Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensure Experience Titles topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates experience definitions, titles for graduates who haven't passed FE; stops short of rule changes
Summary
The board discussed how to evaluate progressive experience for candidates from construction backgrounds and whether to create an alternative job title for degree holders who have not passed the FE exam.
The Board of Architectural and Engineering Examiners discussed two related licensure topics: how to evaluate "progressive experience" for candidates who work in construction and what appellation (job title) a person may use if they hold an ABET-accredited engineering degree but have not passed the FE exam.
Progressive experience in construction
Committee members reviewed practices from other states and an Alabama model document circulated by staff. Board staff urged caution about adopting prescriptive statewide guidance, saying the board's current rule (referenced as rule 120.010.102 in committee materials) contains a multi-page definition of progressive experience that the committee has traditionally applied on a case-by-case basis. Staff and several board members noted that the committee has applied professional judgment when applications raise questions and that the existing process has been manageable given current application volumes. The committee concluded to continue with case-by-case review rather than issuing a new prescriptive rule, while monitoring inquiries from other states and the profession.
Appellations and use of the word "engineer"
The board also discussed what title a person may use who has a four-year ABET degree but has not passed the FE. Speakers cautioned that state statute and board rules prohibit holding oneself out as a professional engineer without licensure. Board counsel and staff emphasized the board already enforces the statute on a complaint basis and that adopting a sanctioned alternative title (for example, "engineering associate") would require formal rulemaking and a longer rule-change process. Committee members expressed sympathy for recent graduates who have not yet taken or passed the FE exam, but they also expressed concern that commonly used job postings or employer labels that include the word "engineer" can mislead the public when enforcement is inconsistent.
The board declined to create a new appellation at this time. Staff said the practical approach for inquiries is to point candidates and employers to existing statute and rules and to encourage national-industry groups (for example, NCES/NCWS/ACEC) to develop uniform language; any formal appellation change would require a rulemaking exercise.
Why it matters: The topics affect licensure pathways and employer hiring and affect how recent graduates and construction professionals present qualifications to the public.
Next steps: Continue current case-by-case review of progressive experience; staff to direct inquirers to statute and rules and monitor national-model efforts on titles and construction experience.
