I can imagine the Board’s overreach being applied to teaching engineering as well. All my engineering professors certainly had PhDs in engineering (or similar). Yet few if any of them had a PE license.
Would they be prohibited from testifying as well? Or what if the Board claims classroom activities are too close to ‘practicing’ engineering for their comfort?
And since this fellow spent probably 30+ years as a practicing engineer, I would think his experience counts for more than someone who got their PE the previous week.
Credentialism lifts up and empowers the mediocre while cutting off discussion. This results in sclerotic professions and oversight authorities which cannot adapt to changing conditions, usually causing far more and worse long-term damage than any short-term issues they prevent. I can only speak for the US, but look around — this is a real issue in medicine, law, and most anywhere you look, and the problem has been accelerated by the sheer number of college/grad degrees given out like candy the last 20 years.
> the problem has been accelerated by the sheer number of college/grad degrees given out like candy the last 20 years
At least in medicine this isn't the case; the AMA effectively limits the number of positions available. The ratio of doctors to patients has hence been steadily decreasing over the past few decades.
Why aren't there any more medical schools then? I believe professional schools (law, MBA etc) are historically very profitable for universities so they are (or were) incentivized to open even mediocre ones.
Mostly because they’re extremely expensive to set up.. but even so there are maybe a dozen new ones that have opened in the past 5 years with about that many under discussion to open in the next 5 years. I think the big bottleneck right now is the residency slots, those need Federal funding and they’ve been hesitant.
Would they be prohibited from testifying as well? Or what if the Board claims classroom activities are too close to ‘practicing’ engineering for their comfort?