5 ms·

You're only a professional engineer if you pass the PE exam. You can't legally present yourself as a professional engineer without that license.

jMyles 5y ago
This seems like an odd point to make, since Marohn did pass all the necessary exams and had been previously licensed. Are you saying that, in addition to not practicing civil engineering professionally, that he has to scrub the entire internet of his title the moment his license expires?
- Afton 5y ago
  That seems like a strawman. The complaint is that he described himself as a professional engineer while his license had expired. As in, during that period, he wasn't a licensed engineer, and therefore shouldn't have called himself one.
  - jMyles 5y ago
    > Now, for the second time, a professional engineer has filed a complaint with the state licensing board alleging that the writing, speaking, and advocacy for reform of Charles Marohn—the founder and president of Strong Towns—constitutes a violation of Minnesota law. The complaint is that, in his advocacy, he described himself as a professional engineer, which he obviously is. The idea that one needs to stay in the good graces of the state in order to reference one's experience in their field as part of their political advocacy cannot possibly withstand genuine first amendment scrutiny, can it?
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      > The idea that one needs to stay in the good graces of the state in order to reference one's experience in their field as part of their political advocacy cannot possibly withstand genuine first amendment scrutiny, can it? Being licensed isn't to be within the good graces of the state, it's to prove the licensee has the requite knowledge and experience to design and construct things which, when fail, people die. This is something we want in society.
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        But he obviously had that knowledge and experience. It didn't go away when he allowed his license to lapse.
      - jMyles 5y ago
        > Being licensed isn't to be within the good graces of the state, it's to prove the licensee has the requite knowledge and experience to design and construct things which, when fail, people die. This is something we want in society. First, I don't agree that licensure accomplishes this. But second, it sounds like you agree with the plaintiff here. Nobody is asserting that he had a legal right to perform civil engineering after his license lapsed. What he's arguing is that he had a right to reference his experience in civil engineering as part of his political advocacy.
- jessaustin 5y ago
  According to the official site, he is a professional engineer [civil] right now. https://www.mn.gov/aelslagid/roster.html https://www.mn.gov/aelslagid/roster.html
LatteLazy 5y ago
The law is right because its the law? (wow, apparently I can't even ask...)
hirundo 5y ago
It isn't credible to assume that anyone who identifies themselves as an engineer is fraudulently asserting to be a National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying Professional Engineer. It's a huge linguistic power grab to call that confusing. "Here's a common noun for a profession, and now you can't use it without paying us" is a nice business plan for collecting rents indefinitely.
- brudgers 5y ago
  The issue as described in the article is holding himself out as a “professional engineer” because that implies licensure. Specifically here the issue is that it is a claim to a legally relevant credential...i.e. as qualified to render expert opinion in a legal context.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > The issue as described in the article is holding himself out as a “professional engineer” because that implies licensure. I will guarantee you that is not how that vast majority of the population would interpret it. Very few people even know that there is such a thing as a licensed professional engineer. Most reasonable people would take the term "professional engineer" to mean somebody who performs engineering work of some sort in a professional capacity. Actual doing something should take precedence over some license primary used to gatekeep a profession and fill state coffers with licensing fees. The fact that we still have guilds operating in the 21st century is embarrassing.
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >I will guarantee you that is not how that vast majority of the population would interpret it. I disagree. >Very few people even know that there is such a thing as a licensed professional engineer. >Most reasonable people would take the term "professional engineer" to mean somebody who performs engineering work of some sort in a professional capacity. Where did you source this information?
      - 5y ago
geebee 5y ago
I think this is a very reasonable position. Reason magazine posted an article on this: "https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-this-engineer-for-calling-himself-an-engineer/ https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-th..." While I generally oppose attempts to regulate the term "engineer", I do think Reason was a little fast and loose here. It wasn't like they went in and objected to the term "sound engineer" in a recording studio or "software engineer" at google. This was a case of using a term in a situation where it could cause confusion, although even in this case, I side with the person who wants to use the term, and against the PE regulators. I do think that professional engineering associations do have the right to create a terminology. I would just be much more restrictive in scope. I looked into regulations around Industrial Engineering, since I have an MS in this field (my undergraduate is in math). As far as I understand, licensure in Industrial Engineering is a title designation. In other words, there's no specific practice you're allowed to do as a licensed professional industrial engineer that you wouldn't be allowed to do without this license. It simply gives you the right to professionally represent yourself as a licensed PE. I support the licensing bodies rights to restrict narrowly defined terminology that clearly references licensure, but my personal feeling is that the scope should be very limited. In other words, I believe I should be allowed to casually refer to myself as an engineer, I think it's fine to say you're a data engineer rather than a data scientist depending on what you do. I even think it's ok to refer to myself as an industrial engineer (though I wouldn't personally especially want to). The ambiguity creeps in if I refer to myself as a "Professional Industrial Engineer". I personally wouldn't do that, it would feel a little fraudulent, but that's a feeling, not something I'd enforce through law or even social pressure. To stay on the right side of scope, I think I'd be ok with someone doing that as long as they didn't throw in "licensed". As for "engineering" as a general term, I think it's truly absurd that PE bodies would think they have a general right to prevent others from using this descriptive term in job or work titles, it's as general as "scientist".

jMyles 5y ago

This seems like an odd point to make, since Marohn did pass all the necessary exams and had been previously licensed. Are you saying that, in addition to not practicing civil engineering professionally, that he has to scrub the entire internet of his title the moment his license expires?

Afton 5y ago
That seems like a strawman. The complaint is that he described himself as a professional engineer while his license had expired. As in, during that period, he wasn't a licensed engineer, and therefore shouldn't have called himself one.
- jMyles 5y ago
  > Now, for the second time, a professional engineer has filed a complaint with the state licensing board alleging that the writing, speaking, and advocacy for reform of Charles Marohn—the founder and president of Strong Towns—constitutes a violation of Minnesota law. The complaint is that, in his advocacy, he described himself as a professional engineer, which he obviously is. The idea that one needs to stay in the good graces of the state in order to reference one's experience in their field as part of their political advocacy cannot possibly withstand genuine first amendment scrutiny, can it?
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    > The idea that one needs to stay in the good graces of the state in order to reference one's experience in their field as part of their political advocacy cannot possibly withstand genuine first amendment scrutiny, can it? Being licensed isn't to be within the good graces of the state, it's to prove the licensee has the requite knowledge and experience to design and construct things which, when fail, people die. This is something we want in society.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      But he obviously had that knowledge and experience. It didn't go away when he allowed his license to lapse.
    - jMyles 5y ago
      > Being licensed isn't to be within the good graces of the state, it's to prove the licensee has the requite knowledge and experience to design and construct things which, when fail, people die. This is something we want in society. First, I don't agree that licensure accomplishes this. But second, it sounds like you agree with the plaintiff here. Nobody is asserting that he had a legal right to perform civil engineering after his license lapsed. What he's arguing is that he had a right to reference his experience in civil engineering as part of his political advocacy.
jessaustin 5y ago
According to the official site, he is a professional engineer [civil] right now. https://www.mn.gov/aelslagid/roster.html https://www.mn.gov/aelslagid/roster.html

LatteLazy 5y ago

The law is right because its the law? (wow, apparently I can't even ask...)

hirundo 5y ago

It isn't credible to assume that anyone who identifies themselves as an engineer is fraudulently asserting to be a National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying Professional Engineer. It's a huge linguistic power grab to call that confusing. "Here's a common noun for a profession, and now you can't use it without paying us" is a nice business plan for collecting rents indefinitely.

brudgers 5y ago
The issue as described in the article is holding himself out as a “professional engineer” because that implies licensure. Specifically here the issue is that it is a claim to a legally relevant credential...i.e. as qualified to render expert opinion in a legal context.
- tharne 5y ago
  > The issue as described in the article is holding himself out as a “professional engineer” because that implies licensure. I will guarantee you that is not how that vast majority of the population would interpret it. Very few people even know that there is such a thing as a licensed professional engineer. Most reasonable people would take the term "professional engineer" to mean somebody who performs engineering work of some sort in a professional capacity. Actual doing something should take precedence over some license primary used to gatekeep a profession and fill state coffers with licensing fees. The fact that we still have guilds operating in the 21st century is embarrassing.
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >I will guarantee you that is not how that vast majority of the population would interpret it. I disagree. >Very few people even know that there is such a thing as a licensed professional engineer. >Most reasonable people would take the term "professional engineer" to mean somebody who performs engineering work of some sort in a professional capacity. Where did you source this information?
    - 5y ago

geebee 5y ago

I think this is a very reasonable position. Reason magazine posted an article on this: "https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-this-engineer-for-calling-himself-an-engineer/ https://reason.com/2021/05/25/minnesota-threatens-to-fine-th..." While I generally oppose attempts to regulate the term "engineer", I do think Reason was a little fast and loose here. It wasn't like they went in and objected to the term "sound engineer" in a recording studio or "software engineer" at google. This was a case of using a term in a situation where it could cause confusion, although even in this case, I side with the person who wants to use the term, and against the PE regulators. I do think that professional engineering associations do have the right to create a terminology. I would just be much more restrictive in scope. I looked into regulations around Industrial Engineering, since I have an MS in this field (my undergraduate is in math). As far as I understand, licensure in Industrial Engineering is a title designation. In other words, there's no specific practice you're allowed to do as a licensed professional industrial engineer that you wouldn't be allowed to do without this license. It simply gives you the right to professionally represent yourself as a licensed PE. I support the licensing bodies rights to restrict narrowly defined terminology that clearly references licensure, but my personal feeling is that the scope should be very limited. In other words, I believe I should be allowed to casually refer to myself as an engineer, I think it's fine to say you're a data engineer rather than a data scientist depending on what you do. I even think it's ok to refer to myself as an industrial engineer (though I wouldn't personally especially want to). The ambiguity creeps in if I refer to myself as a "Professional Industrial Engineer". I personally wouldn't do that, it would feel a little fraudulent, but that's a feeling, not something I'd enforce through law or even social pressure. To stay on the right side of scope, I think I'd be ok with someone doing that as long as they didn't throw in "licensed". As for "engineering" as a general term, I think it's truly absurd that PE bodies would think they have a general right to prevent others from using this descriptive term in job or work titles, it's as general as "scientist".