P.E. licensure in New Jersey

[jonkirk31]

Have any of you been granted P.E. licensure in New Jersey by way of taking the 16-hour Structural (S.E.) exam?

I took and passed the 16-hour S.E. exam in Pennsylvania as my first and only exam to receive P.E. licensure in PA, and then became licensed as a P.E. in MD, VA, WV, NY, DE, and DC via comity with no problems with any of the state boards, even though none of these states have any special recognition for S.E. licensure - all only give a regular P.E. but none had any issues with the 16-hour exam.

I finally got around to applying for my P.E. in New Jersey this year and received a letter in response that basically recognizes what exam I took and then states that "there was no indication that you passed the Principles and Practices portion of the NCEES examination, which was required by the NJ Board at the time of your initial licensure. Please be advised that the Board does not recognize the Structural I and Structural II examinations as substitutes for the Principles and Practices (Part P) portion of the NCEES examination. At this time, and until you can demonstrate that you have taken and passed the Principals & Practice examination, your application cannot be considered for approval."

Prior to responding to the NJ Board, I was hoping to see if there is anyone out there who has come across this with New Jersey before and if anyone has advice on how to proceed?

Anyone familiar with the 16-hour S.E. exam would logically conclude that this exam successfully demonstrates competency to practice engineering, but due to its special designation (not technically called a P.E. exam), it looks like NJ Board is either too lazy to formally review and approve it, or else is just not familiar with the exam to understand what it is. I tend to want to give them the benefit of the doubt and think the latter case may be true since the letter I received came from their Executive Director and he incorrectly referred to the exams as the Structural I and Structural II, which are obsolete not what I had indicated that I took.

Obviously my goal here is to receive P.E. licensure in New Jersey without having to go and take a regular P.E. exam, so anyone with some advice or feedback on how that may or may not be possible would be much appreciated.

Thanks,

Jon

 

[jonkirk31]

TehMightyEngineer,

I'll see where I get with exhausting all possibilities to get them to recognize the SE exam, and if they don't I will definitely make an effort to get them to reevaluate their current regulations with a letter at the very least, and possibly try to get one of the local chapters of the various structural engineering associates to write them a letter as well. And I'd figure the more people that scream about it, the better chance of getting heard, so I'll definitely keep you posted about my progress.

I have been considering making a formal response in writing but I think I'm first going to try to get the guy who wrote the letter on the phone to hopefully get a better explanation of where they're coming from before formally responding. I wonder if they're even familiar with the 16-hour SE exam; this could be a case of ignorance, especially considering the Executive Director of the Board is the one who wrote the letter and referred to the old Structural I and Structural II exams. If that is the case, their ignorance would be inexcusable but it at least would be a logical explanation as to why they aren't recognizing that exam, and perhaps we could get the board to at least take a look at it and evaluate its worthiness and issue an addendum of some sort to formally recognize it as an acceptable exam for P.E. licensure.

 

[sforesman]

I'm on a national committee that promotes SE licensure and has a high ranking member of NCEES included. I'm sure we'd be interested in hearing more about your specific issue. Is there private messaging system with this forum for us to connect?

 

[jonkirk31]

sforesman,
That would be amazing to get some support from a larger organization. I feel like that would be much more effective and taken more seriously than just a single disgruntled engineer being denied licensure.

I don't know of any PM system on this forum, and their rules state not to post emails, phone numbers or other personal information so I don't want to get in trouble from the people who run this great forum. Not sure how else to tell you to get in touch with me. Perhaps if you say what committee you're on, I can find the committee's contact info online and reach out to you that way?

 

[Archie264]

Jonkirk31,

Ignorance? Yeah, maybe. That’s one of the possibilities. But I’ve had a bit of time to think about it and it dawned on me that there might be something else going on. Professional licensure is a barrier to entry to a profession, one that it’s good to be on this side of. And to that end, certain requirements imposed by various states sure seem to resemble intentional barriers against practice by professionals in neighboring states, or states with large populations of engineers that could poach work from the locals.

With that in mind it is also worth noting that New Jersey has quite a reputation for…(how do I put this politely?)…well, for keeping people out of professions. If you’ve been there you know there are no self-serve gas stations as that would take work away from our friends in the Brotherhood of Fumebreathers, or whatever they call themselves. Governor Chrispy Cream got revenge on people in a certain region by shutting down a commuter bridge into New York thereby preventing them from getting to work. And try practicing a trade there without being in a union: they’d shut down the bridge again to ceremonially throw you off it with cinderblocks tied to your legs. Am I being unfair? No, that state’s protectivist body of work speaks for itself.

So, with that in mine, it is entirely plausible that what they’ve done regarding structural licensure is actually intentional. Cumbersome though it may be it nevertheless accomplishes the goal of keeping newcomers out of their market. If that’s the case (and sure, I’m the one being ridiculous here [rolls eyes]) then, jonkirk31, your only option is to retake the test in another discipline. And is distasteful as that is, having just passed the 16-hour exam, time (and business) is a-wasting. Return to the books, young man.

That’s the bad news. There might be a glimmer of hope, though. New Jersey is not a normal state in that its northern portion is essentially a continuation of New York City. And there’s an entity, (very) arguably the greatest civil engineering organization that’s ever existed, known as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. With regard to that organization the two states are one. If I were you I would consider contacting them and making them aware that their newly-eligible New York-educated and domiciled structural engineers are not licensable in New Jersey without goosing the system. There’s a slight chance that that might work. More likely, though, (1) you’ll have trouble reaching anyone of influence in that bureaucracy and (2) they’ve probably carved out an exemption for Port Authority engineers.

If that doesn’t work and if Brother Sforesman here can’t crack this nut then in the meantime, to quit forfeiting work in New Jersey you might have to consider partnering with a local engineer there. Which, of course, is the whole point.

 

[sforesman]

Jonkirk,

I'll lead you on a goose chase, then I'm editing the post soon thereafter. Please send an email as soon as you figure it out...

 

[jonkirk31]

Archie264,

Never thought of it from that perspective, but you're right that these guys might be dumb as a fox about rejecting the S.E. exam. New Jersey certainly is a unique state from a business and labor perspective, to say the least.

That's some great advice about the Port Authority, I didn't even think about them. We do a lot of business in northern NJ and have some people that we work with who are well connected to the Port Authority, but we don't personally have any good direct connections with them. But thanks for the suggestion, that could be the one agency who the NJ Board of PE's and PLS's might actually listen to if they were to urge the NJ Board to reevaluate their stance on the SE exam. Interestingly, I had no issue getting licensed in New York via comity.

In the meantime, our company has an engineer who is licensed in NJ who can seal work we do there but he is no longer in the engineering department - he has moved on to a business development role. It is rather cumbersome to have him review the work of projects he otherwise would not be involved in with our normal flow of business. So not like it's giving up doing work in NJ, just makes our internal processes very inefficient and far from ideal.

 

[jonkirk31]

sforesman, I missed the original post. You can probably find me on google pretty easily though now that I think about it.

 

[bridgebuster]

archie264: Obviously, you've live or worked in NJ. Your post pretty much sums things up. However, regarding PANYNJ, if the project is in NY the plans are sealed by NY PE; if the project is in NJ it's sealed by NJ PE. If the project is in both states, two seals. Been there, done that.

Sforesman, jonkirk131: try contacting the Eng-Tips website management. They should be able to put you two in touch. Or type an email address as follows: johndotdoeatcompanydotcom. It's been done here before.

Have you tried calling the NJ chapter of NSPE?

 

[jonkirk31]

sforesman was able to track me down today and his committee is going to discuss this topic at their next meeting, which coincidentally happens to be coming up very soon. I'm quite hopeful and optimistic that their organization will have enough clout to at least get states like New Jersey to reconsider their stance of not accepting the SE exam as an allowable form of examination for regular P.E. licensure. From some searching I did online about the topic, it sounds like New Jersey isn't the only state taking this position so having a national organization address the issue to NCEES and/or collectively to the individual state boards could be very powerful and provide meaningful progress to the recognition of the S.E. exam across the country. Even if NCEES could be convinced to write a position statement that the S.E. exam is typically considered adequate for P.E. licensure in lieu of the Principals and Practice exam, that would be very powerful evidence to present to a state board.

I have not yet tried getting in touch with the NJ chapter of NSPE but plan to do so. NCSEA is also currently looking into the situation. Hopefully a unified coalition of several nationally engineering associations with each crafting a position statement or something similar to the state boards would be compelling enough that even New Jersey would have to reconsider their position.

I think at this point I want to get as much ammo as possible with feedback from these organizations before directly responding to the NJ State Board. Perhaps informing them that several national organizations are planning to contact them in regards to this issue would be overwhelming enough to be an embarrassment to their position to force their hand to reconsider. Doubtful, but I think it would increase my odds of winning the battle.

 

[Hokie93]

I would be very surprised if NSPE, or the New Jersey chapter of NSPE, would weigh in on this matter in your favor. It is my understanding that NSPE has historically taken a negative stance on any attempt to license individual disciplines and, in essence, that is what you are advocating by asking New Jersey to accept the SE exam in lieu of a PE exam. For the record, I completely agree with your position and think it is crazy on the surface for anyone to argue that having passed a 16-hour exam (an NCEES-developed and administered exam, no less) in your specific discipline is somehow less evidence of your competence than if you had passed an 8-hour PE exam. I am a PE and SE myself (but not licensed in New Jersey) so I have not run into this specific issue.

 

[jonkirk31]

Hokie93,
My hope is that any statement would be written to the extent that the 16-hour SE exam should be deemed an acceptable alternative to the other 8-hour PE exams (which are also discipline-specific) for PE licensure in states that do not have discipline-specific licenses. It would have to be written such that it avoids any confusion about asking for specialized structural licensure, as many states have already considered SE licenses and decided against it. So I'm sure those states that have already looked into SE licensure would meet anything that says "SE" on it with a skeptical eye and the document would have to be worded carefully to get favorable results for the simple goal of having the 16-hour test be deemed worthy for a regular PE.

 

[Hokie93]

Jonkirk:
My point is simply that I think you will find a much friendlier ally in an organization such as NCSEA and the New Jersey chapter of NCSEA. I would be surprised if NSPE would support you. Simply put, NSPE believes that you should only be permitted to take an 8-hour PE exam for licensure purposes. I am not kicking NSPE at all; they do lots of great things and I have been an active member for over 20 years. Frankly, I am very surprised that NCEES isn't offering more support.

 

[jonkirk31]

Thanks, Hokie93, that's good to know their stance. I see what you're saying now. That type of insight is exactly what I was hoping to learn on here.

That makes me wonder if any of the NJ Board members are connected with NPSE and share the same stance. I had been thinking (or at least hoping) that their board is just ignorant to the 16-hour S.E. exam just due to the way their letter called it the Structural I and Structural II exam, but perhaps that was just a silly mistake and they are fully aware of the 16-hour exam and have already made up their mind that it is not going to be accepted. That could be a losing battle no matter what any of the national engineering organizations say. I can only hope that is not the case, as it would be an unfortunate situation to be up against.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

So, as I annoyingly predicted above, there is a small but distinct potential that we'll be shipping a precast utility building to New Jersey and will likely require a stamped drawing. I'll likely need to get a NJ stamp but will have the exact same trouble as the OP.

Did this ever get resolved or go anywhere?

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[jonkirk31]

TehMightyEngineer,

Yeah, unfortunately the end result is not good for you or myself. Sforesman and I were able to get in touch and he is on a committee that features members of NCEES and some other national councils that are very up to date on the entire topic of SE licensure and states that do and do not require it or even recognize the SE exam.

Long story short, New Jersey's law (as well as some other states apparently) is specific about requiring an 8-hour Principals and Practice of Engineering Exam, and that technically excludes the 16-hour S.E. The State Board has decided to apply the language of the law exactly as it is written and has no current plans to revise the law or make exceptions for the 16-hour S.E.

Hopefully this will change in the future with suggestions and pressures from groups like what sforesman is involved with, but looks like that isn't happening any time soon.

I'm currently planning to take a P.E. exam in the spring. Not sure which one yet since every option will involve me learning a lot of stuff for the first time, but either the Civil-Structural or the Architectural Engineering exam. The shame of all of that is that even if I do pass it, what has that proven? That I'm good at studying to take a test? Certainly not that I have an expert understanding of applying engineering principles and judgement on a topic that I have never practiced and never will. This is contradictory to the entire principle of having an exam to demonstrate competence. Very frustrating and not really anything we can do about it at this point other than hit the books.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Well, I'll write the NJ PE board just to add my voice to yours to try to get this changed but that's definitely some unfortunate news.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Looks like you or someone similar made the NJ engineering board's meeting minutes back in 2012:

www.njconsumeraffairs.gov%2Fpels%2Fminutes%
2Fpelsmin_122012.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFLihmYc6xnNfs2SHcI2vR4Wdy8UQ&sig2=XzzEPt
On08opyqPv6xQGUQ&cad=rja]

https://www.google.com/url?

sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CEMQFjAEahUKEwiJjsvJiZjJAhUDc
D4KHXJcC_g&url=http%3A%2F%2F

http://www.njconsumeraffairs.gov/pels/minutes%

2Fpelsmin_122012.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFLihmYc6xnNfs2SHcI2vR4Wdy8UQ&sig2=XzzEPt
On08opyqPv6xQGUQ&cad=rja[/url]

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[jonkirk31]

Yeah it really is unfortunate since it's counterproductive to what the Board's real goal should be - to allow good, competent, and qualified engineers to practice and to keep the bad ones out.

I struggle to come up with the right word for it. Is there a word that combines "unfortunate" with "idiotic", "unjust", and "frustrating"? Or is that just "governmental agency"?

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Here's the letter I sent to the NJ board:

Mr. Karl Reidel,

It's come to my attention that New Jersey does not accept licensure by comity for engineers who have been licensed by taking the 16-hour Structural Engineering (SE) exam offered by NCEES. I want to officially protest this and request this be changed.

While the 8-hour NCEES PE exam is certainly sufficient for licensure of engineers by examination, I elected to pursue the more stringent and rigorous SE exam. As I do effectively only structural engineering in my current work, and would identify myself as a structural engineer by profession, it seems that the SE exam should be more than adequate to convey my professional skills in regard to becoming licensed in the state of New Jersey.

The action to reject the SE exam by the New Jersey board has resulted in effectively preventing the company I work for from providing engineered precast concrete products in the state of New Jersey and additionally hurts the engineering profession as a whole. By every measure I can find the SE exam is a more rigorous exam than the PE exam. Its only shortcoming is that it focuses exclusively on structural engineering unlike the PE exam; which only partially focuses on an engineering discipline. However this should not be cause for rejection of the SE exam and my (and many others) application for licensure by comity as I do not actively practice in any field other than structural engineering and ethically and legally cannot practice engineering in fields with which I have limited personal experience.

While I fully support the New Jersey Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors in choosing the laws by which they license engineers and surveyors, it is counter-intuitive to accept one exam as basis for licensure and reject a more stringent exam that more accurately reflects my profession as a structural engineer. The requirement that I pass the 8-hour PE exam, which includes some engineering fields with which I have little experience and thus could not ethically practice in, is specifically a requirement of studying and passing an exam solely to prove I can pass the said exam. It will not advance my professional engineering abilities nor will it prove that I am any more competent of a structural engineer. It will only prove that I know how to pass a specific exam partially unrelated to my professional discipline.

With the above in mind I sincerely request the New Jersey board reconsider their position on this matter and begin the process of changing their laws to allow for engineers to be licensed by comity through other engineering exams more stringent than the 8-hour PE exam; such as the 16-hour NCEES structural engineering (SE) exam.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Ian Riley, PE, SE
Professional & Structural Engineer
(Maine, New Hampshire)

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[jonkirk31]

Excellent letter, professionally stated. Not sure how anyone could disagree with that logic presented.

If you ever get a chance to get in a discussion with a specific person on the Board, Karl W. Reidel is their Executive Director who wrote me the letter explaining their position.