Annual Meeting debate adds insight to higher education issue

(From the NCEES publication LICENSURE EXCHANGE, October 2008, ISSN NO. 1093-541X, VOLUME 12, ISSUE 5)

In 2006, the Council passed a motion to add language to the Model Law requiring engineering licensure candidates to earn 30 additional credit hours beyond the bachelor’s degree. Since then, the Council has typically referred to this requirement as the “bachelor’s plus 30,” with the understanding that a master’s degree of engineering would also meet the requirement. But based on the debate at this year’s Annual Meeting, it seems as if a consensus is building that it would be more appropriate to refer to this requirement as the “master’s or equivalent.” During the workshops and forums, several well-known and experienced delegates, including some past presidents, spoke in support of more stringent education requirements. However, they said that the emphasis should be placed on the master’s degree because the bachelor’s plus 30 language lends itself to misinterpretation by several key groups.

There are several reasons why it may be a good idea to emphasize an engineering master’s degree as the best way to meet the education requirements for licensure.

Selling the concept to state legislatures

The NCEES Model Law and Model Rules spell out requirements for engineering licensure. These documents provide NCEES Member Boards with the model to use when working with state legislatures to update their practice laws for the engineering and surveying professions. Consequently, comity depends upon the ability of the Member Boards to successfully get their legislatures to incorporate the language of the Model Law and Model Rules into their professional practice laws. If the majority of Member Boards do not have the provisions contained in the model enacted in their state laws, then interstate comity is far more difficult for P.E.’s, to the detriment of the profession as a whole. This is an important consideration when the Committee on Uniform Procedures and Legislative Guidelines (UPLG) and the Council deliberate amendments to these documents.

Framing the education requirements in terms of a “master’s or equivalent” would be far easier to sell to the state legislatures than the “bachelor’s plus 30” in its current form. During Annual Meeting discussions, delegates and administrators appeared to agree that selling the bachelor’s plus 30 to the legislatures will be an uphill battle. They anticipated concerns related to the specifics of the requirement, such as defining approved coursework and approved course providers.

The Model Rules language proposed by the Bachelor’s Plus 30 Task Force and approved by the Council in August defines the terms “acceptable upper-level undergraduate and/or graduate-level coursework” and “approved course provider” as stated in the Model Law language outlining the 30 additional credit requirement.

While the current language provides guidelines for what is acceptable in fulfilling the requirement, it does leave room for interpretation. For example, coursework in technical topic areas (which must account for at least half of the 30 additional credits) can include both engineering coursework and “sciences and mathematics related to engineering.” Who will determine which of these courses are related to engineering? The requirement states that “all coursework shall be equivalent in intellectual rigor and learning assessment to upper-level undergraduate and/or graduate courses offered at institutions that have a program accredited by EAC/ABET.” Who will make this determination?

Council delegates also passed a Bachelor’s Plus 30 Task Force motion to charge a committee with exploring the idea of creating a clearinghouse for the requirement. The work of the committee assigned this charge—this year’s Engineering Education Task Force—could begin providing answers to these and other questions.

However, the goal remains to provide Member Boards with something that they can persuade their legislatures to pass into law. This could be done by emphasizing that a master’s degree in the candidate’s field would meet the additional education requirements—without the need for the candidate to go through the proposed clearinghouse. The clearinghouse could then be used only to determine whether the qualifications of candidates without master’s degrees should be considered equivalent.

Allowing educators to do their job

Some critics of the additional education requirement have argued that NCEES does not have the expertise to determine university curricula for engineers and that the engineering deans and ABET are the appropriate parties for adjusting coursework requirements in response to changes in the body of knowledge. By reframing the additional coursework requirement as a master’s or equivalent, the Council will allow the organizations best equipped to respond to the expanding body of knowledge to do so.

ABET recently decided that it will allow institutions to pursue dual-level accreditation of both bachelor’s and master’s degree programs, beginning in 2009. This decision makes the master’s or equivalent concept even more appropriate. In the past, engineering schools could not offer both accredited bachelor’s and master’s programs in the same discipline. With ABET performing accreditation for master’s degrees in engineering, the task of evaluating degree programs for licensure candidates of 2020 and beyond will remain with ABET. NCEES would then be making determinations on equivalency only for those candidates without a master’s degree.

Dual-level accreditation will also allow for a greater level of flexibility in the path toward licensure under the heightened education requirement. In August, the Council passed a motion presented by the Bachelor’s Plus 30 Task Force that will charge the UPLG Committee with incorporating the M-ABET concept into the Model Law and Model Rules. Dual-level accreditation will allow candidates with undergraduate degrees in non-ABET-accredited programs or in non-engineering disciplines the opportunity to pursue engineering licensure by completing an accredited engineering master’s degree.

There still remains the criticism that the increased education requirement, whether it is the bachelor’s plus 30 or the master’s or equivalent, will affect only the 20 percent of practicing engineers who are licensed P.E.’s. “What about the other 80 percent of engineers who are not licensed?” they ask. I believe that raising the educational requirements for engineering licensure will have a positive effect on all engineers and engineering students. The entire profession will benefit from efforts to elevate the requirements if, as a result of our efforts, a career in engineering will be considered more prestigious. Engineers would join the ranks of other professions requiring an advanced degree. It would elevate the profession as a whole. What other justification is needed?

Howard C. (Skip) Harclerode II, P.E.
Maryland State Board for Professional Engineers

Skip Harclerode served as chair of the UPLG Committee from 2006 to 2008 and as an ex-officio member of the 2007–08 Bachelor’s Plus 30 Task Force. He is currently a member of the 2008–09 Engineering Education Task Force and a consultant to the 2008–09 UPLG Committee.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 10th, 2008 at 10:26 pm and is filed under Requirements. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.