Answer: While they are all practicing professionals; their respective practices are very different and not comparable.

 

Doctors are dispensing drugs, and performing operations. Technology and research change a lot of medical issues every year. A drug that should be prescribed today, may be forbidden tomorrow. A doctor makes a mistake, and someone dies, or is permanently disabled.

 

Lawyers/Judges are dealing with local and national case law constantly. What was legal today may not be legal tomorrow. A lawyer/Judge may make a mistake and a guilty person may go free, or an innocent person is sent to jail.

 

Engineers have little, or none of this responsibility. A good many engineers do not have to stamp/seal a design drawing. For them, a PE is a sign of achievement, and technical recognition.

 

For those who stamp or seal drawings, there is the possibility of a design causing a system failure; i.e. a collapse. Yes, buildings/bridges do fall down, but it is very rare. When they do, is it the fault of the Architect/Engineer/General Contractor/ Building Inspectors?

 

So what is truly at Risk with the lack of CEs for engineers? I cannot identify this.

 

There is always some merit in education. But, it is not right to change the rules for those who put their time in, took the tests, and practiced for decades.

 

 In other words; there was nothing in the code, at the time I took the tests, that mentioned CEs. If there had been, I ( like everyone else) would have built this obligation into my career and private life.

 

So, if the Board goes ahead with this overall goal, they need to EXEMPT/GRANDFATHER EVERY CURRENT LICENSEE , change the code, and advise all new applicants that a bi-annual CE obligation will be required from this point on. I doubt a single complaint would be registered with this approach.

 

Over time, all the engineers would eventually fulfill the Board’s goals, and be in line with other professionals.