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?

 

[Just Some Nerd]

In agreement with you Koot regarding engineers abandoning ethics as a matter of choice. Given discussions in my work/things I've read here before, we all seem to know the only real solutions to that problem would consist of changing the industry (somehow) so that we aren't incentivised to abandon ethics in favour of pleasing clients (or saving our own time=money) in the first place. A very difficult proposition when the one paying the bills is also the one who doesn't want you to act ethically.

 

[wrantler]

I guess my ethics comment was around upholding of the profession... which I feel us (non)opinionated people can get caught up in. We all have thoughts and opinions but we should not be overly critical of each other as we never fully understand the context of another's decision in many circumstances.

It seems like a weak spot that clients can attack is all I am saying.

I always wonder why some areas have a SE test and designation. Does this let you charge more? Is it a peepee measure contest? Does it cut out the guys that will stamp anything and undercut honest proprietors? Are you saying universities do not teach enough to make SE's?

If I was to be devils advocate I would question whether we need a seismic engineer designation to do work in heavy seismic areas.

 

[Aesur]

Does this let you charge more?

Not at all.

Is it a peepee measure contest?

For some it's similar to a PHD status (measuring contest), but for most SE just allows you to practice in certain states that require the SE (there are more than don't require it).

Does it cut out the guys that will stamp anything and undercut honest proprietors?

No, there are both PE's and SE's who race to the bottom with fees.

Are you saying universities do not teach enough to make SE's?

I would even say the universities aren't teaching you enough to pass the PE in many cases unless you get a masters now days.

 

[WARose]

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?

Man, 21 hrs with more questions?! Yikes. Glad my testing days are over. (I passed the "old" SE I & II.)

 

[canwesteng]

IStructE seems worse in many ways, since it's even narrower in scope to residential/commercial. The way BC uses it, as a license to design high rises, is fine, but it would be a terrible general prupose structural exam.

 

[phamENG]

I have zero exposure to the IStructE beyond their website: Link.

That at least sounds like an excellent framework. And it could be modified to fit lots of different areas. You could have a mill/industrial steel building, a steel office building, a concrete structure (could be a pump station, parking structure, office building, etc.), a wood multifamily building, and something else - maybe a masonry warehouse/office? You could even have one options that's miscellaneous structures - a retaining wall, a tank, a pier, etc. In each one, you can mix materials enough that you test a bit of everything - they all have concrete foundations, add a steel moment frame to the wood building, etc.

But it does a lot to test the 'softer' engineer skills that are so important as well as the continuity of technical concepts that are broken up by multiple choice tests or even written answers that focus on one topic.

I also really like the idea of the interview process. I think it would be beneficial to have an interview after the exam. It would serve a two purposes: further test the knowledge of the candidate and validate the written test results. For instance: if somebody made a lucky guess on something (hard to do in the long form test, but could happen - can certainly happen in the MC test), a follow up question about it could reveal the gap in their knowledge. Or if somebody is just a wretched test taker and didn't quite pass, but they were able to speak competently on the subject to a panel the next day...it's reasonable to say that the test didn't quite measure their abilities accurately. That's not to say that the test should just be thrown out, but some measure of agency and decision making power on the part of the interviewers (with proper accountability) could be prudent.

This is how we handled qualifications in nuclear power in the Navy. Each qualification (from being allowed to talk on the phones in the power plant up to operating the nuclear reactor itself) involved a practical learning period where we had to do every task expected of that position for somebody who was already qualified and get signatures attesting to our knowledge and experience, a written test, and then an oral board with an officer of varying rank based on the qualification in question. (As a 19 year old, explaining the inner workings of a nuclear reactor for 2 hours to the CO of an aircraft carrier is...intimidating.) If you failed the written exam a certain number of times, you could request an extended oral board as a means of testing your mastery of the information. I think it's a really good and effective model - when implemented properly.

 

[Lomarandil]

I feel like if I am paying 1000$ to go take a test, the 1400$ doesn't feel prohibitive.

Agreed. Heck, call it an inflation increase. And if the CBT really does go to Pearson centers (like XX speculated later), the net cost may in fact decrease. A lot easier to travel to one of umpteen Pearson locations than the state-sponsored locations, even if you take it in your home state.

1. Scrolling through a PDF is never going to be as efficient as browsing a physical book. Since this is a timed exam that is woefully calibrated for time as is, it makes the test that much harder.

2. You aren't able to bring additional resources. I'm pretty sure I passed Vertical because I was able to knock off like 2-3 morning questions by just referencing the SERM and following the steps. Even if I could have figured those questions out it probably saved me valuable time from looking up formulas in codes.

Bingo. I don’t think that those concerned that the SE will get easier have a leg to stand on, given these points.

I think the majority of the value of these tests was the actual preparation process of studying the codes and marking the relevant locations in each of the code books. That experience remains and you have a tangible tool at the end of it that you can use in your test and practice. The CBT eliminates all that since you can't bring any of those books into the test with you, assuming that the SE CBT will be run similar to the PE version.

I see your point, but I think the savvy student will still tab and study in a similar manner. Speed is key, and I don’t know any way to study for CBT resources except to know another copy inside and out.

If they really cared about the profession IMO they would have a test that is about detailing, load paths, or even figuring out basic loading on a structure.

In theory, that’s exactly what the Depth test questions were meant to cover. Not as well as the IStructE interview, but reasonably I felt. I hope that the way the depth multiple choice questions are structured will similarly cover those topics. And for those who haven't written the SE -- don't worry about it being easy to solve the problem by eliminating wrong answers. That may cut it on the PE exam, but in my experience, the SE exam was more wiley.

Don’t forget that most states (all?) still require a candidate to pass the exams and submit relevant experience for review before we can call ourselves SEs. At least California requires SE experience to be substantial, diverse, and following your date of initial licensure as a PE. I wouldn’t want them to go the way the PE is now, when you can sit for the test straight out of university – this setup requires some substantial real-world practical experience.

 

[KootK]

If I was to be devils advocate I would question whether we need a seismic engineer designation to do work in heavy seismic areas.

That's basically what the SE/StructEng designations are. They mostly originated -- and are still most prevalent -- in the regions of the continent where seismicity is greatest.

It then became a bit awkward for aseismic states to, effectively, be saying "Meh, moderately qualified structural engineers are probably good enough for us, right?? Hurricanes and tornadoes don't require all that much ductility". That's a bit like me saying "Meh, I've got two kidneys, maybe I'll let my hairdresser do the transplant".

 

[phamENG]

Hurricanes and tornadoes don't require all that much ductility".

Of all places, Georgia is the one going against the grain here. They have a full on SE designation now that I don't qualify for. I can only get a "Civil" designation unless I sit for the SE exam. You'd think Florida would first, but....it's Florida. Surprising enough that Georgia embraced more regulation. Florida will do that sometime after it freezes over. That or hell, not sure which will be first. (I'm a born and raised Floridian and miss it terribly, so I'm allowed to say such things.)

maybe I'll let my hairdresser do the transplant

I think you mean barber.

 

[WARose]

The thing I am wondering about a computer based SE exam: how will you provide sketches...or is that gone? I seem to remember when I took the SE II, I had to sketch out a few details.

 

[TheDW]

The thing I am wondering about a computer based SE exam: how will you provide sketches...or is that gone? I seem to remember when I took the SE II, I had to sketch out a few details.

It is going to be 'drag and drop'...the example they gave in their podcast was choosing the rebar shape to drag into a sketch, and being able to adjust its dimensions, or adjusting the dimensions of a protected zone in steel framing. So kindof similar to sketching in bluebeam from what I gather

 

[TheDW]

Link to said podcast if you're very bored

SE exam discussion starts at about the 8:50 mark

 

[WARose]

So kindof similar to sketching in bluebeam from what I gather

Definitely glad my testing days are over.