SE1 in lieu of PE 1

[rns0622]

I got licensed in the State of Kansas, 2009, by passing the SE1 in lieu of the PE. I’ve never needed to be licensed in other states until now. Turns out a whole bunch of states don’t recognize my SE1 as a valid PE exam. .
I’m going to sit for the Civil:Structural exam later this year. In the meantime, are there more of you out there that got you PE license with the SE1? If so, what state?

 

[phamENG]

I did not, but a former co-worker of mine did it in Virginia. Would have been a similar time frame to yours. I think they only offered it for one or two cycles.

 

[KootK]

This happened to me with Oregon and was off the charts annoying. 15 years in I had to go back and become a civil engineer there before becoming a structural engineer. Luckily, the Civil-Structural exam was was almost comically easy. I did my original SE1 in WI around 2005 I think. What structural engineer in their right mind wouldn't pick that FFS?

 

[Aesur]

Out of curiosity, are you trying to get your SE or PE license in other states? I have always understood that the SE1 was equivalent to the PE, but not to the SE.

 

[WARose]

In the meantime, are there more of you out there that got you PE license with the SE1? If so, what state?

I got licensed in South Carolina (back in 2006) via the SE I. I got reciprocity with a number of other states as well.

Fortunately, a few years after that (during the Great Recession, when I didn't have much else to do), I passed the SE II. With both those done, I have since gotten licensed in a few SE states.

I'm glad I got that done because a lot of states aren't recognizing part of the "old" SE exam. It's all or nothing. You read a lot of regs and they talk about 16 hrs of structural exams (which can be the old tests....just not part of them).

 

[rns0622]

Not all states recognized the SE1 as a valid exam for licensure. Of the ones that did, some no longer do. Some will allow it for reciprocity if the exam met their testing requirements at the time of the test.
It’s just a pain to figure out which states still recognize it and which don’t without calling every single one.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

It's interesting, when I sat for the California Civil PE exam (1998-ish) there weren't any 'specialties' and covered Geotech, Structural, Waste Water, etc. You just had a bunch of different civil problems from across all civil disciplines to choose from. I think you had to do 4 of the 6 questions given. But, it was your choice.

I had a friend (an SE in addition to other PEs) advise me to skip all the structural questions because they're "too difficult for anyone who isn't ready to sit for the CA SE exam" and just do the "easy ones".... Waste Water (Open Channel Flow), Surveying (Horizontal and Vertical Curves), Concrete Mix and such.

But, since my major was Structural Engineering (at a school which didn't have other Civil related majors), I didn't know squat about waste water, surveying or such. I studied surveying for sure (because California had a separate surveying exam you had to pass to get your Civil PE), and those problems were pretty easy. But, I was forced to do the Structural problems as well.

 

[Enable]

For my fellow Canadians who are duel licensed in the US how do you feel about their licensure practices vs ours? I'm not entirely sure if the exams are a better gatekeeper or not; I'm leaning towards yes (since we effectively have time as a gatekeeper), but I could also see them being massively misused. Basically I'm asking if you think they are generally effective at reducing the number of bushwhackers in the profession or are they just more overhead?

 

[KootK]

Basically I'm asking if you think they are generally effective at reducing the number of bushwhackers in the profession or are they just more overhead?

I think that the exams are enormously useful for one simple reason: they tend to weed out engineers who don't have a good handle on statics. That is, by far, the biggest weakness that I encounter among engineers who are not yet ready to launch.

In the western provinces at least, the documentation requirements for time served have gotten much more rigorous in recent years. That's good but still not enough in my opinion. Back when in 2005 when I picked up my first Canadian license in Alberta, it was "So... your engineer boss attests to you having held an engineering job for the last four years? Good stuff, APPROVED!". Don't get me wrong, that was plenty fun for me at the time compared to the FE/PE/SE/NCEES record rigamarole. I'd get rid of the FE altogether if I had the power to.

 

[Enable]

Makes sense. I'm sure most current P.Engs' in my jurisdiction would struggle with such an exam.

With regard to statics I really think we do ourselves (the profession) a disservice by treating it as something that is easy. For one, it's not easy when you get beyond the most trivial. And two, treating like it is puts up and coming engineers in a situation where they have little hope of overcoming natural psychological biases. Here's the way I see it generally going:

1. Engineering students get taught statics explicitly in first year. Lots of great stuff covered but usually explicated via toy problems. Very little real-life stuff where not everything is a clean simply supported beam or pinned node. Hibbler trys to make it realistic with 3D renderings but it all comes back to this is a beam that is perfectly pin connected to something else. Might get a sway frame or two but of very defined proportions / fixities.

2. Statics is then kept in the mix as something that underlies most other subjects but isn't explicitly covered. Maybe a second year course on dynamics or indeterminate structures might cover it explicitly but only as a means to get to another goal. Maybe comes up in Mechanics of Materials but student forgets about Mohr's circle immediately after exam.

3. By the time they get to 4th year design courses statics is assumed mastered (despite only a single explicit course and no experience with the messiness of real life problems / connections). All upper year courses pretty much focus on UDLs on floors that go straight into the gravity resisting system (statics has now become tributary area calculations or proportioning based on rigidity)

4. EIT steps into the world not really having mastered statics but as soon as they land a gig invariably deal with a problem that requires one to know more than "set these three equations to 0 and solve". EIT knowing that statics shouldn't be the part that trips them up - it's easy stupid, it's taught in first year - won't and cannot ask their boss for help on this specifically due to fear of looking stupid. EIT goes on to look at a textbook that covers only toy problems, makes some shit up and hands to the boss thinking it's okay(ish). Boss is A) not great in statics themselves, and B) doesn't have the time to thoroughly check so does the once over and sees if it accords with experience. If yes, pass go collect $200 and EIT's poor understanding of statics is reinforced. If no, redesign based on experience and never really walk the EIT through the problem.

5. EIT collects 4 years of experience without ever having really created a non-toy FBD. EIT becomes licensed.

6. PE is now really, really, really not going to admit that they don't truly understand how vectors work in their FBDs for things that they are supposed to be designing. Worse yet, things they've designed havent fallen down so they take that as good evidence that they know what they're doing (it surely is not).

7a. Life continues

7b. Safety factors hold up the entire enterprise

Anyways, that's my impression of what goes on most of the time. Obviously there are great mentors out there that are helping the cause (many on this board to be sure) but it's clearly not enough. I'm probably apt to be too cynical in my characterization but I feel there is something fundamental at work like this for so many to have so little clue.

I think taking a variety of connection problems posted to this forum would serve an absolutely amazing basis for a course in statics. Just think about how many different modeling assumptions you could walk through that would drastically alter the outcome? If I ever teach the CETs at my college you can bet your french toast i'll be doing this.

 

[phamENG]

invariably deal with a problem that requires one to know more than "set these three equations to 0 and solve".

Perhaps I'm just a product of the broken system, but I have a different take on this. It's not that it takes more than setting three equations equal to 0 and solving, it's about knowing how to disassemble a problem into manageable pieces, set them each equal to their own set of equations, and then build back a piece at a time until the whole thing goes together. At least for statically determinate problems and problems that can be simplified into statically determinate problems with some conservative assumptions.

7b. Safety factors hold up the entire enterprise

Thank God.

 

[Enable]

Perhaps I'm just a product of the broken system, but I have a different take on this. It's not that it takes more than setting three equations equal to 0 and solving, it's about knowing how to disassemble a problem into manageable pieces, set them each equal to their own set of equations, and then build back a piece at a time until the whole thing goes together. At least for statically determinate problems and problems that can be simplified into statically determinate problems with some conservative assumptions.

We have the same take! The computation of the model (our equilibrium equations) is usually a relatively easy task and obviously, will yield the results we're looking for if you've set them up appropriately; however, the model construction itself is no easy feat as you mention (how to get the inputs for our equations in the various scenarios under consideration)! Many people conflate the two and treat the entire enterprise as easy, and it is not. Model building is hard and it should be treated as such.

In a lot of ways our profession is not so different from statistics. These days you can run all sorts of linear or non-linear regressions, neural networks, KNN cluster algorithms, etc pretty easily (outside of big data situations) by simply firing up R and inputting the data into a dataframe. Hell, you can even do fancy Bayesian regression with prior regularization using pre-built packages that interface with stan! In a sense the computation of the model is easy, but deciding what data to collect / how you are going to collect it / what to do with the data (do we include outliers or not, do we bin into sub-categories or not, etc) / what model to use and how that interacts with your data collection / how to extrapolate it / etc are hard as fuck tasks to do well in the sense of getting something useful out of the endeavor.

 

[KootK]

...they tend to weed out engineers who don't have a good handle on statics.

I didn't say that with quite enough precision. I really see the statics issue like this based on having done a ton of mentoring:

1) Pretty much all graduate engineers do have a good handle on statics from a physics perspective.

2) The root problem seems to be engineers being reluctant to routinely apply what they know of statics to real problems. Either they don't trust their own understanding of statics or they simply fail to recognize it for the utterly fabulous tool that it is.

It's not that it takes more than setting three equations equal to 0 and solving, it's about knowing how to disassemble a problem into manageable pieces, set them each equal to their own set of equations, and then build back a piece at a time until the whole thing goes together.

Most of what I currently know, I learned precisely that way. I run FBD's on whole buildings, planets, air molecules, differential elements, and everything in between. It's proven to be one a heck of a parlour trick.

 

[KootK]

With regard to statics I really think we do ourselves (the profession) a disservice by treating it as something that is easy.

I agree that it can be a nuanced thing. This thread is now basically a bunch of wildly capable structural engineers tryingto decipher the statics of a non-obvious FBD situation: Newton's Judgment

BTW: I need to import a concrete restoration contractor on my previous thread. I'll need you back there.

 

[phamENG]

Yeah...I've been wanting to get in on that...but I have a deadline to meet so I'm avoiding the more involved threads today...