<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a quasi-correct statement in many states. For example, in Texas, you can get licensed with 4 years of experience and a BS from an ABET accredited school. It takes 11 years of experience with a degree from a non-ABET school.</p>
<p>Those states where non-ABET graduates are permitted to be licensed generally require an additional four to eight years of work experience to replace the ABET accreditation.</p>
<p>So yes, you can sit for the PE exam in some states without an ABET-accredited degree but it will not be until much later in your career.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The degree counts for so many years of exp. Its not like a non abet accredited degree is worth nothing. In NY a non abet degree is worth 6 years of exp and you then need 6 more to get 12. A abet degree is 8 and you then need 4 more. 12 is the total in both,</p>
<p>
It depends on the state. In some states, a non-ABET degree literally is worth nothing, at least as far as PE licensure is concerned. Kentucky, for example, strictly [url=<a href=“http://kyboels.ky.gov/AboutUs/faq.htm]requires[/url”>http://kyboels.ky.gov/AboutUs/faq.htm]requires[/url</a>] ABET engineering degrees for PE licensure; they won’t accept non-ABET engineering degrees (except from Canada or other countries) or ABET engineering technology degrees. </p>
<p>Other states are more flexible in terms of degrees. In many states, individuals without ABET engineering degrees can still qualify as PEs, if they get several years of extra work experience. In practice, the vast majority of PEs have ABET degrees, even in states with flexible degree rules.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I find it poignantly ironic that Kentucky would accord greater standing to a *foreign<a href=“unaccredited”>/i</a> engineering degree than to a domestic one. Put another way, Kentucky treats Canadians better than it treats some Americans. </p>
<p>Then again, as I had established previously, licensure doesn’t really seem to matter for the vast majority of engineers anyway. Heck, putting the issue of accreditation aside, some people are hired as engineers who don’t even have engineering degrees at all.</p>
<p>
ABET has formal international recognition and equivalency agreements with engineering bodies in certain other countries. The Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) is an example.</p>
<p>It’s relatively easy for a state board to accept a CEAB-accredited engineering degree, since ABET itself readily acknowledges that CEAB degrees are ABET-equivalent. It’s harder for a state board to make a determination for an unaccredited US engineering degree, since unaccredited US engineering programs vary in quality from world-class to diploma mill. An ABET or CEAB degree offers some assurance of quality control, which is (by definition) lacking in an unaccredited degree. </p>
<p>Most engineers never pursue licensure. If you are interested in licensure, however, then you should check your state law carefully before pursuing an unaccredited engineering degree, because an unaccredited degree could significantly restrict your licensure options. And even if your state does accept unaccredited degrees, keep in mind that (1) state laws are subject to change in the future, and (2) that your state of residence could also be subject to change in the future.</p>
<p>
The title of “engineer” is pretty much up for grabs, outside of those engineering fields that are subject to professional licensing laws. So business majors can be “sales engineers”, dozer drivers can be “operating engineers” and janitors can be “maintenance engineers”. With some exceptions, pretty much anyone can claim to be an “engineer”, regardless of degree (or the lack thereof). The title of “engineer” is not regulated in the same way as other professional titles, like (for example) “attorney” or “nurse”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In some states, the term is restricted in all use, meaning that a janitor cannot use the term “sanitation engineer”.</p>
<p>Exactly which states restrict the use of the term engineer in all usages? </p>
<p>Note, I’m not talking about the term “Professional Engineer”, which I agree is often times restricted, nor am I talking about legal restrictions of the term ‘engineer’ with respect to businesses offering engineering services to the public. I am talking specifically about the usage of the term engineering in all cases, such that, as in the example provided, a janitor who called himself a “sanitation engineer” really would be violating the law.</p>
<p>Off the top of my head, Texas:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do have special exceptions, such as a graduate from an ABET-accredited engineering program without a license may use the term “engineer” if the firm for which he works is registered with the State, and any engineer from any ABET-accredited engineering program can use the term “Graduate Engineer”. </p>
<p>And this doesn’t just apply to using “engineer” but any variation of “engineer”, such as “Sanitation Engineer”. I think it was Exxon that nailed with this a few years ago (assigning people to job titles including the word “engineer”, such as Maintenance Engineer and Production Engineer, without an engineering degree or license). </p>
<p>Realistically, though, if some random person wants to call himself an engineer in his own home to his family, he’s not going to get fined. Now, if he starts a business and puts out ads calling himself a “sanitation engineer” (janitorial services) or “recovery engineer” (Repo), etc., he’ll probably receive a warning from the state followed by a several thousand dollar fine if he continues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And that’s where the Mack-truck-sized loophole lies:</p>
<p><a href=“f”>i</a> Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, a regular employee of a business entity who is engaged in engineering activities but is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter under Sections 1001.057 or 1001.058 is not prohibited from using the term “engineer” on a business card, cover letter, or other form of correspondence that is made available to the public if the person does not:
(1) offer to the public to perform engineering services; or
(2) use the title in any context outside the scope of the exemption in a manner that represents an ability or willingness to perform engineering services or make an engineering judgment requiring a licensed professional engineer.*</p>
<p>Let’s also review Section 1001.057:</p>
<p>§ 1001.057. Employee of Private Corporation or Business Entity
(a) This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the full-time employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity, on or in connection with:
(1) reasonable modifications to existing buildings, facilities, or other fixtures to real property not accessible to the general public and which are owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the entity; or
(2) activities related only to the research, development, design, fabrication, production, assembly, integration, or service of products manufactured by the entity.
(b) A person who claims an exemption under this section and who is determined to have directly or indirectly represented the person as legally qualified to engage in the practice of engineering or who is determined to have violated Section 1001.301 may not claim an exemption until the 10th anniversary of the date the person made that representation.
(c) This exemption does not prohibit:
(1) a licensed professional engineer who intends to incorporate manufactured products into a fixed work, system, or facility that is being designed by the licensee on public property or the property of others from requiring the manufacturer to have plans or specifications signed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer; or
(2) the board from requiring, by rule, that certain manufactured products delivered to or used by the public must be designed and sealed by a licensed professional engineer, if necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
(d) For purposes of this section, “products manufactured by the entity” also includes computer software, firmware, hardware, semiconductor devices, and the production, exploration, and transportation of oil and gas and related products.</p>
<p>Let’s face it. The overwhelming majority of ‘engineers’ do not “offer to the public to perform engineering services”, but are instead employed by firms who are engaged in “…activities related only to the research, development, design, fabrication, production, assembly, integration, or service of products…”. Presumably, that would include a ‘sanitation engineer’ who works at Texas Instruments. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/downloads/law_rules122108.pdf[/url]”>http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/downloads/law_rules122108.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? I would like to know more about this. After all, Exxon certainly seems to be a company that falls under the 1001.057 exception as section (d) specifically discusses “…the production, exploration, and transportation of oil and gas and related products”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was the reason the loop-holes were added. It ended up being a major debacle with literally thousands of engineers involved. Exxon changed everyone’s business’ cards (from “Operations Engineer” to “Operations Specialist” and whatnot). The lawyers for Exxon and the State reached some sort of settlement. After all of that, the legislature (after some pressure, I assume) changed the law to specifically exempt many of the major companies in Texas. </p>
<p>Not withstanding, a person who represents himself as a “sanitation engineer” will still be fined.</p>
<p>If you search Google, you will have no problems finding job postings in Texas for [“maintenance</a> engineers”](<a href=“http://houston.kijiji.com/c-Jobs-Construction-trades-CHIEF-MAINTENANCE-ENGINEER-TownePlace-Suites-Houston-Clear-Lake-W0QQAdIdZ129555162]"maintenance”>http://houston.kijiji.com/c-Jobs-Construction-trades-CHIEF-MAINTENANCE-ENGINEER-TownePlace-Suites-Houston-Clear-Lake-W0QQAdIdZ129555162) or [“operating</a> engineers”](<a href=“http://home.flash.net/~iuoe/]"operating”>http://home.flash.net/~iuoe/) or [“sales</a> engineers”](<a href=“Industrial Dust Collection Equipment & Filters | Camfil APC”>Industrial Dust Collection Equipment & Filters | Camfil APC). These are jobs that typically require some familiarity with technology, but not necessarily a 4-year engineering degree.</p>
<p>In California, all of these titles are completely unregulated. There is no protection of engineering titles, other than those that are specifically called out in the laws and regulations, and these are not.</p>
<p>If you’ve been reading this forum for a while, you may have noticed that people regularly start threads to ask if “computer science” is considered an engineering major. Recent examples [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/631917-does-computer-science-count-engineering-major.html?highlight=considered+engineering]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/631917-does-computer-science-count-engineering-major.html?highlight=considered+engineering]here[/url</a>], [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/425692-computer-science.html?highlight=considered+engineering]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/425692-computer-science.html?highlight=considered+engineering]here[/url</a>], and [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/390279-computer-science.html?highlight=considered+engineering]here[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/engineering-majors/390279-computer-science.html?highlight=considered+engineering]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>Why the interest in this semantic issue? I think it may be, at least in part, because the title of “Engineer” is so prestigious in other parts of the world. In Mexico, for example, engineers use the title as part of their names; a Mexican engineer introduces himself as “Ingenerio Juan Rodriguez,” or uses the written form of Ing. Juan Rodriquez. It’s similar in other parts of Latin American and Continental Europe (not sure about Asia). So students from foreign backgrounds may be wondering if they will qualify for such titles in their home countries, based on their US computer science degrees.</p>
<p>The good news is that they can, in fact, claim the title of “engineer” under US laws. The bad news is that pretty much everyone else can claim it too. So the title of “engineer” doesn’t have any particular prestige here, unlike (for example) “Dr.” for physicians or “Esq.” for attorneys. The closest US engineering equivalent is the “Professional Engineer” or “PE” title, which is both protected and prestigious, but it’s only popular with civil engineers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? If this was such a major scandal involving the legislature, then surely you can point us to media article that would discuss such a newsworthy story?</p>
<p>Regardless, even if what you are saying is true, then all of those oil firms can now revert right back to calling their employees engineers regardless of whatever degree they may have. After all, that is the point of the loophole, is it not? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Why’s that? Again, from subsection (f):</p>
<p>a regular employee of a business entity who is engaged in engineering activities but is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter under Sections 1001.057 or 1001.058 is not prohibited from using the term “engineer” on a business card, cover letter, or other form of correspondence that is made available to the public if the person does not:
(1) offer to the public to perform engineering services; or
(2) use the title in any context outside the scope of the exemption in a manner that represents an ability or willingness to perform engineering services or make an engineering judgment requiring a licensed professional engineer.</p>
<p>So it certainly seems to me that anybody in Texas is certainly free to represent himself as a ‘sanitation engineer’ on his resume or any other document unless he is trying to offer those services to the public.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just because there’s a law doesn’t mean that everyone knows it and follows it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It wasn’t a scandal. It was a consortium of companies lobbying the legislature for a change to the laws. It’s the same thing as the groups that lobby for tort reform or changes to the US patent laws. </p>
<p>It was a debacle in engineering circles at the time, since Exxon changed business cards. They went back to the old titles after the ruling.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And to answer the question of whether or not “engineer” is protected in Texas:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
Back in 2003, the Texas BPE began strictly enforcing state regulations that restricted the title of “engineer” to licensed PEs, even for individuals that only used the title internally within private companies (i.e. not with the general public). This did cause a major stir in Texas, and did force many firms to change the job titles that they gave their employees. Some of these firms went to the legislature and got the rules changed. So I’m not sure that this is relevant today. </p>
<p>It’s often hard to dig up old news articles without paid subscriptions, but several related news stories have been [url=<a href=“http://www.paragoninnovations.com/ng2/inthenews.shtml]archived[/url”>Page not Found - Paragon Innovations]archived[/url</a>] at Paragon Innovations, a company which promoted the revised legislation. Summary story [url=<a href=“Page not Found - Paragon Innovations”>Page not Found - Paragon Innovations]here[/url</a>].</p>
<p>
Yes, the term “engineer” is protected in Texas – if it is used by those “offering and performing engineering services for the public.” You will notice that the article quoted above specifically mentions that point. </p>
<p>But – that’s not especially different from any other state. States typically do regulate the title of “engineer,” when it comes to those engineers (primarily civils) who deal directly with the general public and/or public agencies on custom, project-specific engineering issues (typically involving infrastructure). </p>
<p>However, most engineers don’t do that kind of work. Most engineers are involved in the design or manufacture of mass-produced products, and only deal with the public indirectly, through the sale of those products. States – including Texas – typically have an “industrial exemption” which applies in this situation.</p>
<p>So even in Texas, most engineering work is exempt from state regulation. And so even in Texas, the title of “engineer” is not protected in most engineering workplaces. There are certainly non-exempt situations – in Texas, California, and other states – where the title is used contrary to law, and where state boards do step in. But most “engineering” work is exempt, so it’s a non-issue most of the time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you not read what we’re discussing:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
OK, the International Union of Operating Engineers (i.e. construction equipment drivers) has offices and union halls statewide, and has been around for decades. For example, you can easily find the web pages for Texas locals 174, 450, and 564. Do you really believe that no one has ever noticed them, or their use of the title “engineer” ?</p>
<p>In fact, they can legally claim the title, because they don’t offer “engineering services” to the public. It’s true that they do offer certain services to the public – but moving dirt from Point A to Point B is not, by itself, an “engineering service”. </p>
<p>If an “operating engineer” tried to prepare and submit grading plans to the local building dept, then yes, the state BPE would have a problem, because that would be an engineering service that only licensed PEs can perform. But as long the operating engineers don’t attempt to provide services like that, they are exempt from state regulation, and can use the engineer title if they like.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, <em>now</em> they have! Nice goin’, Corbett! ;)</p>