I think it comes down to an asterisk. How do we describe ourselves. PE is simple enough after our name in written correspondence. It doesn't matter if it is Civil, the Old Structural I, Naval Architecture, or Mechanical (I'm a boat nerd and have all 4, so I rarely get questioned about being outside of my scope.) Etc. Etc. I did sit for Structural II back in 1998 but did not pass. Before I got a chance to sit again for it, the Naval Architecture Exam came out and it was more relevant to my life. Both my kids were studying mechanical engineering, so I took the Mechanical discipline test, with the machinery design for the afternoon section. Not far fetched getting there from the multiple cross-overs with Structural I and Naval Architecture, and the hydraulics from Civil Engineering. But with all of that, two simple letters can describe me. PE. No amounts of green building code monikers can ever equate to being a Professional Engineer. I live in North Carolina. Is the Structural I Discipline Test sufficient to call myself simply a Structural Engineer (SE) without modifying it with Structural I designation? In conversations I feel comfortable saying I'm a structural engineer. In writing should I be able to say SE? Maybe, but more usually I stick with PE. SE makes it more difficult on what you put out there and are licensed in multiple states, especially when some of those have specific Structural Licensing.
When I took Structural II, I was mixed in with the entire roomful of PE candidates. At the time, someone taking Struct II was a rarity, and someone from the state board came over to meet me. He also told me to ignore the general instructions, as that was when Structural was still an all written test.
But all the while I was attempting various additional disciplines, I was still simply stated, a PE.
SO WHAT IS A CANDIDATE THAT PASSES THE VERTICAL PART OF THE 16 HOUR TEST, BUT NOT THE LATERAL. Or vice versa. Do they have any professional standing other than EIT or EI? Are we making it so that presumably some of our best and brightest have to go with some sort of asterisk that they are only partially finished with the structural 16 hour test so that they aren't really officially licensed to do engineer simpler structures? Are they not usually competent at that point to call themselves a structural engineer? Can they not even sign anything that is not the level of high seismic loading/multi story towers. NC coastal engineering for wood framed structures is predominantly wind loading controlled. Seismic does creep in when you try to go something concrete, because of nearness to Charleston, SC. No matter what, at the end of the day, the public, through the building inspector or other AHJ just want to know that someone is willing to acknowledge, with their seal and signature, that it prescriptively or performance based complies with acceptable levels of engineering standards.
The SE should remain as a Principles and Practices discipline test, at no greater or no less of a level of importance than any of the other PE Disciplines. If you did your 4 years of experience straight out of college on high end structural projects in Chicago or San Francisco, then the 16 hour SE test is probably no greater of a concern to you, and probably even less tasking, than say a Civil who has predominantly worked on Stormwater Projects. If you have predominantly mixed Civil with coastal light framed wood structures, you will have a tough time preparing for the seismic lateral.
Are we ready as an organization for a Civil who took the afternoon Structural Depth portion of the Civil Exam to call themselves as a Structural Engineer, SE, with no other qualifiers to it? Should an old timer with Structural I with over 20 years since be considered a full SE? (I still have some angst on not going back for Structural II, which would now mean sitting for all 16 hrs of the new Vert & Lateral Exam, but I am never going to aspire to engineer a complete Chicago or LA high-rise by myself now that I am 66 and presumably retired after finishing one or two more projects that always turns into one or two more projects.)
Let the Structural Practice States CA, WA, IL and Nevada keep their requirements for SE if they so desire, but don't let a few states put added burdens on all engineers who in the end have the same overriding task to protecting the public safety. If I remember correctly, a New York judge long ago in a turf war between engineers and architects looked at their chartered purpose, and since both had the same goals of preserving life, safety, etc of the public, said their is no difference in an architect doing engineering and an engineer doing architecture. The P.E. Test in the 1980's was even just do 4 ten point problems in the morning, 4 in the afternoon, any question if you could answer it, any discipline. Seal just said Professional Engineer. And by ethics we are supposed to work in our areas of expertise. And their is nothing saying that our college major can be our only discipline or expertise. We gain experience, we learn from our pdh requirements. Try selling sailing yacht designs in a recession. You quickly learn having a back up plan is good. Enjoy where your career takes you. But don't limit fully vetted Profession Engineers from projects that are in their realm of education and/or experience.
Bruce Marek, P.E.
Wilmington, NC
(An interesting side note: NC eliminated the retired PE designation because Engineers never really retire, and it wasn't worth having a class of engineers for $20 less.)
------------------------------
Bruce Marek P.E., M.ASCE
Owner
Marek Yacht & Design
Wilmington NC
(910) 799-9245
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 08-08-2019 21:58
From: Carl Josephson
Subject: The Structural Exam as a "Principles and Practice" Exam
The Structural Engineering Licensing Caucus is this coming Wednesday, August 14 in Washington DC. The idea behind the caucus is to provide a forum to discuss issues and ideas related to structural engineering licensing. I would like to start a around some of those topics here for those who are not able to attend.
Should the 16-hour NCEES Structural Exam be considered a "Principles and Practice" PE exam (used for the initial PE license) or should it be considered a "mastery" exam with higher expectations of the examinees than that required of a newly licensed PE?
How have the various states/jurisdictions handled transitioning from PE to SE? What are the ramifications of adding (or not adding) a closing end date to the transition (grandfather) period?
I would love to hear what your experience has been so we can bring that to the Caucus.
------------------------------
Carl Josephson P.E.,F.SEI,M.ASCE
PRIN STRUT ENGR
Josephson Werdowatz & Assoc
San Diego CA
(858) 558-2181
------------------------------