"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.

 

[ToadJones]

I tend to be a little pessimistic.
I generally think these testing bodies are in it for themselves.
More standards and certifications = more BS fees to pay and more continuing Ed. classes = jobs for all. It has a very bureaucratic stench about it.

Think about how many PE's and SE's don't have actual jobs and work for boards and the like. Should these guys even bother having SE/PE licenses? Their job is actually to be an SE.

I think you learn a little studying for PE & SE.
I only have PE, but I have met some extremely incompetent PE's as well. Therefore, I don't put a whole hell of a lot of stock in titles.
...always reminds me of the line from Tommy Boy "...hey if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed..."

 

[PMR06]

I know of engineers who passed the SE1 and SE2 first time thru, but couldn't engineer themselves out of a paper bag.

I know of engineers with decades of experience who couldn't pass a modern exam because they still think "Zone 4" means something in seismic design.

And I know engineers who took the civil PE with afternoon structural who could engineer circles around all of us.

As with everything in life, no single label can represent everyone. An individual's ability, reputation and ethic is all that matters. The rest is alphabet soup.

 

[epitome1170]

I see your point, Toad.

Perhaps I am biased because I have my SE and hold myself to high standards and tests have always been easy for me. However, my thought is that a large percentage of people can pass the PE, but if you pass your SE, you really have to know what you are doing (unless you get lucky). That is not to say that you dont know anything if you dont have your SE or even that you are not smarter than a large number of SEs, but rather the SE seems to mean (to me) that you have proven yourself from a technical standpoint (not necessarily in engineering practice though).

My concern is that the last thought above will be watered down and be more like my perception of the PE, which is that you MAY know your "stuff" very well or (as you noted above) you may be virtually incompetent.

 

[TXStructural]

The test is just a tool to evaluate the minimum required competency for practice. It should not be a tool to make an occupation exclusive. And if the number of persons taking the test increases, I think the passing rate may well decrease.

Just because more people take and pass the test doesn't reduce the value of an SE, but more competition may change the market forces which drive cost and quality. If you are a better engineer, and customers want a better engineer, you still work. If customers want cheap buildings, and there are engineers willing to work for less, then prices may go down.

I doubt you will see much change in the short term, since the exam is certain to be difficult. (If I were cynical, I'd say NCEES makes more money if you take the exam twice, so they have no incentive to make things easy.)

 

[TTUengr51]

My thoughts are actually the opposite. I would think/hope the new 16-hour exam would be more difficult than the SE I and II from the standpoint that California, Washington and Oregon are going to quit administering the SE III and begin to use the 16-hour. If those states have bought in, I would assume the new 16-hour would have to get harder to be considered somewhat equivalent to the SE III. I have taken all 3 SE exams, and the Washington SE III was more difficult than the SE II. I think Washington takes great pride in that only on average 20-25% pass the SE III. I would doubt they would agree to a new exam in which 50-60% pass.



Nick Deal, PE, SE
Michael Brady Inc.

http://www.michaelbradyinc.com

 

[slomobile]

To start, this is not intended to be a CA is better than all other states in licensure message, it just happens to be where I am, so that is my experience with exams. And it is just observation and fact.

Observation: I have to disagree with TXStruct on one point: The national 16-hr exam is not certain to be difficult. I know the new exam is meant to have a breath & depth section on vert & lateral, but we'll have to see the outcome. In past exams before this April, CA utilized the 8-hr NCEES SEII and a state Specific Seismic 8-hr SEIII. As a generalization, the SEII was sub-par in many ways as an exam (granted i only took it once, but have talked to many colleagues who took it in varying years). As an example the diagrams and questions were poorly written and vague. Also the exam content was marginally difficult, as more of a breath than depth exam. If this is any indication for what is in store for an SE candidate in CA on the 16-hr, then the only difficulty is the time it takes to sit for the exam. (obviously studying will still be required to some degree)

Fact: There are several CA SE's who used to sit on the Technical writing committee for the CA SEIII, who have jumped into the process at NCEES to work with the Test writing committee for the 16-hr exam. The intent is to try to influence appropriate representation of Seismic/Wind design on the exam. The past National exams have been light on this topic with any depth.

Fact: the first test is what is called an 'Anchor Exam', meaning that wherever the cut score ends up this first go round in April, it will always be around that cut score. They do not change it because it would be retroactively unfair to candidates. So the hope here is that the bar is set high enough to "evaluate the minimum required competency for practice" as TXStructural put it so well. There will be many arguments as to what that minimum level is, but my hope, as well as Epitome's i assume is that that level meets a standard that has been commonplace in each home state that currently has an SE title act.

Fact: CA licenses approximately 1100-1300 new Civil PE's each year by exam (not all practice in structural obviously). CA licenses approximately 90-150 new SE's each year by exam.

I will concede all the comments about some SE's being poor practicing engineers who just passed a test, and that there are many PE's in CA that are better than many SE's. But the fact remains Epitome has a point, by changing the rules in CA (i can't speak for other states which i did not take exams, but instead by comity.), we have possibly watered down a product to the public. At least this MAY be the case here in CA. The good news is that State Law still requires CA to administer a State Specific exam for the SE and that is only given in October. There is much debate at the Board Level for what that exam will be like (talk from keeping the current SEIII 8-hr all the way down to a take-home) So fear not Epitome, in CA anyone who passes that new 16-hr NCEES test will not slip through the proverbial crack and get to be an SE in CA.

I've always been a fan of the oral exam on top of the written exam for SE's, similar to what Architects did in the past. If you pass the written exam, it only takes about 15 mins to talking to someone to see if they are incompetent in a technical, ethical and practical sense.

Epitome & I, as well as ~5,600 others had to walk up hill both ways in the snow to sit for the exam... shouldn't everyone else?
I think its fear of the unknown here, what if the new exam is so difficult that current SE's wouldn't have passed? A guy can dream can't he?

I look forward to responses that blast everything said here.
Also I want to hear from WA, IL & FL engineers, what is happening there with this 16-hr? is there a revolt? confusion? Are practicing engineers too busy trying to make it to notice what the governing boards have adopted and how it will effect their future prospects?

 

[steellion]

I also doubt the 16-hr test will be easier than SE1+SE2. If anything, I believe it will be more difficult in order to satisfy the states with an SE designation in an effort to make a uniform test that SE states will approve.

So no, I don't feel the pool will be watered down. What makes one that has passed SE1+SE2 any more qualified than one who passes SE16? You will still run into extremely bright SE's, and in some cases, engineers that you wonder how they ever passed the exam.

I believe with the SE1 gone, structural engineers looking for a PE will flock to the Civil PE. Remember, in addition to the test difficulty, there is a huge financial difference which may weigh in for some ($250 to take the PE exam vs. $1050 for the SE16).

 

[epitome1170]

Now I am glad I started this discussion. I am sure that NCEES (and the states) have also had these discussions, but it is nice to see that there are so many (and often strong) opinions on these.

So far the majority of the people think that this new test will be harder, which I hope is true. As slomobile stated, the previous SEI&SEII were subpar to me. I passed both on my first try and did not really study for either. I felt like it was a poor representation of what I actually know or should have to know to be considered competent in structural engineering, i.e. if someone only knew what was on the test, I know I would not want them to design a building.

I know what you are saying steelion about the finances, but that is a slippery slope that we (as a profession) should not go down. I do not want our profession governed more off costs of the tests than the actual test.

Ultimately, it is a fear of the unknown. This new test needs to be hard enough that it really encaptures structural engineering knowledge and not just your ability to sit in a room for 16 hours.

 

[msquared48]

Hard, you bet'cha. That 16 hour, two-day social event was the worst grind I'be been through, but it was worth it.

Considering the 8 for the EIT and 8 for the PE, that's only 8 short of the CPA exam that is administered within a week here.

Face it guys, 32 hours spaced over 6 years is a lot better than 40 hours in a week. Comparatively speaking, we've got it soft...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[a2mfk]

fact: slomobile is dwight shrewt

This discussion is a good one and goes hand in hand with the whole Masters degree requirement.

Being good at taking a test or having more acronyms behind your name doesn't mean you are a great engineer. I have met too many great PEs with BS degrees from average schools to put a ton of weight on credentials alone. I agree with TXstruct and others on this point. I have respect for your ability to take and pass any structural engineering exam, but I don't give it much weight beyond that.

I think it MAY help the profession a little long term, but its like strengthening building codes with no changes in enforcement. You can still have guys doing dumb/negligent stuff with all the fancy titles in the world. Isn't med school pretty hard? Boards? Any bad doctors out there with all of the credentials and licenses?

Have you guys never run across a PhD practicing that didn't knock your socks off? A previous company redesigned an entire building designed by a professor because it was so OVERdesigned and they saved them a ton of money. Just one anecdotal example...

I live in Florida, took the SE1 NCEES exam, have my PE, and don't plan on doing anything more unless I am REQUIRED. I am too busy being an actual structural engineer to study more seismic or bridge or post-tensioning stuff that I will never do. I'd rather focus on knowing exact information I can apply to my everyday work then to broaden my knowledge simply to pass a test.

 

[msquared48]

If you really want to water down the Structures exam, just throw a few hydraulics problems into the mix. That otta do it.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[a2mfk]

tight work Mike

If you were an SE for say 10 years or more and you failed one of these new tests for whatever reason, do they start tearing down all of those buildings you designed?

 

[ToadJones]

Civil PE is better and more difficult.
Not once in the years before I took the PE did I ever once in practice deal with:
Runoff calcs
Hydrualics
Piping
Soil Moisture content
Horizontal and vertical Curves
Cut and Fill

 

[NS4U]

consdering the passing rate of the 16 hour SE exam was only 27% I wouldn't say the "SE" license is going to be more watered down at all.

In fact, before this exam the the SE1 passing rate was about 50% and the SE2 passing rate was about 50%, so, doing a little bit of the statistics, the combined first time passing rate for both exams is 25%, which is pretty darn close to the passing rate of the new 16 hour exam.

Personally, I think this is just NSPE/NCEES/State Boards saying that passing the SE1 is not sufficent for licensure and acknowleding that states like IL were ahead of the pack when introducing the SE license.

 

[IRstuff]

I don't think that any such test would get "watered down," for the simple reason that too high a passing rate would mean too many licensed SEs, which adds to job competition and lowered salaries, which no one ever wants.

TTFN

FAQ731-376
Chinese prisoner wins Nobel Peace Prize

 

[MiketheEngineer]

And fifty years ago - all you had to do was fill out some paperwork. That was how my first boss got his PE!!

Follow the money!!

 

[paddingtongreen]

I didn't see this thread the first time round. Historically, engineering qualifications get harder with time, more knowledge is gained, things get more complicated. I took my EIT and PE late in life, (I was blackmailed into it by the chief engineer). Computer science and math models didn't exist when I was learning and thermo was a black art practiced by only a few aliens from another planet, but they were there when i took the exam.

As codes become more complicated, so will the exams become harder.

Michael.
Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance.

 

[woodman88]

California has already water down the SE, per their "BUILDING DESIGN AUTHORITY"

STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS may design any building of any type.
CIVIL ENGINEERS may design any building of any type EXCEPT public schools and hospitals.
ARCHITECTS may design any building of any type EXCEPT the structural portion of a hospital.

Garth Dreger PE - AZ Phoenix area
As EOR's we should take the responsibility to design our structures to support the components we allow in our design per that industry standards.

 

[Teguci]

Passing a test does not make you an engineer it just means you can cut through bureaucratic red tape (and when we first got our stamp most of us felt elevated).

Reputation and humility through experience makes an engineer. I do not believe that can be watered down.

On the other hand, I do remember sitting next to "Roy" who was taking the EIT for the 6th time and listening to him talk about how they had recorded his name and wouldn't let him pass. Based on his logic, I'm hoping he still hasn't passed.