should be uniform across states due to unique, local, technical challenges some states face." Name: Jeffrey,Fenn E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Scope of Engineering Education - while it is important for an engineer to be well rounded and have broad cultural education, humanities and social sciences, these are hardly qualifications that are key to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Education







requirements such as this should not be part of a document defining requirements for a PE. These broad requirements are part of the BS/BET degree, but should not be referenced in any PE requirements. Graduate Study - ""recommends"" should be changed to ""encourages"" to be a bit softer stance. Graduate study is necessary for specific jobs, but unnecessary for others and for NSPE to lump all into one bucket is unreasonable or unrealistic. Professional Schools of Engineering - there should not be a suggestion, much less a requirement that a Professional School of Engineering offer a degree beyond baccalaureate. While most will offer this level of education, degrees beyond baccalaureate are not a requirement to be a PE and should not be a requirement for a school teaching Professional Engineering at a baccalaureate level. Lifelong Learning - the language is fine, but I would encourage language that promotes education as provided outside university or college facilities. It is too easy to fall back on our educators and too easy for them to feel that the best education is one that only they can provide. Much of the education that PEs require are provided by industrial groups, manufacturers/suppliers, and outside college campus. We should not fall into the trap of putting our professor colleagues in a potential conflict of interest when trying to regulate what continuing education a PE requires, or the best means to acquire that." Name: G R,Talley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Don't see the need for the revisions in 5,6, & 7. As to Professional Schools of Engineering section, it is now apparent why PS 1737 wants to make anyone with a PHD a PE without having to take the practice test. This is the only way most professors could become a PE. I stand by my earlier statements that any PE should have to take the practice test. If that means that professors aren't professional engineers then I am OK with that." Name: Daniel,Aucutt E-mail: [email protected] Comment: No specific changes at this time.. Name: Allan,Coutts E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The intent of NSPE Position Statement 1739 is confusing. I am not ready to accept or reject the statement wording because I am unclear on the intent. Here are some examples: • What is meant by: “that state and federal financial and other assistance and major tax incentives to support…”? There seem to be too many and’s. Is the intent that state and federal governments support engineering education (or engineering programs of study, or teaching institutions) through financial contributions, tax incentives and other assistance? • Who are “those” in the statement “that those in the private sector have a large stake in the improvement of the engineering colleges”? Is this directed at individual practitioners of engineering, business leaders, financial leaders, or businesses/corporations? • What is the intent of the “Professional Schools of Engineering?” It seems linked to the mistaken concept that engineers with just a BS degree are incapable of performing unsupervised engineering and should not be licensed engineers. Is the NSPE taking the position that all engineering schools must offer a master or PhD program? If that is so, it should be clearly stated. I don’t agree with that position, but if that is where the NSPE consensus lies, it should be a clear position." Name: Gregg,Humphrey E-mail: [email protected]






Comment: "Seems like the approach is to ""water"" things down. We need to define and shape the programs, not throw them out." Name: Knud,Hermansen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Agree with the changes. Name: Barry,Smith E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I have reviewed the NSPE Position Statement No. 1739. I am okay with how this statement is written. Name: Victor Alan,Werner E-mail: ,[email protected] Comment: I approve of the changes made to PS 1739 as submitted. Name: Marvin,Malm PE E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I like the changes as proposed. It is in agreement with my feelings and attitude. Name: Jeffrey,Arey E-mail: [email protected] Comment: NO COMMENT! Name: George Stanley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I generally support this policy. I have misgivings requesting government support of this program. I also firmly believe, that a venue must be provided for individuals who have gained professional competence thru their life experiences be allowed to stand for both the EIT & PE exams. " Name: Jesus,Sandoval E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Approve of the changes. Name: Ryan,Peterson E-mail [email protected] Comment: "One addition (I am assuming that underlined sections are new) under Lifelong Learning appear to state that NSPE supports enforced continuing education. I am against this. I ask, is there a defined problem in place that needs to be solved by forced continuing education? Or is it just something that sounds good? I believe this requirement is actually worse than non-productive. It requires engineers to take time away from work, and usually at their expense. And to what end? If a person wishes to expand their knowledge, they will do so without the need for a rule forcing it. If a person does not have the initiative to learn more, then they will not. Being in a classroom or watching an online seminar does not guarantee the attendee learned anything. They may have slept through it, but still get credit. The only consistent beneficiaries of such requirements are those who get paid to teach the classes. Does X credits plus 1 make me a good engineer while X credits minus 1 make me a bad one? This is a classic case of a solution trying to find a problem. Or perhaps worse, a solution that does not feel it needs a problem."









Name: Geoffrey,Morris E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I would like to see the different engineering disciplines defined. I believe this would benefit the health, safety and welfare of the public. NSPE is heavily focused on civil and mechanical engineering. " Name: James,Dragoset E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Considering the huge quantity of industrial sector designs presently being performed by unlicensed engineers and the completely incorrect designs from complete lack of knowledge submitted by licensed engineers, any effort to require additional education, licensed educators, etc. for licensure will drive the cost of a licensure candidate's education to an unprecedented level, such that the licensing will become unobtainable by an increasing majority of graduate engineers, serving to only worsen the above problems. " Name: Keith,Miller E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I take no exception to the statements 1-3 except that we should never mandate advanced degrees be a prerequisite to being a PE. I recently wrote a response to PS 1737 that summarizes my thoughts in regard to that. Section 4 I very much take exception to #4. As a PE, I am sympathetic to the public need for professional engineer. But how can we say that the public should pay for this education? Can't a doctor, or an accountant make the same argument? Eventually, every profession will be lobbying for legislation that requires taxpayers pay for the education of other people. That isn't the United States of America and it dilutes the quality of the education that is obtained, regardless of the degree. If the undergraduate degree isn't deemed adequate, raise that standard, but don't simply endorse piling on more degrees, and more expenses to qualify to be a PE. Based on the universities I've been around the past decade, they spend vast amounts of money on capital projects while they continue to raise tuition well beyond the rate of inflation and yet this statement says that we should be telling the state and federal governments they're not doing enough? Let's hold the universities more accountable for what they are providing to undergraduates for what they already charge. If the universities where as good as teaching undergraduates as they are at extorting taxpayer funds and tuition, we wouldn't need advanced degrees at all! Section 5 - Not sure why so much of this statement was struck out. All places that I've worked offer at least some of the examples noted. Section 6/7 - Why have we changed this position? Section 6(8) - I strongly agree with the statement supporting licensure for engineering instructors and may be the most relevant revision in all the items I've commented on today. However, I believe there will be a strong push back from the academic world on this position." Name: Joseph,GRACI E-mail: [email protected]






Comment: "Professional Engineers have to make life saving decisions every day as they practice. Why is it then that the society thinks that engineers are so inept at deciding what and how many courses we have to take to maintain our PE licenses. Before anyone else NSPE should regard professional engineers as capable enough to decide what continuing educations an engineer requires. This is big brother running amok. I predicted this would happen when the program first came out, i.e. first decide yourself what courses you need, then we want you to take a certain number of courses, then you have to take at least so many credits in this field, etc. I also complained in writing to NSPE that they violated the non disclosure portion of our its professional ethics when they supported continuing education but never disclosed that they would be charging for the courses. Enough! Let those in out professional - one of the best trained and most ethical - decide for ourselves what and how many courses we need. We are capable of doing that. The requirement should simply read ""NSPE ENCOURAGES PEs to take continuing education"" - period. We deserve at least that much respect - we have earned it. Joseph Graci, P.E. " Name: Melinda,Dejewski E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "In this section, it is stated that faculty that teach engineering should be licensed. I agree. That is why it is more important for the basis for that licensure to be the same as those in the ""real world."" Academia is very different from calculating storm water flows for a pond when the developer only has a specific dollar amount allocated to that phase of the development. The pressures are different and the ways to solve problems are different in the work world versus sitting in a classroom in the ideal situation where anything is possible and there is no tangible impact. Everyone should have to experience these situations in real time to be able to inform students what they can expect once they are out of college. Remember, the majority of the students will enter the work force, not remain in college in perpetuity and teach others. If the mission is truly to prepare students for practicing engineering in the work world, then the teaches have to have been there too so that they can understand it and prepare students properly." Name: Patrick,Eddy E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Looks good as proposed. Name: Brian,Vinci E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I can support this policy, especially the addition regarding PDH being equivalent across jurisdictions. This is desperately needed by those who are licensed in multiple jurisdictions." Name: Richard,Willoughby E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I think these changes are a step in the right direction. Name: James Rabine E-mail; [email protected] Comment: "I only want to submit a few comments on educational and work experience requirements for licensure. My perspective may be unique. I was the first person in my extended family to obtain a college degree. I obtained an Associate in Engineering degree from a program developed by the state transportation department who used to be allowed to take the EIT & PE exam with a first time pass rate of over 90%. I had about 3 years of various construction experience prior to beginning this 3






year coop program. The year I graduated the state modified its licensure law so that I had to obtain a Bachelor degree to qualify. Thus I used my technical degree to work up though the ranks while attending night school to obtain my BSCE degree ten years after graduation from high school. I immediately qualified for and passed the EIT and PE exams within months of graduating. So I had at least 13 years of trade related experience, ten of which was in engineering related positions, plus an engineering technology AS degree and a theoretical BSCE degree. While I am appalled at how unprepared younger engineers are upon graduation, I am not convinced that a masters degree is the solution. There designed oriented abilities are almost non existent except by using computers. The lack of manual calculation experience leaves them vulnerable to GI/GO irrational solutions. They have difficulty reading plans and performing simpler survey duties. To much technical content has been stripped from the educational requirements to fit in the broad social and communication training. To shift most of the STEM courses to a masters program has difficulties. The added educational requirements and cost would probably prevented me from obtaining my degree, and severely limited my 50 active years in the profession. My other concern in a masters program is that some of the science and math requirements needs to be conducted as part of the BS/BA program to assure the candidates can meet minimal skill levels prior to advancing. If not we will soon find that the credit hours required for a masters are extreme and a Ph.D. is required for future engineers to perform. The problem is that by separating the basic math and science courses from the advanced courses may require master programs to add remedial course work to refresh the unused and unapplied technical skills, and delay the engineers merging and understanding of those related nuggets of education. Last, while I have no objection to waiving the Principles of Engineering (EIT) exam for advanced degree work, I do have some concerns. First, my home states exams for a while were so general that someone who could write well could pass the exams. I know of a few who did that I would not like to recognize as a PE. Care must be taken to compensate so the PE exam is technically demanding enough to eliminate good communicators without sufficient technical proficiency. I have also seen college professors who consulted without adequate actual work experience, who lacked necessary common sense and application experience to function as PEs. I believe that Ph.D. holders must also have at least 2 years of actual field experience ""in the trenches"" to qualify for the PE exam. People who have never developed a work experience may be adequate to teach basic theory or calibrate a model, but should not be allowed to practice engineering where we need to protect the public welfare." Name: Rich,Evans E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I whole-heartedly support the continuing education. I am licensed in 16 jurisdictions, and I maintain multiple tracking tools to make sure I meet the requirements. Several states also started then stopped the concept of pre-approved courses. As I am licensed in NY, I generally follow those requirements as they are the most stringent related to approved courses. Other jurisdictions require more continuing education units than NY does which allows flexibility in the continuing education work." Name: Irina ,Constantinescu, E-mail: [email protected]




Comment: "Continuing education should NOT be required to hold a license. A very large number of professional engineers are so busy, it is unnecessary to add time restrictions. We are a world of workaholics and health and safety training along with business management are already requirements at most companies. Professional Development is extremely important but can and should be achieved through EXPERIENCE. Practice makes perfect, not conferences, networking, or PowerPoint presentations. Allow us to be what we've always wanted to be: engineers, practicing professionals." Name: John K,Marr E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I generally favor the changes proposed. Name: Rick,Kaufmann E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed changes. Name: Kenneth,Kogut E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I request that sections 6 and 7 be included, rather than excluded in the proposed document" Name Stephen,Bolinski E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support all of the recommended changes regarding the LQPC's proposed revisions for NSPE Position statement No. 1739. Name: Harold,Hite E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I believe government educational support should be for citizens only. With tax dollars we should encourage graduate study for those who are citizens so the extra education has a higher probability of being put to use within our country giving taxpayers a payout for their investment. Name: Nijam,Uddin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the changes. Name: LeRoy ,Johnson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,Agree with proposal. Name: Keith,Peltason E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I concur with the proposed modifications. However, I have exception to removing the Career Guidance from NSPE Statements. If removed from PS 1739, the following notions should be included in other statements:

encourage primary and secondary elementary students to explore engineering disciplines

provide undergraduate students information and guidance in all--not just chosen--engineering disciplines










encourage undergraduate engineering programs to provide up-to-date curricula and real-world information to best prepare graduates for professional engineering, including guidance to transition from the engineering program to either higher education or engineering practice"

Name: Edmund ,Segner E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree . Name: Lloyd,Brown E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I concur with PS 1739 Engineering Education. Name: Bryce,Johnson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "My comment on Position Statement No 1739: Engineering Education is from my belief the Licensed Professional Engineers should fulfill leadership roles in society - not at the management level of engineering, but at the management level of a technically advanced society. The one word I would change is the word ""engineering"" in front of ""management"" in section 2. Strike it or change it to.....I'm not sure what. Some engineers are capable of and should be placed in leadership roles over more than just engineers. (I am in a PhD program in the Human Dimensions of Natural Resource Management. Studying environmental psychology related to energy, water, and other natural resources. I follow this path to put engineers at the table with social scientists in the development of public policy.) Bryce G. Johnson, MS, PE. October 7, 2015." Name: Roch,Shipley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not understand why all the deletions? What is the problem you are trying to solve? Yes, the items deleted may not always be achievable, but I think it is worthwhile to remind all that engineering is important for us as a nation and should be supported by government and industry.” Name: Walter ,Hoffman E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I suggest we add to the last line of paragraph 86 of statement 1739: -should be licensed professional engineers- - who have substantial experience in actual non-academic practice.” Name: Michael,Whelan E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I believe that this policy is not necessary, and un-needed." Name: Scott,Smith E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I would add verbiage to the effect that any PE who does not repay their student loan would lose their PE license. Name: Daniel,Morehead E-mail: [email protected]










Comment: I support the proposed changes shown. Name: Charles,"Piersall, P.E." E-mail: [email protected] Comment; Concur with the updates. Name: Wayne,McVicar E-mail: [email protected] Comment; Agree with proposed modifications Name: Elaine,Deremer Cook E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with the revisions with the strikeouts with the exception of the strikeouts in Item 1. Scope of Engineering Education. When I finished my engineering degree in 1985 and started working I found I had not developed the soft skills necessary to lead a team of engineers or technicians. My university, much like many universities at the time, did not prepare me for the leadership roles that were required of me in this discipline. I did pursue training from other avenues which gave me the ability to manage program teams and now a company. However I needed to understand the teaming ideas and the amazing feats that could be completed with a number of diverse individuals. I have since seen that many universities are starting to add this to their curriculum and have developed some very new and interesting ways to do this. I feel that continuing to include this type of instruction at the university level is extremely important to our discipline and that is why I would like to see the wording in the strikeouts in section one retained." Name: Angela Faye,Cross E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "How much time will a person without a master's degree have to obtain one? What is the schedule for tax incentives for graduate education? I agree that faculty who teach advanced engineering topics should be licensed professional engineers. I do not believe that they should be exempt from either of the examination requirements." Name: Edwin,"Lutgring, III" E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Comments acceptable. Name: Lee,Rausch E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I wonder why the Career Guidance section was removed. It seem that there is such a push to engage today's youths with science and technology that this section should be emphasized, not removed!" Name: Barry,Dunkley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with the changes made in Sections 1, 3 and 4. But I do not agree with the deletions in Sections 5, 6, 7 and 86, as I believe they could be helpful. ."









Name: Randell,Riley E-mail: [email protected] Comment: At least this is a little more to the point and suggests that the academic community actually have a license. It does not say however that they should have earned it through successful completion of the actual exam. They should have to take it too. Name: Tracy,Davis E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Support as amended. Name: Steven,Nicaise E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support this revision. Name: Scott,Sabol E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I find it interesting that although this statement relates to ""engineering,"" almost all of it would also apply to ""engineering technology,"" yet other NSPE statements imply that EAC-ABET but not ETAC-ABET accredited degree programs should be ""the"" path to engineering.

Although not a suggested revision, I take issue with the following phrase:

NSPE believes that faculty who teach advanced engineering topics should be licensed professional engineers.

There are advanced engineering topics that require very little in the way of professional practice in which to be suitably prepared to teach, whereas others - especially in the engineering design areas - do require such preparation. I would hope that a phrasing better than ""advanced engineering"" would be used - phrasing that would describe the nature of the content of such courses. An engineering course on advanced mathematical modeling might not even benefit from being taught by a licensed engineer, whereas a course on reliability of inhabited structures likely would." Name: Thomas,Smailus E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "While the role of defining engineering educational components is lready covered by the administrations of universities and colleges, and ABET for ensuring uniformity and a common minimal baseline of knowledge, NSPE's role is mostly advisory on curriculum content - however its representation as the professional body influencing curriculum should not overreach (into the ABET space) nor underreach. I support much of the rewrite as it is outside the scope of NSPE to drive and regulate funding and curriculum - universities, accreditation organizations and financial aid systems already do this well. The area I see NSPE has having the most valid influence is in the professionalism, public good and ethics space. To that end, section 3 on professionalism and ethics appears to be completely lacking any ethics related recommendations - it is all focused on professionalism. As is becoming more increasingly clear, ethics are a huge problem in engineering and the interaction of ethical engineering and professional interactions. I would recommend that the recommendations add a recommendation explicitly related to ethics and the ethical responsibility to the public safety and welfare which overrides any professional responsibility to ones employer."







Name: Shelia,Neumann E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I concur. Name: Richard,Gilbert E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I find the concept of professional engineering schools a bit distasteful, primarily because of the low quality pdh courses offered by the expanding number of dedicated pdh providing companies. Without defining an appropriate standard for such a school, like ABET accreditation, I believe it would be hard to guarantee any degree of quality in the extended education. This result is something similar to the current pdh situation: Continuing education has been, for the most part, reduced to a bureaucratic requirement, that does not guarantee worthwhile continuing education is obtained." Name: Vincent Aaarosa, E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I am in Agreement to the proposed changes Name: Don,Comire E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the red-line mark-ups to PS 1739. Name: Edwin,Jones E-mail: [email protected] Comment: ,"I have a couple of comments on this one. I do not think it should be a requirement for a professor of advanced courses to be a licensed engineer. An example. My sister has her Doctorate in immunology. At one point in her career, after having several years of post doctorate studies, she taught at the university level. Her students were third year medical students taking Immunology. She wasn't an MD, but was teaching the rising MD's. So with engineering. There are doubtless many qualified professors in related fields of study that would make excellent teachers for upcoming PE's. However, they may have no interest in becoming, or working in the Engineering profession, per se. Why should we not utilize that valuable resource. I probably have just been out of the loop to much, but I see no reason for our society to require people to become familiar with this Body of Knowledge. What would be the point. It would require continuous upgrading by a committee, and therefore by the individual engineers, if they are to be familiar with it. And if the changes are in the areas outside of their field what purpose does it serve (the NSPE BOK). I just am not sure how that furthers the goal to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. It just looks like a bureaucratic morass with limited purpose. " Name Nikhil Bbodhankar E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "We should add P.E. (Honorary) verbiage. A lot of famous people get a honorary PhD , why not an honorary P.E. ? "








Name: Todd,Stritzke E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I do not agree with Item 4. If we are trying to help people achieve engineering degrees we should offer tax incentives to the undergraduates, not the limited few who pursue graduate school and advanced nondegree engineering programs. I do not agree with Item 8. Stating “A Professional School of Engineering is a baccalaureate degree” when this has not be accepted by the engineering profession. This statement should be removed until PP-168 has been accepted. Name: Jeffrey,Wheaton E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "My final contribution to this particular opportunity to provide input. Again, let us, the dues paying member authoring this and Leadership of the NSPE, acknowledge that my opinion is non-binding; it is not given the minimal legitimacy of a vote. It is sent your way in hopes that it will be evaluated and that what I hope is sound logic and reason will have some influence on decisions made by the Board of Directors. First and foremost this is a wish list. It has no force and the matters conveyed are not the proper realm of the various engineering laws. Perhaps such yearnings should be kept in house as instructions to those actually under the direction of NSPE Officers. This is a very key point - the majority of NSPE work is accomplished by unpaid volunteer members. The BOD is engaging in severe self delusion if they even consider they might have authority to direct members. Remember this always; the party that pays is the boss. Certainly there are limits to what the boss can command, but even the most tortuous spin of the business fundamental cannot reverse facts. On to the critique and argument in support of abandoning this Position Statement. The preamble falsely identifies engineering education as ""the foundation of the engineering profession."" I'll disagree with that as there are three legs to the profession, education in the fundamentals of science and math, experience as attained by actually working in the field, and the ethics, aka, standard of care that comes with providing services to clients while respecting moral obligations to protect the safety and property of the public at large. So, no, the education is not the irreplaceable core of being a Professional Engineer. It is the only leg of professional preparation that has full time employees and large institutions that can bring great credentials to bear in furtherance of the concept that they are the sole source of knowledge. Item 1 - I would dispute the statement that ""engineering educational programs must prepare graduates for the practice of engineering at a professional level."" This cannot be done as practical work experience is essential to know how to apply the fundamental learned in education to the real life problems a practice engineer diagnoses and solves. The last line of this section has a comma immediately after ""broad"" that does not belong. That statement regarding social sciences is disagreed with too - to be a proficient competent engineer you do not have to have courses in sociology, psychology, fine arts, poetry, literature, or raku pottery. This is simply the ivory tower endorsing their home industry and in doing so weakening the teaching of hard science and math. Sirs and Madams, the Emperor has no clothes. The product is diluted and then the vendor contends that you must buy much more of the product to obtain the same active ingredients.




2. Graduate Study - a recommendation means nothing. My personal experience is that after 7 years of undergraduate work I was broke and though offered a graduate position, opted to not endure another two years of poverty or go into debt to a level that would require a decade or two to repay. 3. Ethics are covered in law and with the NSPE ethics that do seem to have been universally adopted. Ethics is not an add on skill; one learns to be honest and of good character well before they are a teenager. If it's not there, no NSPE recommendation or academic course will be able to add it. 4. Government support - as all competent engineers know, the market governs. It shows in salaries and job openings. Government intervention skews the market. Talented people know that if they get a good engineering education, they will be rewarded with opportunities and good incomes because they are valuable contributors. Government support - is that an realistic professional licensing issue? I think not. This particular item is absurdly out of bounds for an organization which is supposed to be about protecting licensure and insuring professional competence. 5. Private Sector Support - NSPE ""believes,"" and as an attorney once told me, ""the world little cares what you believe."" 6. ABET accreditation takes care of all this item and any efforts to guard the quality of an engineering degree ought to be directed through that organization. 7. This is a spinoff sub-industry of the academic world and fully embracing it puts engineers in the same situation as medical and legal professionals. Much of the follow on ""continued learning,"" is relatively substance free. They are expensive, pleasant, tax deductible events that essentially add overhead to the products of the profession. Sometimes we are just so full of ourselves in these matters the pomposity makes me nauseous. Let's get over ourselves shall we? Boards enforcing laws will do more to promote competence than a galaxy of seminars. 8. This is possibly a project of noble intent, but without any significant mode of implementation. It is a work of self promotion that my just reveal a little bit of insecurity in our true value to society. Ouch - it hurts me too, but I've seen contractors with no license go right in and solve problems efficiently and in cost effective manners and sometimes they just hire ""rubber stampers,"" to endorse their work and make it official. As a final comment, I'm a member of the NRA and not once has there been any doubt about what they are about. No subgroup has come to dominate the organization, not the skeet shooters, the home defenders, the concealed carry group, the hunters, the competition shooters, they all have their interests strongly and objectively looked out for by the NRA. I have hopes that the NSPE BOD can wrest control back from some of the stronger special interests and bring a true voice (votes that are counted and results that are abided by) to the membership. Name: Gary,Fennewald E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with addition of Lifelong Learning. Name: Thomas,Wassel E-mail: [email protected]




Comment: "Its a minor point but I thought the foundation of the engineering profession is the ability to perform engineering which is developed and hone by the education we receive. Item $ - We should also recommend that this assistance be established through a course of action or duration so that the individual does not have to reapply to continue their work. The NSPE should also recommend that any novel or patent-able items that is a result of this funding be shared by the host institution, the engineer and the funding source. Item 86 If we are trying to be strong we need to say that the instructor must be license not should be. If we are not willing to set that standard because we believe that unlicensed individual are competent in the field then we need to rethink the whole issue. Name: John Hummel> E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I have the following comments on the revised NSPE Position Statement No. 1739: Engineering Education. 1. Under Section 1 on Scope, I would retain the final paragraph on limited experimentation. If NSPE is encouraging “broad, cultural education…”, then it follows that limited experimentation into related disciplines such as finance and statistics would be appropriate. 2. Under Section 3, I would retain the sentence “This instruction should …. public service”. I believe this amplification of the definition of professionalism is important especially for the younger members of the society who may not consider public service as an objective for their career. This sentence also gives credence to the professional norm of “pro bono” work that I believe should be given more emphasis in today’s society. 3. Under Section 5, I would retain all the examples in the original document. Examples increase the value of a policy immensely, especially for the younger members. Examples remove the vagueness of broad policy statements. 4. Under Section 7, I would like to complement the authors on the emphasis given to recognition of jurisdictional equivalency when considering professional development requirements. Name: Blair Leblanc E-mail: mailto:[email protected] Comment: I read it four times and still can’t figure out why anyone is discussing it, much less trying to make a rule about it. Does anyone really think that the following statement is profound?

“The National Society of Professional Engineers believes engineering educational programs must prepare graduates for the practice of engineering at a professional level.” Name: David,Rebbin E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed revisions. Name: Ray,Schwartz E-mail: [email protected] Comment Line four of the intro para: ""interest groups"" would be better. The rest appears to be okay."


mailto:

mailto:




Name: Carl,Roedel E-mailL [email protected] Comment: I agree with this position statement. Name: Thomas,Vaughan E-mail: [email protected] Comment: “ ..., all NSPE members, ... appropriate professional aims and objectives ...” Like “consensus standards” all parts of the profession should be represented. Voting on these policies should be done by ALL members ... or at least include BOTH practicing engineers and academics IN PROPORTION to number of such members in each category. 1. Scope of Engineering Education “... broad, cultural education in the humanities and social sciences. “ No! This does NOT protect the public safety nor enhance the status of the profession. I was always told that PE should know what areas he is not competent to practice in and should avoid practicing in those areas. I don’t think engineering schools are generally going to be competent in humanities and social sciences and probably should not attempt to be so. This is also a political slippery slope. One should not have to parrot back the political-correct or incorrect views of some history professor or write an essay for or against the Austrian School of economics, in order to get an engineering degree. 2. Graduate Study “... recommends graduate study ... “. No! I have seen no good explanation for this and have discussed it in my comments on PP168. 3. Professionalism and Ethics “... instill engineering students with professional concepts. ... “. No! How can an engineering faculty, THAT DOES NOT CONSIST OF PRACTICING ENGINEERS, present “professional concepts” to their students? Perhaps we should require that engineering faculty spend 50% of their time practicing engineering (what that means remains to be determined) and not more than 50% in academia. Then “professional concepts” will take care of themselves. 4. Support by Government “ ... “. This sounds like one more money grab. After the Flexner report, it was basically decided that all medical education needed to be subsidized. Perhaps we should do something really innovative. If it is felt that graduate study is needed for some profession (engineering or schoolteachers) and laws will require graduate degrees for licensing, then do it this way: After 4 years of experience, the government pays a person to go to grad school (full salary plus free education) to get the degree. The military has done this for years and it seems to work. 5. Support by Private Sector “....” This statement says nothing. It is fluff. 6. Professional Schools of Engineering “... Professional School of Engineering ... beyond the baccalaureate ...”




No! This does nothing to enhance the profession! As long as other schools are offering easier degrees in “engineering” or “engineering technology” the public will not see any difference between a PE and a MCSE or somebody in industry. “... faculty who teach advanced engineering topics ....” ALL “engineering” topics should be taught by practitioners, or faculty with practical experience. If not taught by a practitioner it is a “science” course not an “engineering” course. Some innovative advanced practical research is probably equivalent to “practicing the profession” but simple teaching or routine R&D is not. 7. Lifelong Learning “... continuing professional development ... for periodic renewal of the license ....” No – not the way this is stated! For professional societies to be relevant, participation in such societies should provide all the continuing education I need to remain proficient in my discipline AT NO ADDITIONAL COST BEYOND MEMBERSHIP. If I want to learn something different I may have to join additional societies or pay to take other courses. Purchasing books/manuals/etc. would of course be extra (presumably discounted). I don’t think webinars are they way to go - personal contact is important – IF WEBINARS COUNT, THEN READING A BOOK AT HOME SHOULD COUNT - but if MSPE wants to advocate that members could meet all CEU requirements by watching free webinars I would not oppose that. READING THE NEW CODES SHOULD COUNT. The current system appears to be little more than a variant of the old political patronage system that required government employees to contribute to political parties to keep their jobs – engineers buy CEUs and the government lets them continue to work. “... fulfilled continuing professional development requirements ... substantially equivalent ...” Only PRACTICING ENGINEERS (presumably through engineering societies) are in a position to determine what is good continuing education - NOT academics, NOT legislators, NOT others. The best continuing education usually comes from PRACTICING professional discussing what they have done in an informal or semi-formal setting. NSPE should OPPOSE continuing education – unless the content is EXCLUSIVELY determined by PRACTICING engineers." Name: Melanie,Bond Cromes E-mail [email protected] Comment: "I believe that at the least the first paragraph of the current section 6 Career Guidance should be retained, if not the first three.

In the proposed Section 6 Professional Schools of Engineering - I do not agree with requiring professors to be licensed engineers, I do think it should be preferred however. This is primarily because I believe that the academics of engineering concepts and methods can be successfully learned and taught by PhDs and candidates. Where licensure has the most impact and the most need is those practicing engineers out in the field having to deal with the fluidity and change of people and the environment.

In the proposed Section 8 there is no such word as 'publically' please update this to be 'publicly'" Name: Robert,Wolff E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The Policy Statement is not well written. Sometimes it may be well to sunset a policy and create a new one without trying to maintain the original structure of the policy. In the opening paragraph, we ask PEs in higher education to establish appropriate aims for engineering education. That is covered by ABET accreditation but ABET is not mentioned.




Para 1. It appears that the BOK is what NSPE has created to describe the requirements for Engineering Education yet it is not mentioned in this paragraph.

Para 2. Delete - covered in more depth in other parts of the policy.

Para 3. I don't know the definition of ""professional concepts"" but we normally use the term professional ethics. It seems the policy should refer to the NSPE code of ethics, not create a new term of ""professional concepts.""

Para 4. Delete paras a-e and just state the primary issue of government financial assistance. Much depends on the guidelines for federal and state assistance so it is really not necessary to delineate where to apply the funds as you have done for the private sector.

Para 5. Expand to say ""through financial assistance and bringing practitioner experience and technology to educational institutions.""

New Para 6. This paragraph is convoluted. It speaks of diversity and then defines a professional school of engineering as a unit providing education beyond the baccalaureate degree. I disagree with this definition. I also do not agree that having a P.E. is as important as having a PhD for faculty teaching advanced engineering topics. It is more important to encourage the faculty teaching undergraduate education to have a P.E.

New Para 7. I do not agree with having States accept the Continuing Education requirements in another State. While States should agree to accept a P.E. from another State since the P.E. exam is a national exam, States should have the right to set continuing education requirements for license renewal and not be required to accept another State's requirements.

New Para 8. This should be combined with Para 1.” Name: Edmund,Jacobsen E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the strike though NSPE Position Statement No. 1739 Name: Thomas,Conway E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I recommend two changes: 1) NSPE believes that faculty who teach engineering should have passed the FE, and tenured faculty should be licensed professional engineers (PEs). 2) A Professional School of Engineering is a recognized educational unit which provides formal engineering education by faculty that are PEs or possess EIT status with a commitment to become PEs; promote a culture of licensure; include ethics, safety and public welfare as core values intertwined with the technical aspects of engineering. " Name: Jeremy,Gustafson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "The word ethics is not used in the paragraph below the Section 3 title, ""Professionalism and Ethics"". Could you consider adding detail to the first sentence? For example, the following could be added to the end of the first sentence ""and a foundation to ensure ethical behavior at all times"". This way the importance of ethical behavior is also emphasized." Name: Nicholas ,Votaw E-mail: [email protected]






Comment: "I agree whole heartedly with NSPE's consideration that education is the foundation of the engineering profession; however, I disagree that this education always needs to occur within the academic classroom. I strongly oppose any proposal requiring graduate study or advanced engineering degrees as a requirement for professional licensure as listed in item 2 in this proposal. I agree with all other parts of this proposal.” Name: Joseph,Carson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "Our unprecedented global civilization is UTTERLY dependent on its engineered underpinnings, now and forevermore, as long as it sustains.

The position statement should state this and further make clear that all engineers, everywhere, must being willing to risk their lives (in many parts of world) and jobs (everywhere else) to do their ""paramount duty"" as engineers - ""protect mankind's nest"" where ""the nest"" is civilization and its life support systems, natural and manmade (i.e. engineered).” Name: David,Soukup E-mail: [email protected] Comment: "I agree with the changes proposed in Position Statement 1739.

My opinions reflect a Position Statement issued by the ASME Board of Governors, which has been endorsed by the Licensing That Works coalition made up of eleven other professional engineering societies.

However, I believe ABET accreditation needs to be included in the definition. The Statement also needs to be consistent with the proposed changes to Professional Policy 168.

So, I suggest paragraph 2 under Professional Schools of Engineering should read:”A Professional School of Engineering is a recognized educational unit which provides a four-year engineering program accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC) of ABET.” Name: Anthony,Dougherty E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Agree that professors of higher level engineering classes be PE's. Also agree that continuing ed. across all states be consistent or accepted as equivalent. I am personally licensed in 5 states and to keep track of all the different requirements for different types of classes, pre-approvals, etc, is extremely burdensome and not within the spirit of continuing ed. On a separate note, I believe that there should be a PE requirement for certain positions in Government. It is not acceptable to have design plans prepared by a PE reviewed by someone who isn't a registered professional engineer. When you try to discuss concepts related to the project's design, you are dealing with personnel that is not qualified to make the judgments they are making.”

Name Leonard,"Bernstein, PE, F.NSPE E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree with the proposed revisions. Name: Susan,Sprague E-mail: [email protected]







Comment: Never heard of a Professional school of engineering - would like to know where the nearest one is to me. Do support requiring faculty that teach advanced engineering topics to be PE's. Curious to know if the schools that do require this have attracted more students or faculty or have better passing rates for the FE and PE exam among alumni. I do not support making the BOK's required reading, never been a big fan of BOK's in any profession or discipline. I think these are like coffee table books that look and sound impressive, but collect dust and don't get used." Name: LUIS,SANTIAGO E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I agree. Name: Harold,Schwartz E-mail: [email protected] Comment: NSPE Position Statement No. 1739 has suggested changes that continue to refine it as a "leadership document"". I do not believe that this document was never meant to list all the alternatives but to contain suggestions which if applied would be reviewed and accepted or denied as appropriate. "

Name: Parick Kunz E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The Group 3 NSPE Professional Policy 168 and NSPE Position Statements 1737 and 1739 were discussed briefly at the Texas SPE Board Meeting on October 23, 2015. To date, we have received only one comment regarding the policies. This comment is as follows: (Other than this comment, Texas is neutral regarding the proposed Group 3 NSPE Professional Policy 168 and NSPE Position Statements 1737 and 1739).

“I've been in several phone conversations and a meeting at an Engineering College where this B.S.+30 was used to justify lowering the B.S. Degree requirements to 120 hours. From one phone conversation, the attached was sent to me on NCEES's position on the 120 hour Degree. I urge that NSPE include some baseline requirement (like 128 semester hours, per the attached) for a B.S. Degree in Engineering. Otherwise we risk little or no improvement in licensure with increased education beyond the B.S. Degree because the B.S. Degree requirements are lowered. “ The letter referenced above follows: To: Michael K. J. Miligan, Ph.D, P.E. Executive Director, ABET, Inc From: Jerry T.Carter Executive Director, NCEES Date: June 14, 2011 During its recent meeting, the NCEES Board of Directors reviewed and discussed the elements of AABET's Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs with particular respect to Criterion 5.

During this discussion, the NCEES Board expressed concern that the existing criteria for evaluating engineering programs for accreditation do not require a minimum number of years of study or a minimum number of semester hours in order to be awarded a degree from an EAC/ABET-accred ited baccalaureate program.

NCEES recognizes the benefits in allowing individual programs to develop and implement assessment mechanisms to demonstrate that educational and student outcomes are being attained. However, NCEES is concerned that not providing a qualified definition of one year of academic study could result in undesired consequences, most notably a





reduction in core engineering curricula.

In 2010, NCEES developed and adopted the NCEES Engineering Education Standard, which is used to evaluate graduates of non-EAC/ABET programs who are seeking licensure as professional engineers. In order for a graduate of a non-EAC/ABET program to be deemed qualified to enter the professional practice, this standard requires evidence of the completion of 32 semester credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences, 48 semester credit hours of engineering topics and design courses, and 16 semester credit hours in a general education component that complements the technical content of the curriculum. These are minimum requirements that the NCEES member boards have determined are necessary to demonstrate minimum competence and to be afforded to offer professional services that protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public.

NCEES supports the outcomes-based assessment process adopted by ABET but also believes that certain aspects of the criteria, such as the minimum credit hours required, should revert to a prescriptive level to better ensure that the interest of the programs, the students, and the general public are well served. We also recognize that legislative bodies in some states are mandating a reduction in credits in all majors, and we believe that this change in Criterion 5 could be used to counter those attempts for engineering.

Accordingly, NCEES would propose that Criterion 5 of the General Criteria for Engineering Programs be revised to state, "One year of study is defined as 32 semester credit hours, and programs must include at least four years (128 credit semester hours) of study." We request this recommendation be forwarded to the EAC for appropriate review and recommendations.

If there are questions or if I can provide additional information, please let me know.

For the Board, Jerry T. Carter, Executive Director, NCEES

Name: Lewis,Venard E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I support the proposed revisions to Position Statement No. 1739. Name: Michael,Brown E-mail: [email protected] Comment: I do not object to the proposed changes. Name: Davin,Wallace E-mail: [email protected] Comment: The removal of the sentences from the ‘Professionalism and Ethics’ section left the term “professional concepts” vague and undefined. While the removed sentences are clearly antiquated with the terminology used and needed to be changed, the section doesn’t really establish anything and includes almost nothing relating to professionalism and ethics described in the section heading. A better definition of professional and ethical expectation needs to be included in this section, or remove it an refer to other established policies on ethics and professionalism. " Name: Glenn,Knak E-mail: [email protected] Comment: Position Statement 1739 – Engineering Education






“Scope of Engineering Education. I think striking through the last paragraph defeats the purpose of engineering. I think NSPE should favor experimentation and encourage schools to develop creative and imaginative programs. To break through in science you have to be creative. To develop new ideas you have to place students in a situation that they can expand their mind just not sit in a classroom and get lectured.” “6. Although I believe that theory leads to design and I would like to see the professors take a role in the development of the PE, I am not sure that all faculty that teach advanced subjects need to be PE’s. This may be a different look, but there are some professors that do not have the skills beyond their teachings to be able to construct or design. There have been some great professors that I have learned from that I would never want to design a thing.” Name: Phil,Gundvaldson E-mail: [email protected] Comment: As the Delegate for the South Dakota Engineering Society (SDES), I submit the following comments on behalf of SDES: SDES is in support of PS 1739 as amended. Below are individual comments received by members of SDES: 1. Thanks for talking with me about the proposed changes to the requirements for PE licensing, specifically requiring education beyond BS to qualify for PE. My initial reaction is not supportive of the proposed change, but I don't know the full background and reasoning behind the proposal. Still, I've known many good, highly qualified PEs with ""only"" a BS degree who would not be eligible to become licensed, even though they are skilled, experienced, and knowledgeable of the fundamentals. Cynically, it could appear to be an attempt to pressure more engineers into more education (and the dollars associated with that). Projecting forward, does this logically progress to someday raising the requirement to PhD? What after that? It makes sense to have objective, knowledge based criteria. Obviously, there needs to be a basic degree level and testing. If engineers are graduated with BS degrees and considered qualified to do the work - and pass the tests-, why would they not be considered qualified for to be licensed? I don't support the increased degree level. Nor reducing the credit requirements for a degree. If too many marginal engineers are hitting the streets, it seems more productive and effective to tighten the requirements for becoming an engineer (graduating) in the first place. The lower the level you can weed 'em out at the better. Regards, Gregg Hanson 2. I am opposed to these proposed changes. They are obviously proposed by University Professors to make it MANDATORY for Engineers to take more courses. In fact, EXPERIENCE is MUCH more valuable than any course taught by University Professors (many of whom have ABSOLUTELY no work experience). C. Kent Miller, P.E. 3. PP 168 Engineering Education Requirements: Opposed to this entire policy.



PS 1737 Licensure and Qualification for Practice: Support the proposed changes. PS 1739 Engineering Education: Support the changes except for the following: 7…It is the position of NSPE that jurisdictions should accept the precept that an engineer has fulfilled continuing professional obligations in all jurisdictions. Under this precept, each state and territorial jurisdiction would recognize as being “substantially equivalent” the continuing professional development standards of all other jurisdictions for the purpose of licensing by comity. I do not believe that comity for continuing professional development is, or should be, thesame in all states. As an example, states that have earthquake design requirements are totally different from states that don’t. Laurie Schultz 4. Am I reading this correctly, that the proposal to require the obtainment of an advanced degree in engineering Before a candidate can sit for the P.E. exam? If that is the case, I do not have any issues with the changes. I am opposed to this requirement. Kristi Honeywell, P.E. 5. While I do not fully support the requirement of a Master’s Degree to become licensed to practice engineering, I do see the value in requiring additional education and favor the “BS Degree + 30” idea. However, I wonder if this is truly needed for all 4-year degree graduates graduating from all schools. Before fully adopting and enforcing the requirement to have the 30 extra credit hours prior to sitting for the exam and/or being licensed as a professional -- In my opinion, it would be more beneficial to the profession of engineering and to those practicing in that profession if all ABET accredited schools assuredly and absolutely provided the same level of education and training and produced the same level of graduates equally prepared to become professional engineers. NSPE Position Statement No. 1739(1) states, “The National Society of Professional Engineers believes engineering educational programs must prepare graduates for the practice of engineering at a professional level. These programs should include certain elements that distinguish the engineering function, namely, the analysis, design, and synthesis of engineering systems. NSPE further believes that basic and advanced programs of study should be designed to provide engineering graduates with competent technical and managerial skills…” Are we 100% convinced that this is happening? There are numerous examples of some schools requiring 110 credit hours or less to graduate. If all ABET accredited schools were producing equally qualified graduates, one has to wonder if the “BS Degree + 30” would still be needed. Perhaps a thorough vetting of this question has already occurred within the upper ranks of NSPE at the national level and thus this communiqué is moot and the only alternative is the “BS Degree + 30” requirement to maintain a high level in the quality and responsible practice. If not, I would very much like to see every effort made by NSPE, NCEES, ASCE, and other such organizations to work very closely with ABET to assure engineering programs are all producing the same high quality graduates who are equally prepared to responsibly practice as professionals. A second point I would like to make is that what is happening now with traditional under graduate programs in engineering has already occurred within the accounting profession. A standard accounting degree now takes 5 years to graduate with a bachelor’s degree. Therefore, a new “regular” engineering


degree (not a full-on Master’s program) should be earned through a five-year program – essentially achieving the same end as a “BS Degree + 30” requirement. Thank you for your time. Shannon R. Schultz - PE, CFM Name: Susan,Richard E-mail: [email protected] Comment: In response to NSPE’s request that we provide input on the Group 3 PP and PS changes, the Louisiana Engineering Society Board of Direction considered the changes proposed in its meeting of November 13, 2015. The LES Board of Direction hereby submits the motion to amend the proposed changes. The amendments proposed by LES are in green and highlighted in the motions. We offer these for consideration by the NSPE House of Delegates. Susan H. Richard, P.E., FNSPE, NSPE Representative Motion from the Louisiana Engineering Society regarding PS No. 1739 The Board of Direction of the Louisiana Engineering Society hereby moves to amend the proposed changes to National Society of Professional Engineers Position Statement 1739 being forwarded by the LQPC. NSPE Position Statement No. 1739—Engineering Education ADOPTED: July 2000 LATEST REVISION: XXXX 2015 SUNSET DATE: XXXX 2017 NSPE CONTACT: PEHE Interest Group The National Society of Professional Engineers, considers engineering education to be the foundation of the engineering profession. As such, all NSPE members, committees and task forces, and especially the Professional Engineers in Higher Education interest group are expected to actively assist in establishing appropriate professional aims and objectives for engineering education. The following position has been prepared by NSPE to guide such proactive efforts. [Refer also to PS 1766 “Engineering Faculty Licensure”.] 1. Scope of Engineering Education The National Society of Professional Engineers believes engineering educational programs must prepare graduates for the practice of engineering at a professional level. These programs should include certain elements that distinguish the engineering function, namely, the analysis, design, and synthesis of engineering systems. NSPE further believes that basic and advanced programs of study should be designed to provide engineering graduates with competent technical and managerial skills as well as broad, cultural education in the humanities and social sciences. This will enable engineers to provide the technical and managerial leadership in industry, government, and society needed to fulfill the engineering profession’s public purpose. Further, NSPE favors limited experimentation and encourages schools to develop creative and imaginative programs as new approaches to engineering education. 2. Graduate Study Page 29 of 32 The National Society of Professional Engineers recommends graduate study for qualified students in either or both advanced engineering or engineering management. 3. Professionalism and Ethics


The National Society of Professional Engineers strongly believes that engineering curricula should incorporate instruction designed to instill engineering students with professional concepts. This instruction should emphasize the primary purpose of the profession as being the pursuit of a learned art in the spirit of public service. The sense of professionalism should convey the responsibility to evaluate the impact of the opportunity and obligation of the practitioner, to be in concert with peers, guide, and direct the profession. Although a specific course may or may not be provided for this purpose, bringing professional concepts to the attention of the student should be a responsibility of all engineering faculty. 4. Support by Government The National Society of Professional Engineers believes that state and federal financial and other assistance and major tax incentives to support engineering education are warranted in the following areas: a) Graduate study and research through the doctoral level of engineering. b) Research and study for advanced non degree engineering programs. c) Faculty, facilities, and equipment which enable engineering schools to meet their responsibilities for high quality engineering graduates. d) Facilities and equipment to establish or expand technical institutes and colleges at the post- secondary school level for the education of engineering technicians and technologists. e) Undergraduate engineering and technical institute study, including assistance to students studying in these areas who have demonstrated ability and who can establish financial need. 5. Support by Private Sector The National Society of Professional Engineers believes that those in the private sector have a large stake in the improvement of the engineering colleges from which they draw their talent for research, design, and management. All NSPE members should attempt to interest those in the private sector in assisting education in general, and engineering education in particular. Examples of ways in which industry can render assistance are: a ) Grants for general use in engineering education. b ) Contributions of and donations for equipment. c) Sponsored research projects. d) Employment of faculty members as consultants or summertime employees. e) Fellowships to graduate students, half going to the individual, and half to the college, the latter to provide the difference between the actual cost of the student’s education and the tuition paid. Scholarships to undergraduate students may be on the same basis as above. f) Providing opportunity for qualified personnel from industry to teach in the engineering colleges. g) Funds to support attendance of engineering students at professional society meetings. h) Funds to support projects of professional societies directed to guidance of young people, student professional development, and other programs implemented at the secondary school and college levels. i) Tuition and materials expense reimbursement to employees who are part- or full-time students in employer approved courses or curricula. 6.Professional Schools of Engineering It is the policy of the National Society of Professional Engineers to urge all segments of the engineering profession to seek the highest standards of preparation for engineering practice. The enhancement of engineering education is clearly in the interest of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public and therefore a worthy objective of a learned profession. Recognizing the diversity of engineering


education programs existing in the United States, NSPE does hereby adopt the following definition of a Professional School of Engineering: A Professional School of Engineering is a recognized educational unit which provides formal engineering education beyond the baccalaureate degree. The unit operates programs under the direction of qualified practitioners, with appropriate academic and nonacademic experience, and provides elements of general, scientific, and professional education within guidelines established by the profession. NSPE believes that faculty who teach advanced engineering topics should be licensed professional engineers. 7. Lifelong Learning NSPE believes that engineering education is, and should be, a lifelong learning experience. The universe of engineering knowledge continues to expand with time. Just as evolving technical precepts are integrated into classroom instruction, so too the practicing engineer must grow in knowledge to remain effective and competitive. That portion of the life long learning experience which follows formal engineering education is referred to as continuing professional development. It is the position of NSPE that continuing professional development in a prescribed, but flexible, form should be a condition precedent for periodic renewal of the license to practice engineering. 8. Engineering Body of Knowledge NSPE believes it is proper for the Society to identify what it considers to be the scope of knowledge, skills and attitudes appropriate for the engineer to enter practice as a professional engineer in responsible charge of engineering activities. To that extent, NSPE has published the “NSPE Engineering Body of Knowledge” to publically disseminate those beliefs. A number of technical societies have published similar documents. The Engineering Body of Knowledge may be considered the totality of knowledge gained from a combination of formal engineering education, continuing professional development education, and experience education in which an engineer should be proficient within his or her practice areas when entering professional practices at the point of “responsible charge”. It is the position of NSPE that all engineers should read and become familiar with the NSPE Engineering Body of Knowledge and with those BOK’s published by the technical societies to which they belong, and that the precepts embodied should be considered by engineers in developing their chosen professional practice paths. Reference: PP No. 66, “The Engineering Team” Moved and passed this November 13, 2015 by the Louisiana Engineering Society Board of Direction.

NSPE House of Delegates NSPE Board of Directors...OP 7.6 (formerly OP 80). December 11-16: House of...

Documents

Transcript of NSPE House of Delegates NSPE Board of Directors...OP 7.6 (formerly OP 80). December 11-16: House of...