Thomas L. Noack
Profesor
Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering
Mayagüez Campus
University of Puerto Rico
December 20, 2001
Lcdo. Antonio García Padilla
President
University
of Puerto Rico
Dear President García
Padilla:
On December 20, 2001 an open letter from Ing. Iván
Nicolau Nin, president of the Colegio de Ingenieros y Agrimensores de Puerto
Rico was printed as a full-page insert in the San Juan Star and also El Nuevo
Dia. This letter was primarily an
attack on the quality and direction of the engineering programs at the Mayagüez
campus, and more particularly of the Electrical and Computer Engineering
programs. I have taught in this
department for over nineteen years, in both programs, but primarily in computer
engineering. I hold a PE license and am
a CIAPR member, my original license was obtained by examination in Missouri in
1971, and at present I also hold a Colorado license.
It should be noted that Ing. Nicolau Nin ran for
president of CIAPR on a platform attacking UPRM, and that he has continued
these accusations against UPRM on several occasions, including a radio show
appearance last June. This was reported
in the San Juan Star then, I wrote a rebuttal as a Viewpoint letter, which the
Star chose not to print. I have
included it, and Ing. Nicolau Nin’s platform with this letter. The engineering dean and department chairmen
at UPRM also replied via a press conference; their response was based in part
on my rebuttal, which I had shared with them.
It is interesting that these incidents have occurred at the beginning of
academic recesses when the University was handicapped in responding.
Also, some years ago, CIAPR lost a lawsuit in which
they tried to compel UPR to use only professors who were members of CIAPR to
teach in engineering, and they have sontinued to seek changes in legislation to
compel this. Several past presidents of
CIAPR have made similar attacks on the Colegio.
I feel that Ing. Nicolau Nin’s comments are highly
inaccurate and are a libel on programs of high and improving quality, that he
and the CIAPR leadership are misusing CIAPR resources in continuing them, and
that University employees should not be forced into supporting an organization
that is their employer’s legal adversary.
The letter repeatedly cites the content of the
revalida and uses the term “fundamentals of engineering”. It also questions the establishment of the
computer engineering program because a revalida in computer engineering did not
exist then (1981). The revalida used in
Puerto Rico, as in almost all U. S. jurisdictions is one prepared by the
National Council of Engineering Examiners (http://www.ncees.org). It has two parts, the Fundamentals of
Engineering exam, which can be taken during the last year of college, and the
Principles and Practice section, which is a separate exam for each engineering
specialty. The Fundamentals section,
until quite recently, was a common exam for all specialties, and its content is
that referred to in Ing. Nicolau Nin’s letter; it is primarily elementary
mathematics, chemistry and physics, and also the common core courses for
mechanical, civil, and industrial engineering, with a little electrical
engineering component. Recently this exam was modified to include a component
for each major engineering specialty.
Thus it can be seen that the exam has little relevance to electrical
engineering, and practically none to computer engineering. In spite of the title, it is definitely not
concerned with the fundamentals common to all branches of engineering; it
merely forces schools to include these courses because of the nature of the
examination. It is definitely not
concerned with the fundamentals of either electrical or computer engineering.
Also, because it is designed for applicants who graduated several years
previously, it cannot cover recent developments. A forward-looking program such as computer engineering cannot
expect to find support from an examination rooted in the past.
It should also be noted that the role of engineering
licensing, and thus both revalida content and the preparation and professional
emphasis of those taking the exam are quite different. In the U. S., licenses are generally
required only of engineers practicing before the public; those working for
corporations (except consulting organizations) rarely need them. The CIAPR is a uniquely Puerto Rican and
Latin American institution, in Latin America it is often used to exclude
outsiders from practice.
In response to the specific comments in the open
letter, I cite the following:
“los serios problemas institucionales que en la
industria percibimos dentro del Recinto Universitario de Mayagüez”
I am not sure to which segment of industry Ing.
Nicolau Nin refers; our graduates are in demand both in Puerto Rico and the U.
S. mainland, and even during the present recession, the interviewers keep
coming back.
“me preocupa mayormente los incumplimientos de
... RUM con la leyes que regulan la práctica de nuestros profesiones en Puerto
Rico”
The laws relating to engineering licensing have
not established that engineering faculty must be dues-paying members of
CIAPR. The University has been trying
to obtain the best-qualified faculty for its programs and CIAPR has been
interfering with this quest.
“desde el 1981 el Recinto (...) sin consultar a
los profesionales, teniendo el CIAPR que darse la tarea de solucionar el mismo,
creó el grado de Ingeniero en Computadoras, cuando no existé un examen para
esto.”
As mentioned above, waiting for a computer engineering revalida to
be established would have denied an entire generation of students the
opportunity to enter this vital field.
The description of CIAPR’s activities related to the Instituto de
Ingenieros de Computadoras is not quite the way it happened, its birth was more
like a struggle against the establishment of CIAPR and certainly never could
have happened without the computer engineering program having been in existence
first.
“no sera sino hasta abril de 2002, veintiún años después, que los
organismos ... ofreceron dicho examen”
This states my point better
than I could have – should we, and a generation of students have waited for
NCEES to catch up?
“Ejemplo de esto, es la reciente recomendación de fraccionar la
ingeniería eléctrica en cuatro ingenierías, en vez de lograr este objetivo a
través de una escuela graduada.”
Electrical engineering is
not fractionated into four separate programs, this change is not recent, and it
was not done with the intent of converting electrical engineering into a graduate
program. It was a result of an ABET
mandate in about 1980 requesting that technical electives be organized into
coherent sequences, and was implemented in the early 1980’s. The core of the program is common to all
options; only the majority of the technical electives must come from each
specialty.
“es insólito que los profesores que enseñan análisis, diseño y dan
cursos de campo de ingeniería .. no se les requiera que tengan licencia”
This issue was resolved with CIAPR’s defeat in
its lawsuit some years ago. As
mentioned above, the exam is irrelevant to many of our specialties; expecially
in compur and software engineering. For
example, we have added four Ph. D.´s in computer science in the last two years;
CIAPR would regard them as unqualified, but would be happy with a B. S. in
electric power engineering who had a PR license before applying.
“
I believe
this controversy points out the misuse of engineering licensing and the need
for review of the engineering licensing statutes in Puerto Rico. Ing. Nicolau Nin is not really a
democratically elected representative of engineers in Puerto Rico, he is the
head of a self-perpetuating lobby established by statute. He was picked by a nominating committee
almost four years ago, and only those who attended the CIAPR convention of that
year (at a cost now of $900) could vote for or against him. I believe it is time for the University to
question the continued existence of the Colegio; it does not represent engineers
in Puerto Rico, but merely collects $200 per year for acting against their
interests. Also, the University should
question whether its faculty should be made or even allowed to pay dues to the
University’s legal adversary.
Sincerely,
Thomas L. Noack
Professor
Cc:
Professor Pablo Rodríguez, Chancellor,
Mayagüez Campus
Dr. Ramón Vásquez Espinosa, Dean, Faculty of Engineering
Professor Héctor Monroy Ayala, Director, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Enclosures:
Platform of Ing. Iván Nicolau Nin while running for Presidency of CIAPR
Unpublished reply to May 2001 comments by Ing. Iván Nicolau Nin
Enclosure 1. Platform of Ing. Iván Nicolau Nin while running for Presidency of CIAPR
Ing. José Iván Nicolau Nin
Estimado Compañero Colegiado:
El año pasado para esta misma época te pedí
que me dieras tu voto por
segunda vez para la posición de
Vicepresidente por los Ingenieros ante la Junta
de Gobierno (JG) del Colegio. Luego de electo
a esa posición, la JG volvió a
reelegirme como Primer Vicepresidente del
Colegio. Te indiqué en aquella
ocasión que después de cumplir con mis dos
términos como Primer
Vicepresidente, mi intención era la de
prepararme bien para aspirar, ser electo
y desempeñarme en excelencia en la
Presidencia del Colegio; ya estoy listo
para tal faena.
Este segundo año como Primer Vicepresidente
colaboré en equipo con el
Comité Ejecutivo y la JG. En varias ocasiones
fui facilitador de comisiones,
presidí muchas otras y te representé en foros
internacionales. Esta doble
exposición me ha dado una mejor muestra de
qué dejar como está, mejorar o
reestructurar. Tengo un buen cuadro de lo que
pasa en el Colegio y claridad de
propósito para el bien de la Institución.
De la breve reseña de mi vida personal y
profesional, podrás ver que es
ordenada, productiva y sin excesos. He
practicado responsablemente la
ingeniería por los últimos 33 años e
ininterrumpidamente he trabajado por esta
Institución desde que en octubre de 1967, con
tan sólo 22 años de edad y
como la Ley lo requiere, me colegié y
licencié. Este servicio incondicional,
voluntario, contínuo y efectivo que le he
brindado a nuestro Colegio ha sido, es
y será mi mejor carta de referencia.
En la próxima Asamblea Anual, el 12 de
agosto, se van a discutir varios asuntos
importantes que, inmaterial de tu
especialidad, profesión, punto en tu
crecimiento a la licenciatura, el que
practiques tu profesión ilimitadamente
dentro del marco de la Ley como colegiado
licenciado o estes retirado, te
afectarán drásticamente.
Al igual que logramos en 1997 que el Tribunal
Disciplinario y de Ética
Profesional se reestructurase de raíz a
través de la legislación novel que
logramos desarrollar e impartir la agilidad y
fuerza jurídica que hoy tiene y
facilita el trámite de casos sometidos, de
igual forma se hará lo propio para la
Defensa de la Profesión.
Para resolver los serios problemas de la
práctica ilegal existente y lograr que las
leyes que nos instituyen sean practicadas de
forma legal y ética en todo
momento, hay que lograr la aprobación de las
siguientes enmiendas:
1.Se incluya en todas las leyes que nos
reglamentan el que ninguna ley que
instituya otra profesión u oficio pueda
limitar en forma alguna las áreas de
la práctica de nuestras profesiones según
establecidas en Ley.
2.El Colegio pueda fiscalizar todo proyecto
público o privado sin tener que
recurrir a las Agencias de Gobierno o a los
Tribunales, pueda emitir
sanciones y multas administrativas y, de
surgir violaciones criminales,
tener la facultad en Ley de referir
directamente los hallazgos al Tribunal y
dar seguimiento hasta que la sentencia final
sea emitida.
3.Se establezca clara y enérgicamente en las
Leyes que nos instituyen que
La Enseñanza de la Ingeniería y la
Agrimensura son Práctica de la
Profesión y tal como lo establece el Criterio
2000 de ABET, requerirle a
la Academia que los profesores que enseñen
los tópicos pertinentes de
nuestras profesiones sean licenciados y
colegiados.
4.Tengamos la facultad en Ley de revisar los
currículos académicos de la
Ingeniería y Agrimensura antes de que sean
modificados por las
Universidades locales.
5.Se exima de la Educación Contínua
Compulsoria y la renovación
quinquenal de Licencias a los colegiados que
han practicado la profesión
por más de 25 años y sean mayores de 65 años
de edad.
6.Se faculte al Colegio para instituir
Nú-cleos en el extranjero y pueda
brindarle servicios institucionales a los
colegiados residentes en éstos.
7.El Colegio disponga de los recursos
necesarios para lograr preparar y
obtener certificación del examen de reválida
para Ingenieros en
Computadora, que la JE les brinde el examen y
otorge Licencia a los que
lo aprueben y cumplan con los demás
requisitos en Ley; luego crearemos
el Instituto de Ingenieros en Computadoras
con su respectiva
representación ante la Junta de Gobierno.
8.Los problemas existentes que confrontan con
los servicios de la JE serán
atendidos mediante alternativas enérgicas e
innovadoras que ayuden en
las funciones para manejar Casos de Ética y
Defensa de la Profesión y
en las funciones administrativas que se le
brindan a nuestros colegiados.
Respecto al asunto de los Ingenieros en
Entrenamiento (IE) claramente
establecer lo siguiente:
1.Que los logros obtenidos para la práctica
como IE hasta el presente a
través de las leyes 173 de 1988 y 185 de 1997
los conserven en su
totalidad.
2.Que la participación de los IE en los foros
del Colegio se mantenga tan o
más activa que al presente, donde los
Presidentes incumbentes de tres
Capítulos, los pasados dos Secretarios, el
actual Tesorero de la JG son
IE. De igual forma, tenemos muchos IE que
aportan su desinteresado
servicio como miembros de distintas
directivas de Institutos o trabajan en
Comisiones.
Honestamente quiero ayudarlos a que logren
sus respectivas licencias
profesionales para que luego ilimitadamente
practiquen su profesión dentro del
marco de las Leyes vigentes. Como prueba de
este compromiso:
1.Se preparará un plan de trabajo
afirma-tivo, donde se estudiará caso por
caso, indicará acciones individuales y
específicas para cada una de las
distintas áreas técnicas que deben reforzarse
y así vayan mejor
preparados que en ocasiones anteriores y con
mayor posibilidad de
aprobar el examen de la respectiva parte
profesional.
2.Se proveerán recursos de tutoría técnica y
específica e incentivos
económicos para todos los repasos de
reválida.
3.Se agilizará y facilitará el proceso de
solicitud y toma de exámenes
4.Estaremos atento a cualquier otra
sugerencia que se nos traiga a nuestra
atención y pueda lograr que un número mayor
de éstos se licencien en el
menor tiempo posible dentro de las leyes
vigentes.
Mi Plan de trabajo atiende importantes
mejoras en muchas otras áreas:
1.Finalizaremos el diseño para un
estacionamiento multipisos de sobre 200
autos en la Sede, obtendremos la aprobación
de la Asamblea y lo
construiremos; mientras tanto, se reforzará
la vigilancia y se mejorará el
alumbrado en las calles adyacentes a la Sede
para brindarles mayor
protección a nuestros colegiados y
visitantes.
2.Luego que definamos las proyecciones de los
usos a corto y largo plazo
de la Sede, prepararemos un Plan Maestro de
mejoras y ampliaciones
que sea responsivo a las necesidades que éste
establezca.
3.Definiremos las mejoras y expansiones
planificadas a las Casas
Capitulares:
a.construiremos e inauguraremos la Casa
Capitular de Mayagüez.
b.resolveremos el caso del terreno y la Casa
Capitular de Aguadilla.
c.finalizaremos las proyecciones del uso de
la Sub Sede y luego de
obtener el aval de Asamblea, implantaremos lo
decidido y
facilitaremos su ejecución.
d.finalizaremos las posiciones de los
Capítulos Metropolitanos y
lograremos consenso e implementaremos un Plan
Maestro para
atender sus necesidades.
e.Diseñaremos un programa computariza-do de
mantenimiento
preventivo a la Sede, Subsede y demás
instalaciones.
4.Aumentaremos la frecuencia y
reestructuraremos el formato de los
programas radiales y televisivos de
orientación a la ciudadanía.
5.Propulsaremos un plan voluntario de
beneficios complementarios hasta
un límite razonable de ingresos como retiro
para todos los colegiados.
6.Estableceremos una oficina permanente para
atender proactivamente los
asuntos legislativos pertinentes a la
práctica de nuestras profesiones.
Todos estos asuntos son importantes para ti y
dependiendo como se resuelvan
te afectarán dramáticamente. Debe ser parte
de la discusión y exponer tu
posición, No dejes que otros decidan por ti.
No participar ahora, para luego
reclamar que lo aprobado no sirve, no
resuelve tus problemas ni los de los
demás. Tu punto de vista será considerado y
es muy importante para mí; por
eso espero que me puedas indicar en qué estas
de acuerdo y en que no.
Debes tener la absoluta certeza de que tus
puntos meritorios serán adoptados.
En este momento te pido que me respaldes mi
candidatura para Presidir el
Colegio por los años fiscales 2000-2001 y
poder permitirme el culminar los
programas comenzados y que contempláramos
para bien de la Institución.
Debes asistir a nuestra Asamblea para que
puedas participar y ser parte de los
trabajos. Confío en tu prudencia, buen juicio
e inteligencia; se que asistirás,
pues ésta es tu mejor salida.
Espero
saludarte personalmente para que me des el gran privilegio de proteger
la
Sociedad, al Colegio, tu profesión y la mis mediante tu voto. Gracias
anticipadas,
Enclosure 2. Unpublished reply to May 2001 comments by Ing. Iván Nicolau Nin
Readers’
Viewpoint
San
Juan Star
782-0310
Please
note: In the interest of easier
typesetting, I would be happy to send a copy of this letter by e-mail in
whatever format you choose. My email
address is noack@urayoan.uprm.edu.
My
postal address is Thomas L. Noack, P. O. Box 5416, Mayaguez, PR 00681-5416, and home phone (787) 832-4501.
In an article
titled (in translation) “Deficiencies in engineering education in Puerto Rico
denounced”, appearing in El San Juan Star and El Nuevo Día on Sunday May 12,
Iván Nicolau Nin, President of the Puerto Rico College of Engineers and
Surveyors (CIAPR) was quoted as making a number of statements criticizing
engineering programs at the University of Puerto Rico’s Mayagüez campus
(UPRM). Some of the statements made by
Ing. Nicolau are just plain inaccurate, others are quite misleading, and if
believed and acted upon, would damage engineering education at UPRM and the
career prospects of its graduates.
Since
these statements received wide publicity, and since major elements of Ing.
Nicolau’s platform when he ran for CIAPR president were based on extending
CIAPR control over University faculty hiring and curricula, I believe the
article is an accurate picture of his policies as CIAPR president and should be
refuted.
Because
the article did not appear in the Star’s English edition, I will summarize its
main points as they relate to engineering education in Puerto Rico, along with
my comments.
By way of background, to obtain an engineering
license in Puerto Rico, as in most states, one must have an engineering degree
from an accredited engineering school and pass two one-day examinations, one,
called the Fundamentals examination, which can be taken during the last
semester, and the other, called the Principles and Practice examination, is
taken sometime immediately (in PR) or after four years (most states). This exam is designed so it can be passed by
a properly briefed student of average ability.
By contrast, a Ph. D., usually regarded as the basic
qualification for college teaching, requires an excellent academic record,
several years of graduate-level course work, a comprehensive oral and written
exam based on knowledge of the field, and then preparation of a dissertation
that is an original and significant contribution to knowledge in the
field. In all of these requirements the
candidate must demonstrate knowledge and achievement far above that of the
average student or practitioner in his/her specialty.
To be a licensed engineer in Puerto Rico, a
candidate must have an engineering degree accredited either by ABET or by
Puerto Rico, pass both examinations, and be a resident of Puerto Rico at the
time of application. To be a CIAPR
member requires a Puerto Rican license and the payment of $150 per year. The CIAPR membership requirement is peculiar
to Puerto Rico; I know of no state that requires it, or in which licensing is
so pricey.
“In many universities in the
United States, candidates for graduation are required to pass NCEE’s
Fundamentals of Engineering examination before graduation.”
Some, but certainly not a
majority, and not commonly in the most prestigious of schools. Its emphasis has traditionally been on the
common core of civil, mechanical, and industrial engineering, with little
relevance to electrical, chemical, and other branches.
“UPRM is not contracting
faculty with Puerto Rican licenses and CIAPR membership for financial reasons.”
Financial considerations are
not the issue, obtaining the best-qualified faculty is the most important
consideration. The CIAPR requirement is
equivalent to a Puerto Rican residence requirement, for all practical purposes
to a national origin requirement. It
narrows the field of available candidates from graduates of the best Ph. D.
programs in the US to local people who have had the time to spend in PR
satisfying the residence requirement.
“The UPRM curriculum contains
gaps, including that the industrial engineering department does not teach
robotics, and that the surveying curriculum in the civil engineering department
does not teach the law of property and that its curricula are not adapted to
the realities of work in engineering.”
Robotics is taught in the
mechanical and electrical engineering departments, the natural place for this
specialty. In the electrical
engineering department, it is taught at the undergraduate and graduate levels
by three professors, all CIAPR members, two with Ph. D’s and one with an
Engineer’s degree (a sort of super Master’s degree) from MIT. The surveying curriculum is directed toward
licensing requirements, and was designed by two faculty members who are former
members of the Puerto Rico Examining Board.
“Several state agencies,
including UPRM, the Water Authority, the Electric Authority, and the Authority
of Public Buildings are violating the law by hiring nonmembers of CIAPR.”
Some years ago, CIAPR lost a
lawsuit regarding its attempts to enforce CIAPR membership as a hiring
requirement for faculty at UPR. UPRM is
not violating the law, it is hiring the best qualified. CIAPR continues to interfere with University
autonomy in order to exercise control over the University.
“UPR is opposing requiring
CIAPR membership and Puerto Rican licenses as a requirement for teaching
engineering.”
He is correct, the
University is doing so, in the interests of its students, and the quality of
the education it gives them, in order to obtain the best-qualified faculty, and
in order to safeguard its position as an equal-opportunity employer.
“The Highway Authority and
Polytechnic University are requiring licenses and CIAPR membership.”
Polytechnic University, at
the time it applied for ABET accreditation, had not a single Ph. D. on its
electrical engineering faculty. UPRM
has not hired a single non-Ph. D. in the last 20 years, excepting those who
were hired with the expectation of obtaining the Ph. D. as a condition of
continued employment. Based on my
observation of ABET inspections over the last 45 years, and in particular the
scrutiny given to UPRM, I don’t see how it was accredited. It has a four-year curriculum, directed
toward passing the Fundamentals exam, in contrast to UPRM’s very selective and
nationally recognized five-year program.
Ing
Nicolau-Nin was elected as Vice president of CIAPR several years ago, a
position that carries near-automatic advancement to president. When he ran for president last year, his
platform included planks requiring CIAPR review of curriculum changes,
continued attempts to require CIAPR membership for engineering faculty, and
modifications of curricula to relate it directly to the content of the NCEE
Fundamentals exam. He is one of several
CIAPR presidents in recent years to denigrate and attempt to interfere with the
University. It should be noted that
CIAPR is quite a closed, inbred organization.
To vote for CIAPR officers one must attend its annual convention, always
held at one of the resort hotels on the eastern end of the island, at a cost of
$800 in recent years. Mail or other
voting that would allow most members to vote has never been permitted. Nominations are even more closed; done by a
nominating committee composed of the best old boys.
The licensing law was modified in 1997, but even though the draft statute included the CIAPR membership requirement for faculty, the University was not invited to comment orally by the legislative committee considering the bill. It was allowed to make a written presentation after asking to do so. For several reasons this was really a one-sided statute that received little public review.
For these and other reasons I believe the time has
come for the Legislature to review the present licensing statute. This review should include reconsidering
government sponsorship of CIAPR and requiring membership as a condition of
licensing and practicing engineering.
It should consider whether licensing should be required for employment
in private industry as opposed to practice before the public. It should also review the present excessive
bureaucratic requirements for renewing a license. Except for its review of building codes, I know of no public
purpose served by the Colegio’s existence in recent years, rather than
providing support for engineering education, it seeks to control and downgrade
it, and it appears to have degenerated into a self-perpetuating lobby with
little discernible benefit to the public or the profession.
Thomas L. Noack, Ph. D., P.
E.
Mayaguez