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.

 

[JAE]

Lutfi - after reading through the tone of my post, I do want to say that I did not intend to suggest you are one of those who "doth protest too much" about the SE. Just seems that in some other forums (not this one) there's been a lot of slamming of any and all PE exams by a lot of non-PE individuals. Just wanted you to know that.

 

[Lutfi]

JAE,

No offense is taken. I am a PE and all for certification. All I want is to have intellectual debate.

It is getting late. I will respond/clarify my position at later date.




Regards,
Lutfi

 

[henri2]

This has been a very intellectually stimulating thread.

A few of my thoughts:

1. In time, certification will be beneficial for individuals working in states where there is no separate license for structural engineering. This has been the experience in other professions; the field of medicine is a good example.

2. If the SE Cert Board has stopped grandfathering, this is a good thing, and will help level the playing field. In time, I do hope the board certification requirements will evolve to the point where they are at least commensurate with the NCEES model structural engineering law.

 

[lkjh345]

Henri2:

I looked at the SECB's website, and they will be accepting applications under the Grandfathering Provision till 12/31/2015.

The catch is for every year you wait, the application fee grows by $100. It is $450 this year.

 

[UcfSE]

The Structural Engineering Certification Board was formed to identify those professional engineers with the additional education, experience, and skills that are particular to the practice of Structural Engineering.

SECB Website

How can they propose to actually identify these individuals who are supposed to have "additional education, experience and skills" by basically only looking at the number of years they have held an active PE license and some testimony?

According to this pdf of the SECB application, grandfathering ends 6/1/2008 (top of page 4).

SECB Application

 

[lkjh345]

UcfSE:

There seems to be a discrepency on the SECB website.

You are correct. On Page 4 of the Application form it shows the Grandfathering option to be available to 6/1/2008.

Under the Q&A section, Question #3, it says Grandfathering is available till 12/31/2015.

 

[vmirat]

Being in a State that does not require the SE exams, I'm curious to know if liability insurance companies decrease their premiums if you have SE next to your name? The reason I ask this question is to see if there is monetary value in having the additional qualification. It's kind of like getting the driver training discount on your auto insurance. Although I don't believe this should be the motivating factor behind SE certification, it is something to think about.

 

[JAE]

No change in insurance in NE/IL for me.

 

[lkjh345]

Our liability insurance carrier does not even ask about 'Certification' on our application

 

[AggieYank]

I have a problem with grandfather clauses, especially in this case. Who benefits from being grandfathered into a certification? The only people that are benefitted by grandfather clauses are people who can't pass the exam. And if they can't pass the exam, should they really be certified? Sure they can estimate a building's cost to within 20%, they can schmooze with architects all day, and they can write a book on current construction practices, but at the end of the day, all that matters is that the building was safely designed to code. Everything else the engineer provides is a bonus.

If ample time is given to take the SE, I'd have no problem with it being required of all structural engineers as a minimum.

Disclaimer. I'm an EIT.

 

[PMR06]

Honestly, this is a true story. Perhaps it illustrates the problems with assumptions and perceptions?

We had a project in which a client needed us to verify the live load capacity of an existing concrete floor structure. The existing drawings gave us rebar size & spacing, but no concrete strength. We assumed 3000 psi and gave the floor system a live load rating. The client needed a higher rating for his occupancy though. What to do? If he needed a higher rating, we would have to test the concrete. It was annoying, but not prohibitive. The testing company sent a crew out, drilled several sample cores, took them back to the lab and tested them. Sure enough, tested out at 6000 psi! This was some solid concrete! So, we revised our calcs and gave the floor system a higher rating as the client needed. In the end, it was the same concrete, and the same building, it just took an annoying test for us to change one number on a piece of paper, and the client was satisfied.

PS: I am also an EIT, taking the SE1 this October, planning to take the SE2 when I feel I am ready. Much respect to my elder engineers, and maybe I'll see you at the SE2?

 

[Bagman2524]

Not a good comparison.
Concrete = inanimate object, design strength not provided. Only way to determine is test. Engineer = human being, tested twice, proved adequate by years of practice, opinion of peers and continuing education.

 

[Bagman2524]

AggieYank, Couldn't disagree more
Perhaps people who can pass the exam, have been practicing for a number of years, maintaining the continuing education and due to work load don't have the time to study for and take a 3rd licensing test.

 

[RARWOOD]

I am a registered profesional engineer in the state of Minnesota. As I understand the law, I may practice in any field of engineering that I am qualified in.

I have a MSCE degree (Civil). I only do structural engineering because I am not qualified to practice in the other civil disciplines.

When I first became registered, the state I was reigistered in had no provision for becoming registered as a Structural Engineer. It was also my understanding at the time that most states which provided for a Structural Registration at the time, required you to first become a registered profesional engineer.

I think for new registrations starting in the future it would be ok to require that structural engineers had to be SEs.

However it makes little sense to require engineers who are already registered and can legaly practice structural engineering to become SEs.

One of the problems is the college degrees. All my degree's are in Civil Engineering, although most of my course work was in the field of structural engineering.

Do we want to require engineers in the future to have a Masters in Structural Engineering just to take the SE exams?

 

[AggieYank]

Bagman, It's a very valid point that some people wouldn't have time to study properly for the exam. However, the same thing could be said for the PE exam, and there isn't a general outcry over that.

 

[vmirat]

It seems to me that the only value the SE tests have is that it makes the client more comfortable in hiring you. The PE license code of ethics already restricts you to practicing only what you know. That's why it's a profession and not a trade.

I'm wondering what instigated the whole SE test thing in the first place? Was there a rash of bad structural designs that States decided they needed more control over who did structural engineering? Where do you draw the line between professional responsibility and government mandated compliance?

 

[Galambos]

for those unfamiliar with the SE license, it's general purpose and the states requiring it, here is a pretty decent article from Structure Magazine.

http://www.structuremag.org/archive...05.pdf#search="structure magazine SE license"

 

[lkjh345]

Aggie:

'...they can estimate a building's cost to within 20%, they can schmooze with architects all day, and they can write a book on current construction practices,...but at the end of the day, all that matters is that the building was safely designed to code. Everything else the engineer provides is a bonus.
.'

Don't disparage the 'soft' skills of being an engineer too much. When you have significant client interface, you begin to realize how important they become.

Sometime, not all the time, but sometimes, its the lack of these 'soft' skills thats casues others (architects, owners, etc) to view engineers as nothing more than techinicians, with any one being just as good as any other. So why not hire by the lowest price?

Some of the skill of being a good engineer IMHO is being able to educate architects/owners/etc on the value that a good engineer can bring to the project and project team. We all know this, but do our clients and their clients know this? How much time do we spend talking to them about this?

Some may call this 'schmoozing' but when you work for a consulting eningeering company that depends on keeping clients satisified, it becaomes vitally important or your not in buisness very long.

 

[samdamon]

I am going to borrow Lutfi's soapbox for a minute. Certification is unnecessary. Our profession has many issues to deal with, but trying to ensure a minimum standard of technical competence, or trying to differentiate structural from other engineers via additional testing, is not the most pressing, in my humble opinion. Most of the structural engineers I know are more than competent. They are creative, hard working, ethical and intelligent people. If the general public had a full understanding of the great challenges habitually met and overcome by our profession they would be awestruck (I know that I am).

Instead of spending our precious time on the certification issue, we need instead to be spending it on educating the public about what we do. Although its important that this gets done in our daily practice, thats not enough. No real change will occur if its left to individual practitioners alone to educate the people that they come in contact with. To see a change in public attitudes in our lifetime requires a large, expensive, concentrated and coordinated effort. The entire profession needs to be marketed properly. If some readers think marketing is a dirty word, thats unfortunate, but its the key. I don't see any of the large professional organizations doing this effectively at present, although they are trying. Bottom line is that structural engineers in this country should and need not accept a slow slide into obscure status as a "techie trade", but it will continue to happen if we let it.

I would like to write much more but my time is limited. Off the soapbox now.

 

[AggieYank]

lkjh345, you're very correct. I'm not trying to disparage the "soft" skills of an engineer. The "soft" skills of an engineer are arguably as important if not more important in a consulting engineering company than the technical skills, especially when it comes to working with and retaining clients. I currently work in a consulting engineering company.

Most clients don't know the difference between an engineer with good technical skills versus an engineer with OK technical skills. I think clients rank engineers they work with by their "soft" skills.

Every engineer should be able to design a building to code. What should separate a good engineer from an OK or weak engineer should be the soft skills, because they should all be proficient at the "hard" engineering skills. In my opinion, there is a significant difference between good engineers and "weak" engineers currently, and that difference is mostly in the "hard" engineering skills.

An engineer I worked with can turn a project around in record time. But he designs it for 20 psf wind. And doesn't check seismic. And I really doubt he looks at diaphragm capacity. Or diaphragm chord capacities or chord connections. Or uplift at x-bracing foundation connections. Or roof diaphragm load transfer to interior lateral bracing. Etc. While he is a great engineer in most aspects, I feel he's perhaps a little weak in some areas on the "hard" engineering side though very strong on the "soft" engineering side.

It's idealistic to think that every engineer could design every building 100% to code, but I think requiring a SE certification would get us closer to that.