Board debates whether graduate study or long experience should substitute for an accredited undergraduate engineering degree

During a prolonged discussion the board weighed two competing approaches to licensure: a strict baseline that privileges an accredited undergraduate engineering or engineering‑technology curriculum, and a more flexible approach that would allow experienced specialists or those with graduate education to meet licensure requirements despite undergraduate deficiencies.

John DeWolf urged the board to preserve an undergraduate breadth requirement, arguing that engineering design depends on exposure to multiple disciplines early in training. “The starting point has to be consistent,” he said, framing the baseline as a public‑safety and consistency issue. Other members, including Rob Lewandowski and additional board colleagues, described cases of highly competent specialists who nonetheless lacked the undergraduate breadth but had decades of demonstrable experience. Members discussed examples including applicants with physics undergraduate degrees and later master’s/PhD work in structures, and an applicant who had taken the PE exam multiple times.

The board also debated how to interpret NCEES/NCES evaluations that add graduate credits to an undergraduate record to reach the 48‑credit engineering design threshold; some members said that process can mask an undergraduate program’s lack of design breadth. The practical outcome was to continue applying the existing policy consistently, with staff instructed to provide clearer explanations to applicants denied on that basis and to document the rationale when board review differs from an NCEES equivalency finding.

Members flagged the topic as a candidate for statutory or regulatory clarification and agreed to pursue drafting legislative/regulatory language with the Department of Consumer Protection legislative liaison for guidance on next steps.