PE vs new 2-day SE

[TehMightyEngineer]

Advice please.

I'm starting year 4 of my 4 years toward being able to sit for my PE exam. I've spent those 3 years, most of my schooling, and my internships doing 90% structural engineering. I'm comfortable doing site work, fan engineering, hydrology, and so on but it's not what I want to do.

I figured I'd get my head in the game as to what I have left to do and make sure I'm all ready when test time comes. I'm early but I like to be prepared. I got almost 100% when I went to take my private pilots exam and I was super comfortable for my FE so it seems to work for me.

Now, my question is should I sit for the new 2-day SE test or just take the normal PE test? I'm thinking the new 2-day SE is the way to go for me. I work in Maine right now under a PE but am 90% sure that I will not remain in this state (or possibly even the country). The way I see it is:

Pros for the new 2-day SE:
-Will get me a PE in most states.
-Will get me a SE in most states.
-Will make it easy to get a PE or SE in the states that I didn't get one in.
-Will be a nice feather in my cap. Might make up for that moderate 3.15 GPA I had in college for my resume.
-Will help focus my career more on the things I want to do.
-Will probably not be that much harder for me to take and study for as I will only have structures and no general civil. Heck, it might be even easier (and will probably be easier to study for).
-Reading about recent test takers, they found it not terribly difficult.
-If I fail one section but pass another I only have to retake one section.

Cons for the new 2-day test:
-Costs more...a lot more! (I'm assuming I'll spent about $1,000 on the SE where I'd spend something like $300 on the PE).
-Longer test (16 hours vs 8 hours).
-Not really necessary (yet). I'm thinking that in the future they may start making structural engineers take the 2-day test to get an SE but this is a long shot. For now, unless I move to CA or IL, I doubt I'll need an SE.
-Might be all a waste if I go to another country that wont accept the SE to practice engineering there.

So, does anyone have any good advice on what they would do?

EIT with BS in Civil/Structural engineering.

 

[BRGENG]

I just watched an engineer that had never designed a building pass the Civil-Structural PE exam. It really scared the crap out of me knowing he can seal building plans now because he studied hard enough for 3 months. It just highlights the need to make SE licensure mandatory for any Structural work similar to Illinois. So I decided I would only hire SE for any future positions in our office.

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

@BRGENG: I'll send you my resume when I'm done.

But, yes, I agree. Technically, by any ethical standard, one should not practice out of their field of experience. Thus, I wouldn't dream of doing a cable-stayed bridge as I have no experience in it.

However, I totally agree with what you mean. Just the other week I reviewed a top slab of a small reinforced concrete vault used for stormwater collection in parking lots. The Engineer (who according to their stamp number has been around a while) put little to no rebar in it, had many un-reinforced stress concentration points, and had a tapered section that could barely take the weight of a car, to say nothing of the H-20 loading it was supposedly rated for. Trying to explain to the client that just because they stamped it does not make it structurally sound was not fun.

Anyway, it is good to hear that not only will getting a SE license be a nice feather in my cap but that many firms (and probably the ones I'd like to work for) are recognizing the SE license as a useful designation.

EIT with BS in Civil/Structural engineering.

 

[BRGENG]

TehMightyPirate, I think you said it best with "probably the ones I'd like to work for". While many qualified engineers that design buildings only have a PE, I think I would want to work for and only hire firms that have SE. We are lucky enough to only have SE's on staff and will keep it that way. When you are ready, let me know.