Continue to Site

Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet

Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals

  • Congratulations IDS on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!

Beating the Licensure system?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JKStruct

Structural
Jan 3, 2007
97
Let me first just state that I am a structural EIT. I have not taken, nor passed, any PE exam. And I believe it's laudable for everyone that gets their name on a stamp. But, let me stand on a soap box for a minute...

I have many friends that graduated with the same civil engineering degree as me (both undergrad, and grad). Those same friends are now practicing in various fields. And, I had a disturbing conversation with one of my fellow alums that perpetuated an ethical dilemma I've thought about for awhile.

He's a structural engineer. When we've talked about the test, he said he's taking the (name redacted) specific exam in lieu of Structural I, because it's "easier," and most of his coworkers have done the same. My first reaction was questioning how he could know anything about another discipline, but he was devout in saying that he could memorize (redacted) engineering for a few months better than he can learn enough structural engineering to pass. This greatly bothered me.

I've seen numerous posts on these forums that people take an easy way out in order to get the PE after your name. My contention is that you should take the test in the discipline of which you're currently practicing. If you can't pass the structural I, I wouldn't feel comfortable being in a building or on a bridge you sealed. If you can't pass the test in the discipline closest to your current practice, shouldn't you be in another discipline? It's fine to have a bad day and need a second attempt. But to cheat the system by taking a different exam?? If I can't pass Structural I, I won't relegate myself to an alternate test that I may be able to memorize and pass, just so I can seal drawings for a building. Did we not all get a silver ring and vowed to the public that we would protect their safety? Someone correct me if I'm missing something.

Just my two cents...
 
Replies continue below

Recommended for you

Hmmm. That is an interesting question. I find it hard to believe that one can pass a PE exam in another field, but not ones' own.

I will give you another scenario. In Canada, a P.Eng is not discipline based. I can have an undergrad degree in civil, after fulfilling my requirements, have a P. Eng, and all along, be practicing in the electrical engineering field. The P. Eng requires that I belive that I am competent in the field that I work in. If I belive that, I have met the ethical requirements of my P.Eng.

In the US, is the PE by discipline or is the PE discipline neutral. If I have a PE in mechanical engineering, can I not also work in chemical if I am competent - or do I need to get a PE in chemical as well.

Depending on the requirements of the PE, and the rules, the situation you describe may or may not be unethical.

In any case, I would hope that the structural PE that I hired can pass the PE in structural. Does that help?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?
 
I'm inclined to feel the same as you.

However it's part of the reason I didn't get such great grades at uni. I picked courses based on what I was interestested in/thought would be useful etc. I dont' think I ever made any decisions based on what was easy.

I now have a manager who openly says he only took courses at school which had a high pass rate and that he dropped any courses that were difficult.

If I ever get my act together to get on the EIT/PE track now I've moved to the US I'll sure be tempted by the easy route.

I'll be interested to see what others say, is it 'unethical' or just good business sense, maximum return for minimum effort?


 
Yeah, you're right. There is a big downside to what they're doing, though. I assume you're talking about people who take the CE PE test instead of the Strl I.

These people will never have SE after their name. Several states won't let them seal drawings there--EVER. As time goes on, surely more and more will require the Strl II and a SE license. Bldg codes and licensure are like ratchets that only go one way--tighter, right? When you correctly take the Strl I and II and become a SE, you'll have a leg up on them.

There's also the marketing/resume aspect of it. If these guys decide to apply for a job at one of the ultra high end firms, the interviewer is going to want to know why they're not a SE. Sophisticated enough clients might also hold it against them.

Finally, there's the simple fact that you will benefit from studying for the Strl I whereas they'll waste their time studying a bunch of worthless (to us) stuff. The fact that the rest of CE might be easier is doofus, IMO. If one hasn't done that stuff in 5-10 years, it's not that easy.

This also brings about the entire question of whether a structural engineer is really a CE. Technically we are, but we're a lot closer cousins to several other types of engineering than the rest of CE. Hopefully licensure folks will catch onto this at some point.
 
A lot of states don't specifically license structural engineers, and there's not a lot of advantage to taking structural tests in those states. In the event requirements change, or they want to practice in more restrictive states, then they can take the structural tests later.

It would seem very odd and cumbersome to take tests in a field not your major (IE, taking ME or ChE or IE tests when you're in civil or structural)- I can't imagine that it would be that much easier than the field in your major.
 
KENAT - have you ever looked at any of the SE papers? How did they compare with the structures you did at uni?



Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
 
I didn't get that far, I balked when I realized my degree (BEng Aerospace Systems University of Southampton UK) or most of my experience back in the UK wouldn't directly count toward being eligible for EIT let alone PE here in California. As far as I could tell I’m not eligible to take the EIT exam until I have more appropriate experience or an accredited degree.

I need to look into it all again, I started looking at getting US bachelors but financially & logistically that looks difficult at the moment.

I can’t remember, are there examples anywhere on line, maybe I’ll take a look.

I’ve got to admit a lot of my professional experience has been as a glorified Draftsman/Designer & Project manager rather than doing detailed analysis etc.
 
Oh yeah, just remembered the other thing is that there isn't an EIT/PE for Aerospace, at least in CA, as the industry is exempt I was looking at the mechanical as most closely matching my industry experience.

I'm now working as mechanical designer in another exempt field although there are some PEs here.
 
JStephen: "It would seem very odd and cumbersome to take tests in a field not your major (IE, taking ME or ChE or IE tests when you're in civil or structural)- I can't imagine that it would be that much easier than the field in your major."

I think a lot of these people don't have broad backgrounds. The Strl I & II tests cover 8 different topics.

If somebody hasn't designed using wood or concrete, for example, they'd have a hard time getting up to speed. Perhaps their firm did all masonry & bar joist bldgs or metal bldgs. They might consider it easier to get back up to speed on hydraulics, traffic, surveying, etc.

There's also the fact that some idiot decided to make a chunk of the Strl I test bridge design. Nobody I know designs both, so bldg people have to limp through bridge and I have no clue what bridge guys do. It's almost comical that I am qualified to do ANYTHING with a bridge except drive over it, LOL. Some of these things just don't make any sense.
 
a lot of people go that route. it's because the state he works in doesn't require an S-1 to practice. just a PE, probably.
 
swivel63, I'm sure that's true, but it's still beyond me that ANY structural engineer would want to study all that non-strl CE stuff.

The Strl-I is not that difficult and should not be a problem. If somebody thinks the Strl-I is hard, then I feel about like the OP about going into one of their buildings!

Perhaps some people think the Strl-I would be easy, but that the CE stuff would be even easier. That's not quite so bad I suppose.
 
well, that's just it.....from what i hear, the civil PE is easier than the S-1 exam because it's less in depth. plus look at the pass rates.
 
I'm in agreement with 271828. If someone thinks the Str I is hard, they may not be ready to be licensed. I'm currently in a state that doesn't have an SE license, but I moved here from IL, where there is a separate SE license requiring STR I & II. All of the SEs I knew are much better engineers for having passed both exams. As much of a pain as it would be, I think all states should require both. After all, we're designing buildings to be occupied, not making sure parking lots drain properly...
 
swivel63, isn't that a little pathetic, though? LOL. The Strl-I is not THAT in-depth. All the questions were pretty basic for anybody who designs regularly. The Strl-II was another story altogether!

Also, I guess I'm just so heavily slanted toward structures that studying those other CE subjects, even if they are easy, is about enough to make me wanna hurl.
 
it IS pathetic, but hey.....if they like it, i love it. it's up to the individual state to determine how good they want their structural engineers to be.
 
i didn't think the S-1 was overly difficult.....i've had tougher college exams. but keep in mind, i think i also studied a whole lot, too.

my former mentor took it the same time i took it, and i passed and he didn't. probably why he's not my mentor anymore.....but not by my own doing, though.

i can see how it's difficult, but personally i thought it was doable and plenty of time was given. i had about half an hour to 45 min left over in both the morning and afternoon to redo problems i had a tough time with.
 
Ashereng
In the US, is the PE by discipline or is the PE discipline neutral. If I have a PE in mechanical engineering, can I not also work in chemical if I am competent - or do I need to get a PE in chemical as well.
The PE test itself is by discipline, but what you can actually practice depends on the state. Some states only allow you to sign work in your degreed and/or tested area. Others follow your model such that once you have your PE if you feel you are competent you can sign and take responsibility for any discipline. The thought process is that you are taking legal responsibility for a design. If its not right then you have to fix it and deal with whatever consequences that might bring.

I think that is why a lot of states have gone to this specialized structural requirement, as well as specialized requirements for people doing sprinkler and fire alarm designs as well. If I screw up a structural/sprinkler/fire alarm design people (possibly lots) may die before my incompetent design is ever discovered. If I screw up my HVAC or plumbing design, things may be uncomfortable or the toilets might not flush but their is not a high probability that it will directly lead to death. Not that it can't, just not very likely.

It is very common in my area for a single engineer to be the engineer of record on three construction disciplines, plumbing, mechanical (HVAC), and electrical. A lot of them used to do the fire protection as well but those people are fewer and far between.

This also is a pain in the rear when working in multiple states. One state might allow you to do plumbing, mechanical, and electrical, another state may say your degree is mechanical so that is all you can do. Another might say your PE exam was electrical so that is all you can do, etc, etc.. repeat 50 times. Add in accredited schools vs. non accredited schools and various work experience requirements and it can be a royal pain to practice in more than one state in more than one discipline.

All this being said, I think we will see more and more states enact discipline specific practice requirements. Which could ultimately lead to needing both a mechanical and electrical PE if you want to do both, etc. The classic engineer that could competently practice multiple disciplines is dieing very quickly.

 
Ok, I am one of the people who took the CIVIL PE this last April. I took the Civil PE with structural module in the afternoon. To be honest, I was a little confused with what Structural I really was, I thought it had something to do with seismic design/california. I wish they had more explaination on the website and I would have taken structural 1. I didnt know structural 1 you also get a stamp like a PE. I guess I have to start studying again and register for structural 1? Or shall I just not worry about it since all you need is a civil PE for designing houses? Is structural 1 has both morning and afternoon session similar to structural module in civil PE or is it harder? I thought the morning session for civil PE was easy. Do they maybe put easier structural questions in the morning and then put structural question similar to afternoon structural module in the afternoon?
 
I'd recommend going ahead and taking the Strl I. You might want to practice in another state and/or more states might start requiring a SE license.

I don't know if the Strl I is harder or not. It's an 8 hour test covering 8 structural subjects.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Part and Inventory Search

Sponsor