Structural Engineer Certification 7

[lkjh345]

I am interested in members thoughts on the drive by the Structural Engineering Certifcation Board (

http://www.secertboard.org

) to get structural engineers 'certified'.

I am not asking about being liscensed, but being 'Certified'.

The benefits seem vague at best, where as the cost ($450 Application Fee, $100 per year there after) seems a little steep.

The idea has not exactly caught fire in our part of the country (Nebraska), but I am curious if it has in other parts of the country and/or other countries.

 

[Bagman2524]

Just what would being certified gain you? Doesn't sound like it carriers any legal weight. Just approval by a private organization to impress your clients with?
No such push that I'm aware of in Louisiana. In fact here we are registered as a PE, doesn't matter what the discipline is.

 

[Galambos]

i find two items that seem to take any appeal away from the SECB certification:

1. the certification is not recognized by any state board.

2. Some state boards and the NCEES's model law structural engineer definition are starting to recognize the SE 1 & 2 exams as minimum requirements to be a practicing structural engineer. the SECB's certification allows some PE's without the SE exams to be grandfathered into the process.

 

[Lutfi]

Galambos,

I want to take issue with your second point! I have been practicing structural engineering for 23 years. At that time SE1 and SE2 were not available. I took my PE exam in civil engineering. However, I answered all the structural problems in it.

Since I did not take the SE1 and SE2 am I less of structural engineer? I do NOT think so. There are many great structural engineers who did not take the SE1 and SE2. I am not trying to diminish the value of these exams. However, credit must be given to those who met qualifications at some point of time. Grandfathering MUST continue to take place otherwise we will commit great disservice to well qualified engineers.

My point is being a PE and being grand fathered in is not all that bad and it is not a wrong concept.

Regards,


Regards,
Lutfi

 

[Ron]

Lutfi...I'm in the same boat. When I took the PE exam 26 years ago, I took the civil exam 'cause that's all that was offered close to my practice.

I see not point in separate certifications. To me, that is somewhat demeaning to the profession to think that we need such to impress clients. Let's all concentrate on getting our profession's value and worth out in the public so they'll know that qualified, licensed engineers are a necessity to the public good.

Ron

 

[Galambos]

Lufti,

Certainly, we would all agree that there are PE's that are far superior structural engineers than a good quantity of SE's. Not having taken it, certainly doesnt mean an engineer is a poor quality engineer. In fact, im sure you are a better, more experienced structural engineer than i. however, I am willing to wager that the SE1 and SE2 exam acts as a pretty good filter in terms of quality. this is probably the reasoning behind Illinois, Nevada, etc. to invoke the use of the SE license. in fact, one might consider that a practicing structural PE, could have earned registration having taken the transportation PM module rather than the structural module.

I certainly never meant to imply that PE's are less of a structural engineer than an SE, however, I dont believe that districts such as Illinois and Nevada will ever give much weight to a certification that does not require these higher level exams. It seems to me that the exams are currently the only method available used to quantify quality or perhaps, knowledge.

 

[UcfSE]

I don't support the idea of grandfathering. Meaning no offense to Lutfi or Ron by any means, getting grandfathered in only means that you've been practicing for years and years. It doesn't mean practicing correctly. When I say "you", I mean a general "you" and no one in particular. Like I tend to want to say to contractors, just because you've been doing it this way for 30 years doesn't mean it's been done right. Grandfathering circumvents the idea behind testing and qualification. Someone who is a screw-up can continue to do so, just with another certification proclaiming competency. Of course, all my opinion.

This is a thread I started a while back on the SECB, just for reference. thread507-114878.

 

[Bagman2524]

If someone has been practicing for years and years they have been practicing correctly. Otherwise, they'd be out of work, out of a license or in jail.

I took the Civil PE exam in 87 and if memory serves me correct, 1/2 of the test was structural.

 

[Galambos]

bagman,

i would disagree. im not aware of any case where a structural engineer has been put in jail. plus, i also believe that one reason behind using the SE exams is to filter out some engineers who believe they are practicing correctly, but are unaware and not knowledgeable of modern advances in structural engineering, specifically those that pertain to life safety, i.e. seismic design. to quote from Dr Nair from an article in AISC's modern steel,"It is important that we not assume that just because something works, or worked in the past, it is correct."

today's PE is split into a general civil breadth exam in the morning, and a discipline specific afternoon exam (transportation, geotech, water resources, environmental, structural). a PE license does not reveal which portion of the exam was taken.

 

[JAE]

UcfSE - your concerns about "grandfathering circumventing the idea behind testing and qualification" is true on its face. But in reality, state boards who do not grandfather in engineers aren't gaining much, in fact they would be immediately denying a large number of good engineers the ability to put food on their table.

The idea behind grandfathering isn't circumvention, its transition.

The theoretical lack of ensuring quality engineering is only a concern for a period of time...until those engineers who are grandfathered in are retired, dead, or have chosen to go into architecture (just kidding on that last one).

The goal of any new testing or certification will still be met; the grandfathering just allows it to be phased in and avoid the trauma of engineers losing their jobs, possible lawsuits against the board, and confusion within our industry.

 

[EddyC]

Perhaps someone knows what was done in the past in the states that have separate Structural Licensing. Were certain engineers grandfathered in or were they forced to take additional exams? If they were grandfathered in, does anyone know what criteria was used?

 

[Bagman2524]

Every profession progresses as time passes. I'm not aware of any other profession that requires their people to go back and take a test to maintain their license. Do Doctor's retake the MCAT and return to medical school because advances have been made in their field? I don't think so. Its' up to professional engineers as individuals to stay current with the times and knowledge about updated engineering practices. That's why we have continuing professional development requirements and a forum like this one.

 

[lkjh345]

Im not sure I put as much faith in exams to weed out unqualified engineers as some do.

I've know a few engineers over the last 18 years that were really good at test type problems, and could calcuate an answer to the 5th decimal place, but were fairly hopeless when it came to real world problems that an engineer needs to use judgement on every day.

Conversely, I've known a few engineers who struggled mightily on an 8 hour exam, but in the office were the engineer everyone went to get advice from when they had a problem.

The best mechanical engineer I've ever worked with had a 2 year tech degree from a community college, but just knew what he was doing.

Engineering jusdgement is the most important trait of a good engineer, but its also the thing that an exam has a hard time quantifing.

 

[UcfSE]

JAE, new test standards wouldn't blindside the engineering community would they? It seems that if some new test was required, then current engineers would have some period of time to do what they need. I can understand grandfathering if, say, a master's degree was now required to get your PE. That represents an investment of years. I don't agree that a single test should get the same leeway.

Really what's making me think this isn't just the principle, but it's the worthless engineers and plan-stampers who passed a test years ago will now have the same qualifications that I have to actually meet or exceed. If you're really a good PE and more than well qualified engineer, it seems reasonable that you shouldn't have a problem passing a single test or certification.

I do understand your point though and think that there would have to be something in the process to take care of things without ruining a lot of good people. I guess it's a good thing for some that I'm not the HMFIC .

 

[archeng59]

perhaps someone mentioned this and I missed it, but I believe the grandfathering phase of the certification program is over and now you have to pass a certification exam.

 

[Ron]

There are PE's who do good structural engineering and there are PE's who do bad structural engineering. There are SE's who do good structural engineering and there are SE's who do bad structural engineering. No surprises there.

The benefit of a separate examination program (SE vs. PE) is to increase the chances that the public will be served by someone who has demonstrated a different or higher level of proficiency in structural engineering than would be demonstrated by taking the Civil PE exam. That's a good thing.

As for grandfathering, it has it's place but can easily get over-used. I am by no means a fan of general grandfathering for most anything. For example, I am not a supporter of the age-old provision of some engineering laws that allow non-degreed individuals to sit for the exam after many years of experience. Yes, there are exceptions where that works out well, but I think in general you find a significantly lower pass rate of such processes than the engineering population in general. There's a reason for that. Further, I don't see the point in grandfathering for a private group certification....I don't even see the point in a private certification!

Should those who have been practicing structural engineering for many years as PE's be grandfathered as SE's? Absolutely not, in my opinion. If you want to be an SE, take the exam. It isn't statutory in most states yet, but that's the direction and I think that's good for the profession, even if at some point I have to take the SEII in order to practice! Who knows, I might actually pass it!

While there's a difference in qualification and certification, the certification is, on some level, a validation of qualification.

Remember, engineering is ingenuity....part theory, part practice, but not all of either.

 

[Lutfi]

To keep this debate going I want to raise some observations from some of the feed back to my earlier comments. My observations will be in form of points and bullets:

1. I am all for grandfathering in for those who were licensed as PE under acceptable laws of states and regulated by state boards.
2. I do not promote grandfathering in non-degreed engineers. However, I must say that in my 25 year career, I have seen my share of super bright designers that surpass degreed engineers in their thinking abilities and talents!
3. I am sensing that the few who took and passed the SE exams as exhibiting an “Elitist” attitude in this forum. I really do not want to rain on anyone’s parade. However, the mere fact that some one took an exam and passed means nothing except that he was able to take an exam and passed it. It does not mean that they will make great engineers! Creativity is God given talent and you can not get it by taking and passing an exam.
4. I am not aware of other professions that require their earlier licensed members, after attaining many years of experience, to go back and be re-tested just because a new testing requirement came to be.
5. Remember, that in this country greatest structures and monuments were designed and built by the supervision of the talented PEs and non-PEs alike. There were no SE exams required.
6. I agree that continuing education should be made mandatory for all PEs to keep their license.
7. Engineers in our country (USA) suffer from lack of respect we deserve regardless of our credentials (BS, MS, Phd, PE, and SE). In my opinion is due our failures at many levels. Here we are squabbling over PE vs. SE while all regulations and laws that regulate our profession are being authored by politicians, lawyers and administrative folks ( I know for fact that many public agencies in Florida has reviewers reviewing and making decision on engineering plans that who are not PEs, engineers and some times pure administrative staff!!!!!!. This should not be, at least in my humble opinion. In other countries that I visit, engineers are revered in held in high position that is on equal footing to lawyers, doctors and judges. We need to bring ourselves into the proper position in society. First reaction from anyone about an engineer is that either you are a smart person who likes math or a Geek! We need to change this image.
8. Our profession will always have bad apples. However, with proper system checks and balances, these few bad apples can be isolated.
9. We need not settle into accepting the fact that architects and clients dictate to engineers how much our fees should be. We get shopped all the time by some architects, owners and contactors. The sad part, there are engineers who do not hold themselves in the proper stature they deserve. I heard of engineers who prepared structural plans for a fee that I would not do the CAD drafting for! Folks, this is a problem to our profession.
10. I have seen structural construction documents that are embarrassing. Signed and sealed plans with concrete beam schedule that is totally blank!!!! I also had seen plans and details that are totally not constructible. This serious problem that we need to fix. I do not think having an SE will solve this problem.
Before I get of my soap box I want all to keep in mind that it is not my intention to attack or insult any one; Rather want to raise the level of debate to the real issues we face as engineers.

Good day.


Regards,
Lutfi

 

[haynewp]

Lutfi that was a very good post. I wish ASCE would be a little more proactive with all of this.


Insanity in individuals is something rare - but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

 

[JAE]

Lutfi - a few responses to your bullets:

I don't agree that our engineering laws are all written by politicians and lawyers. In my state, at least, the new SE law is being totally developed by our SEA. Yes, the final verbiage gets reviewed by those in the legal profession, but the guts of the law comes from us.

There's a lot of denigrating of the SE exam on this site. (full disclosure - I've taken and passed both SE I and II) - usually we hear all sorts of claims that the tests are worthless, etc. and don't show whether someone is competent or not. But my points on the exam are this:

1. The issue isn't whether someone can be a good engineer without, or a bad engineer with a passing grade....that is true of ANY sort of qualification system. The issue is whether a testing screen of any type, ON AVERAGE, produces a better community of engineers. I believe it does...on average.

2. Your post goes on about how tests aren't all that effective, but then you finish by decrying the sad state of our profession. Tests won't totally solve this lack of respect, but I would say that anyone who works hard enough to study their tail off, take and pass these exams is going to hold themselves up to a higher standard than someone who doesn't (on average - there's always exceptions). And I would bet that the engineer you cite who did a design for a very very small fee didn't have the SE exams under their belt.

3. I'm not advocating re-testing for experienced engineers in structural - I think the "higher standards" can be phased in through grandfathering.

4. I do not feel "elite" for passing these tests. I feel that I've simply satisfied a legal requirement to provide me with an opportunity to practice (in Illinois). The test took a lot of time, it took a lot of study, it took money and effort.... jusk like your engineering degree, all just like your years of experience, all just like your PE exam. There's no reason why I shouldn't feel proud of the accomplishment of passing the SE tests just like you are proud of your own PE accomplishments. Some posts on this site that denigrate the SE exams sometimes appear just a little too transparent.

 

[Ron]

JAE...well said. I believe your disclosure was incomplete...you did the PE before all of that as I recall.

The process is important to our profession, be it structural, civil, mechanical or other disciplines. As time has progressed, the general discipline of civil has harbored structural, civil, environmental, and geotechnical at least. As specialization became more important to the public good, each of these subdisciplines has branched out, though some have not yet achieved specific exam status as has structural.

I support this branching...it's a natural evolution of our profession. There will be inevitable problems with the grandfathering of those whose practice has suddenly been recognized as a specialty and requires separate examination for licensure, but those issues should not keep us from progressing our profession and keeping the standards high.

I'm glad not everyone who holds an engineering degree can pass the PE in whatever discipline they choose. If anyone could pass it, then it wouldn't be worth much. I personally thinks it's worth a lot, otherwise, as I've said before, I'd be doing something where there's real money!