Professional Ethics and the NCEES
R. Larry Greene, PLSL,
NCEES
Presented at the OEC International Conference on Ethics in
Engineering and Computer Science, March 1999
The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and
Surveying (NCEES) is an organization of seventy jurisdictional
licensing boards that regulate the practice of engineering and
surveying in the United States and its territories. The mission
of licensing boards, in general, is to protect the health,
safety and welfare of the public. NCEES develops uniform
examinations that are administered by member boards which are
designed to determine the minimum competency of candidates for
licensure. Candidates are evaluated based upon these
examinations, their education and their experience.
Traditionally these examinations have focused entirely on
technical competence. Only recently have any questions based on
ethical standards and principles been included and then only on
the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination.
Author's Perspective
As a sitting board member on the North Carolina Board of
Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors for more than 10 years, I
have been witness to a wide range of disciplinary hearings and
actions. I am struck by how seldom the issue before the Board
involves the technical competence of the respondent. Almost
every licensee has undergone rigorous educational training and
obtained a degree, completed years of progressive work
experience following their formal education and then passed
comprehensive and challenging examinations to become a
professional engineer or a professional land surveyor. This all
but insures a minimum level of technical competence at the
entry level to the profession. Rather it is almost always a
question of negligence or misconduct which has placed the
public at risk and the professional in jeopardy. In some
instances, the unprofessional act occurs as a result of
pressure applied by a client or an employer. This occurs most
often with younger professionals or in instances where a
practice is new and in need of all the business it can get.
Economic survival can be a powerful incentive to stretch the
envelope. It is also apparent, from my vantage point as a
regulatory board member, that the respondent is not always
aware of wrongdoing at the time the alleged unprofessional act
was committed (or omitted). When I was a young man, fresh out
of University, acting in an ethical manner seemed to be a
straightforward proposition. An action was either right or
wrong, black or white, moral or immoral. As an older and
hopefully wiser man, I still try to guide my life by lofty
principles, but I have learned that recognizing right from
wrong and black from white is not always a simple thing to do.
Every situation I find myself in is in some way different from
any other I have ever experienced. As new scenarios are added
to a job situation the ethical mix changes and the boundary
between ethical and unethical conduct, perhaps already gray in
nature, sometimes shifts. Many times the North Carolina Board
has disciplined a professional for an unethical act which had
gone unrecognized by the individual, perhaps in all honesty.
Real life situations are not as clear cut as theoretical
situations.
Back to Top
Need Recognized
NCEES and its member boards are becoming increasingly aware
of the need for both primary and continuing education in the
field of professional ethics. Evidence of this may be seen in
recent committee assignments and in the results of recent
studies and surveys by NCEES. Charges to the Committee on
Examinations for Professional Engineers, the Committee on
Examinations for Professional Surveyors and to the
Professionalism and Ethics Committee during the 1997-1998
administration included the development of professionalism and
ethics issue questions to be incorporated into the principles
and practices examinations. The Committee on Professional
Activities and Knowledge Study (PAKS) - Land Surveying, which
surveyed over 5,000 land surveyors across the nation,
identified ethics as the single most important professional
study knowledge in the opinion of the respondents.
A recent survey of member boards by the Professionalism and
Ethics Committee sought to determine if any boards had
encountered problems with a professional in their jurisdiction
as a result of different cross cultural values. This question
has arisen as NCEES has struggled to find ways to facilitate
international practice while maintaining standards. The thrust
of this survey was at least two fold. One was to determine if
any licensed engineer or surveyor with a foreign background had
been found guilty of committing an unethical act primarily
because of differently held values in the culture they came
from. Secondarily, had any U.S. engineer or surveyor been found
guilty of unethical conduct in an international situation
because of an act which was clearly illegal in this country but
which might be a standard way of doing business in another.
Answers received on this survey did not indicate any serious
problem had surfaced as yet in this area.
In the same survey we asked, "Are courses in professional
ethics currently being offered as part of the engineering
and/or land surveying program in schools in your jurisdiction?"
Fifty-seven boards responded to that question. Twenty-eight
boards said that no such coursework was being offered at
schools in their jurisdiction. Seven boards were unsure if such
coursework was being offered. Twenty boards said that this
coursework was being offered. The following schools were cited
as offering coursework in professional ethics - Auburn, U of
Alabama at Birmingham, Arizona State U., University of Arizona,
NAU, Georgia Tech, Southern Polytechnic, Mercer, University of
Hawaii, Iowa State U., U of Kentucky, U of Louisville, U of
Maine at Orono, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, U of New
Hampshire, New Mexico State U, Oklahoma State, U of Oklahoma,
Tulsa, Temple, Drexel, Penn State, Lehigh, Geneva, Roger
Williams U., East Tennessee State U., U of Texas, Texas
A&M, Texas Tech, Texas A&M at Corpus Christi, U of
Texas at Tyler, Houston Community College, Virginia
Commonwealth, Old Dominion, U of Virginia, VA Polytechnic.
Recognizing the need, what has NCEES done to date to travel
down the road toward ethics education and testing and toward
the enforcement of ethical standards?
Back to Top
Continuing Education
With seed money provided by NCEES, a very rigorous
correspondence course on professional ethics was developed by
the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism of Texas
Tech University. It includes a text book, a work book complete
with case studies, lesson plans, paper assignments and a final
examination. The program is offered at several levels, the
lowest being a self-study option having no formal assignments
and no examination. There are also basic and advanced level
options, both of which require a final examination. This
course, at whatever level, is designed primarily for the
practicing engineer. The advanced version of the course takes
about 60 hours to complete. The self-study and basic options
are the levels most often chosen by the professional on a
voluntary basis, while the advanced option is often mandated by
a board in a disciplinary action. More recently, and again
using seed money provided by NCEES, a similar course has been
developed for land surveyors by New Mexico State University and
the University of Maine, Orono. This course has been available
for about one year and includes a work book, a case study
manual, a video tape for each chapter in the work book and a
final examination. It is also offered over the internet without
the video tapes. While the utilization of these courses is by
no means limited to disciplinary matters, it is a fact that
many boards have required the successful completion of the
appropriate course as a condition of relicensure (in cases of
suspension) or in tandem with other disciplinary measures.
NCEES has developed an ethics statement entitled "Model
Rules of Professional Conduct." This statement, in some form,
has been around for a good many years. Individual Boards are
encouraged to adopt this model code or to develop their own
code based upon the principles expressed in the model code.
Once adopted, these principles have the force of law in most
jurisdictions, either by being a part of the licensing statute
or by authority given the board in the statute, and can be
enforced by the board. One of the surveys already cited reveals
that 56 of the 65 member boards who responded have adopted an
ethics statement or a code of ethics. Nine boards had not
adopted such a statement. Of the 56 boards who had adopted an
ethics statement, 37 boards had developed their own statement,
rather than the NCEES statement.
Convictions based on specific violations of the "Rules of
Professional Conduct" are not common but are not unheard of. In
my 10 year tenure on the North Carolina Board, I can recall two
such convictions and I am aware of convictions in other
jurisdictions.
NCEES is not in a position to cause universities to require
courses in ethics be taught to students enrolled in the schools
of engineering. We do believe, however, that it is a vital and
necessary part of a complete education and encourage the
teaching of these courses.
ABET's "Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs"
(1999-2000 cycle), which is currently being phased, out stated,
"An understanding of the ethical, social, economic and safety
considerations in engineering practice is essential . . .
Coursework may be provided for this purpose, but as a minimum
it should be the responsibility of the engineering faculty to
infuse professional concepts into all engineering coursework."
Engineering Criteria 2000, Criterion 3 Program Outcomes and
Assessment states, "Engineering programs must demonstrate that
their graduates have (f) an understanding of professional and
ethical responsibility." This statement does not seem to imply
that ethics courses will now be a required part of an
accredited program. It may be that the offering of such courses
is the easiest way to demonstrate that their graduates have the
necessary understanding of professional and ethical
responsibility.
Many universities apparently are not yet offering coursework
in professional ethics to the student engineer. I would guess
that in the future many will do so, but with considerable
reluctance because of the already difficult task of crowding
the necessary technical coursework into an eight semester
degree program. Yet ethics is a core theme as it relates to the
health, safety and welfare of the public, perhaps as much so,
albeit from a different perspective, as technical
competence.
There are a lot of arguments one could raise why ethics
should not be included as a required course of study for the
professional engineer. One I have heard from individual members
of jurisdictional boards is, "You can't teach a value system to
an eighteen to twenty year old individual. They either have it
instilled within them by their parents and peers by that time
or they don't." That may be, but does that relieve us of the
obligation to provide that individual with the knowledge of
what is considered professionally ethical where such knowledge
can be imparted? Does that relieve us of the responsibility to
offer some guidance to help them through the maze when the line
between right and wrong is not so apparent? Another often heard
and previously alluded to argument is, "If ethics coursework is
a requirement, something of value will have to go to make room
for it." This is a valid argument. Certainly an ethically
competent but technically incompetent engineer would be a
threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public. Can we
afford to make it an either/or proposition? I think not. If the
answer to a complete education in engineering is a five year
degree program, then that should be the standard.
Back to Top
Testing for
Ethical Competence
As one might expect with a national organization
representing people from a wide variety of backgrounds, there
is considerable disagreement and debate within the NCEES about
the value or necessity of teaching professional ethics.
Because a charge is given to a committee to develop ethics
questions for inclusion on a licensure examination does not
mean that all agree that it should be done nor that it is going
to happen immediately. The recommendation of the EPE
(Examination for Professional Engineers) Committee, in response
to its charge to develop and include ethics questions for the
PE examination (Principles and Practices), was that the
examination concentrate on technical competence and not include
questions on ethics. They did recommend that ethics continue to
be covered on the FE (Fundamentals of Engineering) examination
and that new questions be developed for the item bank. This is
currently the only examination administered by the NCEES which
contains questions specifically related to ethics and these are
few in number. These questions in their current form tend to
demonstrate only that the individual has read the "Model Code
of Conduct". There is currently no attempt to evaluate a takers
ethical competency. The argument is that NCEES is testing for
minimum competence and that minimum competence in ethics cannot
be tested. Is this really so? When we examine for technical
competence, we are testing for knowledge and the candidates
proficiency for applying that knowledge to an engineering
situation. The theory is, if they can do the work competently
on an examination, they should be able to transfer that
knowledge to a real life situation and perform competently
there. When we examine for ethical competence, we are
attempting to test for knowledge and belief.. We want
to examine the candidates proficiency in applying ethical
principles to an engineering situation. Can we not assume, as
we do for technical knowledge, that a demonstration of ethical
competence on an examination at least demonstrates the ability
to apply those principles in a real life situation?
There is less resistance to the inclusion of ethical
questions on the land surveyor examinations where no questions
currently are included. The EPS (Examination for Professional
Surveyors) Committee has recommended the development of
ethically based questions for inclusion on both the
Fundamentals and the Principles and Practices examinations.
One of the problems encountered by both professions is the
difficulty of writing a good question dealing with ethics. The
correct answers appear to be obvious and the deflectors poor
for current questions in the item bank. The naysayers do not
believe it is possible to write ethics questions which perform
well. An examination of the sample problems and case studies
contained in the two correspondence courses previously cited
reveal a different picture to me. I can see the basis for some
good questions with deflectors that make finding the right
answer a reasoning process rather than a recognition one.
Perhaps we have the wrong people trying to write these
questions.
In closing, it is my conviction that the teaching of ethical
principles and standards are of paramount importance to the
education of the professional engineer (and surveyor) and
should not be neglected. I further believe such education
should not stop at the graduate level but should be an integral
part of a continuing education program. Many states now require
continuing professional competency programs as a condition for
relicensure. Perhaps a periodic ethics course should be a
mandated part of such programs.
I also believe that professional ethics should be tested as
a basis of entry into the profession of engineering (and of
surveying) and that continuing education in this area should be
required. Whether the primary site of that entry level testing
should be on the national examination as now constituted is a
question open to debate. In lieu of including the questions on
such an examination, a separate test on ethics alone could be
the answer. This would eliminate the argument concerning
minimum competency and could conceivably be administered by the
various jurisdictions rather than by NCEES, much as each
jurisdiction now has its own additional test for land
surveyors. It would also allow for the isolation and testing of
ethical competency rather than simply including a few questions
on ethics within the body of a larger test. A taker could
conceivably fail all of the ethics questions using the current
format while passing the overall examination with flying
colors.
In any event, professional ethics is too important a
question for NCEES to ignore, and I expect it will be
eventually resolved along the lines of testing in one fashion
or another.