Presentation to NSPE Board of Directors by E. P. Segner, Jr., - - PDF document

Presentation to NSPE Board of Directors

by

• E. P. Segner, Jr., Ph.D., P.E.

9/12/09

PROPOSED ROAD MAP FOR INCREASING LICENSURE AMONG ENGINEERING DEANS -----

(As approved by NSPE – LQPC on 3/7/09)

Purpose: As a modification to the NCEES Model Law, the proposal below is intended to encourage current deans of engineering, when appropriate, to become licensed as professional engineers who in turn would pledge to encourage and promote the same for their departmental chairs and other faculty members who all serve as role models for students. To facilitate the process for current deans, these individuals under certain conditions and within a stated time period could apply for licensure without a requirement to take either the FE or the PE examination. Mile Marker

• 1. Approved by the Education Subcommittee of NSPE’s LQPC.____ DONE
• 2. Preliminary approval by the entire LQPC. ______ DONE
• 3. Seek input from selected ASEE’s Deans or from NSPE’ PEHE Board _DONE_
• 4. Final approval by the entire LQPC. ___ DONE___3/7/09___

(Since this has a limited window as a policy statement, it would not prohibit an engineering dean from applying for licensure by the standard application process.)

A revision to the NCEES Model Law would be developed which would encourage all engineering deans, when appropriate, to become a licensed professional engineer by (date to be set). To assist in achieving this objective, a five-year window would be provided which would waive the required FE and PE exams for all current deans provided the individual is (1) tenured in a professional engineering discipline, (2) has an earned doctorate in engineering (or in a related field of science or mathematics as assessed and approved by the Board) from an institution which at the time had an ABET accredited undergraduate engineering program, (3) has a minimum of six years of experience

• as a full- time engineering faculty member in an ABET accredited undergraduate engineering

program, or other acceptable engineering experience, or a combination thereof, (4) presents a record of excellence based upon his/her contribution to the advancement of engineering education / research as recommended by five recognized experts in his/her field who are also familiar with the applicant’s abilities and character (preferably three of whom would be PE’s), and (5) has satisfied all

• ther requirements for the PE license.
• 5. Final approval by the NSPE’s Board / Board of Delegates ___________
• 6. Solicit input and support from NCEES. ___________
• 7. Referral to NSPE state societies for promotion and implementation by their respective state licensing boards and state
• legislatures. _____________

Item 6.2A Attachment

KEY POINTS TO CONSIDER ABOUT THE DEAN’S “ROAD MAP” (Prepared & presented to the NSPE Board of Directors on behalf NSPE’s LQPC Committee and its Higher Education Subcommittee which I chair. As to my own personal background I have a Ph.D. degree in engineering and have been at seven major universities as an engineering professor, chair, dean, and vice president. I am a licensed PE in four states and have recently served, or currently serve, on faculty licensing study task forces for ASCE, NSPE, and NCEES.)

1) While the “road map” may not be perfect to some, it represents 5-6 years of diligent study by the LQPC

• committee. The results will probably require 8-10

years to realize our desired benefits. 2) Although NCEES has not yet formally adopted a position on our “Road Map”, informal responses appear to be positive. A task force to study the proposal was recently appointed on which I will serve as NSPE’s representative along with Monte Phillips who will act as its chair. 3) Note that less than 20% of the engineering deans in the U.S. today are licensed PE’s.

4) Based on many recent surveys, the % of engineering faculty by discipline in the U.S. who are currently PE’s are as follows: CE: 65-70%; ME: 40-45%; EE: 25-30% All others: less than 15% 5) Most surveys of individual faculty members show the same response to the question of “why not get licensed?” Their answer almost always is “why bother?” or “what’s in it for me?”. 6) The deans are the key players since they can modify the institutional rewards system as well as the promotion & tenure requirements so as to include a PE license and the taking of the FE and PE exams. The payment of related exam fees could also be included.

7) Having a licensed dean would encourage the adding

• f an additional requirement (or a future expectation)

for a PE license for newly recruited chairs and faculty members. 8) Note that this plan would apply to only current deans and would be valid for only (__??__ ) years as established by each state. 9) The proposed plan would be a success if only half the states adopted it. Compare that impact on students compared to the number of students we license today!!! Note the U.S. had 74,170 BS engineering graduates last year, thus ½ could be 37,000 potential PE’s!

10) Note that the words “as appropriate” appear in the “road map” since there may be reasonable exceptions in some disciplines or special situations. (Bio-medical engineering may be an example). (Personal note: UAB would not be an exception) 11) It should be noted that about 1/3 of all current engineering faculty will retire within 7 years out of a total of about 27,000 nationally. Couple this with the fact that last year 61% of all Ph.D. engineering graduates in U.S. were foreign - a figure that is going up at about 1% per year. Thus, where are many of

• ur replacement engineering faculty going to come

from?? Therefore we must stress the importance of faculty licensure now.

12) Our committee personally talked to over 15 of the current engineering deans in the U.S. including all of the deans of the top 10 largest undergraduate programs. Of these only 2 were

• pposed to the plan! (The ASEE Engineering Deans Council

was not contacted since over half of its current membership do not have an undergraduate degree in engineering.) 13) One example of the support by current deans for the “road map” is the very strong support by Dr. Kemble Bennett, Dean at Texas A & M University – the 2nd largest engineering college in nation. He also serves as the current chair of the Texas BOL (the only dean to my knowledge in the U.S. who fills that role today). (Personal Note: Fred Benson’s comments in the late 1950’s.) 14) Since there are no secrets today among universities, no dean will take either the FE or PE exam. The question each asks himself or herself is “What if I would fail it?”. At this point in

• ur career today, how many of us could pass either exam?

15) Thus the bottom line is - do we want our students after graduation to be licensed PE’s or not? If so, we must first have faculty who are licensed PE’s. 16) Therefore, on behalf of the LQPC Committee and its Higher Education Subcommittee, I request consideration and approval by the NSPE Board of Directors of the Dean’s “Road Map” as submitted.

Thank you for your time and consideration!