Licensing of engineers has benefits

As one of those licensees criticized by Mr. Ed Pole in his essay published in The Olympian Oct. 4, as well as being a retired engineer myself, I would like to comment on this article. The article begins with a paradox, How did an organization of licensees (ACLU attorneys) accomplish these marvelous things?

Licensing in my field simply demonstrates to the public seeking engineering help that the permittee has achieved a minimum competence. No, it does not guarantee compensation for injury. Our system reserves this to a group of licensees from the same group that staffs the ACLU. It indeed restricts entry to the unqualified for obvious reasons.

This does cost, but it is cheaper than dam breaches, stadium roof collapses or toxic water supplies. I have known some well-off licensed engineers, but never a wealthy ones. Restricted industries? Boeing employs more engineers than anyone in Washington, but there is no requirement that they be licensed by the state. Price? By law those selecting a licensed engineer consider qualifications first, but having done that, they are free to shop away for price.

Mr. Pole suggests that an acceptable substitute for state certification is a certificate displayed on the wall of the licensees place of business, already a common practice. This begs the question, who is the certifier?