Engineering's Public-Protection Predicament: Reform Education and Licensure for a Safer Society

By Stuart G. Walesh

If a surgeon errs during an operation, the consequences-however dire-are limited to one or a few people. In contrast, an engineering failure usually causes multiple injuries and deaths, as well as destruction. Some examples: space shuttle Challenger

• Language: English
• Publisher: S. G. Walesh Consulting
• Release date: Mar 26, 2021
• ISBN: 9780970143822

Stuart G. Walesh

Stuart G. Walesh, PhD, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, F.NSPE, practicing as an independent consultant-teacher-author, provides management, engineering, leadership, and education services to business, public, academic, and other organizations. He earned engineering degrees from Valparaiso University, Johns Hopkins University, and the University of Wisconsin. Walesh's technical specialty is water resources engineering, he researched and published eight books, and current interests include creativity and innovation and the education and early experience of engineers.

Book preview

Engineering's Public-Protection Predicament

What Readers Are Saying

We cannot fail to act or our profession will not attain/maintain status as a profession.

Brad Aldrich, PE, F.ASCE, F.NSPE, NSPE Past President, Senior Associate, Aldrich + Elliot

---

A truly outstanding book that has the potential to contribute significantly to making engineering a true profession…should be required reading for all engineering students.

Monte L. Phillips, PhD, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, F.NSPE, Professor Emeritus, University of North Dakota, ABET Past President, NAFE Past President, NSPEPast President

---

I did not anticipate that I would enjoy reading the book—as opposed to reviewing the book—as much as I have.

Thomas A. Lenox, PhD, Dist.M.ASCE, F.ASEE, Executive Vice President Emeritus, ASCE

---

In this must read for anyone who cares about engineering, Walesh not only celebrates engineering’s accomplishments, but he also sets out an honest, no-holds-barred account of how engineers have often been their own worst enemies, thwarting this venerable profession from taking its rightful place as the greatest of the professions.

Paul Spinden, Professor of Law, School of Law, Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia

---

A spectacular book explaining and advocating for advancement of the engineering profession.

Kassim M. Tarhini, PhD, PE, Professor of Civil Engineering, U.S. Coast Guard Academy

---

The case studies are extremely well written and illustrated, and will be of real interest to the general public. 

Jonathan Jones, PE, PH, D.WRE, Chief Executive Officer, Wright Water Engineers

---

I believe this book will be historically important parallel to several reports published in the early 20th century.

Takeya Kawamura, PE, PMP, Senior Research Engineer, Engineering Advancement Association of Japan, Japan Society of Professional Engineers Past President

---

This book challenges the sometimes-entrenched culture of U.S. engineering by rewriting the narrative surrounding the role of engineering in serving and protecting the public. It makes a convincing case that we need licensure and process to accomplish that objective and puts forward concrete suggestions for keeping public protection paramount.

Jeffrey S. Russell, PhD, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, Vice Provost for Lifelong Learning, Dean, Division of Continuing Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Engineering's Public-Protection Predicament

Reform Education and Licensure for a Safer Society

Stuart G. Walesh

Hannah Publishing

Valparaiso, Indiana

© 2021 by Stuart G. Walesh

All rights reserved. Published 2021

Printed in the United States of America

ISBNs:

978-0-9701438-1-5 (print)

978-0-9701438-2-2 (ebook)

No part of this publication, either print or electronic, may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the express written permission of the publisher. Failure to comply with these terms may expose you to legal action and damages for copyright infringement.

Cover images:

Challenger explosion image: NASA

Deepwater Horizon image: U.S. Coast Guard.

The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.

Contents

What Readers Are Saying

Dedication

Preface

About the Author

1. Ten Questions About Engineering in America

1.1 Purpose of this Book

1.2 Questions about U.S. Engineering Education, Practice, and Perception

1.3 Answers, Deficiencies, and Possibility of Reform

2. Engineering Excellence and Engineer Exemplars

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Where to Start, and Why the U.S. Focus?

2.3 Engineering Excellence: Protecting the Public and Enhancing the Quality of Life

2.4 Engineer Exemplars: Models to Emulate

2.5 Engineering Excellence and Exemplars: Observations

2.6 Looking Forward

3. Disasters: Were Some Caused by Licensure-Exemption Cultures?

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Boston Molasses Flood: Early Example of Need for Licensure Laws

3.3 New London School Explosion: The Devil Was in the Details

3.4 Ford Pinto Collisions and Fires: Part Cost Versus Value of Lives

3.5 Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion: Last Chances Lost

3.6 General Motors Ignition Switch Disaster: A Decade of Inaction

3.7 I-35W Bridge Failure: Result of a Perfect Storm?

3.8 Deepwater Horizon Oil Rig Explosion: Tragedy Waiting to Happen?

3.9 Amusement Ride Deaths: Nothing Amusing about the Poor Qualifications of Some Designers

3.10 Merrimack Valley Natural Gas Distribution System Explosions and Fires: Underutilization of Engineering Resources

3.11 Boeing 737 MAX 8 Crashes: Glimpses of an Exemption Culture

3.12 Failures: Not Quite Disasters But Still Costly

3.13 Each Design: A Yet-to-be-Tested Hypothesis

3.14 Engineering Disasters: Observations

4. Evolution of Engineering's Institutional Framework: Part 1 - Ethics and Engineering Societies

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Codes Of Ethics: Engineering’s Paramount Responsibility

4.3 Engineering Societies

4.4 Summing It Up

5. Evolution of Engineering's Institutional Framework: Part 2 - Education and Licensure

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Engineering Education

5.3 Engineering Licensure

5.4 Summing It Up

6. What is a Profession, and Is Engineering One?

6.1 Introduction

6.2. Some Necessary Definitions

6.3 Mid-Twentieth Century Profession Model and Thoughts about What Lies Ahead

6.4 A Contemporary Profession Model and Thoughts about What Lies Ahead

6.5 Today’s Profession Model and a Call for Reducing Its Power

6.6 Other Views of Professions

6.7 Essentials of a Profession

6.8 Is U.S. Engineering a Profession?

6.9 Other Views of Engineering as a Profession

6.10 U.S. Engineering Subgroups: Professions?

6.11 Answers to the Two Questions

6.12 The Down Sides of Non-Profession Status

7. Reforming U.S. Engineering: Suggestions for Organizations and Individuals

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Celebration: Engineering’s Historic Contribution to the Quality of American Life

7.3 Liabilities of U.S. Engineering

7.4 Why the Two Liabilities?

7.5 Engineering Career Options: Full Disclosure Suggested

7.6 NSPE

7.7 NCEES

7.8 NAE

7.9 ABET

7.10 ASCE

7.11 ACEC

7.12 Discipline-Based Engineering Societies

7.13 States and Territories

7.14 Use State-Engineering Discipline Partnerships to Improve Preparation for Licensure and Reduce Exemptions

7.15 Federal Government

7.16 Government Watchdog Groups

7.17 Potential Engineering Student, Parents, and Counselors

7.18 Engineering Student

7.19 Engineering Dean or Faculty Member

7.20 PE

7.21 Graduate Engineer Employed by a Licensure-Exempt Organization

7.22 Citizen

7.23 Summing Up: The Next Move Is Yours

Appendix A: Abbreviations

Appendix B: Additional Tools to Help Resolve Ethical Dilemmas

Appendix C: Sample of Scientific Discoveries, Socio-Economic-Political Developments, and Engineering Challenges Paralleling the Life of the NCEES Model Law

Appendix D: Engineering Body of Knowledge

Appendix E: Discipline-Specific Licensure

Appendix F: Engineering Programs Accredited by ABET and How the Licensure-Exemption Support System Influences Education

Appendix G: Comparison of Washington State's Licensure Laws for Engineers and Hair Designers-Barbers

Appendix H: Examples of Engineering Teams

Appendix I: Can the FAA Override a State's Engineering Licensure-Exemption Law?

Cited Sources

Index

To yesterday’s visionary engineers,

who led the way and on whose shoulders

we respectfully and thankfully stand,

and

to today’s growing group of forward-looking engineers,

who envision American engineering,

or portions of it,

as a proud public-serving and protecting profession.

Preface

Purpose

My three-part purpose in writing this book is to:

Celebrate American engineering’s excellent achievements as well as the lives of engineer exemplars. Show how engineering enhances the nation’s quality of life and present examples of America’s most accomplished engineers who serve as both career and life models.

Advocate for the elimination, or reduction of the adverse effects, of U.S. laws that exempt industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations from engineering licensure—and suggest ways to do it. These laws emasculate engineering by allowing those employers to practice engineering without the benefit of competent and accountable state or territory-licensed engineers who are bound to hold public protection paramount. As a result, the organizations unnecessarily and carelessly escalate public risk.

Urge the broadening and deepening of engineering education and experience required for U.S. licensure to be consistent with twenty-first century scientific, technological, social, political, economic, and environmental conditions—and suggest ways to do it. Stop using an inadequate nine-decade old licensure model, across the nation, to prepare professional engineers (PEs) who will be in responsible charge of projects.

The first part of my purpose focuses on making the public more aware of engineering’s role in American society and encouraging even more bright and aspiring young people to study engineering and move into one of many diverse careers.

Achieving the second and third parts of the purpose will lead to many more engineering projects in the United States guided by well-educated, competent, accountable, and licensed engineers whose first responsibility is public protection. Consequently, many more of the products, facilities, structures, systems, and processes resulting from engineering will be safely and sensitively engineered—which will positively affect both the public and the environment.

Examples of the results of engineering that affect the public include:

Products: airplanes and driven and autonomous motor vehicles

Facilities: airports, amusement park and carnival rides, bridges, offshore oil wells, schools, and skyscrapers

Systems: natural gas distribution, electric power networks, railroads, rapid transit, water supply, flood control, wastewater, solid waste, and wind farms

Processes: chemical, construction, manufacturing, and refining

In a nutshell, this book seeks to celebrate engineering and its leaders; replace or diminish licensure exemptions, which handcuff engineers and put the public at unnecessary risk; and broaden and deepen the basic preparation of PEs—who serve as engineers in responsible charge—so they can be even more effective in technical and nontechnical ways.

My thesis is that the institutional framework characterizing and enabling engineering is fractured and inadequate for twenty-first century America. We can, and for the benefit of society should, do better. Let’s recognize our weaknesses and initiate reform.

In the interest of clarity and balance, this book does not address another of U.S. engineering’s challenges, the long-standing, gross under-representation of women and minorities. That deficiency denies engineering, and those served by engineering, the best that America has to offer. Thankfully, and hopefully, others are addressing that challenge. I am confident that implementation of some of the suggestions presented in this book’s last chapter would make engineering more attractive to and welcoming for women and minorities.

My Head and Heart

After initial uncertainty about the book’s intent and then some false starts about how to achieve its goals, I settled in. While rational, I was also emotionally involved from the onset of this project. I deeply appreciate engineering’s service to society, value the thrills experienced in creating and building useful results, and marvel at engineering’s massive contribution to our nation’s quality of life. I have also been uplifted by the constant stream of very bright young people coming into engineering with whom I worked in practice and education for decades.

These young people provide fertile ground for growing a stronger engineering community and, in turn, for yielding a safer and more secure society and a self-sustaining environment. Unfortunately, the current engineering education and early experience system, with its emphasis on preparing employees for licensure-exempt organizations, cultivates poor stewardship among many aspiring engineers and, as a result, their positive societal impact is much less than it could be.

At one time, during the run-up to my decision to write this book, I wrote an email to colleagues expressing strong views about the changes I think are necessary in the field of engineering. One person’s response mentioned both heart and head by indicating his heart was with me but his head was with the prevailing view, which was contrary to my own. His comment implied that head should take precedence over heart. Perhaps, at least most of the time.

On reflection, I appreciated explicit introduction of the head-heart idea. Perhaps one of the overarching reasons for engineering’s struggle as a sort of profession is decades of too much head and too little heart, too much rationalizing and too little dreaming, and too much thinking and too little aspiring. To paraphrase Proverbs 29:18, Where there is no passion, a potential profession perishes.

Back, briefly, to engineering and the book’s purpose. I am an engineer and, more specifically, a civil engineer, which has enabled me to enjoy success and significance working in academia, government, and business—and as an independent consultant, teacher, and writer. I have frequently written and spoken with a pan-engineering view and, at other times, with a more focused civil engineering perspective.

But now, in writing this book, I speak first and foremost as a person disturbed by American engineering’s sometimes poor stewardship with the young people it attracts, as well as the unnecessary and largely avoidable deaths, injuries, and destruction caused by the licensure-exemption system. I hope that you will experience my head, as best as I have been able to use it in researching and writing this book, and at times, sense my heart, as I provoke feelings about what could be the greatest profession.

Audiences

Individuals and Organizations within Engineering

Achieving my stated purpose will ultimately require many and varied participants. Of course, I hope that this book will be read by engineers in academia and practice who want to learn more about their chosen occupation. I especially want to reach those who are dissatisfied with the state of U.S. engineering and, more importantly, are open to changing licensure law and reforming education for licensure. Thankfully, there have always been a few visionary and proactive reformers. I have worked as a volunteer in professional societies with such individuals and consider the collective experience one of the highlights of my career. Hopefully, some other engineers who are pleased with their and engineering’s present situation will read the book and become open to some new and potentially more fruitful scenarios.

I expect some members of the following groups to take note of this book’s findings and suggestions: current and potential engineering students and their parents and advisors, engineering deans and faculty members, licensed and unlicensed engineers, engineers practicing in licensure-exempt environments, and engineer members of licensing boards. In addition, the leadership of engineering societies and organizations, such as the following, could benefit from this book’s observations and suggestions:

National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE)

National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES)

National Academy of Engineering (NAE)

ABET

American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)

American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)

Engineering Deans Council

Discipline-based and special-purpose engineering societies

The book includes findings relevant to and suggestions for listed groups and societies, which largely comprise the U.S. engineering community.

Other Individuals and Organizations with a Stake in Engineering

As documented in Chapters 4 and 5, the engineering community, across all of its societies, has often demonstrated an inability to aspire, propose reform, and then proactively and continuously implement necessary major education and licensure actions. Inevitably, a series of major compromises intended to enable engineers and engineering societies to get along leads to lost aspirations, moderate goals, and just fine-tuning—not reforming—engineering’s institutional framework.

Tragically, the U.S. still pays a stiff price in the form of a decades-long pattern of unnecessary and largely avoidable deaths, injuries, and destruction coupled with too many engineers who pass through a static education system relative to American professions.

Accordingly, because of the reticence or passivity of much of the American engineering community, and its general aversion to major changes in its institutions, this book also speaks to individual and organizational stakeholders outside of engineering. I hope that they will collaborate with key engineers and engineering societies to advance the book’s purpose. Leaders of the following mostly non-engineering organizations are intended readers: state and territory governments; engineering licensing boards; federal agencies such as the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Chemical Safety Board, Federal Aviation Administration, National Transportation Safety Board, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission; and government watchdog groups.

As with the engineering audience, the book offers observations about and suggestions for non-engineering individuals and organizations.

.  .  .

I am asking members and organizations in the two audiences to participate in reform of U.S. engineering, not engage in a revolution, which would be too radical. Continuous improvement, which largely defines what we have been doing for decades, is valuable but not enough. In contrast, an engineering revolution would be too much because it might devalue and discard what American engineers and engineering have contributed to our nation’s quality of life.

Reform, which lies somewhere between inadequate continuous improvement and destructive revolution, is appropriate. Let’s reform the weakest aspects of engineering’s institutional framework while protecting and building on its strengths.

Organization and Content

Overview of Chapters

Chapter 1, Ten Questions about Engineering in America, asks probing questions to stimulate broader and deeper thinking about numerous troublesome features of and inconsistencies within U.S. engineering. Subsequent chapters gradually answer those questions and ultimately use the answers to suggest changes in U.S. engineering’s institutional framework—that is, its ethics, engineering societies, education, and licensure.

Using the title Engineering Excellence and Engineer Exemplars Chapter 2 describes 10 varied and amazing historic engineering accomplishments that illustrate how U.S. engineering has and will continue to admirably rise to challenges. Then the text introduces six admirable engineers and uses their life stories to inspire engineering students and practitioners and to identify characteristics that enabled the exemplars to accomplish so much for others and the environment.

Chapter 3, as indicated by its title, Disasters: Were Some Caused by Licensure-Exemption Cultures? contrasts sharply with the celebratory theme of the preceding chapter. Instead of celebrating U.S. engineering, it critiques key aspects of it. The chapter describes 10 engineering-related disasters selected from over the past century and, for each, discusses topics such as consequences, causes, claims, compensation, lessons learned, fruitful actions taken, and missed opportunities.

Chapter 4 (Evolution of Engineering’s Institutional Framework: Part 1 – Ethics and Engineering Societies) and Chapter 5 (Evolution of Engineering’s Institutional Framework: Part 2 – Education and Licensure) describe the two-century construction of the framework within which U.S. engineering now functions. These two chapters help answer the question: How did engineering, with its sharply contrasting strengths and weaknesses, get where it is? That answer is useful to engineers and others dissatisfied with the state of engineering in America and committed to reforming it, or at least taking a fresh look at the situation.

Changing emphasis, the book moves to Chapter 6, which has the two-question title: What is a Profession, and is Engineering One? The chapter starts by examining three models of professions, beginning in the mid-twentieth century, extending to today, and looking forward. That review distills the essence of professions which helps answer the second question in the chapter’s title. That answer sets the stage for the book’s final chapter.

Chapter 7, Reforming U. S. Engineering: Suggestions for Organizations and Individuals, briefly restates U.S. engineering’s two major liabilities: licensure exemptions that pose public and environmental risk and an inadequate nine-decade old licensure education model. Most importantly, the chapter offers many specific suggestions to organizations and individuals, within and outside of engineering, that have a stake in engineering and may want to improve or reform it.

Content Features

Each chapter begins with a list of objectives—that is, what I hope the reader will learn and be able to do. Every chapter, except the first one, includes Personal text boxes that provide me with the opportunity to offer mostly my thoughts on a particular topic. This contrasts with the text’s emphasis on presenting facts, information, and ideas based on thorough scholarship.

The numbering system used in the chapter headings (e.g., 2.3.1) facilitates back and forward references as the reader proceeds through the book. Many supportive appendices, including Appendix A, Abbreviations, follow the chapters and the book ends with Cited Sources and Index sections.

Acknowledgements

I value the ideas, critiques, and encouragement offered by various friends and colleagues within and outside of engineering and in the business, government, academic, and volunteer sectors. The group of individuals listed below kindly assisted me in meeting book-writing challenges by questioning my assertions; suggesting and/or providing resources; outlining additional key ideas and information; offering book content, organization, and format ideas; correcting, clarifying, and tightening text; and answering questions. In gratefully acknowledging their help, note that I am totally responsible for the manner in which I have used their contributions.

Brad Aldrich, PE, F.ASCE, F.NSPE, NSPE Past President, Senior Associate, Aldrich + Elliot, PC, Essex Junction, VT

Keri Anderson, Manager of Corporate Communication, NCEES, Seneca, SC

Bevin A. Beaudet, PE, President/Owner of Bevin A. Beaudet, P.E., LLC, West Palm Beach, FL

Angela R. Bielefeldt, PhD, PE, Professor; Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering; University of Colorado Boulder, CO

Gregory Boso, PE, President, Forensic Consulting Group and former West Virginia Senator, Summersville, WV

Kyle V. Davy, Kyle V. Davy Consulting, Berkeley, CA

David D. Dexter, PE, F.NSPE, Senior Engineer, 3D Engineering Consultants, Tipp City, OH

Vincent P. Drnevich, PhD, PE, F.ASCE, F.NSPE, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

Eric L. Flicker, PE, F.ACEC, ACEC Past Chair, Senior Consultant, Pennoni Associates, Philadelphia, PA

Larry Galler, Larry Galler & Associates, Valparaiso, IN

Mark T. Hanlon, PE, Hanlon Engineering PLLC., Biddeford, ME

Charles S. Henry, MS, MBA, Senior Principal Engineer, Systems Integration and Verification, Raytheon Missiles and Defense, Tucson, AZ

Jonathan Jones, PE, PH, D.WRE, Chief Executive Officer, Wright Water Engineers, Inc., Denver, CO

Takeya Kawamura, PE, PMP, Senior Research Engineer, Engineering Advancement Association of Japan, Japan Society of Professional Engineers Past President

Dean M. Laux, publishing company CEO and writer, Englewood, FL

William D. Lawson, PhD, PE, Associate Professor; Department of Civil, Environmental & Construction Engineering; Texas Tech University; Lubbock, TX

Thomas A. Lenox, PhD, Dist.M.ASCE, F.ASEE, Executive Vice-President Emeritus, American Society of Civil Engineers, Charlottesville, VA

Michael P. McMeekin, PE, Executive Director, Engineering Change Lab-USA, Omaha, NE

James J. Mercier, PE, Austin, TX

Jon D. Nelson, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, Vice-President, Tetra Tech, NCEES Past President, Tulsa, OK

William R. Parrish, PhD, PE, F.AIChE, ConocoPhillips, retired, Brigantine, NJ

Monte L. Phillips, PhD, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, F.NSPE, Professor Emeritus, University of North Dakota, ABET Past President, NAFE Past President, NSPE Past President, Park Rapids, MN

Edward M. Pribonic, PE, Edward M. Pribonic, P.E., Inc., Seal Beach, CA

Stephen J. Ressler, PhD, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, F.ASEE, Professor Emeritus, U.S. Military Academy, Bethlehem, PA

Daniel Robles, PE, Founder, CoEngineers, Edmonds, WA

Jeffrey S. Russell, PhD, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, Vice Provost for Lifelong Learning, Dean, Division of Continuing Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI

Harold A. Schwartz, PE, NAFE, Ram Technology Services, Red Lion, PA

Paul Spinden, Professor of Law, School of Law, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA

Kassim M. Tarhini, PhD, PE, Professor of Civil Engineering, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT

William A. VanDeValk, PE, retired, Richmondville, NY

Kim Walesh, Deputy City Manager, City of San Jose, San Jose, CA

Marlee A. Walton, PE, PS, Professor of Education; Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering Department; Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Iowa City, IA

Larry L. White, PE, Dupont, retired, Corpus Christi, TX

Mitchell M. Winkler, PE, M.ASCE, Consultant, Houston, TX

Kenneth R. Wright, PE, D.WRE, Principal Engineer, Wright Water Engineers, Denver, CO

I am most appreciative of the thoughtful and substantive assistance provided by the preceding professionals because it enabled me to write with what I hope is credibility and value, across many engineering disciplines and over two centuries, and about many topics. However, to reiterate, I am totally responsible for the manner in which I may have used their contributions and listened to, but perhaps did not use, their advice.

The many and varied sources cited in the book suggest my debt to other professionals and experts. Various personnel within engineering and other societies responded to my requests, for which I am most appreciative. I also gratefully acknowledge the efficient interlibrary loan assistance provided by Florida’s Charlotte County Library System and Indiana’s Porter County Public Library System.

I value highly Mary Pat Shaffer’s substantive editing—that is, copy editing plus much more. Drawing on her considerable knowledge and skill, she enhanced the book’s clarity, logic, and accuracy, and, therefore, credibility. Mary Pat also helped me move toward publishing the book in the new (to me) e-book world, consistent with my goal of reaching a wide and influential audience within and outside of engineering. I am also thankful for Patti Frazee’s attractive and communicative cover design and for bringing the book to market as an e-book and print-on-demand book.

Finally, Jerrie, my wife, meticulously proofed punctuation, spelling, and grammar; suggested text changes; told me when I was pontificating or beating around the bush; and, as always, provided total support.

Stuart G. Walesh

Valparaiso, Indiana

March 2021

About the Author

Stuart G. Walesh, PhD, PE, Dist.M.ASCE, F.NSPE, practicing as an independent consultant-teacher-author, provides management, engineering, and education/training services for business, government, academic, and volunteer sector organizations. He earned a BS in civil engineering from Valparaiso University, a master’s degree in engineering at Johns Hopkins University, and a PhD in engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is a licensed professional engineer.

Stu has over five decades of engineering, education, and management experience in government, academic, and business sectors, during which he served as a project manager, department head, discipline manager, author, marketer, sole proprietor, instructor through professor, and dean of an engineering college. As a member of various organizations, Stu coached junior professionals in areas such as communication, team essentials, project planning and management, and effecting change.

Water resources engineering is Stu’s technical specialty.  Over the years, he led or participated in watershed planning, computer modeling, flood control, storm water and floodplain management, groundwater, dam, and lake projects. His engineering experience includes project management, research and development, design, stakeholder participation, litigation consulting, and expert witness services. Areas in which he provides management and leadership assistance include education and training, mentoring, research, writing and editing, speaking, marketing, meeting planning and facilitation, project planning, and team essentials.

In addition to this book, Stu authored Urban Surface Water Management (Wiley 1989); Flying Solo: How to Start an Individual Practitioner Consulting Business (Hannah Publishing 2000); Managing and Leading: 52 Lessons Learned for Engineers (ASCE Press 2004); Managing and Leading: 44 Lessons Learned for Pharmacists (co-authored with Paul Bush, American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2008);  Engineering Your Future: The Professional Practice of Engineering (Wiley 2012, the first and second editions were published in 1995 and 2000); and Creativity and Innovation for Engineers (Pearson 2017). He also authored or co-authored hundreds of publications and presentations about engineering, education, and management, and facilitated or led workshops, seminars, webinars, and meetings throughout the United States and internationally.

Stu served on or led various professional society and community groups. Over the past two decades, he has been active in the effort to reform the education and early experience of engineers. During the past decade, Stu has studied, written, and spoken about how to use recently discovered basic brain knowledge to help individuals and their teams work smarter—that is, be more effective, efficient, and creative/innovative.

His professional work and society service have been recognized by the American Society for Engineering Education, Consulting Engineers of Indiana, American Society of Civil Engineers, Indiana Society of Professional Engineers, National Society of Professional Engineers, University of Wisconsin, and Valparaiso University.

For additional information:

www.HelpingYouEngineerYourFuture.com

[e-mail]

1

Ten Questions About Engineering

in America

I had six honest serving men—

they taught me all I knew:

Their names were Where and What and When

and Why and How and Who.

—Rudyard Kipling, English writer¹

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

Explain this book’s three-part purpose.

Respond to ten questions about U.S. engineering, the answers to which identify changes needed so engineers can more effectively provide public and environmental protection.

1.1 Purpose of this Book

A schoolteacher, a physicist, and five engineers perished in the 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster. In this century’s first decade, an alleged over 100 fatalities occurred because of faulty ignition switches in GM cars—vehicles known by company engineers to be dangerous, but not recalled. The 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill and explosion killed 11 workers and then polluted the waters and damaged the economy along 1100 miles of shoreline in four states.

These and other engineering-related disasters, such as those described in Chapter 3, share a common feature—all occurred within engineering organizations exempted from state engineering licensure laws. Competent and accountable licensed engineers, ethically and legally bound to hold public protection paramount, were not in responsible charge.

How can this be? This book answers that question and suggests ways to rectify this unfortunate situation. More specifically, the book’s three-part purpose is to convince and equip leaders inside and outside the world of engineering to:

Celebrate American engineering’s excellent achievements and the lives of engineer exemplars.

Advocate for the elimination, or reduction of the adverse effects, of U.S. laws that exempt industries, manufacturers, utilities, government entities, and other organizations from engineering licensure—and suggest ways to do it.

Urge the broadening and deepening of engineering education and experience required for U.S. licensure to be consistent with twenty-first century scientific, technological, social, political, economic, and environmental conditions—and suggest ways to do it.

The ten questions posed in this chapter address important issues and help to support this book’s three-part purpose. The questions’ answers will also enhance your understanding of the institutional framework within which U.S. engineering functions—enabling you to better appreciate engineering’s strengths, identify necessary improvements, begin to see how to implement those improvements, and maybe motivate you to help with the effort.

You will discover more in-depth answers to these questions in the chapters that follow. The last chapter suggests remedial actions, that is, ways you and your organizations can help reform engineering. Maybe you and they will join the effort to engineer the future of American engineering.

1.2 Questions about U.S. Engineering Education, Practice, and Perception

1. Why are four years of post-secondary education adequate for engineers to become licensed—to be in responsible charge—in the United States, but not for any of the following 17 representative professions: advanced practitioner registered nurses, audiologists, clergy, dentists, doctors of osteopathic medicine, lawyers, medical doctors, occupational therapists, ophthalmologists, optometrists, pharmacists, physical therapists, physician assistants, psychiatrists, psychologists, speech pathologists, and veterinarians?

People in the listed example professions must first earn a four-year baccalaureate degree after high school and then enter a professional school program. While architects and certified public accountants do not have as much formal education as the professions highlighted in this question, they are also required to complete more than four years of post-secondary education. Like engineering, most of the preceding also require some form of residency, internship, or other means of acquiring or reinforcing experiential knowledge and skill.

2. Why are the achievements in space exploration, such as the 1969 landing of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle by engineers Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, often hailed as scientific rather than engineering achievements?

This amazing event was, in fact, an engineering achievement, built on a science foundation—as is most of what engineers do. Both Aldrin and Armstrong were graduate engineers.² Aldrin earned an undergraduate engineering degree from the U.S. Military Academy and a science PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).³ Armstrong (shown in Figure 1.1) received a bachelor’s degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Purdue University and a master’s degree in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Southern California. He also taught for eight years in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Cincinnati.⁴

Neil Armstrong wearing his space suit.Alternate text.

Figure 1.1 Engineer and astronaut Neil Armstrong in 1969, the year he and engineer-astronaut Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon. Source: NASA⁵

3. Why are women grossly underrepresented in terms of the number of people earning engineering degrees while in almost all professions requiring university education, half or more of the graduates are women?

Consider the year 2018, when women earned 21.9 percent of engineering bachelor’s degrees, 26.7 percent of engineering master’s degrees, and 23.6 percent of engineering doctoral degrees.⁶ Meanwhile, over in the professional schools in 2018, women made up almost half of the medical school graduates, half of the law school graduates, two-thirds of the optometry graduates, and 80 percent of the veterinary school students.⁷,⁸,⁹,¹⁰

4. Why, when about 136,000 aspiring engineers earned bachelor’s degrees each year, do only about one fifth start the professional engineering (PE) licensing process by taking the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination within one year of graduation?¹¹,¹²

This percentage is much lower than for graduates of most professional programs. For example, in striking contrast, 97 percent of law school graduates take the bar examination within two years of graduation.¹³

5. Why do only about one third of the deans at America’s 370 engineering colleges hold engineering licenses, especially given their roles as leaders of and models for faculty and students?

The low percentage of licensed engineering deans differs markedly from the situation in the 203 law schools approved by the American Bar Association (ABA), where essentially all deans hold juris doctor (JD) degrees and are admitted to the bar (licensed) in at least one state.¹⁴ Incidentally, accreditation standards do not require licensure of law school deans.¹⁵ A similar situation applies to the 154 accredited medical schools in the United States in that essentially all deans hold medical doctor (MD) or equivalent degrees.¹⁶,¹⁷ As with law schools, medical college accreditation standards do not require that deans be licensed; however, most are.¹⁸

6. Why are only five percent of PEs members of the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) when much higher percentages of licensed members of many other professions join their societies?¹⁹

For example, about 25 percent of practicing MDs are members of the American Medical Association (AMA) and 30 percent of licensed attorneys are members of the ABA.²⁰,²¹

7. Why, in our increasingly technological age, do engineers make up a tiny 1.5 percent of the voting members of the U.S. Congress (Figure 1.2), while individuals with law degrees comprise 40 percent of the positions?

U.S. Capitol buiding.

Figure 1.2  Engineers comprise only 1.5 percent of the U.S. Congress, while lawyers account for 40 percent. Source: Pixabay

The 2017-2018 U.S. House of Representatives, which had 435 voting members, included seven engineers and 168 lawyers. The hundred-person senate had one engineer and 50 lawyers.²²

8. Why, for decades, have engineers claimed, in Rodney Dangerfield style, that they get no respect, and are not paid what they are worth and that professional societies cost too much and do nothing?

In contrast with the get no respect litany, only a tiny percentage of engineers actively work to improve the respect accorded engineers in the United States. Only about 20 percent of new engineering bachelor’s degree awardees start the engineering licensure process, and 80 percent of practicing engineers are not licensed.²³ In addition, many engineers stay away in droves from actively participating in professional societies. Law professor Paul M. Spinden studied the history and status of U.S. engineering, with emphasis on licensure exemptions (3.3.3), and concluded engineers seem to be quite complacent about their profession’s status.²⁴ Here’s a follow-up question: Are engineers their own worst enemy?

9. Why does society rarely ask engineers to help define and solve the myriad of problems it faces even though engineers—often working in collaboration with scientists and other disciplines—have solved problems like how to get to, walk on, and come back from the moon; how to build a bridge across the Golden Gate; and how to enable the human brain to activate prosthetic devices?

High intelligence, the ability to understand and apply science, and unfailing persistence offer a problem-solving trio with widespread application. Instead, we often hear and read about uninformed media persons and politicians repeating politically charged and often inaccurate talking points.

10. Why do engineers and society, in general, continue to tolerate widespread exemptions to engineering licensure laws, with the result that  too many engineering projects are conducted without the guidance of and with the engineering approved by competent and accountable licensed engineers—a situation that creates a culture in which profit preempts public and environmental protection?

Chapter 3 describes and analyzes examples of failures occurring over that past few decades because of licensure-exemption workplaces, all of which resulted in deaths, injuries, and destruction. Examples include fuel tank explosions of some Ford Pintos involved in collisions, the space shuttle Challenger explosion, the GM ignition switch disaster, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig fire, multiple amusement park and carnival ride injuries and deaths, the Merrimack Valley gas distribution system explosions, and Boeing 737 MAX 8 crashes.

1.3 Answers, Deficiencies, and Possibility of Reform

The ten questions posed here point to weaknesses in and challenges faced by U.S. engineering. Answers to the questions will gradually appear in the following chapters and will help to define further engineering’s shortcomings.

The emerging, and somewhat discouraging, situation should be seen in the light of what engineering and engineers have accomplished, as suggested by the next chapter, which celebrates engineering excellence and engineer exemplars. A community of engineers that can create such amazing technical results and develop those amazing individuals can, if it so wills, reform, correct weaknesses, and create what could be the greatest profession. This book tries to show how, or at least some of the how.

What people think of as the moment of discovery

is really discovery of the right question.

—Jonas Salk, discoverer of the polio vaccine²⁵

2

Engineering Excellence and

Engineer Exemplars

The scientist describes what is,

the engineer creates what never has been.

—Theodore von Kármán, aeronautical engineer¹

After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

Describe some of U.S. engineering’s excellent achievements and illustrate their profound impact on the nation’s quality of life.

Discuss key aspects of the lives of some engineer exemplars and explain career and life lessons learned from them.

Imagine ways in which a restructured American engineering could, because of its achievements and exemplars, contribute even more to society.

2.1 Introduction

This chapter’s celebration of U.S. engineering and engineers supports the book’s first purpose, which is introduced in the Preface and briefly stated as: Celebrate American engineering’s excellent achievements as well as the lives of engineer exemplars. That celebratory knowledge stimulates thinking about how the engineering occupation could even more effectively protect the public (the book’s second purpose) and how engineering education should be reformed to help do that (the third purpose).

Clearly, this is not a comprehensive all-inclusive chronicle of the first two centuries of U.S. engineering. Instead, it offers examples of engineering achievements and leaders drawn from aeronautical, aerospace, agricultural, biomedical, chemical, civil, electrical, electronic, environmental, mechanical, and mining engineering disciplines. In selecting both engineering excellence and engineering exemplar examples, I included some from both centuries with the goal of suggesting the evolution of engineering and engineers in America.

Knowledge of American engineering history helps us understand the institutional framework within which the engineering occupation functions today, as described in Chapters 4 and 5. Knowing history and where we are—the past and the present and the good and bad—provides the foundation on which we can build an even better U.S. engineering practice.

2.2 Where to Start, and Why the U.S. Focus?

One could argue that U.S. engineering began when Native American nomads first came together and formed communities along rivers and lakes. Immediately, those communities needed potable water, waste disposal, housing, defense, transportation, and irrigation. The work of the engineer had begun.

However, this book’s synopsis of the evolution of American engineering begins just over two centuries ago for one reason: that’s when formal engineering education started in the United States (5.2.1) and, therefore, the first formally educated engineers founded U.S. engineering practice.

By focusing on U.S. engineering, I do not diminish the work and achievements of engineers around the globe. Furthermore, you will find occasional mention of connections between American and global engineers and engineering. However, having said that, if we are dissatisfied with the state of American engineering, we should start at home to fix it—learning from other nations in the process. We can markedly improve the way engineers are prepared, practice, and perceived in our country. We must do just that because, as explained in this book, releasing the full potential of engineers will more effectively protect the public and enhance the quality of life.

2.3 Engineering Excellence: Protecting the Public and Enhancing the Quality of Life

2.3.1 Erie Canal: Linking the Hudson River and Lake Erie

Construction began in 1817 on the 360-mile-long Erie Canal to provide settlers and traders with a reliable transportation route across New York State between the Hudson River and Lake Erie. America’s westward expansion demanded it. At its highest point at the east end of Lake Erie near Buffalo, New York, the 40-foot-wide and four-foot-deep canal would be 627 feet above the Hudson River.

That was the plan. However, the novice engineers, surveyors, craftsman, farmers, merchants, judges, and settlers who ultimately finished the canal in 1825 started out with essentially no canal planning, design, construction, or operation experience—and little related education. They learned in response to needs.

For example, over the course of the project, they figured out how to perform accurate surveying, especially determining elevations. As part of clearing the canal right-of-way, team members developed methods for pulling down trees and then uprooting the stumps. Their need for concrete was met by refining local limestone into cement. Nearby citizens were awarded contracts for small excavation and construction projects. The team blasted through rock, built a rock aqueduct to carry the canal over the Genesee River, anticipated water shortages, constructed locks, and fought malaria and pneumonia.²,³

The Erie Canal was an important milestone in two ways. First, it advanced the timetable of U.S. western development. Second, it invented the American engineer.⁴

2.3.2 Brooklyn Bridge: Success Takes a Family

You have probably seen images of the Brooklyn Bridge and maybe walked or driven over it. Consider the persistent family engineering effort that, in the broadest sense, brought this iconic bridge to reality.⁵,⁶

Need and Design

For decades, the idea of the bridge, like many creative/innovative engineering ideas, was widely dismissed as impossible. Challenges to crossing New York City’s East River from Manhattan to Brooklyn included deep water and severe weather that moved up the river from the Atlantic Ocean. However, if anyone could get the job done, engineer John A. Roebling could.

Roebling completed overall plans in 1865. At about that time, he sent his just-married son Washington, and, Emily, his new daughter-in-law, to Europe and around the world to study deep-water caisson foundations. The senior Roebling invested the next four years in getting support for the project from city, state, and federal officials.

Construction—John, Washington, and Emily

Unfortunately, as construction began in 1869 and Washington and Emily Roebling returned home, the family experienced the first of two disasters: John Roebling died as the result of an accident at one of the bridge’s abutments. Exemplifying family spirit, engineer Washington Roebling took over as chief engineer, and his wife helped with labor, materials, and political and public relations challenges. Emily Roebling also began to study civil engineering topics including mathematics, strength of materials, catenary curves, and cable and bridge construction. The seeds of these studies would soon bear great fruit.

In 1872, three years into what would be a 13-year project, Washington Roebling, who was a hands-on engineer, suffered caisson disease, leaving him paralyzed, partly blind, deaf, and usually unable to speak. He and his wife were determined to persist and complete the family bridge project.

Washington used binoculars to watch construction progress from his bedroom window on the Brooklyn side of the river while Emily visited the site daily to observe details and deliver and receive messages. She gradually took on increased responsibilities, such as dealing with construction workers, material suppliers, assistant engineers, and public officials. Functionally, Emily Roebling became the chief engineer. The Brooklyn Bridge, shown in Figure 2.1 today essentially as it looked then, opened in 1883.

The Brooklyn Bridge in New York looking west toward Manhattan and the Freedom Toweriewed from Brooklyn, New York.

Figure 2.1   The Brooklyn Bridge in New York, looking west toward Manhattan and the Freedom Tower. Source: Pixabay

The Roeblings moved on after the completion of the Brooklyn Bridge, with the ailing Washington being involved in the family’s cable business and Emily, in addition to being a wife and a mother to their son, John, taking on many new endeavors and challenges. She earned a law degree, was a much-in-demand speaker, wrote many articles, traveled worldwide, and championed various causes. She wrote her husband’s biography, which barely describes her own role in building the bridge but lauds the contributions of her husband and the assistant engineers.

Personal: Our Takes-a-Family-to-Make-an-Engineer Stories.

Perhaps learning about the role of family in the design and construction of the Brooklyn Bridge causes us to reflect on the family support we have and continue to receive in our engineering or other endeavors. In my case, as the first in the family to attend college, my parents encouraged me to study anything I wanted (just do your best), helped pay for my engineering education, and offered encouragement during and after college.

My wife, Jerrie, has been my Emily, always there—getting us through graduate school, proofing my writing, moving to new places, and providing encouragement when some of my professional endeavors failed or were set back. My in-laws were helpful (although at times concerned that their son-in-law would never finish graduate school and get a real job). Our children were supportive by understanding when work prevented me from being at some of their events. Perhaps all of us ought to thank our family and other supporters one more time.

2.3.3 Electric Systems: Generating and Distributing Energy

Tesla Motors, established in 2003 as a manufacturer of electric-powered cars, is named after Nikola Tesla, a creative and innovative mechanical and electrical engineer. Tesla was born in Croatia in the mid-1800s and educated and worked in Germany, Austria, Czech Republic, and Hungary. He came to America in 1884 and worked briefly with Thomas Edison.

The two of them went different ways after several months, later becoming adversaries. Tesla promoted alternating current (AC) systems while Edison advocated for direct current (DC) power systems. Tesla won in the sense that AC became dominant worldwide beginning in the twentieth century.

Ever-creative and innovative, Tesla founded the Tesla Electric Company in 1885 and began to develop AC electrical systems. In 1895, he designed an AC hydroelectric plant at Niagara Falls, New York. It was one of the first such power facilities in America; it powered Buffalo, New York, and was considered an amazing accomplishment. Generators, radar, X-ray, remote control, and wireless transmission of energy all benefited from Tesla’s efforts.⁷

Electric systems and devices were advanced partly because of Tesla’s love of creating and innovating for the benefit of many. He said, I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success. Given that the word engineer means to create,⁸ Tesla’s statement concisely captures the essence of what many engineers do, and the personal and private rewards they enjoy.

2.3.4 Implantable Cardiac Pacemaker: Millions of Lives Extended

Wilson Greatbatch, while an electrical engineering student at Cornell University in 1950, learned from surgeons about the danger of irregular heartbeats. Five years later, while teaching electrical engineering at the University of Buffalo, and perhaps guided subconsciously by the danger of irregular heartbeats, he assisted a physician, William Chardack, by developing an oscillator that could record human heartbeats. The device used silicon transistors which, at that time, were replacing vacuum tubes.

While working with the oscillator, he fortuitously inserted the wrong resistor. Because of that error, the device produced electrical pulses rather than recording them, which, in turn, stimulated Greatbatch and the physician to develop the implantable cardiac pacemaker for stimulating heartbeats. Two years after the fortunate error, a cardiac pacemaker was successfully implanted near a dog’s heart. By 1960, pacemakers were functioning within 10 humans, and since then, they have lengthened the lives of millions of people around the world.

The crucial role of an error in creating the implantable pacemaker reminds us that error, one result of persistence, frequently leads to creative results. Examples include discovery of vulcanization, photosynthesis, and penicillin as well as the development of the microwave oven.⁹

The pacemaker story, besides illustrating a chance and productive error, points to the role of engineering in medicine. It also illustrates persistence, a common engineer characteristic. As explained by engineer Greatbatch, Nine things out of ten don’t work. The tenth one will pay for the other nine. In 1983, the National Society of Professional Engineers (NSPE) selected the pacemaker as one of the greatest contributions to society over the previous 59 years.¹⁰,¹¹,¹²,¹³

2.3.5 Apollo 11 Moon Landing: Most Significant Engineering Event Ever

A Fortunate Coincidence

I started writing this book in the summer of 2019, a season which, coincidentally, included the 50 anniversary of the amazing Apollo 11 moon landing at 4:17 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Sunday, July 20, 1969.¹⁴ From my author perspective, this coincidence is fortunate because celebrating engineering’s achievements and engineer exemplars, as evidenced by this chapter, is one of this book’s themes.

Some historians, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr., consider the moon landing, with its heavy participation by engineers, the most significant event of the twentieth century. According to Schlesinger, This was the century when we began the exploration of space, and two engineers were the first humans to set foot on another celestial body.¹⁵

I enjoy history, but am not knowledgeable enough about it to confirm Schlesinger’s evaluation. However, from the perspective of understanding engineering as correctly and creatively applying science—and as a student and practitioner of engineering—I believe that the first earth-moon round trip was not only the most significant engineering event of the twentieth century but also the most significant engineering event ever.

All aspects of the Apollo 11 moon landing are widely documented. This abbreviated discussion of the achievement provides just enough content to indicate why and how it occurred.

Reasons for Going to the Moon: Many and Varied

On May 25, 1961, John F. Kennedy, the 35th U.S. president, asked a joint session of Congress to support sending Americans to the surface of the moon (shown in Figure 2.2) and bring them back in that decade. When speaking in Texas at the Rice University football stadium over a year later, on September 12, 1962, the president offered this answer to why go to the moon: We choose to go to the moon, in this decade, and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and win others, too. President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, one and one-half years later, on November 22, 1963.

The moon with half visible

Figure 2.2  The moon, an average distance of 239,000 miles from the earth, as seen from the earth. Source: Pixabay

The president, who wasn’t even one-fourth through his first term and planned to run for a second term, was thinking about the 1964 presidential campaign. Committing to and making progress on the moon trip would be impressive. Assuming he had not been assassinated and would have won that election for the 1965 to 1969 term, he would not necessarily have seen a successful moon landing during his second term. Although Kennedy did not live to see the moon