The following article appears in the journal JOM, 47 (6) (1995), p. 59. JOM is a publication of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

Why Do Engineers Have to Take Registration Exams?

Editor's Note: This is the third article in a three-part series on professional registration for metallurgical engineers.

The previous articles in this series have focused on proposed changes in the two examinations required of metallurgical engineers wishing to pursue professional registration—the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, typically taken by college seniors, and the Principles and Practice of Engineering (PE) exam, which represents the final step in the registration process. The format and content of both exams is, as has been seen, controversial. However, the debates have revived an even more fundamental question: Why have exams at all?

The recent events that have raised this question relate to the adoption of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the resulting push for liberalization of the rules governing cross-border employment of engineers. The desire to improve trade relationships with countries outside of North America and the increasing prominence of multinational engineering firms have furthered this push as well. However, the internationalization of engineering practice is hampered by differences between countries over the processes by which engineers are educated and licensed. In particular, the U.S. process for registering engineers has been a source of friction.

As an illustration, compare the United States' registration practice with that in Canada, the nation with which cross-border traffic in engineering services is most substantial for the United States. The major differences between engineering registration in the two countries are due to the fact that in Canada the accreditation, testing, and licensing functions are all under one roof. That roof is the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, which is responsible for both engineering education accreditation and professional licensing procedures. Actual licenses are held through provincial associations much like the state engineering boards in the United States, but the Canadian provincial associations have been federalized and the licensing requirements largely standardized.

This unified approach results in the major difference between registration procedure in Canada and in the United States—the lack of either a PE or FE examination in Canada. It is instead assumed that holding a B.S. degree in engineering from an accredited Canadian university is proof enough of a candidate's ability to function as an engineer and that four years of experience (and the appropriate letters of reference) will essentially qualify a candidate for professional registration. (In some provinces, an examination on ethics and provincial regulations is also administered.) This approach to engineering registration is not unique to Canada; in fact, only the United States and the Philippines require licensing examinations.

However, this lack of a registration-by-examination process has made it difficult for Canadian engineers wishing to practice in the United States to become registered in this country. A few states will waive the FE requirement for Canadian engineers with 12-15 years experience, but almost all still require passing one of the PE exams as a precondition for registration, and this has caused complaints. The availability of temporary engineering licenses to non-U.S. engineers in about half the states has also been used as a solution to this problem but may not be a long-term answer.

The obvious question raised by this problem is why are examinations required for engineering registration in the United States while engineers in most other nations seem to get along fine without them? The response falls into three general categories:

Those unruly state boards—55 of them to be exact (including territories and commonwealths). Despite efforts by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying for the advancement of a model law for standardizing engineering registration practice, substantial differences in requirements still remain from state to state. Only 16 states actually require a degree from an Engineering Accreditation Commission/Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)-accredited program in addition to passing the FE and PE exams. Most of the states exempt engineers in industry or government employment from mandatory registration laws. About half the states (not necessarily the same ones that exempt engineers in government or industry) exempt engineers with long service records (8-25 years) from the FE requirement. The result is that passing the FE and PE exams is the only way of assuring the qualifications of an engineer moving from state to state, not to mention of an engineer coming to the United States from another country.

The uncertainties of ABET. The number of engineering programs at universities in Canada or Australia or the United Kingdom subject to accreditation is relatively small. As a result, it is easier to generate a consistent accreditation process, and thus more reliable results. On the other hand, more than 275 institutions in the United States have accredited engineering programs, and while consistency is one of ABET's most cherished goals, variation in the results of the accreditation process is still seen as the rule rather than the exception. As a result, external examinations are still needed as a quality control device for engineering education in the United States, more so than in other countries.

Other professions do it. Doctors have a licensing exam; so do lawyers, accountants, morticians, and most other professions, despite the separate accreditation of educational programs in these fields. Why not engineers? Engineering in the United States may be largely unique among the nations in its requirement of examinations as a prerequisite to professional registration, but engineering in Canada is largely unique among the professions in that country in not requiring such exams.

Discussions between Canadian and U.S. engineering societies are continuing in an effort to find a way of removing barriers to transnational engineering practice. A six-nation mutual recognition agreement signed in 1989 recognized the essential equivalence of accreditation processes for engineering education programs in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, and later South Africa. This may make it easier for state boards in the future to find the educational backgrounds of engineers from other countries seeking registration acceptable. However, the two exams remain sticking points, and no simple solution is currently in sight.