By Doug Criner

Considerations are now being given to a major overhaul of the engineering licensing process. Some suggestions would establish new levels of licensure, possibly with names that are different from the current "Engineer Intern" or "Licensed P.E."

Could We Do Worse than E.I. or P.E.?

First, let’s address "Engineer Intern," which replaced the moniker "Engineer in Training" some years ago. Engineer Intern has no appeal to prospective licensees. Interns are commonly regarded as undergraduate students working summer jobs in a sub-professional capacity.  Few graduate engineers would take pride in calling themselves "interns" during the first four years after graduation.

The term "Professional Engineer" has been used for eons, possibly as early as 1915 when the first state, Wyoming, adopted a licensing law. Early licensing laws allowed "practical" engineers to become licensed on the basis of their experience—so it was perhaps logical to classify licensees as Professional Engineers, something akin to "registered nurse" versus "licensed practical nurse." Nowadays, however, "professional" essentially means that a person is paid for his/her services—as opposed to "amateur." The term "professional" is used so widely that it has lost its cachet:  my Craftsman toolbox is labeled a professional model; computer software is often offered in a professional edition. In the common vernacular, any graduate engineer would certainly be considered to be a professional. Thus the term "Professional Engineer" does not appropriately differentiate a licensed engineer from an unlicensed engineer and it may be an unnecessary turnoff to engineers who are unlicensed.

So, the word "Professional" is inadequate. Taken as a two-word combination, "Professional Engineer" provides no help in differentiating, in the public’s mind, P.E.s from the array of other engineers—building engineers, railroad engineers, operating engineers, etc. Regrettably, the English word "engineer" connotes a relationship to engines. In other languages, e.g., German and Spanish, the words for "engineer" have a closer connotation to "ingenuity" rather than to engines. I do not propose to abandon the term "engineering," but it is important to recognize the problems we have

For whatever reasons, the term "P.E." has never gained reasonably high public awareness or recognition. C.P.A., A.I.A., M.D., R.N., etc., have much greater public recognition and higher acceptance by prospective licensees in those fields. It is certainly possible that the vague and nondescript nature of "P.E." has contributed to its own limited acceptance and recognition.

Do Titles Matter?

Shakespeare notwithstanding, names and titles are very important in creating a public impression. I am painfully aware of large projects that encountered problems that might have been avoided if more apt names had been selected by their owners. (The breeder reactor, a worthy project cancelled in the 1970s, comes to mind, conveying the notion of an out-of-control Frankentstein sex maniac.) If names don’t matter much, then why is there great effort in selecting product names, names of companies, and names of entertainers?

Virtually every word in our language carries subliminal baggage that we may be only vaguely aware of. Some words, when pronounced, sound funny or produce a particular feeling. A word may rhyme with another. A word may have multiple meanings. Every word has evolved in its meaning and usage—resulting in unintended linkages. The verb "peruse" means to read very carefully; perhaps because it rhymes with "cruise" or "muse," it is often used incorrectly to mean to read very quickly, to skim.

Suggested Criteria for New Engineering Titles

Here are some suggestions for developing new titles for an overhauled approach to engineering licensing:

1. First, titles should be flattering, or at least not negative, to the engineer’s self mage and public image. We need not, in a title’s name, attempt to convey limitations on the licensee’s authority or responsibilities; that can be done in the model law to be adopted by various jurisdictions. "Engineer Intern" flunks this criterion.

2. Computer programming languages have "reserved words," e.g., LOOP or JUMP, which cannot be used as variables. Likewise, we should seek to adopt titles that can be legally reserved for our use. "Engineer" alone, or even "Professional Engineer" are difficult to reserve. We may wish to consider titles that do not even have the word "engineer" in them, since presumably one must be an engineer to achieve the title. For example, consider such titles as "Realtor" (which I believe is copyrighted or trademarked) or "dermatologist.

3. The titles should be differentiated from such activities as railroad engineers, etc. This may require some originality since the term "engineer" has been usurped in the English language. The present title "Professional Engineer" flunks this criterion.

4. Ideally, the titles should convey to the public what we do or what we are.

5. The titles should convey the notion that they are based on some legal licensing process. "Engineer Intern" and "Professional Engineer" both fall short in this respect. The word "licensed" as a modifier is not particularly prestigious—perhaps "chartered," "certified," or "enrolled" or others might be better.

6. Consider "invented" names or foreign words that perhaps have a favorable connotation.

© Doug Criner 2002-06