> home
> About
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

06.10

By Mitchell A. Thornton, Steven F. Barrett and David L. Whitman

Over the past decade or so, a number of professional engineering societies have become increasingly concerned about the amount of education received at the Bachelor of Science (BS) Degree level for engineers entering the workplace and beginning the path to professional licensure.  It must be emphasized that the intent of these concerns is not to define the amount of engineering education required for an individual to be an engineer, but rather the intent is to ensure that future licensure candidates have enough engineering education to fulfill a “Body of Knowledge” (BOK) that will satisfy the threshold of being able to practice without posing a threat to public safety, health, and welfare and to obtain licensure.

In 1998, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) was the first professional society to formally address this issue.  They have developed, and subsequently modified, Policy Statement 465, which incorporates the concept of using the Master’s or equivalent (MOE) as a prerequisite for the practice of civil engineering, and as the proposed requirements to sit for the professional engineering (PE) examination.  This was motivated by the fact that the required number of credits to obtain a BS degree has declined significantly in the past 50 years, as well as other reasons.  ASCE later issued a report defining their discipline’s BOK to be used as requirements for entering the practice.  They have been successful in incorporating small portions of their BOK in the ABET Program Criteria for Civil Engineering.  Other professional societies have started work on their respective BOK, but IEEE has not as of this time.

The educational requirements issue was eventually brought forth to the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES) in 2001.  A detailed history and supporting material can be found on the NCEES website.  Discussions held since 2001 have led to modification in the NCEES Model Law and Model Rules.  The NCEES Model Law and Model Rules are documents produced and maintained by NCEES that serve as recommendations for the U.S. jurisdictional licensing boards to adopt for the licensure of professional engineers and surveyors.  It should be emphasized that the individual state jurisdictional licensing boards are the ultimate authority in determining licensing requirements that are approved by their respective legislative bodies.  However, most boards do adopt at least portions of the Model Law and Model Rules.  One point of confusion among many prospective licensees is that NCEES sets the licensing requirements for each jurisdiction; this is simply not true. 

The current wording in the Model Law and Model Rules regarding the education requirements for Model Law Engineer (2020) is as follows:

Licensure by Examination (Effective 1 January 2020)

The following individuals shall be admitted to an 8-hour written examination in the principles and practice of engineering and, upon passing such examination and providing proof of graduation shall be licensed as a professional engineer, if otherwise qualified:

(1) An engineer intern who satisfies one of the following education and experience requirements:

(a) Following the bachelor’s degree, an acceptable amount of coursework resulting in a master’s degree in engineering from an institution that offers EAC/ABET accredited programs, or the equivalent, and with a specific record of 3 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects of a grade and a character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be competent to practice engineering

(b) Following a master’s degree in engineering from an EAC/M-ABET-accredited program, a specific record of 3 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects of a grade and a character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be competent to practice engineering

(c) Following the bachelor’s degree, an acceptable amount of coursework from approved course providers and a specific record of 4 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects of a grade and a character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be competent to practice engineering

(2) An engineer intern with a doctorate in engineering acceptable to the board and with a specific record of 2 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects of a grade and a character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be competent to practice engineering

(3) An individual with a doctorate in engineering acceptable to the board and with a specific record of 4 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects of a grade and a character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be competent to practice engineering

The Model Rules defines acceptable coursework, acceptable amount of coursework, and approved course providers as follows:

The term “approved course provider” is interpreted to mean the following:

1. An institution that has an EAC/ABET-accredited program; or

2. An institution or organization accredited by an NCEES-approved accrediting body; or

3. An institution or organization that offers specifically approved courses that are individually approved by an NCEES-approved accrediting body.

The term “acceptable coursework” is interpreted to mean the following:

1. In technical topic areas, acceptable coursework shall be upper-level undergraduate and/or graduate-level courses in engineering.

2. Other topic areas of acceptable coursework shall be upper-level undergraduate and/or graduate-level courses relevant to the practice of engineering and may include engineering-related science, mathematics, and/or professional practice topics such as business, communications, contract law, management, ethics, public policy, and quality control.

The term “acceptable amount of coursework” is interpreted to mean the following:

1. A minimum of an additional 30 credits of coursework, none of which were used to fulfill the bachelor’s degree requirement.

2. All 30 additional credits shall be equivalent in intellectual rigor and learning assessments to upper-level undergraduate and/or graduate courses offered at institutions that have a program accredited by EAC/ABET.

3. Of the minimum required 30 additional credits, a minimum of 15 credits must be in engineering.

4. The term “credit” is defined as a semester hour, or its equivalent, from an approved course provider.

In August of this year, NCEES will be considering two additional modifications to the wording above.  The first alternative to (1) above is:

(d) Following a bachelor’s degree from an EAC/ABET-accredited program that has a minimum of 150 credit hours, of which at least 115 are in math, science, and engineering combined and at least 75 of the 115 are in engineering, a specific record of 4 years or more of progressive experience on engineering projects of a grade and a character which indicate to the board that the applicant may be competent to practice engineering.

A second alternative, which, if passed, will take another year to study is:

Upon graduating with a B.S. degree in engineering from an EAC/ABET-accredited program, the applicant, during a six-year period of progressive engineering experience before taking the PE exam, would be required to:

1. Take courses totaling X (task force discussed 30) Assessed Learning Days (ALD) of continuing education in areas germane to professional practice and that support and enhance capability in the applicant’s technical area of practice.

2. Participate in a structured mentoring program amounting to at least 36 hours/year of interaction with a licensed P.E. mentor in the 3 years prior to application to sit for the principles and practice exam. The mentoring interaction is to be documented in a mentoring logbook that becomes part of the applicant’s dossier.

The NCEES is not alone in their concerns for additional education.  The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) released a study entitled “Educating the Engineer of 2020.”  NAE's mission is “to promote the technological welfare of the nation by marshaling the knowledge and insights of eminent members of the engineering profession.”  This report stated: “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.”

While all professional engineering societies, including IEEE, agree that additional coursework is beneficial, there is still debate over whether this additional coursework is necessary for entry into the licensure process.  Most of the professional engineering societies have released position statements regarding this initiative, some strongly in favor and some opposed to the idea. 

IEEE-USA issued a position statement in June 2007 that “…neither supports nor opposes the NCEES decision to recommend that engineers who have successfully completed baccalaureate-degree educational programs be required to take 30 additional hours of engineering to become licensed…”

The IEEE-USA Board of Directors reaffirmed its neutrality on the B+30 requirement in 2009.

This statement of neutrality on the part of IEEE was arrived at for several reasons.  One reason is that that IEEE Educational Activities Board (EAB) has a position on what constitutes the first “professional degree,” and it is IEEE’s desire that this position be maintained and not changed based on NCEES modifications to the Model Law for licensure.  Furthermore, it was determined that a large majority of licensed IEEE members already meet the additional education requirements and that adoption of this change in the model law would have little effect on our membership.

This position of neutrality should not be interpreted as a lack of interest on the part of IEEE.  Rather, IEEE is heavily involved in the NCEES Engineering Education Task Force, and in determining what appropriate additional engineering education will be acceptable.

Many misconceptions are present among IEEE members as to the ramifications of this change in NCEES Model Law.  First and foremost, it should be remembered that the NCEES Model Law is a recommendation to the U.S. licensing boards, and that they alone have the ultimate authority in determining requirements for professional engineering licensure in their jurisdictions.  No jurisdiction has adopted the Model Law Engineer 2020 definition and it is unclear how many will in the next decade. It is not the intent of the Model Law changes to define the amount of engineering education required for an individual to be an engineer.  Rather it is the intent to ensure that future licensure candidates have enough engineering education to satisfy the threshold of being able to practice professionally without posing a threat to public safety, health and welfare.

In closing, rest assured that all members of IEEE-USA's Licensure and Registration Committee are involved in this issue.  We are committed to keeping our constituents informed of developments and also proactively working with all involved agencies to reach consensus on this issue.  The goal of all involved agencies is to prepare engineers equipped to handle the engineering challenges of 2020 and beyond.

Mitchell A. Thornton, Ph.D., P.E. is a professor of computer science and engineering and a professor of electrical engineering at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. He currently serves as chair of IEEE-USA’s Licensure and Registration Committee.

Steven F. Barrett, Ph.D., P.E., is an associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Wyoming in Laramie, Wyoming, and a member of IEEE-USA’s Licensure and Registration Committee.

David L. Whitman, Ph.D., P.E., is a member of IEEE-USA's Licensure and Registration Committee, and 2010 President of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES).

Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org.