IEA meeting brings focus to engineering education qualifications used across the globe
(From the NCEES publication LICENSURE EXCHANGE, August 2010, ISSN NO. 1093-541X, VOLUME 14, ISSUE 4 – PAGE 4)
IEA meeting brings focus to engineering education qualifications used across the globe
Headquaters Update
JERRY CARTER
NCEES EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
I recently attended a biennial workshop of the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) in Ottawa, Canada. The IEA is an umbrella organization of international education and mobility accords governing mutual recognition of engineering qualifications and professional competence. Of the six accords, NCEES is a signatory to the Engineers Mobility Forum (EMF) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC Engineer) along with countries from Europe, South Africa, and the Pacific Rim.
I have attended only three meetings of the IEA, but the significant difference between the U.S. licensure system and that of other countries became readily evident within a few minutes of my first meeting. With the exception of Canada, most members of the IEA have a nationalized system of licensure. That is, once an individual becomes licensed by the designated authority in a jurisdiction, the individual typically is licensed to practice anywhere in that country without further qualification.
The notion that the United States has a confederation of all the licensure boards that collectively establishes standards for licensure and develops and scores the exams is not too difficult to understand. What is hard for most of the IEA membership to appreciate is that the national organization (i.e., NCEES) cannot obligate any individual member board to accept mutual recognition agreements with other countries.
Demystifying the U.S. licensure system
I have explained that the system for licensure in the United States was not created to incorporate a bias against individuals educated at foreign institutions and that the qualifications required by the individual member boards are applied equally to domestic candidates. I have also explained that the term “substantial equivalency” as applied by the NCEES member boards refers to individual engineering degree programs rather than accreditation processes.
Although my explanations have not totally eliminated the frustration of some IEA members, I believe that NCEES’s participation continues to provide value and allows for dialogue with the global engineering community.
Examining other education accreditation systems
Through my involvement with the IEA and many conversations with representatives of the member organizations, I have been struck by the degree of professionalism I have seen and the primary interest of all to safeguard the welfare of the general public.
As we continue to learn about various countries’ qualifications to accredit engineering education through competency-based criteria, it is easy to predict that in the near future NCEES member boards will recognize the graduates of such programs as equivalent to those EAC/ABET-accredited programs. That recognition is already taking place with the majority of NCEES member boards in the evaluation of graduates of programs accredited by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board.
Many member boards have seen a recent rise in the number of engineering licensure applicants who were educated outside the United States. I have my own opinions concerning this recent influx of foreign applicants, but a statistic offered at the IEA workshop helped me understand a basic reality for much of the world. It was reported that 85 percent of the citizens of New Zealand hold valid passports, as opposed to only 15 percent of U.S. citizens. For many people around the globe, it is a fact of life that practicing your profession may involve traveling and working abroad.
