THIS PAST MARCH, I described why I let my Professional Engineering registration expire for reasons including the irrelevance of the continuing education requirements to anyone who's not a civil engineer. Several readers offered further views that they've allowed me to share and a recent book offers some insights. I'll wrap up with a brief critique of product engineering gone awry.
Why a PE?
Two readers remind me that PE licenses are not restricted to degreed engineers, as documented at www.op.nysed.gov/pelic.htm. If you have an ABET-accredited degree, you must have four years of experience to sit for the PE exam, but, lacking such a degree, the FE and PE exams each require six years of experience. The New York State (NYS) rules warn that "The quality of the experience, not merely the calendar time, will be evaluated."
Dan Samber aptly summarizes the majority opinion: "By far, the greatest benefit for me has been simply having some initials to put at the end of my name (which is huge in the medical research environment where I work, except that most everyone thinks that PE stands for 'Pulmonary Embolism')."
Tom Székely, PE, with a résumé to die for, observes "if you're a software engineer who writes code for, say, the Air Traffic Control system..., you probably need to be licensed...ditto if you're a[n] MCSE responsible for networking [those] computers."
However, the distinction between noncritical and life-threatening applications may be quite hard to discern, particularly in large-scale systems. For example, the 2003 Northeast power-system collapse showed that small, local causes, whether neglected tree-trimming or failures in load monitoring, can trigger a complete loss of power across several states. It's not clear to me that licensing the programmers producing the firmware inside cherry picker lifts or power monitors would have any effect on the outcome.
It's equally unclear, to me and several correspondents, whether the entire licensing apparatus has had any real positive effect on the profession. The NYS board used to send out a newsletter documenting enforcement actions, most of which involved folks accused of performing unlicensed engineering or surveying. The cases involving professional malpractice were few and far between, which means that engineers are unusually ethical (possible) or that enforcement is unusually relaxed (probable).
Dave Lynch, who has built both targets and weapons systems, concurs. Commenting on registration for architects, he notes that "At best, professional licensing is like SATs—a test of endurance, ambition, and will, a barrier to entry with at most minimal applicability to one's actual skill within the profession. I do not see that value as sufficient."
He suggests a specialized licensing structure, confined to life-safety projects, where you're examined and approved on your knowledge of specific topics. For example, even with a PE license, you may not design earthquake-resistant structures without demonstrating your mastery of that subject.
State boards license engineers for work performed within each state, with no corresponding national-level requirements. I had, at one time, three separate PE licenses, each with slightly different requirements and, of course, three different fees. Which state board should license programmers writing software for use in every state?
Several PEs made scathing remarks about MCSE-style troubleshooters who lack the background or breadth of knowledge one would expect from even a specialized engineer. Indeed, I just saw a description of an MCSE prep course that promises a dozen different certifications after an intensive 15-day boot camp. The prerequisite seems to be two years of prior experience and, perhaps, an A+ tech certificate. This type of certification seems overtly tied to specific products, rather than covering a broad range of general knowledge, but that seems typical of a field without a broadly accepted body of knowledge.
