Alert to those who are licensed in nebraska..... 5

You are incorrect. There is no SE practice act in NE right now. It is just a title act.

The state board in NE created an SE title act that simply defines who can call themselves a Structural Engineer. PE's can still do all structural design providing they have the necessary skills, education and experience.

They have suggested that a local city building department could conceivably require a titled SE on a project but that is being debated (i.e. the difference between a city inspector requiring higher levels of design than the code requires vs. the inspector requiring a "higher" level of license).

There also is no grandfathering. There is an "equivalency" check that PE's can go through (instead of taking the SE-1 and SE-2). This involves sending in a packet of information showing structural experience, calculations, etc. that would represent that the candidate can show that their knowledge would be equivalent to passing the SE-2....again - this is only to get titled as an SE - no practice limitation is in place legally now.

Thanks for clarifying that JAE....a friend alerted me to this (he incorrectly thought I was licensed in Nebraska)....so I just wanted to alert others.


Hopefully I'll be retired before too many states east of the Mississippi start tacking on such requirements. [I only passed the SE I.]

I'm afraid that many states are heading that way. The SE I and SE II will soon be combined into a single two day test. A structural two day test is quite different from the other PE testing, so it does make some sense to give a different license. SEAOG is pushing Georgia to enact a practice act to coincide with the new combined test. It is my understanding that the other SEA groups are planning to do the same in their states. My concern with the proposed changes is that PEs must pass the PE exam and can only do civil work and SEs must pass the SE exam and can only do structural work. It seems too confining, and it still does not prevent people from practicing beyond their expertise. I too have only passed the SE I. I plan to take the SE II this Fall so that I don't get stuck in licensing limbo where I can't get a PE or an SE in other states.

I’ve given some thought to trying the SE II myself.

I’m a little surprised structural engineers in Georgia would push such a thing (unless they think they can grandfather it in). I would suspect most structural engineers in Georgia don’t have the SE II [I work in S.C. and it is that way for most structural people I know].

Honestly guys, other than the $400 fee, the SE II is not difficult. You get to do design problems within your specialty (bridge or building) and explain your answers. It's not the 6 minute/question multiple choice crap like the SE I.

There shouldn't be a need to "beat the system"

Yeah, I’ve seen sample SE II exams (that NCEES puts out)….it doesn’t look that bad. I guess I have trepidation due to the fact it was multiple attempts for me (i.e. at the SE I; it may be a PTSD thing ).

Actually getting to choose whether you answer bridge or building problems certainly makes it easier for me. The problem with those tests though is trying to keep up with all these code changes (every three years they put out a different one for just about every material).

The other drawback is the fact that several states (out west) that do require the SE II also have a [state specific] SE III. So even if you do make it through the thing, it doesn’t cover you everywhere.

I’ve got an e-mail into NCEES asking about this (i.e. how they plan to address people who have just passed the SE I and may want to take the SE II at some point in time on down the line (AFTER the thing is combined)). They may force my hand on this…..wonder how many attempts it will be this time.

The combination of SEI and SEII along with the potential SE licensure shouldn't scare anyone. Most states that have a SE license also have very broad grandfathering rules. And in many cases, the SE act can be sunsetted like any law.

It's not about the folks out there today it's about the folks out there in 15 or 20 years from now.

Regards,
Qshake

Eng-Tips Forums:Real Solutions for Real Problems Really Quick.

3doorsdwn,
The licensing goals of NCSEA were discussed at our last SEAOG meeting. It was stated that the ultimate goal is to increase the test complexity until it is acceptable to the western states. This would help create a uniform testing requirement, which would make obtaining comity much easier. I'm not sure that this is a goal of the structural engineers in Georgia. I think SEAOG be toeing the NCSEA line. I look forward to hearing the response from NCEES.

B16A2, Qshake,
I'm not too worried about the SE II. I would much rather design bridge components than answer a multitude of building questions. I am a little concerned about the LRFD aspect of it as GDOT has not yet adopted LRFD and my experience is with the Standard Specifications. I guess I will be ahead of the curve when we finally do begin designing with LRFD.

I do question the need for separate licensing. I don't think it will do anything to improve the safety of the public. Instead it adds another hurdle, and it will discourage students from pursuing structural engineering. Today's students are expected to pay outrageous sums of money for several years of tuition, then pay another outrageous sum of money for graduate school, then work for several years and finally take a series of test to obtain a license that severely limits the breadth of their work. They are then rewarded with a mediocre salary. I love what I do, but I'm not sure that I would chose the same path if presented with these hurdles.

I understand the gravity of our profession, but I don't think these hurdles really increase the quality of engineers. Tests, and the licenses associated with them, do not keep out engineers that will practice beyond their abilities. In the future we will have mediocre engineers with graduate degrees, even more school debt and lots of exam completions. I apologize for hijacking the thread; I think this topic has been beaten to death in a few other threads.

Yeah, I agree jorton: the incentive does seem thin at times (considering the requirements we are supposed to meet).

Well, this will give us more ammo to increase our fees!