My August and September 2007 columns shared my thoughts on eight questions about licensure posed by Jon D. Nelson, P.E., and Bobby E. Price, Ph.D., P.D., in a June 2007 article in the National Society of Professional Engineers’ PE magazine. These poignant questions highlight the many issues facing our state licensing boards as they make important decisions about the future of licensure in the United States.

Covering everything from the examination, maintenance, and renewal processes to licensure for faculty to education requirements to future organization of licensing boards to the impact of globalization on U.S. licensure, most every professional has strong feelings about this subject matter. In fact, I received so many comments, that I felt a follow-up was warranted. This article shares excerpts from letters I received regarding this important issue.

Jon Crawford, a California P.E., wrote: "Long ago I concluded that universities did a disservice to their students, their engineering departments, and pertinent industries by not requiring passage of the E.I.T. as a prerequisite for graduation. … Of course, it would open each [engineering school] to public scrutiny."

Jerome Franklin reflected some of my own thoughts on the subject with these comments: "I was graduated from Newark College of Engineering in the 1940s when the title of professional engineer was neither discussed in the classroom, nor mattered for … the first … jobs I had. In Grand Rapids, Mich., in the 1950s, I was made aware of [its] importance, although I was hired lacking [a P.E. license]. I took the exam and passed. I have held four state licenses—Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Florida—as well as one in Pakistan."

He added as an aside, "Evidently, many professors thought that a doctorate or advanced degree was enough proof of their engineering capabilities."

But perhaps I am wrong concerning my earlier comment(s) about educators. I received a great e-mail from a college professor, Richard H. French, PhD., P.E.:

"I thought, as usual, [your] article/editorial was … both thoughtful and interesting. … Your paragraph regarding university faculty was especially pertinent. What you remember, as I do, remains the truth—M.E. and E. E. faculty lag far behind C.E. faculty in registration. … Research which brings in overhead is the critical component, along with publication. I personally believe this is entirely wrong; however, in academia I am [in] the minority.

"The fault is on both sides," French continued. "I have never seen either the public or private sector step up and offer a summer job to a faculty member! I think everyone would profit if this would occur, since research would then be focused on developing the tools needed to manage our complex environment. For young faculty, consulting is a dirty word.

"I have licenses in three states and actively practice [consulting engineering]. It benefits me intellectually and financially … however, it also benefits the students [since] my course design problems are based on problems already solved. I am currently working on three consulting projects for the private and public sector … and the students will benefit in the end."

Concerning another aspect of being licensed, I received an interesting discussion concerning sealing of plans from Harold Hofstein, P.E., B.C.E.E. He said, "I have some serious thoughts on the stamping of drawings … The last 10 years of my employment in the public sector involved the use of large consulting firms. All too many times, when presented with final sets of plans and specifications, I found entire sets, regardless of discipline, stamped by the same engineer. We all know that very few licensed enginees are competent in [all engineering disciplines]. Every time I questioned the stamping, the involved consultants went over my head and had them accepted by someone else.

"In previous years I was directed to stamp drawings that I had no part in designing," Hofstein continued. "This was because my [then] employer had to submit plans to a client under the pressure of time. I was the only engineer licensed in the state the project was to be in. I refused to stamp them and was threatened with dismissal."

Lawrence Paul Lopresti of West Easton, Pa., had a different viewpoint in his e-mail: "I agree with the concept of a national license for some very specific engineers. There are certain fields that transcend any local requirement. The most notable are Aviation/Aerospace Engineer, Nuclear Engineer, Naval Architecture/Marine, Mining and Mineral Engineering, Structural Engineer-Tall Buildings, and Structural Engineer-Large Bridges."

Alfred R. Pagan, P.E., P.L.S., is a consulting engineer in Hackensack, N.J. He can be reached at 201-441-9719; or e-mail him at pagan@cenews.com.