To address Andy’s question. Based on Mehmood’s helpful link, I think it would be reasonable to describe the NSPE as a form of “Union”. In a UK context that leads us to the difference between a “Trades Union” and a “Professional Institution” built on the “Learned Society” model. The term “Trades Union” has negative connotations for many, including business owners in the US. During the 1980s a separation was created between “unions” and “institutions”, that required some to disentangle some of their activities to meet Engineering Council requirements not to be a “Trade Association” or “Trades Union”. The assumption perhaps being that the former tend to the political right and the latter to the left.
The NSPE link explains how legislation was passed to regulate engineers in the US over a century ago, in a “Wild West” situation, with lobbying by NSPE (as AAE), extending that more widely, with the last state to legislate doing so over 70 years ago. They helpfully explain “What makes a PE different from an engineer?” and describe the barriers to entry that a PE is required to clear. Some of those UK engineers who consider themselves to have cleared substantially similar hurdles, aspire to such protection, uniquely qualifying them to approve engineering designs not covered by an “employers exemptions” . From the original article Avelar said about 80 per cent of engineers nationwide are not registered professional engineers and that in at least 48 states, there's an exemption from registration requirements for engineers who work in industry.
UK legislation primarily places the responsibility with “employers” through Health and Safety legislation derived from the 1974 HASAW act and product safety (EU) regulations. There are some additional statutory schemes, covering areas of particular risk, partly to protect potentially vulnerable householders. Otherwise employers may define competence as they see fit, at the risk of criminal prosecution for creating harm or civil cases for contractual failures, such as unfitness for purpose.
There is no PE so we are “Engineers”. This leads us down the familiar path which we have argued forever; who is a “proper engineer”?
When I first became aware of this debate, I was instinctively sympathetic, after all I had undergone a 4 years of training, 5 years part-time at College to higher level, 5 years Technician experience and been selected against good competition to be appointed as an “Engineer”. So why should someone else pass themselves off? However, as I came increasingly to understand better the attitudes of many in the professional institution and academic spheres of influence, it became apparent that that in their eyes I wasn’t a “proper Engineer” anyway. I hadn’t met the standard for Chartered Engineer on academic grounds and by the time the emphasis shifted to competence (in the IET at least), I was 25+ years into career and 10 or more into management roles, needing little more than a good empathy with engineers. Fair enough!
I came in due course to the discovery that many who did carry the title, simply did so by virtue of having studied at university and spent their first 4-5 years of work as a graduate engineer. Some were highly expert, some also very articulate and some more experienced examples were fully deserving of comparison with a medical consultant or any other senior professional. However, many others were in no significant way superior the apprenticeship pathway “engineers” who were the norm in my earlier career. This isn’t just my opinion, Engineering Council explicitly acknowledged the actual performance evidence with its statement “overlapping in practice” and other research backs this up. Especially in relation to safety in practice, not just “on paper” a more practical understanding and real experience is essential.
I used at one time to have significant responsibility for high voltage work and no amount of “text book” understanding of engineering science, substitutes for practical understanding of what people actually do in the workplace and why they behave as they do. Engineering isn’t just about the design of artefacts or systems (rather than systems of work) “on paper”. In my opinion the emphasis on status and on using academic qualifications to differentiate between different types of professional, has created a problem. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of competent practitioners engaged in Engineering and Technology, don’t feel that the system led by Engineering Council is relevant to their needs or respectful of them.
It seems to me very unlikely that a UK Government would adopt legislation, such as that intended to address a US problem from 100 years ago. Therefore, if our aim is to enhance the practice of engineering, increase safety and importantly productivity in a competitive world, then we need to refocus. Our profession has taken a very “top down” approach and embedded an excessive concern with academic competition and petty unreliable grading. To succeed in future we need to work from the “bottom up” by championing minimum standards of skills and training and “mainstream” practice by competent professional engineers of “graduate standard”. We should also aggrandise those who show high achievement in academia, R&D or anywhere else, but their “high status” should be earned in practice, not codified and treated as an “entitlement” based on theory examinations. As recent events in another sphere have illustrated to us, a sense of entitlement and over-confidence is often the precursor of a “car crash”.
To address Andy’s question. Based on Mehmood’s helpful link, I think it would be reasonable to describe the NSPE as a form of “Union”. In a UK context that leads us to the difference between a “Trades Union” and a “Professional Institution” built on the “Learned Society” model. The term “Trades Union” has negative connotations for many, including business owners in the US. During the 1980s a separation was created between “unions” and “institutions”, that required some to disentangle some of their activities to meet Engineering Council requirements not to be a “Trade Association” or “Trades Union”. The assumption perhaps being that the former tend to the political right and the latter to the left.
The NSPE link explains how legislation was passed to regulate engineers in the US over a century ago, in a “Wild West” situation, with lobbying by NSPE (as AAE), extending that more widely, with the last state to legislate doing so over 70 years ago. They helpfully explain “What makes a PE different from an engineer?” and describe the barriers to entry that a PE is required to clear. Some of those UK engineers who consider themselves to have cleared substantially similar hurdles, aspire to such protection, uniquely qualifying them to approve engineering designs not covered by an “employers exemptions” . From the original article Avelar said about 80 per cent of engineers nationwide are not registered professional engineers and that in at least 48 states, there's an exemption from registration requirements for engineers who work in industry.
UK legislation primarily places the responsibility with “employers” through Health and Safety legislation derived from the 1974 HASAW act and product safety (EU) regulations. There are some additional statutory schemes, covering areas of particular risk, partly to protect potentially vulnerable householders. Otherwise employers may define competence as they see fit, at the risk of criminal prosecution for creating harm or civil cases for contractual failures, such as unfitness for purpose.
There is no PE so we are “Engineers”. This leads us down the familiar path which we have argued forever; who is a “proper engineer”?
When I first became aware of this debate, I was instinctively sympathetic, after all I had undergone a 4 years of training, 5 years part-time at College to higher level, 5 years Technician experience and been selected against good competition to be appointed as an “Engineer”. So why should someone else pass themselves off? However, as I came increasingly to understand better the attitudes of many in the professional institution and academic spheres of influence, it became apparent that that in their eyes I wasn’t a “proper Engineer” anyway. I hadn’t met the standard for Chartered Engineer on academic grounds and by the time the emphasis shifted to competence (in the IET at least), I was 25+ years into career and 10 or more into management roles, needing little more than a good empathy with engineers. Fair enough!
I came in due course to the discovery that many who did carry the title, simply did so by virtue of having studied at university and spent their first 4-5 years of work as a graduate engineer. Some were highly expert, some also very articulate and some more experienced examples were fully deserving of comparison with a medical consultant or any other senior professional. However, many others were in no significant way superior the apprenticeship pathway “engineers” who were the norm in my earlier career. This isn’t just my opinion, Engineering Council explicitly acknowledged the actual performance evidence with its statement “overlapping in practice” and other research backs this up. Especially in relation to safety in practice, not just “on paper” a more practical understanding and real experience is essential.
I used at one time to have significant responsibility for high voltage work and no amount of “text book” understanding of engineering science, substitutes for practical understanding of what people actually do in the workplace and why they behave as they do. Engineering isn’t just about the design of artefacts or systems (rather than systems of work) “on paper”. In my opinion the emphasis on status and on using academic qualifications to differentiate between different types of professional, has created a problem. The problem is that the overwhelming majority of competent practitioners engaged in Engineering and Technology, don’t feel that the system led by Engineering Council is relevant to their needs or respectful of them.
It seems to me very unlikely that a UK Government would adopt legislation, such as that intended to address a US problem from 100 years ago. Therefore, if our aim is to enhance the practice of engineering, increase safety and importantly productivity in a competitive world, then we need to refocus. Our profession has taken a very “top down” approach and embedded an excessive concern with academic competition and petty unreliable grading. To succeed in future we need to work from the “bottom up” by championing minimum standards of skills and training and “mainstream” practice by competent professional engineers of “graduate standard”. We should also aggrandise those who show high achievement in academia, R&D or anywhere else, but their “high status” should be earned in practice, not codified and treated as an “entitlement” based on theory examinations. As recent events in another sphere have illustrated to us, a sense of entitlement and over-confidence is often the precursor of a “car crash”.
