I'm trying to decide if an SE license will be of enough benefit to me at this point in my career and I have a couple of questions. I am a licensed PE in Colorado (I provide structural engineering services) and at this time I am not limitted, legally, to the type, size, or use of building that I can design in Colorado. Has anyone summarized the states' requirements/limitations for comparison concerning PE, SE (and an architect for that matter), legal limitations? As a civil in California one can design up to 30 stories in most areas but not hospitals. In Utah you need to be a structural for anything over 2 stories commercial. That is quite a difference. It would be helpful to compare the states at once. Thanks
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Why get an SE license? 1
- Thread starter vato
- Start date
msquared48
Structural
Yes, I would use CE and SE in my signature - those from my home state of licensure from where I wrote the publication.
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask
TXStructural
Structural
I spoke to an NCEES examiner last month about the new SE exam. While it has not been adopted by jurisdictions yet, the idea is that the new 16 hour SE will replace the SE I, SE II, and the state SE III exams now in use.
Taking the SE II now, and not taking an appropriate SE III exam before they are discontinued in 2011 or 2012 may result in a need to take all 16 hours of the new exam to license in SE states.
This is obviously subject to change.
It is my understanding that Texas may adopt an SE rule, but will allow currently licensed engineers practicing in structural disciplines to continue.
Taking the SE II now, and not taking an appropriate SE III exam before they are discontinued in 2011 or 2012 may result in a need to take all 16 hours of the new exam to license in SE states.
This is obviously subject to change.
It is my understanding that Texas may adopt an SE rule, but will allow currently licensed engineers practicing in structural disciplines to continue.
TXStructural - I believe your understanding is correct.
I recently contacted the Chairman of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers Structural Engineering Task Force (Bob Navarro) regarding the article he wrote linked from the SEAoT website:
Specifically, I asked him if current practicing structural engineers holding Texas PEs (such as myself) will simply be able to submit an affidavit to bypass the need to take the new 16hr exam to obtain a Texas SE license. He said that's the idea. (as the article states).
So, that is very good news.
I recently contacted the Chairman of the Texas Board of Professional Engineers Structural Engineering Task Force (Bob Navarro) regarding the article he wrote linked from the SEAoT website:
Specifically, I asked him if current practicing structural engineers holding Texas PEs (such as myself) will simply be able to submit an affidavit to bypass the need to take the new 16hr exam to obtain a Texas SE license. He said that's the idea. (as the article states).
So, that is very good news.
That sixteen hour structural exam is a monster. I took it back when we had plug-in calculators. In those days, the batteries just didn't last long. They strung extension cables throughout the exam room for everyone to plug into. By the afternoon session of the first day, murmers of, "Oh sh*t!" and similar could be heard throughout the room. The exam procters never plugged the extension cords in.
- Thread starter
- #25
Update:
In order to receive comity in Cali for a PE, it looks like I'm going for the Cali Civil license. (Still waiting to see if the client that wants it, wants it bad enough)
4 hours of surveying
and 4 hours seismic apps
You can still do a lot of structural as a civil in Cali, from my understanding.
I'm still not clear if I can take the SEII out there after this. Hopefully things will get clearer all the way around by the time I'm ready. I think a nasty 16hr exam might be good for me.
In order to receive comity in Cali for a PE, it looks like I'm going for the Cali Civil license. (Still waiting to see if the client that wants it, wants it bad enough)
4 hours of surveying
and 4 hours seismic apps
You can still do a lot of structural as a civil in Cali, from my understanding.
I'm still not clear if I can take the SEII out there after this. Hopefully things will get clearer all the way around by the time I'm ready. I think a nasty 16hr exam might be good for me.
abusementpark
Structural
Maybe I missed it, but for the states that do not currently distinguish between civil P.E. and S.E., when they do ultimately adopt the S.E. as a requirement for structural engineering, how will they generally handle existing structural engineers practicing under a civil P.E.? Have any states commented on this?
Will they have to take the 16-hour S.E. exam, or will they be grandfathered in on a case-by-case basis?
Will they have to take the 16-hour S.E. exam, or will they be grandfathered in on a case-by-case basis?
TXStructural
Structural
There is no answer. Each state will be different. Most likely, most will try to be sure those currently practicing in the state will be grandfathered. There will probably be no comity without the new exam. This is the case for Texas.
Note that the new 16 hr exam is not the same as the current or past exams.
Note that the new 16 hr exam is not the same as the current or past exams.
TXStructural
Structural
NCEES would like to think so. NCEES is trying to become the sole-source provider of these exams, in an effort to cut out the state exams. From the perspective of a licensee, having a common exam for all states sounds great. However, in designing minimum competency exams for legal licensing, is the best way to decide about content to start with "make a list of everything a structural engineer might need to know" rather than "what are the things every structural engineer must know"? We are dangerously close to, analogously, requiring 18 year old drivers to be able to drive in NASCAR traffic before getting a license.
Current pass rates for SEII exams are on the order of 25%, among those who choose to take that exam. Beginning next year, every prospective SE will be required to take an exam designed to cover more material in greater depth, so I expect passing rates in the 10-30% range. Many others will opt for Civil/Structural, and I expect many states will allow some structural work to be done under this license, but the only path from PE C/S to SE is to take 16 more hours of exam at significant, additional expense.
I object to creating a barrier to entry into any profession which in unnecessarily burdensome and has been not demonstrated to be needed. There has not been a rash of PE-engineered structural failures. No one has suggested that those of us currently practicing (at least not most of us) are not competent to do structural design.
I suspect that NCEES saw revenue and decided to fix a problem which does not exist. Why get $200 in revenue when you can get $1000 (or whatever the new test will bring.) I also think that the licensing board representatives to NCEES have decided that uniformity across the states is more important than fairness to those purchasing engineering services.
My predictions:
Fewer pass the exam
Fewer engineers will practice in structural
Prices for services will rise.
People will look for ways around buying "over-priced" services
There will be more failures of un-engineered structures, not fewer.
Current pass rates for SEII exams are on the order of 25%, among those who choose to take that exam. Beginning next year, every prospective SE will be required to take an exam designed to cover more material in greater depth, so I expect passing rates in the 10-30% range. Many others will opt for Civil/Structural, and I expect many states will allow some structural work to be done under this license, but the only path from PE C/S to SE is to take 16 more hours of exam at significant, additional expense.
I object to creating a barrier to entry into any profession which in unnecessarily burdensome and has been not demonstrated to be needed. There has not been a rash of PE-engineered structural failures. No one has suggested that those of us currently practicing (at least not most of us) are not competent to do structural design.
I suspect that NCEES saw revenue and decided to fix a problem which does not exist. Why get $200 in revenue when you can get $1000 (or whatever the new test will bring.) I also think that the licensing board representatives to NCEES have decided that uniformity across the states is more important than fairness to those purchasing engineering services.
My predictions:
Fewer pass the exam
Fewer engineers will practice in structural
Prices for services will rise.
People will look for ways around buying "over-priced" services
There will be more failures of un-engineered structures, not fewer.
I am not against the idea, (currenly a licenced PE in CA, OR, and WA). For these states an SE is required for a lot of things I do, so I would be taking the SE2 and SE3 anyway. For my own selfish reasons, I am happy to take the combined exam and have it be good everywhere in the future.
I just wonder how what the reaction will be when folks realize the new SE1 and SE2 are not the same as the old exams, since they will obviously need to incorporate the SE3 stuff in order for CA, OR, and WA to go along.
Peronally, I like your 18 year old Nascar driver analogy. I think that if a person wants to do SE level work (if the SE is required, like essential or hazardous facilities) there ought to be some barrier to entry like the SE exam. If a guy is qualified, they should be able to pass the exam.
I just wonder how what the reaction will be when folks realize the new SE1 and SE2 are not the same as the old exams, since they will obviously need to incorporate the SE3 stuff in order for CA, OR, and WA to go along.
Peronally, I like your 18 year old Nascar driver analogy. I think that if a person wants to do SE level work (if the SE is required, like essential or hazardous facilities) there ought to be some barrier to entry like the SE exam. If a guy is qualified, they should be able to pass the exam.
enginerding
Structural
I think the point is that for many structures, the SE3 is not required to safely design the structure. Just like most drivers don't need to be able to drive in NASCAR to be able to drive on the highway.
In CA and other western states they allow for this by permitting PEs to design some structures. But in Illinois, an SE is required to design any structures - even the proverbial brick sh*thouse. If the new 16 hour exam is intended to have the same level of difficulty (read pass rate) as the SE3 exam, it will make things unnecessarily burdensome for your typical structural engineer to be licensed in Illinois.
Let's hope that the intention is to make it much more similar to the SE1 + SE2 combo that is currently required in Illinois and in other states than to make it similar to the SE3...
In CA and other western states they allow for this by permitting PEs to design some structures. But in Illinois, an SE is required to design any structures - even the proverbial brick sh*thouse. If the new 16 hour exam is intended to have the same level of difficulty (read pass rate) as the SE3 exam, it will make things unnecessarily burdensome for your typical structural engineer to be licensed in Illinois.
Let's hope that the intention is to make it much more similar to the SE1 + SE2 combo that is currently required in Illinois and in other states than to make it similar to the SE3...
TXStructural
Structural
NCEES intends the new exam to cover all material now found in SE I & SE II & the state exams (SE 3). The current SE I and SE II exams were never intended to be used separately. NCEES made it clear that they were only to be used in conjunction with each other. Some states thought better of that, since passing the SE I was roughly equal to passing the other PE exams, and it created an adequate barrier to exclude the unqualified candidates. The new exam was intentionally designed to prevent this possibility. I agree, if the measure of competency is an exam, the test needs to assess for the minimum knowledge required.
If the current test were a bad test, then we should see fault in the work of PE's which passed the SE I exam. I propose that we do not see that trend.
In part, it is the way by which this is being done which irritates me. I am concerned for my profession, since I have seen this happen time and time again in various professions. The bar is raised for new entrants until it really is meaningless for all but the guys who view themselves as the elite practitioners. It is unnecessarily exclusionary. NCEES does not seem to have listened to the PE/SE community in this process. AASHTO does the same thing - they work in a vacuum, as representatives of their respective state agencies, without industry and the public having real participation. NCEES (and AASHTO) have what amounts to absolute control over their respective standards. If the federal government or a state agency were to pass a rule specifying such a change in policy, it would be subject to public comment. By working through NCEES, we have state agencies making new rules which are not subject to legislative review or public scrutiny.
As the only public with a sophisticated knowledge on this subject, we need to pressure our state boards to evaluate the needs of our own state, and bring reason to this process.
Raising a bar is nice for an individual desiring to get better or learn more, but it is not the right thing to do as a matter of public policy. States should be licensing for minimum competency required for the profession.
As an aside, states do not create levels of competency among doctors in order to restrict practice (although I might argue that they should.)
If the current test were a bad test, then we should see fault in the work of PE's which passed the SE I exam. I propose that we do not see that trend.
In part, it is the way by which this is being done which irritates me. I am concerned for my profession, since I have seen this happen time and time again in various professions. The bar is raised for new entrants until it really is meaningless for all but the guys who view themselves as the elite practitioners. It is unnecessarily exclusionary. NCEES does not seem to have listened to the PE/SE community in this process. AASHTO does the same thing - they work in a vacuum, as representatives of their respective state agencies, without industry and the public having real participation. NCEES (and AASHTO) have what amounts to absolute control over their respective standards. If the federal government or a state agency were to pass a rule specifying such a change in policy, it would be subject to public comment. By working through NCEES, we have state agencies making new rules which are not subject to legislative review or public scrutiny.
As the only public with a sophisticated knowledge on this subject, we need to pressure our state boards to evaluate the needs of our own state, and bring reason to this process.
Raising a bar is nice for an individual desiring to get better or learn more, but it is not the right thing to do as a matter of public policy. States should be licensing for minimum competency required for the profession.
As an aside, states do not create levels of competency among doctors in order to restrict practice (although I might argue that they should.)
- Thread starter
- #33
Comprehensivists! I think that's what Bucky considered himself, among other things. It sure looks like we are becoming specialists, which is not desirable in my opinion. Are we going to retest architects so they are still allowed to stamp structural drawings? I hope so.
TXStructural
Structural
"Comprehensivists! ... Are we going to retest architects so they are still allowed to stamp structural drawings? I hope so."
Right there with you on that.
There is nothing wrong with specialization, as long as it is either required to properly do the work, or it is at the option of the buyer of the services.
Right there with you on that.
There is nothing wrong with specialization, as long as it is either required to properly do the work, or it is at the option of the buyer of the services.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
