Talk:Professional Engineer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Capitalization of title 2 Canada: Professional Physicists 3 "Licensed Professional Engineer" 4 US Wiki Users calling themselves Engineers on Personal Pages who aren't Engineers 5 Degreed Engineer, Professional degree 6 Revert to restore govt eng text 7 (UK) Chartered Engineer compared to (US/Canada) Professional Engineer 8 United Kingdom 8.1 Web site changes of SPE qualifications 8.2 UK Statutory Instrument found C.Eng, I.Eng, more 8.3 Revert incorrect markup 8.4 IET, Engineering Technicians 8.5 Demerger of material 9 Europe 10 Use of the Term "Engineer" in the IT Industry 11 Minor vs. major edit 12 Diploma Engineer 13 Corporate entity licensure in the US 14 United Kingdom 15 Added citation 16 Context tagged 17 Reverted deletion 18 Split this page up. 19 Model Law 29 Sept 20 Professional Engineer 21 Promoted "Controversies over..." to a top-level section 22 Please Help 23 Userboxes

[edit] Capitalization of title

I moved this from [Professional engineer]. This is a specific title. It should be capitalized. --Jiang 14:14, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Canada: Professional Physicists

This statement was added:

In Canada some engineering activities are also permitted to Professional Physicists with the P.Phys designation.

I do not believe that is correct. The P. Phys designation is simply a trademarked term. This grants no right to practice at all. They definitely do not have any right to do "engineering". (The Engineers Acts generally do not allow the professional associations to delegate the registration of who can do engineering and therefore it would not be legal for PEO to say those who are registered P.Phys can do engineering in some specific field.) -- Webgeer 01:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Well yes and no... yes that "P.Phys." does not grant any extra rights, but what kind of activities constitute "engineering activities"? When APEGGA sued a person (a registered engineering technologist nevertheless) for practicing "pressure transient analysis" as practicing an "engineering activity", licensed engineers filed affidavits on behalf of APEGGA and the accused, taking opposing views respectively. [1] Ultimately the court ruled against APEGGA, saying "The evidence before me does not satisfy me on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent carries out the practice of engineering." So what exactly is an "engineering activity"? Only courts can decide. -- Rgl168 20:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Licensed Professional Engineer"

The term "Licensed Professional Engineer is redundant. I know of no North American jurisdiction that permits an individual to call themselves a Professional Engineer without a license. Anyone who wants to make a distiction between PE and Licensed PE should supply an example to the contrary. Toiyabe 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The term licensed professional engineer is not redundant. -- Paleorthid 18:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Information at the Purdue University College of Engineering site supports use of the term licensed professional engineer. However note the lack of title case, a distinction that appears important to some -- Paleorthid 18:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Heimer Engineering is fond of the phrase, and uses title case. They also describe themselves as purveyors of "Insight and understanding that only a Licensed Engineer can provide" -- Paleorthid 18:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The National Society of Professional Engineers uses the phrase (see second and seventh paragraphs) -- Paleorthid 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors uses the phrase "enforcing the laws regulating licensed professional engineers" in the metatag description embedded in their home page. -- Paleorthid 18:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Steps to becoming a Licensed Professional Engineer -- Paleorthid 18:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

New York State Education Dept's Office of the Professions answers the question "What is a licensed professional engineer?" on their Professional Engineering Consumers Brochure page. -- Paleorthid 18:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

New York State Statutes, Article 145, Paragraph 7202 "Only a person licensed or otherwise authorized under this article shall practice engineering or use the title "professional engineer". [2].

Check any state law book and you'll find the same language.

Yes, the term "licensed professional engineer" is commonly used, but it is redundant. What I was objecting to is useing that phrase to split PEs into a liscensed category and an unliscensed category. Use of the term PE is unlawfull in any state unless one has a license. Industrial exemptions work for the title "engineer" but not "professional engineer" - the only exemption I could think of is employment by the Fed or State government in which "professional engineer" appears in the job title. Toiyabe 18:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If redundant, it can't be grossly redundant when so many authoritative sources use it. Using the term early in the article improves the readability. It is a distinction that the sources I have cited have generally employed to improve readability. This encyclopedic article benefits from similar use of the phrase. The absence of the phrase is a source of confusion to the reader, as indicated by recent editing history. -- Paleorthid 19:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if you use the redundant term as long as you don't use it to claim that you can be a PE without a license. Toiyabe 19:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Texas Board of Professional Engineers states "This database listing contains current Active and Inactive Licensed Professional Engineers only". -- Paleorthid 18:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Texas Occupational Code Paragraph 1001.301 - Must have a license to use the terms "engineer", "professional engineer" and just about every other permutation. [3]

Are you going to make me go through the law books for every state? Toiyabe 19:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnecessary. This is an encyclopedic article, not a body of law, which has limited jurisdition and specific application. This is a critical distinction. -- Paleorthid 19:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is then. "Professional Engineer" is a legally defined term in the US and Canada. This article is about the usage of that term in the US and Canada. Now, if you want to argue that common definition of the term is different than the legal definition of the term, you will have to show some basis. I think you would need to show significant numbers of people using the title "Professional Engineer" without a license. Because that is illegal, I doubt you'll be able to do it. Toiyabe 19:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Wiki Users calling themselves Engineers on Personal Pages who aren't Engineers

I've come across a lot of Wiki users who call themselves "Software Engineers" or other nonsense on their pages who aren't PE's (I asked them)

[edit] Degreed Engineer, Professional degree

I must agree somewhat with marg4. Consider the following:

According to the Federal Gov't (OPM), GS-800 "Professional Engineering Positions" require the following BASIC QUALIFICATION

1. Successful completion a full four-year professional engineering curriculum leading to a bachelor's or higher degree in engineering from an accredited college or university that has an engineering curriculum accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET).

Clearly the federal Gov't recognizes "professional engineering curriculum" as a bachelor's or higher degree in engineering. A person hired into a GS-8xx position would be working as a "professional Engineer".

Seperately, OPM also recognizes "Registered Professional Engineers" as being eligible for "Professional Engineering positions".

It seems Marg4 is taking the point of view that the Fed. Gov't is taking with regard to "Professional Engineers". Are they both wrong or both right ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.72.98.89 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 11 May 2006.

The Federal Government is not subject to state law. The federal government can and does call its employees anything it wants. For example, it could call any of it's employees "Medical Doctors", and none of the state medical boards could take action. Certain states also have exemptions for their own employees with regards to the use of the term "engineer". Everyone else is subject to state law, and must be careful when using the title "Engineer" and especially "Professional Engineer". I added a paragraph covering this before, but someone removed it, and I didn't bother to put it back in.

The Federal/State differnce on engineers is sort of covered in the article. The interstate commerce clause is where the "industrial exemptions" come from, as the states can't regulate the practice of engineering involved in interstate commerce, and the Feds don't care. Toiyabe 14:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert to restore govt eng text

"...such as Operating Engineer. Employees of state or federal agencies may also call themselves engineers if that term appears in their official job title." was initiated by Toiyabe on February 14, 2006, but was removed by 67.72.98.91 on April 15, 006, an IP associated with multiple vandalisms (see user talk). Removed text was then was restored by Civil Engineer III on April 17, 006 but then was removed by Ieee-pe on April 22, 006, a user with only this one event. No edit summary was offered. --Paleorthid 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Toiyabe says: "The federal government can and does call its employees anything it wants." The fact remains, unless challenged in court, whatever the Federal Gov't does, is legal!

Do the right thing and change the main page back as follows: A Professional Engineer is: (a) A person who is a registered or licensed engineer or, (b) A person holding a professional degree, majoring in Engineering. See professional degree. Note, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who do most of the design work in areas of "PE" work such as levees, bridges, dams, power generation, etc. are Federal Gov.'t Engineers. And NO they do not require PE licenses to be working as "Engineers" with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. You (Toiyabe) should accept this. As stated before, this is an injustice to all of us who have advanced degrees in Engineering. (MSEE, PhD EE). We have "professional degrees in Engineering" and are thus "professional engineers". A lawyer fresh out of Law school is still a lawyer, unlicensed until he passed the bar, but a lawyer, nonetheless. Same goes for a doctor, same for an engineer. These are all considered "professional occupations".

Yes, these are all "professional occupations" and they are subject to licensure. For a lawyer, the professional degree is Juris Doctor (JD). To be a Lawyer, one needs a license, for which JD is a prerequisite, see Lawyer#Mandatory licensing and membership in professional organizations. Likewise, Doctor of Medicine (MD) is a professional degree, to be a Physician (in the US at least) one requires a license for which the MD is one of the prerequisites. There is no professional degree called "PE". There are various Batchelors, Masters and PhD degrees in engineering. Those are "professional degrees". "PE" is a license, available from variously named state boards in the US and professional associations in Canada.

With the exception of employment with the Federal Government, you have yet to provide an instance where PE is treated as anything other than an occupational license. I don't know the specifics of pracicing law and medicine within the Armed Forces, but I rather suspect you don't need a state license to practice in those instances either. Despite that, FHWA requires that the design projects it does be signed off on by a PE with a license in the state the project is to be built in. I haven't done work for the Army Corps of Engineers, but I'd be surprised if that wasn't also the case. Anyway, it is laughable to say that the Army Corps does most of the Professional Engineering work. They do a very small minority of such work, limited to navigable waterways, and not even the majority of design work there. They do have some regulatory authority over all such work on navigable waterways, and good luck trying to get some plans past them on the basis of your "professional degree" intead of a PE license.

Anyway, if you want the page changed to reflect your viewpoint, you should back them up with some reliable references rather than assertions. I presume you have an advanced degree in EE but no license. Do you have Professional Engineer or PE written on your buisness card? If not, why not? If so, are you willing to send me a copy so I can forward it to the Board of Engineering in your home state? They'll probably let you off with a warning if it's your first violation. Toiyabe 15:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I will speak from the Canadian perspective as this article does cover both. In Canada, the term "Professional Engineer" and "engineer" is a protected title by the provincial act. Only those who are registered with the provincial association of engineers (name various from province to province) are allowed to call themselves "engineers". If you are a graduate of an engineering program you are of course permitted to state that you have a degree in engineering, but you cannot call yourself an engineer. I also would like to add that I have never seen the term "Degreed Engineer" used by anyone and I doubt it would be legal for a non-professional engineer to use that title in Canada (as it implies that the title holder is an engineer, when in fact they are not allowed to call themselves an engineer). Therefore I will remove it from the first paragraph and put it in a separate paragraph. (For the act and bylaws in BC see APEGBC site)-- Webgeer 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm astonished by the lack of common sense. Webgeer states "Only those who are registered with the provincial association of engineers (name various from province to province) are allowed to call themselves 'engineers'." The ridiculousness of this statement should be enough to back the facts. To say that a college graduate of Engineering does not have the legal right to call himself an "engineer" in the most ridiculous, absurd statement. The fact remains, An "engineer" is anyone holding a degree in engineering from an accredited four-year university. Such a person is an "engineer" and can call himself an “engineer”, and may work for public or private business as an engineer. Depending upon the type or area of work, a license may or may not be necessary. If a license is necessary, an engineer would follow the course to take the "P.E. exam" to be so licensed. Remember a P.E. license is just a license. It means a person passed a P.E. Exam. A person need not have ever taken a single college course to be eligible to take a P.E. exam. By the way, Toiyabe, I would have no problem telling my State Board I use the title "engineer" without having a P.E. license. There is not a thing they would do or could do. It just doesn't matter! And people out there need to know that.

OK. I think we've established that "Professional Engineer" is an occupational license, and only those with the license can use that title. Clearly if you use that title without a license, you won't want the state board to find out.

As the article states, enforcement of restrictions on the title "Engineer" is lax, but that doesn't mean that most North American jurisdictions don't have such restrictions. Webgeer has provided a link to the BC law regarding that. I've provided links to NY and TX law on that. You may think those laws are absurd, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Toiyabe 14:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously enforcement varies by context. In a casual context there is obviously no problem with calling yourself an engineer. However, if you are not a registered engineer in BC and took out an advertisement in the yellow pages under engineering, or if you wrote a letter to the newspaper and said "I am an engineer and...", you quite likely would face enforcement. I know for a fact that the BC association quite routinely sends out letters to non-PEng's who use the title "engineer" on their business card asking them to remove it (and they pretty much always get compliance). A very specific on-going example example is that in Canada any MCSE are risking enforcement measures if they spell out their designation on their business card in Canada (see ccpe site for more information). -- Webgeer 23:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording at the moment looks good to me. Webgeer, Toiyabe, etc. have the right of it. The Literate Engineer 17:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (UK) Chartered Engineer compared to (US/Canada) Professional Engineer

A change was just made to the article to add the statement "The UK CEng registration is set at a higher standard than Canadian and American professional engineering registration." I feel a citation should be provided, and this statement should be clarified. Several possible interpretations come to mind. Perhaps the degree, examination, or experience requirements are higher. Perhaps a PE who moves to the UK will have to complete some new, substantial requirement before becoming a CEng. Some people might argue that since CEng and PE are the highest available certfications in their respective jurisdictions, claiming that CEng is at a higher level than PE amounts to claiming that UK engineers are better than US and Canadian engineers, which would be a difficult position to defend. Gerry Ashton 19:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

This could be a reference to the requirement for a Masters or Bachelors + continuing education for a UK CEng, whereas US PE and Canadian P.Eng. require only a Batchelors (for now, this may change in the next few years). The Master's degree requirement for CEng appears to be recent, so many current UK engineers probably don't have a masters. UK IE requires an HNC, which seems to be about equivalent to a US Associate's degree.

The US and UK education systems are very different. The last two years of high school in the UK require only 3 subjects (many do more, up to 11), and to pursue an engineering degree, these three subjects must be mathematics, chemistry and physics. This gets a lot of the first year of a US degree out of the way before reaching university in the UK. Next, UK engineering degrees are only 3 years, versus 4 in the US. There is no "core curriculum" of unrelated coursework, so at least equal, if not more time is spent on engineering coursework. A masters in the UK is generally a single year, bringing the university requirment for chartership in the UK up to 4 years, on a par with the US, South Africa, and other signatories of the Washington Accord (Canada, Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Japan). The Washington Accord recognizes engineering degrees of signatory countries to be substantially equivalent, although individual US states choose to ignore it, with ABET's ECEI charging $450 a pop to stamp them "unaccredited" due to a lack of non-engineering coursework. Signatory countries usually recognize chartership/professional status in signatory countries, but the US does require the PE exam. There is no way around it. Claiming that the UK does not require testing shows a severe lack of understanding of the UK chartership process. The PE exam is a lot easier to pass than the UK chartership interview, at which your portfolio demonstrating varying competencies far more rigorous than the 80 questions on the PE exam, is scrutinzed and the candidates are questioned. It is an oral exam, and rather a harrowing one at that. Portfolia can be rejected, oral exams can be failed, chartership is frequently denied. The path to chartership is rarely complete in under 6-8 years except by a candidate who has remained at their original employer which has an exemplary internship program and puts chartership above profit. A very rare case indeed. There are few chartered engineers under the age of 30.

The US and Canadian work review processes appear to be about equivalent, based on my dicussions with P.Engs. The UK CEng work review/interview process appears to be more rigorous, but I don't know how it works out in practice. On the other hand, there is no testing. I don't see any basis to say that any one of these three countries has higher standards than the others, although those standards are fairly different. Toiyabe 16:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we must have an appropriate citation on the issue as it is not the place of wikipedia to stand and judge the relative merits of different education and professional systems (certainly not without an external reference that is authoritive). While the masters degree has become standard (at graduation) in the UK this is a relatively recent innovation. Moreover if one has a CEng this in itself does not confer any addition competence to undertake engineering work within the UK and indeed it is not a prerequisite to practice or discribe oneself as an "engineer" - professional or otherwise. And its loss would not be a bar on engineering practice. Djegan 18:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is always very difficult to compare practices in different countries with different educational systems. Often there is more to it than simply the degree obtained. In Canada (and I believe the US), there are some fields where a Masters degree is generally considered the minimum qualifications to do work in that field, in others a Bachelors is acceptable. In Canada (and I believe in many cases in the US), an engineering course load is generally about 10-20% higher than the standard course load for someone earning a science degree. As an example, at the University I went to the standard course load was 5 courses and it was pretty easy to earn a Bachelor of Science in 4 years averaging about 5 courses a semester, whereas in engineering you had to take 6 courses every semester and you had to do write a technical report on your work terms (terms not in school). Because of concern that this high course load was leading to burn-out, there was at one time a serious push to make all engineering degrees either post graduate degrees (ie. one would have to have a degree in science or "pre-engineering" and then get a masters in the engineering field they were interested in) or at least change the entry requirements so that you have to have completed one or two years of university before you could apply. This was not intended to increase the level of education, or to improve the quality engineers. It was more intended to broaden the education and to actually reduce the course load especially early on in the program. -- Webgeer 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ASCE is pushing for Master's degree or Batchelors + 30 additional credit hours, but there's a lot of resistance to that. Their main argument is that "all the other professions are doing it". Specifically other professions such as doctors and lawyers start out with a classical, "liberal" education and then go on to a professional degree. In contrast (in the US at least) an engineering education is parallel to a liberal arts education. ASCE seems to think that if an engineering education is more like a medical or legal education, then engineers will get the respect that Medical Doctors and Lawyers get (I doubt Dilbert would agree). To do that, ASCE is advocating less engineering content and more "liberal" content in the undergraduate degree and to make up the engineering content (and perhaps more) in an advanced degree. Toiyabe 23:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

Is Professional Engineer a legally recognised title in the United Kingdom? Chartered Engineer is the main designation for UK professional engineers, discussion of any alternative must include some official citation (currently absent). Psnae 14:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Professional Engineer is not main title but is legally confered qualification by SPE UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.124.236 (talk • contribs) .

The United Kingdom section was recently revised to state that "because of changing requirements for registration in the UK, the title of Incorporated Engineer is generally considered equivalent to the UK SPE P.Eng. and Canadian P.Eng. or Ing. or American P.E". Since the Chartered Engineer qualification is considered a higher level than Incorporated Engineer, this implies that Chartered Engineer is at a higher level than the Canadian P. Eng or the American P.E. This statement was tried earlier in this article, and challenged because it was not sourced. So I renew the challenge; find a source or withdraw the statement.

I will provide a citation suggesting that the American P.E. and Chartered Engineer are at the same level, although the citation is not conclusive. According to the IET (which resulted from a joining of the IEE and IIE, and still has some IEE websites) at the website [4] "the Washington Accord provides mutual recognition of accredited engineering qualifications at Chartered Engineer level." The Washington Accord includes ABET, which accredits engineering degrees in the US; most states either flatly require an ABET accredited degree, or require substantial extra experience to compensate for the lack of such a degree. Gerry Ashton 17:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me agree with User:68.66.124.236 and expand on why this citation is not conclusive: the Washington Accord applies to academic degrees, not engineering licences or what is called a qualification in the UK. A person with either a degree accredited by ABET or recognised by the Engineering Council UK puts one on the path to a license or qualification, but one must still accumulate and document suitable experience, and for the PE, pass examinations. Gerry Ashton 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web site changes of SPE qualifications

I notice that as of 13:18 on 17 July 2006 (UTC) all mention of qualifications by the SPE have been removed. Perhaps this was done with good reason, but I would like to know what the reason was. Gerry Ashton 18:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Lack of sourcing. The Wikipedia article on SPE was removed for copyvio, the link you provide above, which seems to be about the only information on the web about the SPE's grades, does not indicate that the grades of the SPE are anything more significant than membership in the NSPE or ASCE in the United States.

I disagree - SPE P.Eng is a title and registration just like French SNIPF.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  68.66.124.236 (talk • contribs) .

There's nothing which indicates that the "titles" of the SPE are indications of anything other than membership in the SPE. --- I disagree go to bottom of this page ---On the other hand, the EC(UK) seems to have some statutory authority over engineering titles, and thus should be included. If you can write a thorough, clear, sourced explanation of what the SPE grades mean and why they're equivalent to anything other than membership in a lobbying group, feel free to do so. The previous information was neither thorough, clear, nor sourced. Argyriou 20:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have confidence in the Engineering Council UK because I'm familiar with the high quality journals of the IEE (which has merged into the IET), and the IET's qualifications are recognized by the Engineering Council UK. All I know about the SPE is the scant information on the web; I was hoping someone might know where to find some high quality information. Gerry Ashton 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The first question I had in my mind was whether the SPE was legitimate, or a credential mill. I found a page on the NSPE web site announcing they were (as of 2002) about to sign an affiliation agreement with SPE. That indicates to me that they are a legitimate society and, in my mind, the information on their website is suitable for use as a primary source. That leaves the question of the significance of their qualifications. Are there any areas of engineering practice which would be prohibited to the lay person but allowed to the holder of an SPE qualification? Is it illegal to use the initials of an SPE qualification if one does not actually hold the qualification? I don't know; I'd like to see some sources that answer these questions. Gerry Ashton 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The same question can be asked about CEng, IEng wtx - Are there any areas of engineering practice which would be prohibited to the lay person but allowed to the holder of an C.Eng qualification?

As far as I know P.Eng in UK is reserved only to SPE UK, the same is for DBeng, SEng for IBE.

The title Engineer in UK is NOT protected. SPE UK maintains registry of Engineers who upon registration earn a designation /qualification of Professional Engineer. There is no licensing of Engineer in UK, there is a certification / registration by EC UK of the C.Eng, I.Eng and Eng Tech. SPE UK Legally registers Professional Engineers and awards P.Eng designation.

Engineering Licensing is not required in UK and also in some 22 out of 25 EU member states.

I'd like to see the UK section rewritten by someone who understands engineering licensing in general and the UK system in specific. Particularly, I'd like to see addressed the issue of practice limitations, industrial exemptions (if such exist), and more clarity regarding qualifications, as well as the current title discussion. Argyriou 22:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Professional Engineer in UK is not licensed and license is NOT required to be employed a an Engineer, ECUK has only the authority to confer qualifications of C.Eng, I.Eng and Eng.Tech in UK, that's it, BCS a ECUK licensed engineering society also confers their own qualifications of Chartered IT Professional, Chartered Scientist. SPE is authorized by DTI UK - Department of Trade and Industry and the Secretary General:

Can anyone provide an official reference to back up the assertion that SPE is recognised by the UK DTI? This seems to be the core of the discussion. Psnae 01:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Small and humble society with reciprocal agreements such as IPF Fragrance - IPF France is licensed society to Register Engineers in France with recognition in France and EU. Please note that France is not a member of FIANI. Actually 23 out of 25 EU states don't require Engineers to be licensed in order to practice.

SPE UK is more than membership organization, they confer P.Eng qualification - registration on persons who are in compliance with EEC Directives just like Chartered Member of BCS is Chartered IT Professional the same way Fellow and Member SPE are Professional Engineers P.Eng.

Now let me correct you - Washington accord recognizes the academic degree not the qualification, C.Eng from UK cant be a P.E in USA unless he takes P.E exams in many of the states.

The same applies to P.Eng with appropriate degree from Royal chartered and accredited university/institute.

No one is arguing that P.Eng SPE enjoys the same recognition as C.Eng. But ECUK is not licensing body - wile widely recognized and acknowledged as the national Engineering body they don't have monopoly or legal authority but only limited to C.Eng, I.Eng and Eng.Tech.

SPE Designatory Letters Applicants admitted to the Register are entitled to use the designations “P.Eng” or “P.Eng(UK)” if qualified outside the United Kingdom. Applicants not meeting the requirement of Directive 89/48/EEC may be awarded the designation A.P.Eng or A.P.Eng(UK). E. Registerable Qualifications Candidates for election, whether from the United Kingdom, or from Overseas, must aggregate a total of 18 points from Section 2(A&B) & 3(AB&C) as set out on pages 3 & 4. In addition to membership of the SPE, the European Community & Trade Relations Division of the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI), of the British Government, have indicated to the Society, that those Members whose qualifications and experience meet the requirements of Article 3(b) of the EEC Directive on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications (89/48/EEC), can have these elements assessed in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Directive, this information having also been conveyed by the DTI to the National Coordinators of Directive 89/48/EEC in every country of the European Economic Community. Article 3(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC requires that Applicants must “show that the holder has successfully completed a post-secondary course of at least 3 years duration, or of an equivalent duration part-time at a University or Establishment of Higher Education or another establishment of similar level of a Member state, and, where appropriate, that he/she has successfully completed the professional training required in addition to the post-secondary course”.

Official SPE Membership Guide can be downloaded from the link below

http://www.diagnosticengineers.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.66.124.236 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] UK Statutory Instrument found C.Eng, I.Eng, more

The web site http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050018.htm contains a table of recognised professional titles, "designatory letters", and the bodies designated to award the titles. I have added a reference in the article. See Schedule 1 part 2; I'll excerpt some entries that have been mentioned in this discussion:

Professional Title	Designatory Letters	Designated Authority
CHARTERED CHEMICAL ENGINEER	MIChemE	The Institution of Chemical Engineers
CHARTERED CIVIL ENGINEER	MICE	The Institution of Civil Engineers
CHARTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER	MIEE	The Institution of Electrical Engineers
CHARTERED ENGINEER	C.Eng	The Engineering Council
CHARTERED IT PROFESSIONAL	MBCS CITP, FBCS CITP	The British Computer Society
CHARTERED PHYSICIST	CPhys,MinstP	The Institute of Physics
INCORPORATED ENGINEER (REGISTERED AT FINAL STAGE IN THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SECTION OF THE ENGINEERING COUNCIL REGISTER)	I.Eng	The Engineering Council

I used commas in the middle column when a designated authority can authorize more than one group of designatory letters, i.e., a British Computer Society member might qualify for either MBCS CIPT or FBCS CITP. The Society of Professional Engineers is not mentioned. Gerry Ashton 22:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

From mike- Gerry wile SPE is not on the list they fall under section C of the paragraph Also the EEC directive is a recommendation and not a law. Employers have the freedom in 22 out of 25 EU countries to hire engineering professionals that mach the employers needs with or without formal Engineer qualification.

Special provisions for company auditors

    11.  - (1) In this regulation - 

(a) "the Act" means the Companies Act 1989;

(b) "company auditor" has the meaning given in section 24(2) of the Act;

(c) "qualifying body" means a body offering a qualification in respect of which there is for the time being in force an order made by the Secretary of State pursuant to paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 to the Act; ----------------------------------------------------

In general there is no restriction on the right to practise as an engineer in the UK. Registration, which is renewable annually on payment of a fee and provided that there has been no violation of codes of professional conduct, is recognised as desirable in many fields of engineering employment and provision of engineering services but is not mandatory. There are a small number of areas of work, generally safety related, which are reserved by Statute to licensed or otherwise approved persons

From Mike - thanks this is good info.

I have additional comment from IET 

The directive is due to be replaced in 2007 and it is possible that this will only refer to the ECUK qualifications.

quote: Within the IET, the designation MIET indicates a professional engineer and TMIET indicates a professional technician. However, neither title indicates a professional qualification unless prefaced by CEng, IEng or EngTech.

For the purposes of the European directive MIET is now recognised when associated with CEng. The DfES, who are in charge of administration of the Directive are currently updating their information and are aware that MIEE (now MIET), if awarded before 06 June 2002, also carries the professional title of Chartered Electrical Engineer. I do not yet know whether MIET(MIEE) will be listed individually in the update to the Directive, but think this is unlikely as their practice appears to be to list titles for which it is currently possible to apply, rather than those which are closed to new entrants. I think it is more likely that MIET will be listed in a similar way to Chartered IT Professional in the Part 2 Table in the directive document.

As indicated in messages above, the directive is due to be replaced in 2007 and it is possible that this will only refer to the ECUK qualifications.

Katy Turff IET Business Change Manager, Qualifications Department

[edit] Revert incorrect markup

Some format changes were made using incorrect Wiki format to make certain text into a heading. Perhaps the person making the changes thought that making the text bigger would make it true. Of course only citation of a reliable source makes it true; on Wikipedia, size really doesn't matter.

The method to boldface text is to put three apostrophes on either side, like this '''boldface'''. Also, the way to sign a contribution to a talk page is to type four tildes, like this ~~~~ Gerry Ashton 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I also discovered where the gray boxes with dashed lines around them are coming from; they occur when a line starts with several blank spaces. Gerry Ashton 01:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IET, Engineering Technicians

The last three paragraphs of the UK section discusses engineering technicians and registration by the IET. I suggest the mention of engineering technicions would be better accomplished by a link to the Engineering Technician article (which I have created, along with a "See also" section. I also suggest eliminating the material about IET, because it creates an unbalanced presentation; no similar material is provided about the many other societies in the UK and around the world, and if it were, the article would become too large. Gerry Ashton 19:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demerger of material

I think the information in this article about the United Kingdom is getting out of depth. Firstly this article is about the proper term "Professional Engineer" (which is to my best knowledge of no special legal standing in the United Kingdom) and not about "professional engineers" in general - and their is a distinction between the two. Secondly if anything information about registered or licensed engineers in the United Kingdom should be focused on Engineering Council UK and its subsiduary articles, viz - Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer and Engineering Technician - and they should be capitalised. This article should not be a dumping ground for information on professional engineering titles around the world. Djegan 20:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Djegan makes a good point; the editors of this article should probably form a consensus on what the scope of the article is, and prune material that is not within the scope of the article. I can think of a few possible scopes; any thoughts on what is best?

The scope of this article is

• The title Professional Engineer, how and where it is awarded OR
• Engineers who are licensed to perform activities that are forbidden to unlicenced people, no matter what title the engineer uses OR
• Any title awarded to engineers which are illegal for untitled people to use.

Gerry Ashton 20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a brief description of the registration process in the UK should remain; I'd especially like to see a little more about those areas of practice which are legally closed to unlicensed individuals. But this article doesn't need long, rambling, poorly-written expositions on all the details of the UK registration schemes. (Don't they require engineers to be able to write over there?) I'd also like to see a section about European registration - one that isn't a direct ripoff from a poorly written website. Argyriou 15:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I also dislike the existence of the Engineering Technician article. The title is in use outside the UK; in some cases the title may mean something similar, in others, not. It probably should be merged back into Engineering Council UK. Argyriou 05:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Europe

I've commented out the Europe section; it's copyvio, from a really cheesy website of an organization controlled by SPE UK and SPE South Africa. Aren't there any real organizations representing professional engineers in Europe? Is there any sort of licensing? Surely there's something in France or Germany? Argyriou 16:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is an organization that partially covers Europe, the European Federation of National Engineering Associations, apparently known by its French acronym FEANI. It has "member" organizations in many European countries (including Germany), but there is no representation for France. FEANI offeres the Eur Ing title; one applies for it through an engineering association such as IET rather than directly to FEANI. Eur Ing does not seem to be any kind of license, just a title with which one might impress potential employers or clients (or maybe not; I've no idea how widely recognized it is). Gerry Ashton 18:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Working in a pan-European company I have never heard of anyone's professional status being questioned in any country. But I suppose within a company it might be different, has anyone here actually not been able to get a job in Europe because they were not considered an 'Engineering Professional'?

---

Andy Millar CEng MIET (ex-MIEE)

(or maybe not; I've no idea how widely recognized it is) : The FEANI titles are not recognised at all nor even known in Europe... the "Eur Ing" title is merely a fantasy for frustrated people expecting acknowledgement . This page is about the term "Professional Engineer" in its anglo saxon acception which is a precise term and does not means "someones whose profession is in a technical or engineering field". The EU equivalent of "professional engineers" are trained in schools and universities like the ETH in switzreland, Polytechnico di milano in Italy, X or Centrale in France.

The confusion comes form the fact that "engineer" itself is not a title and means nothing like for example "doctor". Physicians have not the "doctor" title but rather a "doctorate of medecine and obstetrics and blah" with the "Dr" pre-nominal, holders of a "real" research doctorate are PHD's etc... Professional engineers have specific titles varying form country to country (sometimes legally protected like in Belgium or scandinavia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineer ) There are some pan-european engineering associations like the TIME network :https://www.time-association.org/

So legally, as far as you don't pretend to be a "civil engineer" or a "doctor in obstetrics and blah" or a "master degree in engineering" you can put anything on you resume like EUr.STA.ING.FoO engineer_doctor_emperor

More seriously, this page need a drastic cleansing. I suggest you keep the U.S./Canada/UK part and wipe mercilessly all the off-topic petty advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.30.150 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 26 October 2007 UTC

I agree in principle with wiping out the "petty advertising", but we will need a source indicating that the "credentials" offered by the petty advertisers have hardly any acceptance; the source must be more credible than the websites promoting these credentails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerry Ashton (talk • contribs) 20:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the Term "Engineer" in the IT Industry

I have updated section in Canada regarding the usage of "engineer" in titles with views from both provincial licensing bodies and IT industry, as well as sited recent court cases.Rgl168 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor vs. major edit

I don't think any edit that removes any noticeable amount of information should be marked as a minor edit, such as the edit at 11:42, 7 August 2006 by User:Argyriou. --Gerry Ashton 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll admit to sometimes being sloppy with the "minor edit" box, but I didn't actually remove any knowledge, as the sentence I commented out (which is still there) doesn't actually say anything clear, though it hints at something. As I don't know what the author was trying to say, I didn't re-write it myself. Argyriou 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diploma Engineer

An brief explanation of what is a Diploma Engineer is needed in this article to distinguish it from a Professional Engineer. I've had to explain the difference, in person, to a number of these folk from Europe. FactsAndFigures 12:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate entity licensure in the US

Almost all states require some form of "certificate of authorization" to practice engineering as a corporate entitity. MARussellPESE 02:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

California does not require a "certificate of authorization"[5], it merely sets forth rules which corporations must abide by, which include naming requirements. Argyriou (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

This has been discussed before without resolution, but it still seems that the designation of "Professional Engineer" issued by SPE has no legal standing in the United Kingdom. Psnae 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As no-one has commented, I have removed references to SPE. Psnae 05:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added citation

There was a request for citation regarding the disciplines. I added an example from Texas, and I know California is similar. Does anybody have any counter-examples where there aren't very many civil engineers? Just FYI, in Texas out of 48,452 licenses it is: 16,071 civil; 9966 mechanical; 7112 electrical; 4213 structural; 3557 petroleum; 3342 chemical; 1022 environmental; 828 industrial; leaving 2339 in the other 20 discipline categories. I removed architectural from the paragraph in question, because it is 2 orders of magnitude less common than structural (only 22).--W0lfie 16:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Context tagged

Their appears to be a clear misunderstanding of what this article is about.

The article is about (or at least should be limited to) the specific and legally recognised title of "Professional Engineer" as understood in Canada/United States. The article is not about the "professional engineer", that is, a generic if somewhat undefineable discription of engineering titles in countries around the world (indeed the latter is simply a made up title at best). On a fundemental level this article has, for a long time, degenerated into a advert/spam for individual editors to add their own country/region.

I think if people cannot cite that the use of the title "Professional Engineer" is the correct form for their countries status when dealing with licenced engineers (which is not Canada/United States) then those parts of the article will have to be removed. For instance Chartered Engineer and European Engineer are the comparative titles in much of Europe and thats where relevant content for these areas should be (indeed if its relevant to those articles either and not just padding).

There is no excuse for irrelevant, padding and off topic content. Djegan 20:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. One part of me wants to say that only if the title is "Professional Engineer" should it remain (which appears to be the case for Japan and Pakistan, and possibly Australia and New Zealand), another part wants to say that any government-recognized or administrered licensing scheme ought to be covered here, and the other titles made into redirects. In particular, I'd get rid of the UK "Chartered Engineer", as that title seems to be entirely a private matter. Argyriou (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important to remember that "Professional Engineer" (with capitals) refers to a specific title and not simply a generic treatment of "professional engineers" or "engineers who are professional" for that matter. This article has become a bit of a one-stop-shop for worldwide licenced engineering practices (or more adverty) and somewhat misleading as it does not clarify the distinction that I am alluding to. Maybe an article that discusses chartered/licenced/professional practices around the world would be appropriate?

Capitalisation draws distinction in English, for instance, in the way that President (a specific president) and president (the generic term) differ. Djegan 23:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted deletion

I have restored the deleted text:

In Nevada, college graduates are eligible to take the Principles and Practice exam immediately after graduation and passing the EIT, before acquiring the required experience. [6]

This is notable as professional societies have discussed that as a potential to allowing more people to get licenses, as in this article from the NSPE newsletter. [7] To say that "we don't have to discuss all idiosyncrasies of all 50 states" is somewhat judgmental as best, without further consensus. It is relevant and has been readded. Calwatch 17:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that there's little room here to discuss each state's idiosyncracies. We should try to keep a lid on these or else we'll run into lists of:

• states with/without CPD
• states with/without discipline-specific PEs
• states with/without required ABET degrees
• states with/without avenues for licensure for techs
• states with/without seperate SE licenses
• ad nauseum

That Nevada, my birth-state I'd point out, with a population less than the population of metropolitan Cleveland has this provision, which I'm familiar with, doesn't make this notable.

California's idiosyncracies are notable, not just per their population, but also because they tend to drive these issues out west.

Respectfully, Calwatch, I checked your userpage prior to the deletion, and as there's no indication that you are an engineer, I stood on my own expertise. MARussellPESE 21:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that I choose to remain anonymous should have nothing to do with these edits. I am happy to tell you my license number privately, but I choose not to spill the beans about myself here for various reasons. There should be no problem with expansion, or even a table comparing paths to licensure (as a separate article), similar to the equally meaningless/useful tables comparing Linux distributions, television translators, or other things. Ultimately, splitting the article into a subarticle called Professional engineering licensure in the United States may be called for. It could describe in fuller detail the difference between license and practice states, offer a chart listing the NCEES and state specific exams offered by each state, and describe in fuller depth the reasons why some people choose to get or not get licensed. Such a page would be worthy of public interest. Calwatch 03:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymity does compromise your authority on the subject, if not the validity of your argument. That call is yours.

Respectfully, you havent' responded to, or answered, the argument that a state with such a small population, that has a unique examination qualification provision, meets WP:Notability. See WP:Notability#Notability_is_generally_permanent particularly.

There is virtually no coverage of this in the professional press outside of the single article you reference. Nor does this affect even 0.5% of the country's population. (See WP:Undue Weight.)

There is no movement underway to generalize this (As opposed to the Master's degree or CPD. c.f ASCE PS465), and goes entirely counter to the NCEES Model Law.

If you think an article highlighting the idiosyncratic licensing requirements of each state is useful, by all means start one. (Good luck keeping up with the changes.) Personally, there are ample resources that are far more authoritative and reliable, e.g. NSPE, NCEES.

I think we're better off sending readers to these, rather than leaving them vulnerable to relying on the encyclopedia-that-just-about-anybody-edits for career-oriented decisions. We have a duty to them in fact.

Cheers, MARussellPESE 14:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that recent graduates do better on the PPE exams than candidates with four years of practical experiance is rather interesting (at least to me). I guess it's not surprising but it does make one wonder about what purpose the PPE really serves. It also, combined with ASCE's agitation to require a Master's degree and NSPE's agitation to get rid of experiance requirements altogether, is evidence of the gradual takover of the licensing process by the academics. Toiyabe 15:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split this page up.

I suggest that the editors split this entry up to two separate entries, divided between the US and Canadian professional engineer titles:

• Professional Engineer, P.E., US
• Professional Engineer, P.Eng., Canada

Doing business across borders, I have constantly run into members of the public who do not understand the differences. Sometimes, even project managers and non-engineering staff of engineering companies are confused.

The name is the same. Nearly everything else is different: the legal basis (society certification vs. direct license to practice), the legal responsibilities, the financial responsibilities, the use of and engineering business stamp in some provinces, etc., etc.

Don't add to the confusion. Split it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kozi77 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I would also like to advocate this idea, but I speak on behalf a different section. I would like to suggest that "Controversy over the Term "Engineer" in the IT Industry" be given to its own article (posssibly Controversies over the term Engineer). This could then be expanded to encompass the controversy around the term "Security engineering". I believe we could save a lot space, on a number of Articles, by doing this and the topic would get a larger group input rather than all spread out and fragmented. your thoughts? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with a Canada/US split. Professional engineers, no matter what country they practice, have more in common than differences in credentialing. Professional engineers are responsible to the public, and — in stark contrast to engineers in industry — can be held personally responsible for malpractice. At the very least we run the risk of losing our credentials — Read: careers. Credentialling differences are secondary concerns.

Do agree with a separate "misuse" article. It bogs this one down, and there are ample areas where this is a problem. MARussellPESE 22:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The afore mentioned page does now exist. I have not made any edits to Professional Engineer to remove the sections I (pretty much) cut and pasted. Your indepth coverage of the topic is excellent. I would greatly appreciate your assistance with, and watchlisting, Controversies over the term Engineer. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Model Law 29 Sept

It's a proposal for new laws or amendments to existing laws, see introduction: "To be of maximum value, this document should be used as a reference work in the preparation of amendments to existing legislation or in the preparation of new proposed laws." ndyguy 17:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your latest edit isn't that useful, as the term "model law" implies everything you've added after it. That's the whole purpose of a "model law". Argyriou (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The original statement was this "The current US model law requires a minimum..." This was misleading as it made it sound like it was a US federal law, which is obviously not the case. The portion I added demonstrates in clear and concise language to the reader that the model law is merely a "reference" authored by the NCEES, but actual law making is determined by the states. In short, it's a clarification for the benefit of the reader (i.e. someone not familiar with model laws).ndyguy 16:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that misrepresents the intent of the Model Law. From its Introduction:

"The intent of NCEES in preparing this document is to present to the states a sound and realistic guide that will provide greater uniformity of qualifications for licensure, to raise these qualifications to a higher level of accomplishment, and to simplify the interstate licensure of engineers and surveyors."

The Model Law is the US national standard licensure law. It's not something that states sometimes use. It's something most states do use it as their basis. Deviations from it are more the exception than the rule. MARussellPESE 05:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Most state laws do resemble the model law as far as the requirements go, but whether the state laws came first and the model law was based on the usual requirements, or the other way around, would require research. Also most states do deviate from the law in fairly small ways. However, to the people affected by the deviations, they're not small at all. --Gerry Ashton 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

INCREIBLE!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.109.233 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Engineer

The main definition does not represent an international or generic view of what a Professional Engineer is. It focuses on the US/Canadian nomenclature not the utilitarian definition. The European equivalent titles that represent a Profession Engineer are missing from the main definition. It would be appropriate to omit any reference to US/Canadian origin, in the main definition, if you are not going to cite European titles equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser100 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The utilitarian English-language word to describe a person who does the type of engineering that requires extensive education, anywhere in the solar system, is engineer. However, there are others who are also described as engineers, but do other kinds of work, such as locomotive drivers, firefighters who operate fire engines, and in the UK, repairmen/repairwomen. So the states* in the U.S. and the provinces in Canada created a special title, "Professional Engineer", which may only be used by those engineers who have extensive education and have been licensed by their respective state or province. Perhaps a few other jurisdictions have chosen this title for their licensed engineers too; I'm not sure. This article is about the title "Professional Engineer" and not about everyone within the solar system who performs the same kind of work as U. S. and Canadian Professional Engineers.

*Strictly speaking, some U.S. jurisdictions other than states also have Professional Engineers, such as the District of Columbia; I imagine the same is true in Canada, but I'm not certain. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The "Industrial Exemption" clause in the United States allows the use of the term "engineer" to be used by a Boy Scout who is working in an industrial factory. The "special title" or nomenclature usage of the term "Professional Engineer" does not describe the meaning of the term. It describes the ethnocentric club membership that is claimed by individuals who have a superiority complex. They are unable to accept the equivalent standing of those in other countries. Consequentially, they are surprised when Japanese companies engineer superior products that outperform the design created by US Professional Engineers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser100 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The intent of licensing Professional Engineers in the U.S. is to protect the public from unsafe engineering work. Mass-produced products usually fall outside of the licensure system in the U.S. and the safety of these products is usually assured by testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories. Normally, it is structures and civil works projects that must be designed by Professional Engineers. The states of the U.S. are not interested in regulating engineering that is performed in Japan, unless the structure or other project is located in the state. Whether U.S. engineers can or cannot accept the equivalent standing of those in other countries, or whether they are or are not surprised when Japanese companines engineer superior products is irrelevant to how states attempt to protect their people from unsafe engineering. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In the United States, the only engineering work which is restricted to state-licensed professionals is fixed work created at a fixed site. Movable objects are a part of "interstate commerce", and thus are exempt from regulation by the states. Argyriou (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You are right about the intent of the United States professional engineering criteria. However, you are wrong that the term "professional engineer" describes someone who is exclusively from the United States or Canada. If you took a vacation to the United Kingdom and said that you are a "Professional Engineer" they would ask you what level are you registered at (Charter or Incorporated). They would not say, "Oh, you are from the United States or Canada."

If your definition does not mean the same thing to someone on the other side of the globe then you have a biased definition. The United States Licensing board does not determine the "professional engineering" criteria for the United Kingdom's Engineering Council.

If there is a clear definition of "professional engineer" (with or without capitalization) in the UK, by all means find a published source that explains the meaning and add it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to look at the definition on (page 4) of this publication. http://www.engc.org.uk/documents/CEng_IEng_Standard.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laser100 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a back-up reference for your amusement (see Table 6, Page 10): http://www.univap.br/iasee/anais/trabalhos/Dodridge-Convergence%20of%20Engineering%20Higher%20Education1.pdf

I made two edits to Laser100's changes. I changed "In most jurisdictions only registered or licensed Professional Engineers are permitted to use the title, or to practice Professional Engineering" to "In some jurisdictions..." because I am not aware of any data to claim "most". Indeed, just listing the jurisdictions, or what "most" means, would be quite a bit of work.

I also rephrased "Professional Engineers from the United Kingdom are known as Charter or Incorporated Engineers" because the Engineering Council only uses "professional engineer" as a description on their website; they don't award it as a title. To add to the confusion, there is a lesser-known organization, The Society of Professional Engineers UK that does award the title "Professional Engineer" in the UK, but it isn't clear if anyone pays much attention to that organization. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Promoted "Controversies over..." to a top-level section

I just promoted the "Controversies over..." section to fit what seems to be the actual structure of this article. I was not logged in at the time, so it's listed as an anonymous edit. CoderGnome (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help

Would it be possible for an Ontario Engineer (or similar knowledgable person) to look at Kim Allen, P.Eng. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exit2DOS2000 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Any professional engineer User is entitled to use the following Userboxes;

The logo's link to Portal: Engineering and Portal: Sustainable development.

Just copy the code from Edit this page and post to your User page Jagra (talk) 07:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)