It seems obvious to me that, when there is reason to believe that certain human activities may be environmentally harmful, the prudent, responsible attitude is not to assume there is no cause for concern until there is positive proof that serious damage is being done—for by then it may be too late—but to minimize the potentially damaging behavior until there is reasonable assurance that it is harmless.

Despite the lack of need for licensure in my industry, I looked into getting my P.E. license last year after graduating with my B.S.M.E. and passing the F.E. exam in 1993.

My understanding was that a written test of my knowledge of engineering practices and problem solving was all that was necessary, and this was certainly something I was willing to do. The reality is that, in addition to the test, I would have needed all my previous employers to send letters of recommendation to the Illinois Department of Professional Regulation. So, therefore, if I want a license that is not treated with respect in my industry, probably would not be useful to an employer, and may not give me an advantage in getting a job, I would have to jump through a lot of bureaucratic hoops and be part of some "good ol' boy" network.

My job requires me to justify my decisions with payoffs in the future. It seems that getting a P.E. license in its present form would not have much of a payoff compared to the effort of tracking down the whereabouts of my former managers.

Nicholas Schroeder's letter in the May issue suggests that engineering can be summed up in a finite number of responsibilities or tasks, as though it all falls on one person.

As an engineer, I have a responsibility to complete projects within a specified time and budget. I rely heavily upon non-degreed professionals who have a wealth of experience and on degreed professionals with no P.E. license. I am, however, responsible for interpreting their work for sound engineering principles and value.

Engineering is a lifelong pursuit of intellectual growth and responsible use of technical talent for the betterment of society. There is no such thing as "paying dues" in our profession, since no one can adequately judge when the invoice is paid.

A P.E. license is no more a guarantee of a competent engineer than a driver's license is of a competent driver.

By this I mean, the now politically correct dilution of the meaning of the words "professional" and "engineer." For example, we now have professional hair stylists whom we used to call barbers and waste-management engineers whom we used to call garbage men.

So much for the exclusivity of the designation "professional engineer."

Engineers in this composite industry were generally exempt from professional licensing requirements, in part because the military, which was the principal customer, tended to regard licensing as an impediment that would restrict the availability of acceptable engineers, and drive up their salaries, thereby impacting program schedules and budgets. But a more significant factor was a general awareness that the skills and fields of expertise evaluated in the P.E. exams did not include many of those of most immediate interest and desirability. For example, the fields of reliability and maintainability engineering, which form an essential part of the innovative products development process, are not reflected in the exams. I spent most of my career as a practitioner in those fields.

However, the most damaging charge against P.E. exams must be their overly narrow scope, being confined to assessing expertise in solving technical problems, based on the application of mathematics and the physical sciences. The limitation, of course, reflects the role historically played by engineers, as well as the curriculum they pursued as undergraduates.

This background comprises excellent preparation for entry-level engineering jobs, qualifying the candidates as technologists, but falling far short of their subsequent needs as professionals. By the time an engineer is ready to apply for the P.E. license, the person will probably find that the need for technical expertise is being diluted by continually growing demands for developing administrative and managerial competence. When this happened to me, I abandoned any thought of pursuing the P.E. license, opting instead for a graduate program in business administration, and discovered many of my fellow students to be engineers.

Should the scope of the P.E. exam be broadened to reflect all the demands laid upon the mature engineering practitioner? Could such a change in scope even be accomplished? And, finally, would such a change make the P.E. license relevant? If these questions cannot be answered positively, all interest in pursuing the license will disappear.

I also suggest that he investigate review courses that are available by correspondence or that may be offered or sponsored by his ASME section, colleges, and even commercial operators.

The current rate in New York is $345, and I can see no reason why a typical engineer employed in industry would benefit from a P.E., except insofar as it might impress a recruiter.

home | features | news update | marketplace | departments | about ME | back issues | ASME | site search

© 1999 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers