Changes in SE Testing 8

[JedClampett]

I don't think this has been mentioned on this forum yet, but NCEES is intending that the SE go to 21 hours (from 16) and $1400 (from $1000). See

https://www.structuremag.org/?p=21592.

Luckily, my testing days are over. But I need to have replacements for me when I leave. And believe me, someday I'll leave.
Is our profession testing and pricing ourselves out of business?

 

[phamENG]

Removing the test probably isn't the answer - as bones mentioned the medical model, doctors have to take board exams. And they have to retake them every 6 to 10 years.

 

[bones206]

But the boards exams are like minimum competency exams that a doctor should be able to pass without excessive effort. The meat and potatoes of their credentials are the years of training as residents and fellows. That's real experience that gets evaluated, accredited and certified.

 

[phamENG]

bones - I agree with you.

And I think we should maintain an exam that ensures at least minimum competency as well. The PE - Structural exam is an easy exam and takes little effort to pass. I think making the test harder is fine - probably should be harder - as long as it's harder in ways that matter. Just adding more multiple choice questions or asking about obscure nonsense doesn't help anyone (except, perhaps, NCEES). I like Aesur's idea about the contents of the exam.

 

[KootK]

I don't believe that any of this stuff represents any kind of "money grab" on the part of NCEES. On balance, I think that they are a decent organization that generally offers good service in what is surely a weird space to operate. Did I like it when they threw my 20 yrs of record keeping away to go digital? No, I did not. But now that it is digital, I think that it's a pretty solid system.

From my perspective as an existing SE, what I most want out of this is for existing SE's to have, effectively, lifetime grandfathering on the examination front. From FE, through the old setup, to the 16HR, I've now participated seven days worth of examination en route to my licensure as a structural engineer. If I decide that I want Nevada's SE for some reason five years from now, it strikes me as horribly unequitable that Nevada might be able to deny me because I've not passed whatever the latest version of the SE exam is at that time.

I don't actually need the SE --- or even the PE -- for my jurisdiction of residence. For me, being current on the SE exam front isn't so much about business card "bling" as it is about preserving my credibility and mobility as a structural engineering professional. Earlier in my career, I was happy to hop a few hurdles in order to enhance the legitimacy of the profession. At this point, however, I feel that I've done enough.

British Columbia is probably the hardest jurisdiction in North America in which to get an SE license. I still don't have it even though I'm a native son of that province. One of the reasons that I did the 16HR SE was because it currently satisfies the examination requirement for a BC SE. Will it still be acceptable come 2024 if I haven't gotten the licensure sorted out by then? I would hope so but I certainly don't know so. Like all states and provinces, BC is at liberty to do as they see fit. I cite this as one example of how inconvenient this endless hoop jumping can be.

 

[DrZoidberWoop]

If the USA is transitioning from an in-person SE exam to a computer exam, but charging more money, it is 1000% a camouflaged money-grab.

 

[KootK]

I don't see how you could possibly know that. You don't know anything about what NCEES's costs are and are not. I was previously involved in similar efforts with the Wood Truss Council of America back in the day. The setup and administration of those systems can cost real money, especially right out of the gate.

Organizations like NCEES and WTCA mostly just want what all businesses want: to provide value to their customers in exchange for a reasonable profit. If there's a problem with NCEES at present, I would say that it is that practicing engineers are NOT their customers for the most part (other than the nominal cost of record transmission). This tends to skew incentives in a direction that does not always serve practicing engineers as well as it might. But, hey, who am I to tell NCEES what their business model ought to be?

If an organization is out for a quick buck, I doubt that licensure exams is fertile ground for that. It's not as though Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk have been banging at the gates to get in.

 

[DrZoidberWoop]

It doesn’t matter if I know it or not. If the price increases from hundreds to thousands, just to take the exam, then it transitions from a personally acceptable financial gamble to a company/corporate risk, which is a terrible line for the structural engineering community to take. Think of the next 2 or 3 steps beyond what is happening now and realize what it will do the the next few generations of domestic engineers.

 

[KootK]

It doesn’t matter if I know it or not.

It absolutely does matter given that you are, effectively, defaming an organization (a group of people) without providing anything remotely resembling evidence for your claims.

...it transitions from a personally acceptable financial gamble to a company/corporate risk, which is a terrible line for the structural engineering community to take.

And just how does that equate to NCEES being out to screw us for profit like a bunch of nefarious Sith Lords?

Think of the next 2 or 3 steps beyond what is happening now and realize what it will do the the next few generations of domestic engineers.

I really don't see the big deal regarding future generations. They'll just have to put on their big girl pants and jump the hurdles like everybody else. One way or another, the costs always get passed along to the consumer.

 

[KootK]

For example, my colleagues and superiors are highly specialized steel connection/fabrication engineers. To predicate our ability to practice our specialty, in a given state, on an exam that is 80% irrelevant to our skillset is 100% bullshit.

I see your point but disagree with this as well. If somebody's designing major connections for major buildings, I feel that they should possess at least the amount of generalist knowledge required to pass the SE exam which, in my opinion, amounts to pretty entry level stuff. As you well know, some of the most difficult aspects of the design of lateral systems on major structures is the connections. As an EOR, I want to be discussing those connections with a connection engineer who understands ductility, capacity design, diaphragms, concrete anchorage etc...

 

[bones206]

NCEES is a nonprofit so I believe it has to operate within certain parameters to receive tax exempt status.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/570341195

Not to say these type of nonprofits are immune from nefarious scams to generate profit for individuals while simultaneously enjoying tax exemptions. Numerous examples of that throughout America. But like KootK says, engineering seems like an odd choice for that sort of scheme when there much "riper" opportunities for grift out there.

 

[DrZoidberWoop]

"It absolutely does matter given that you are, effectively, defaming an organization (a group of people) without providing anything remotely resembling evidence for your claims"

Wrong. As the bureaucratic element increases, the prices increase. As the prices increase, the local community suffers.

"I really don't see the big deal regarding future generations. They'll just have to put on their big girl pants and jump the hurdles like everybody else."

This does not square with the recent developments in the industry. If that is the attitude, then credentialism will reign.

 

[phamENG]

This does not square with the recent developments in the industry. If that is the attitude, then credentialism will reign.

To which recent developments are you referring? (I'm genuinely curious about what you're talking about.)

And as long as the credentials have meaning, then that's not altogether bad. Is it possible for somebody who hasn't passed the exam to do engineering and do it well? Sure. But how do we vet that? How will whatever we come up with to measure that ability not just become the next credential?

 

[KootK]

Wrong.

How is it that I am wrong? Is it because of the statement below in which you express your very general view of how the industry works without supplying any specific evidence to support your accusation that NCEES is out to screw us out of our money? Given that you made that claim with 1000% certainty -- 10X more than complete certainty -- I would have thought that you'd have something concrete-ish.

As the bureaucratic element increases, the prices increase. As the prices increase, the local community suffers.

If that is the attitude, then credentialism will reign.

And just how much work do you suppose structural engineers would have if one did not require a credential to do the work? The margins of safety that we rightly impose upon our work make it impossible for our services to ever be sold in a true free market environment. That's why we have credentials. If you are philosophically opposed to engineers having credentials, you may be in the wrong line of work. Yes, it is to the benefit of all that our credentials be meaningful and not superfluous.

 

[skeletron]

MC choices are probably the worst way to test competency. As stated above, the IStructE is probably the gold standard because it's purely conceptual and skill-based -- you have to know how to develop the right solution and back it up, not just eliminate the wrong solutions. Plus, I think IStructE has some sort of panel interview which is a great way to check competency. I just can't realistically take a week off work, family, dog, etc. to travel out of jurisdiction to pass an exam.

I know when I questioned BC about this (having to pass an out-of-jurisdiction test to practice in the jurisdiction) their answer was pretty simple. The infrastructure to create an exam like the SE or IStructE is pretty comprehensive. Having an organization do that is a big undertaking...probably one that shouldn't involve solely engineers because you need educators to really be part of the development process.

Hot Take: I don't think any of this should be grandfathered. If yr gonna re-establish and calibrate the standards, have the old farts take it with everyone else on some sort of recurring basis. You passed it 20 years ago? Great. Do it again.

 

[KootK]

You passed it 20 years ago? Great. Do it again.

Tough talk from a guy unwilling to do it the first time.

I just can't realistically take a week off work, family, dog, etc. to travel out of jurisdiction to pass an exam.

You had me at "dog" though. It would take the impending arrival of a world ending comet to get me to miss walk-o-clock. And even then, I might chose that as the best way to spend my remaining hour.

 

[skeletron]

Tough talk from a guy unwilling to do it the first time.

Ha! You got me! Could you imagine how inconvenient and impractical that would be to have every practicing SE march down to the testing facility to recertify their designation?!

There are similarities in this discussion with the general situation happening with international medical doctors in Canada having to be tested, fees paid, etc. etc. all to do the same (similar) job as before and fill a void.

I am "FOR" certification standards and modernizing them. I just think they need to be reimagined beyond an MC test. I think they need to consider the heavy concentration of different brains (neurodiversity) in the field, and the incoming evolution of having different bodies (abilities/disabilities/etc) in the field. And I think they need to be made accessible. In that light, I see the 3days + travel as a deal breaker for accessibility not the $1400, especially when you consider the passing rate.

Limit the travel out (have proctored or virtual exam seatings) and the exam gets maybe a little more accessible in my eyes.
Same thing with graduate degrees. Before those become mandatory, you have to make sure the financial accessibility to that education component is available. Right now, I would say they are out of reach for most when considered as a necessity.

 

[KootK]

I see the situation with doctors being identical to that with engineers in the sense that both are primarily about the public's perception of competence rather than the reality of competence.

Call me a xenophobe but no way, no how would I be allowing a doctor trained in in parts unknown to me to do my liver transplant until they've been vetted by the north American medical establishment. Foreign trained doctors probably are excellent. They may well be better. However, when it comes to the high stakes stuff, "probably" is nowhere sure enough.

 

[wrantler]

I wish engineers were forced to take more business/ethics based courses. A good engineer goes way past being able to put loads on a beam...the best understand risk management well.

It seems we beat each other up sometimes trying to be righteous. In my area I do not need a SE for structural work.

I have seen engineers with a PHD over analyze problems and get lost in the weeds. And then there is the guy that will stamp anything for $300.

 

[KootK]

The trouble with risk management, I feel, is that it's nearly impossible to price risk accurately in our space. It has been my experience that guys who are a more cavalier than I am tend to do a lot better than I do. And I myself tend to be a bit cavalier relative to others on this forum.

I'm not a fan of ethics training for engineers. Which is not to say that I'm not a fan of ethics. I simply feel that we're all smart enough to mostly know when we're doing wrong but simply do wrong occasionally as a matter of choice. All the ethics training in the world doesn't do a lick of good if one's evaluation of perceived risk is going to lead them to play fast and loose with the rules anyhow. I took the same P.Eng ethics exam as all Canadian engineers. And what did that get me? I now know that I'm not supposed to take bribes or steal copyrighted material until it's public domain? Glad we got that cleared up.

I'm tainted by having come up as an EIT in the US but I find it bizarre that a Canadian P.Eng can do structural work without having passed any technical exams whatsoever (no FE, no PE, no nothing but the bachelor's degree). I think that it's telling that the Struct Eng exam in BC does have a testing requirement. I suspect that will be a harbinger of things to come in Canada.

 

[ggcdn]

Regarding all the discussion about the money-grab / price increase - I suspect they are going to outsource the CBT exam to Pearson test centers, just like they did for the FE exam. And I suspect, given that there are potentially 3 or 4 half-day sittings to complete the exam, all of the fee increase and more will go straight to Pearson.

I guess I'm in SE purgatory now - deciding if I should push to write the paper exam or wait and do the CBT.

-JA
try [link calcs.app]Calcs.app[/url] and let me know what you think