SECB

[UcfSE]

My boss gave me a copy of a form he has from the "Structural Engineering Certification Board" (SECB). It's stated purpose is to establish uniform standards of examination, licensure and practice throughout the United States to enable, encourage and facilitate competent structural engineering and to identify structural engineering as a distinct discipline of engineering practice. Now, did I miss something or are we not already a distinct engineering pracrtice? Why on earth would we need something in addition to the PE and SE tests that are well established? To me this sounds like a blatant money-making ploy that will never really do anything to improve the profession or help protect the public. The cost is $350 plus $100 per year. There are also provisions for "grandfathering". If you get grandfathered in then the purpose of certifying competent engineers is lost. Doing something for 20 years certainly doesn't make it right. Everyone else has to take an exam but even that won't accomplish anything IMHO. Exams only weed out those who can't take a test, they do nothing for people who really don't belong in engineering such as those who don't care about doing quality work or just want to make an unethical buck. Any idiot can cram for an exam but learn nothing. Anyway, this is my take on it. Has anyone else had any experience with this board? What are your opinions out there? I'm not trying to start another PE thread, I've already searched the forum and didn't find this topic at all.

http://www.secertboard.org

 

[JedClampett]

NCEES has something similar called "Model Law Structural Engineer" (

http://www.ncees.org/records/mlse/).

I called them up about it because I met all the requirements except they require a two day exam. When I got the SE in Illinois it was a 12 hour exam. The gal who I talked to at NCEES was extremely unhelpful, except in suggesting that I call Illinois and figure out what piece of the exam I was missing (right) and take it. That isn't going to happen.

 

[JAE]

JedClampett - when did you take a 12 hour exam? I've never heard of such a thing. I too the SE-1 and SE-2 in 1991 and 1993 - they were both 8 hour exams (16 total).

 

[JedClampett]

Illinois had a 12 hour exam in 1979 or 1980 when I took it. It wasn't part of any national examining association in those days (there weren't any).

 

[DaveAtkins]

The problem is--it's difficult to know who is qualified and who is not. I am a case in point. I obtained a Master of Architecture, Structures Option degree, from the University of Illinois, have Illinois SE and Wisconsin PE licenses, and have almost 19 years of experience. However, there are several states where I can't even get licensed, because I don't have an ABET accredited degree. Very frustrating. Short of someone spending a few weeks with you, watching you do your job, how can anyone really know what you're qualified to do?

DaveAtkins

 

[haynewp]

I think the intention is to resurrect structural engineering in hopes that we will be paid what we are worth, get the respect we deserve etc., more than it is a money making scheme. While well intentioned, I am not sure it will happen until we stop screwing ourselves with practices such as competitive bidding. But the SECB effort is still more than ASCE has ever attempted as a means to advance the profession that I know of.

 

[UcfSE]

Ideally it does sound like a good way to help the profession. Maybe I'm just too cynical or have been around engineers like my boss too long to think it will really accomplish what the words say. As long as you get hired by being the lowest bidder how can we help our profession? It's great and all to want to provide high quality and professional service but we have families to feed and so on. Plus we aren't perceived to be necessary in the public eye, if indeed they have even heard of "structural engineer". "Isn't that the same as an architect?" The thing is people think that eveyrone is different, so doctors are needed. Cases are all different, so lawyers are needed. Buildings are all the same, why should I pay a lot for a better engineer when all I really need is someone to sign and seal?

 

[crossframe]

Their good intentions aside, note the fee structure if you wait to join. You'll pay for every year you weren't certified. That sounds like money-making to me. I seem to recall reading somewhere that only about 200 structural engineers have been "certified" since this has been instituted.

I don't foresee ant great rush until the certification carries some weight. Until then, we'll look like planners and financial advisors with eight sets of initials after our names - to the point where each one is diluted by the others.

Regards,

Crossframe, BSCE, ASCE, SEI, PE, EIEIO, ETC.

 

[plasgears]

I went for the CPE, Certified Plant Engr, some years ago, and I have posted this on resumes ever since. At the minimum, additional certifications are eyewash for staff qualification statements, but new accreditations give additional forums from which to learn and air views.

 

[jjeng2]

I think it is well intentioned. I am in NJ and we have no seperate state licencing for Structural Engineers. Actually there is no designation at all for any discipline. A PE could be a wastewater eng., a chemical eng., a strucutral eng, etc. I dont have any way of being recognized as a trained structural engineer. It would be unethical but any type of PE could compete with me. I like the idea in theory. Of course some things will have to happen for it to mean anything.

 

[Lutfi]

jjeng,

Don't you think that an electrical engineer would not be so smart to compete with structural as much as it is for structural engineer to perform electrical engineering?

I am not really hung up on the SE license or the “SECB” as long as the engineer is competent and does not stray from his practice. I grant you that some engineers may double practice.

My mentor was a good structural engineer. He had a mechanical engineering degree. He practiced structural engineering till he died. I thought he was very knowledgeable and competent.

Dr. Blodgett is nationally recognized for his in-depth knowledge in structural and welding engineering. If my memory serves me right, he has a metallurgical engineering degree! I think his knowledge in structures is one of the best. His delivery method is one of the clearest and this is demonstrated by his text books and writings.

I live in Florida and we are same as NJ. I have been in the engineering business since the early 1980s. I must say that I did not encounter any issues with other engineers cross practicing. To be honest, I came across many PEs, that did not impress me, who are practicing structural and who are PhDs as well

If a mechanical engineer who is competent is doing stress and strength calculations, I do not see any reason why they could not do it. As a matter of fact, I have seen very sharp mechanical engineers who have better understanding for welding, stress computation and have greater understanding of fatigue and stress concentration.

I do not want to pay more fees, fill out more forms at the end of every year or two. I am not less of an engineer since I do not have “SECB" certification.

Now I will step off my soap box.

Regards,


Lutfi

http://www.cdeco.com

 

[UcfSE]

I like what you said in your last sentence Lutfi, but do you think the public would agree? Often perception, not reality, is what is real. If people perceive certification to be equivalent to "better" would we not be forced into playing the certified game just to remain competitive with a less competent engineer who embraces the certification? I personally that would be the case. People think "certified" is just the end all be all whereas they think the term "professional engineer" is a title we give ourselves rather than something we earned due to our work and diligence. That is similar to how every mechanic shop has to have "certified" people, not just well seasoned experienced mechanics. You could of course take out the term "mechanic" and put something else in its place.

 

[Lutfi]

UcfSE, I agree with you partially. Our profession suffers due to various reasons. We do not get the respect and often the public is not educated enough or does not understand what it takes to be a PE.

Doctors, accountants and lawyers do a fantastic job in projecting the professional level and what it takes to become licensed individuals in their organizations. In my humble opinion, engineers DO NOT.

I would be interested in a survey of the average "public" to see if they can answer correctly their understanding of what does it take to be a doctor, lawyer, CPA and PE. I dread the fact that several would not even know what the acronym “PE” stands for!

I had trouble for many years call myself registered engineer! What is that all about? I am not a product or a dog to be registered! I am more for Licensed Engineer title. May be this is where the “SECB" certification idea came from. I think if we are about to make a change, we should think it through and make it with results that would improve the engineers image.

We still have what I think is a big inconsistency between the various states as far as licensing requirement. What is that all about! I happen to have license in three states. Each one of them has its own set of qualifications for becoming a licensed engineer. While all three may be similar, there are some differences. I often ask myself, WHY?

In Florida our legislature passed a law requiring only PEs can use the title engineer. I supported the law. Then the political machinery got involved and the law was amended to exclude those engineers that work for the space center (Aerospace Corporations) and the Military. Keep in mind that these same exempt engineers require consultants to be PEs to do work for the space center and the military!!

Bottom line, I do not think that “SECB" certification is the solution by itself. May be the profession licensing needs an overhaul on the national level?


Lutfi

http://www.cdeco.com

 

[UcfSE]

Has anyone gotten their SECB certification? Do you feel more certified or have any more opinions we may hear about?