"Watering Down" the S.E. 6

[epitome1170]

As a spawn of the "What we don't know about what we think we know" thread, I wanted to bring up a discussion that has concerned myself a little as well.

Since I have heard of the new adoption of the 16 hour examination, one thought that has always crept into my mind is that they are now going to be watering down the title of Structural Engineer. Perhaps it is egotistical, but my thought has always been that the S.E. title is one that not very many people have (one because so few have to take it for their state of licensure), but also because it was so much more work.

I worry that now that more people are taking the test that the passing rate (relative to the two tests previously) will go up. That the test will either get easier or that they will relax their standards.

Am I overthinking this? I would love to hear other P.E.s and S.E.s opinions.

 

[jtx]

FWIW...The pass rate for the first run of the 16hr SE exam is 27%

http://www.ncees.org/Exams/SE_exam.php

I think it's safe to say that the new SE exam isn't watered down and safe to use in CA, WA, OR, HI, IL, etc...

Also I wish to bid most of you (PMR06, Teguci, a2mfk, and others) an AMEN for your points because, in hindsight, does having two lonely letter after your name make you a better engineer? I am going on my third try to pass the PE in Wisconsin, and I did take the last PE Structural I exam in OCT 2010 and failed. So does that make me less of a structural engineer? If you can adequately do your work, understand the priciples behind what you are doing, and provide engineering work that satisfies the project requirements and public safety, then the rest is just noise.

.....

I do not mean to be condesending, or devalue the importance of having a PE or SE. It is just a little frustrating that there is a sentiment in this thread (at least in a couple of posts) that if someone does not have a SE, or a PE for that matter, then that doesn't make that person "smart enough" to be structural engineer. I am sorry, that is just BS to me.

Then again, maybe my interpretation is off

 

[dhengr]

Jtx:

I wonder if your outlook on being or becoming a P.E. or S.E. isn’t a little jaded by the fact that you have tried several times and not passed the exam. I hesitate to use the term ‘failed’ because you had the gumption to try. Now, your assignment is to give some thought to why you haven’t passed, in the past, and to assess your own aspirations, and then get her done. This may take a little soul searching and questioning of your assertions: “So does that make me less of a structural engineer? If you can adequately do your work, understand the priciples behind what you are doing, and provide engineering work that satisfies the project requirements and public safety, then the rest is just noise.” To your own and your boss’s satisfaction do you truly meet what you said, and if so is that all you aspire to?

Passing the test means you had the gumption to study and sit for the test, and that on that particular day you were smart enough to answer enough of the available questions on the test to pass it. It also means you were smarter, that day, than about 50 or 75% of the other people taking the test. But, as others have said, quite well, that does not, will not, make you a good engineer. You do that over the years by practicing our profession, and not having a bunch of your structures failing or hurting people. Teguci said reputation and humility, that’s mighty important too, just don’t become his ‘Roy.’.

Over the years, I have working with some P.E’s. who I wouldn’t want working in my office, but they apparently passed the test. I have worked with some darn good engineers who just didn’t make the effort to take the test. I certainly would have written them a glowing recommendation if they need it, but they were content where they were at. I have also had a few really good draftsmen who became darn good engineers, who I trusted to do some fairly significant engineering. We had worked together long enough so I knew what they could do and I had total confidence that they would come to me when they were getting in over their heads.

I don’t think we should flaunt our P.E. or S.E., and I sure a hell don’t think we get the respect we should from most others. They don’t have the vaguest idea what we do until something falls on them or out from under them, or their water or electricity goes out. But, I do think we have every right to be proud (and poor) of our profession and titles, such as they are. Remember, we can, but we usually don’t, kill em by the hundreds; Doctors can only do that one at a time; and Attorneys just do it to everyone.

 

[JAE]

It is just a little frustrating that there is a sentiment in this thread (at least in a couple of posts) that if someone does not have a SE, or a PE for that matter, then that doesn't make that person "smart enough" to be structural engineer.

Oh come on. I read through all the posts above and none that I saw expressed such an opinion. No one here suggests that the test absolutely determine whether an engineer is competent. They help - they are probably the best way for a community to attempt to weed out engineers who don't quite understand all the aspects of good engineering - but they aren't perfect measures and I've yet to see anyone on this site suggest that they are.

Call out the posts. Which ones express a sentiment that not having an SE title means you are not smart enough? Perhaps I missed one but I didn't see anything of the sort.

 

[epitome1170]

Now that the results are in:

I personally was happy to see such a low combined passing rate.

As for some of the comments, I was never implying that it would make anyone "less of" an engineer to pass now. Obviously (and I think this should not even need to be said), a test does not make a person a good (or bad) engineer.

What I was getting at (that some people got), was that if the passing rate was near 50% that the test would be easier to pass... thus more people would be SEs... thus standards would be relaxed, i.e. Standard of Care would go down and the already "lower tier" engineer would be even lower on the totem pole of engineering.

I just spoke with an older ME yesterday while on site and we were talking about this very thing. He stated that SEs do some of the most important work of any engineering profession, but somewhere along the way they lost that prestige due to relaxed standards. I happen to agree with him (that does not mean we have less important job or that I do not love what I do or that we are all in it for prestige... so those posts can be avoided).

The point is that we all want to be valued in one fashion or another and by relaxing our standards we DIMINISH that value.

So bravo to the NCEES and their board for making it difficult to pass.