Structural Engineers Need Separate Licensing
Photo by Skip Pennington/Brasfield & Gorrie
Protection of public safety, health and welfare is the chief imperative of licensed practice.
A physician's first priority is to do no harm, and an engineer's primary obligation is to hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public. This notion is precisely what motivates the advocates of separate licensure for structural engineers—the sincere belief that such a step is necessary to ensure that structures will remain standing.
Several states have had structural engineering (SE) licensure for decades, requiring passage of a 16-hour structural examination rather than the typical eight-hour test. Instead of having only multiple-choice questions, these exams have consistently included essay problems to evaluate a candidate's methodology, assumptions and judgment.
The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) has now adopted this higher standard nationwide. Its Model Rules include education, experience and examination requirements for a Model Law Structural Engineer.
The new 16-hour structural exam is evenly split between multiple-choice questions and essay problems and covers the full range of knowledge and skills required for competent practice.
While a few other NCEES exams include some structural content, passing one of these only shows ability in the specific aspects of the discipline that are included in the corresponding test specification. For example, the eight-hour civil/structural exam is intended for licensing civil engineers with a structural background, not SEs as such. Of course, passing any of the 16 NCEES exams with no structural content demonstrates no ability in the discipline at all.
Opponents of SE licensure do not claim that it would endanger the public. Instead, they usually cite the need for personal discretion and the importance of professional unity as reasons to maintain the status quo.
But neither of these considerations is integral to the most fundamental duty of all engineers. Modest constraints on those who are genuinely competent and ethical are a reasonable trade-off in order to protect the unwary from those who are incompetent or unethical.
Inadequate Alternatives
This conviction explains why proponents of SE licensure often come across as uncompromising. The National Society of Professional Engineers has proposed roster designation as a potential middle ground. Several states now publish lists of licensed engineers that indicate the particular discipline(s) in which they are qualified. However, as there are no associated practice or title restrictions, such a measure does not meaningfully raise the bar.
Medical licensure is sometimes suggested as a model that engineers should emulate. Physicians are licensed generically in every state, with specialties recognized by private certification boards rather than government agencies. Despite the lack of legal constraints, no one would intentionally go to a family practitioner rather than a neurosurgeon for a brain operation.
The analogy breaks down because doctors take a uniform test to become licensed, while every engineering licensure exam is discipline-specific. In addition, perhaps without realizing it, clients do sometimes retain licensed professional engineers to provide specific services for which the engineers are not adequately qualified.
Unlike generic medical licensure, generic engineering licensure apparently creates the false impression that anyone legally authorized to practice is inherently competent in any and every specialty.
Physicians and structural engineers both save lives, but doctors generally deal with pre-existing problems, while SEs are expected to prevent the problems from happening in the first place.
Furthermore, physicians can inform their patients about the risks associated with the treatments they prescribe, but everyone takes it for granted that structures will not fail under most circumstances. Finally, one mistake by a doctor can cause injury or death, while a single error by a structural engineer can lead to an even greater tragedy.
This tremendous responsibility that SEs have to protect the public—over and above that borne by all the engineering disciplines—is the single most significant component in the case for separate SE licensure.
|
| SCHMIDT |
Please share your thoughts! I cannot promise to respond to every comment here, but I do plan to monitor the discussion and chime in when I am able.
September 14, 2011
Please share your thoughts! I cannot promise to respond to every comment here, but I do plan to monitor the discussion and chime in when I am able.
To the extent that examinations fail to test for understanding, and it is my belief that one can score high on a test, P.E. not excluded, and have little or no understanding of the matt...
September 15, 2011
To the extent that examinations fail to test for understanding, and it is my belief that one can score high on a test, P.E. not excluded, and have little or no understanding of the matter at hand, so are examinations a failure. It would be interesting to compare grades professionals get with their lifetime accomplishments.
What is needed is far better education overall. For example I recently re visted my old college chemistry where I got a D and should have failed. Nevertheless on the P.E.exam I gave the "correct" answer mouthing the "correct" word for water as a substance that can sometimes act like an acid and sometimes act like a base.
Examinations were long ago described as processes in which the student ingested coal and threw it up on the examination paper and the more worthless, and less fully
digested the material, the better the fidelity of what is thrown up.
Since much of what professionals due is questionable or wrong or just plain wrong -
think in earthquake prone California until recently you were allowed to bolt to a building's foundation sill using round washers instead of square washers - real effect should be directed to reform of codes with unification of disparate codes a stated goal.
Thus although individual failures are dramatic and important - think of the doctor in Madame Bovary - In my opinion much the larger failures are system failures and it usually takes dramatic system failures to induce system reform - and sometimes even not then. In the case of Madame Bovary's doctor husband, he should have realized he was not competent to fix a club foot, and ordinarily he would not have except he was pushed by his ambitious wife. Even here in a larger sense you might say this was a system induced failure. Perhaps if his education was better, and 19th century doctors were no different than there 20th century counterparts in fighting off reform, he might have succeeded; much like a 20th century engineer can do calculations that only very accomplished 19th century engineers could do because the 20th century engineer has calculation aids denied the 19th century engineer and because the 19th century engineer was handicapped even then by being taught inefficient calculation methods. For example using the pound as the unit of force instead of the kilopound and hence festooning his figures with lots of naughts.
What is needed is far better education overall. For example I recently re visted my old college chemistry where I got a D and should have failed. Nevertheless on the P.E.exam I gave the "correct" answer mouthing the "correct" word for water as a substance that can sometimes act like an acid and sometimes act like a base.
Examinations were long ago described as processes in which the student ingested coal and threw it up on the examination paper and the more worthless, and less fully
digested the material, the better the fidelity of what is thrown up.
Since much of what professionals due is questionable or wrong or just plain wrong -
think in earthquake prone California until recently you were allowed to bolt to a building's foundation sill using round washers instead of square washers - real effect should be directed to reform of codes with unification of disparate codes a stated goal.
Thus although individual failures are dramatic and important - think of the doctor in Madame Bovary - In my opinion much the larger failures are system failures and it usually takes dramatic system failures to induce system reform - and sometimes even not then. In the case of Madame Bovary's doctor husband, he should have realized he was not competent to fix a club foot, and ordinarily he would not have except he was pushed by his ambitious wife. Even here in a larger sense you might say this was a system induced failure. Perhaps if his education was better, and 19th century doctors were no different than there 20th century counterparts in fighting off reform, he might have succeeded; much like a 20th century engineer can do calculations that only very accomplished 19th century engineers could do because the 20th century engineer has calculation aids denied the 19th century engineer and because the 19th century engineer was handicapped even then by being taught inefficient calculation methods. For example using the pound as the unit of force instead of the kilopound and hence festooning his figures with lots of naughts.
I didn't realize that we had a problem with the quality of the the design of our structures in this country. Why is any action over the status quo really necessary? What goals are tryin...
September 15, 2011
I didn't realize that we had a problem with the quality of the the design of our structures in this country. Why is any action over the status quo really necessary? What goals are trying to be accomplished and how will those that are for these changes measure whether these changes were successful in reaching the proposed goals? Will further bureaucracy and testing really save lives? Its is my impression that this is unnecessary, will reduce the number of current potential good candidates for becoming licensed because of the burden, reduce the number of current and future students that choose engineering as a profession, and overall reduce the growth and future of the profession for little or no gain elsewhere. There isn't a problem - so why are some people trying to fix it? Let's direct our energy into growing the future of the profession and making it interesting, exciting, and reasonably accessible.
A brilliant idea due to its distinct different purpose of performance and usage, ie. compression loading is different from tensile loading....
September 16, 2011
A brilliant idea due to its distinct different purpose of performance and usage, ie. compression loading is different from tensile loading....
To Anonymous 9:34: <br/>"Why is any action over the status quo necessary?"<br/><br/>Maybe you should rethink this statement. Would you prefer living in a cave with no running water on...
September 16, 2011
To Anonymous 9:34:
"Why is any action over the status quo necessary?"
Maybe you should rethink this statement. Would you prefer living in a cave with no running water on a flat Earth? Based on your other questions, my guess is that you are not a structural engineer. Structural Engineering, more so than the other engineering professions, have a direct impact on public safety. We take extreme pride in our profession and know better than anyone else the knowledge required to provide designs that are safe for the public. We also know that anyone with a PE license and very limited experience in Structural Engineering can seal drawings.
As for the additional bureaucracy and testing, this is not correct. You have to go through a process and take an exam to be a PE now, so there would be little change in that regard.
As for the reducing the growth of the profession, I just don't see it. Someone that is not willing to put in the work to become a Structural Engineer is probably not someone you want designing buildings anyway. Structural Engineers that I know were not willing to settle for other careers.
"Why is any action over the status quo necessary?"
Maybe you should rethink this statement. Would you prefer living in a cave with no running water on a flat Earth? Based on your other questions, my guess is that you are not a structural engineer. Structural Engineering, more so than the other engineering professions, have a direct impact on public safety. We take extreme pride in our profession and know better than anyone else the knowledge required to provide designs that are safe for the public. We also know that anyone with a PE license and very limited experience in Structural Engineering can seal drawings.
As for the additional bureaucracy and testing, this is not correct. You have to go through a process and take an exam to be a PE now, so there would be little change in that regard.
As for the reducing the growth of the profession, I just don't see it. Someone that is not willing to put in the work to become a Structural Engineer is probably not someone you want designing buildings anyway. Structural Engineers that I know were not willing to settle for other careers.
Since have referenced the medical model, why not follow all the model. Everyone takes the basic exam and then separate organizations (Boards) are tasked with certifying specialists? If...
September 18, 2011
Since have referenced the medical model, why not follow all the model. Everyone takes the basic exam and then separate organizations (Boards) are tasked with certifying specialists? If you are not Board-certified, you shouldn't be hired or insured to do that type of work. This extends far beyond structual engineers!
GM Samaras, Pueblo, CO
GM Samaras, Pueblo, CO
Sir William Osler addressed the graduating medical class of Mc Gill College in 1899 with these words:<br/><br/>"Perfect happiness for student and teacher will come with the abolition of...
September 18, 2011
Sir William Osler addressed the graduating medical class of Mc Gill College in 1899 with these words:
"Perfect happiness for student and teacher will come with the abolition of examinations, which are the stumbling blocks and rocks of offense in the pathway of the true student. And it is not so Utopian as it may appear at first blush. Ask any demonstrator of anatomy ten days before the examinations, and he should be able to give you a list of the men fit to pass.
Extend the personal intimate knowledge such as possessed by a competent demonstrator of anatomy into all the other departments, and the degree could be safely conferred upon certificates of competency,which would really mean a more through knowledge of a man's fitness than could possibly be gotten by our present system of examination. I see no way of avoiding the necessary tests for the license to practice before the provincial or state boards, but these boards should be of practical fitness only, and not as is now so often the case, of a man's knowledge of the entire circle of the medical sciences."
In my Utopian world, I would get rid of "experience" as a qualifying factor for a structural engineering license or any other engineering license such as the P.E. (which should be abolished because it just repeats undergradute examinations )because as was said years ago a man deserves no credit fir successful experience for he is merely a repeating machine.
"Perfect happiness for student and teacher will come with the abolition of examinations, which are the stumbling blocks and rocks of offense in the pathway of the true student. And it is not so Utopian as it may appear at first blush. Ask any demonstrator of anatomy ten days before the examinations, and he should be able to give you a list of the men fit to pass.
Extend the personal intimate knowledge such as possessed by a competent demonstrator of anatomy into all the other departments, and the degree could be safely conferred upon certificates of competency,which would really mean a more through knowledge of a man's fitness than could possibly be gotten by our present system of examination. I see no way of avoiding the necessary tests for the license to practice before the provincial or state boards, but these boards should be of practical fitness only, and not as is now so often the case, of a man's knowledge of the entire circle of the medical sciences."
In my Utopian world, I would get rid of "experience" as a qualifying factor for a structural engineering license or any other engineering license such as the P.E. (which should be abolished because it just repeats undergradute examinations )because as was said years ago a man deserves no credit fir successful experience for he is merely a repeating machine.
Anonymous 9/15/2011 1:08 AM CDT: To the extent that examinations fail to test for understanding, they are indeed poor exams, at least for the purpose of licensing professionals. However...
September 18, 2011
Anonymous 9/15/2011 1:08 AM CDT: To the extent that examinations fail to test for understanding, they are indeed poor exams, at least for the purpose of licensing professionals. However, a properly developed exam will effectively test for understanding and judgment in order to gauge competence, not just knowledge. Essay problems are much more likely to do this than multiple-choice questions.
GM Samaras: Engineering already has a model that is analogous to that of medicine, because everyone takes the same basic exam (FE) initially, and then takes a discipline-specific exam (PE) after a few years of experience. The difference is that engineering licensure is not granted until after the discipline-specific exam. Also, as I pointed out in the article, unfortunately some clients do have a tendency to hire engineers for work that is outside their specialty, a reality that board certification will not rectify.
Anonymous 9/18/2011 1:29 PM CDT: Do you honestly believe that a criticism of medical exams uttered 112 years ago is relevant to current engineering exams? Engineers do not have the luxury of working in a utopian world; we have to design projects that are safe in the real world, where much of the knowledge that we use on a daily basis can ONLY be learned by experience. Again, a test that "just repeats undergraduate examinations" would indeed be a poor PE exam, but such a description is simply not accurate with respect to the NCEES exams, especially the new 16-hour Structural one.
GM Samaras: Engineering already has a model that is analogous to that of medicine, because everyone takes the same basic exam (FE) initially, and then takes a discipline-specific exam (PE) after a few years of experience. The difference is that engineering licensure is not granted until after the discipline-specific exam. Also, as I pointed out in the article, unfortunately some clients do have a tendency to hire engineers for work that is outside their specialty, a reality that board certification will not rectify.
Anonymous 9/18/2011 1:29 PM CDT: Do you honestly believe that a criticism of medical exams uttered 112 years ago is relevant to current engineering exams? Engineers do not have the luxury of working in a utopian world; we have to design projects that are safe in the real world, where much of the knowledge that we use on a daily basis can ONLY be learned by experience. Again, a test that "just repeats undergraduate examinations" would indeed be a poor PE exam, but such a description is simply not accurate with respect to the NCEES exams, especially the new 16-hour Structural one.
Jerry Carter: Thank you for providing some additional clarifying information about the background of the new 16-hour NCEES Structural exam. Obviously I was not able to go into that le...
September 19, 2011
Jerry Carter: Thank you for providing some additional clarifying information about the background of the new 16-hour NCEES Structural exam. Obviously I was not able to go into that level of detail in a 600-word opinion piece. What I meant by "adopted this higher standard nationwide" is simply that there is no longer an 8-hour structural test consisting entirely of multiple-choice questions. I realize that the old Structural I and Structural II exams were intended to be taken as two parts of a single test, but as you know, a lot of jurisdictions did not administer them that way.
As I noted, the California code was in error in not requiring square washers to be used in bolting to a building's foundations. This elementary mistake illustrates my point that safety ...
September 20, 2011
As I noted, the California code was in error in not requiring square washers to be used in bolting to a building's foundations. This elementary mistake illustrates my point that safety comes principally from reform of the building codes and not from ever increasing testing. The modern viewpoint is to look upon failures as system failures such as the system failure to not recognize that there is all benefit and no cost in substituting square washers for round washers.
Anonymous 9/19/2011 11:27 PM CDT: I agree that there is a need to reform the building codes--they have become too prescriptive overall, constraining the ability of engineers to exercise...
September 20, 2011
Anonymous 9/19/2011 11:27 PM CDT: I agree that there is a need to reform the building codes--they have become too prescriptive overall, constraining the ability of engineers to exercise professional judgment--but I disagree that this is the best or primary way to improve public safety. From that standpoint, a building code is only as good as the competence of the engineer who is implementing it for a particular design.
We in America go from one extreme to another and nothing in-between! <br/><br/>First I'm not aware of any building that has collpased due to negligence or application of the building co...
September 26, 2011
We in America go from one extreme to another and nothing in-between!
First I'm not aware of any building that has collpased due to negligence or application of the building code requirements. But there has been other failures in the recent history, particuarly in transportation structures, area which is gaining momentum due to various reasons. Let us start with focusing on responsibility, accoutability, effective communication, and better management for project success whether its design, construction or inspection. Until these fundamental tools are addressed and properly adhered by proper authrorities nothing will make a difference, in the right direction.
For example, let's not continue to award jobs to the same people with lack of credibility or sheer incompetence in their previous track record, if they were in responsible charge and failures could have been avoided. Today's priorities should be focused on the health and welfare of the travelling public and cater to more fundamental issues. What happened? What can we learn from it? How can we avoid them in the future? Capabilities of the people in charge? and so on and so forth....
I don't think licensing alone is a serious issue to be reckon right away, may be that's in the list somewhere down the road, ....we need to address basic fundamentals...otherwise it will repeat itself !!
First I'm not aware of any building that has collpased due to negligence or application of the building code requirements. But there has been other failures in the recent history, particuarly in transportation structures, area which is gaining momentum due to various reasons. Let us start with focusing on responsibility, accoutability, effective communication, and better management for project success whether its design, construction or inspection. Until these fundamental tools are addressed and properly adhered by proper authrorities nothing will make a difference, in the right direction.
For example, let's not continue to award jobs to the same people with lack of credibility or sheer incompetence in their previous track record, if they were in responsible charge and failures could have been avoided. Today's priorities should be focused on the health and welfare of the travelling public and cater to more fundamental issues. What happened? What can we learn from it? How can we avoid them in the future? Capabilities of the people in charge? and so on and so forth....
I don't think licensing alone is a serious issue to be reckon right away, may be that's in the list somewhere down the road, ....we need to address basic fundamentals...otherwise it will repeat itself !!
Also let's get physicians and structural engineers paid similar amounts. :)
October 7, 2011
Also let's get physicians and structural engineers paid similar amounts. :)
What this article fails to address is the additional cost to the engineering companies if this requirement were to pass. It mentions that a few states have been requiring the SE for de...
November 16, 2011
What this article fails to address is the additional cost to the engineering companies if this requirement were to pass. It mentions that a few states have been requiring the SE for decades; these states include California, Nevada, and Washington. What is notable about these states is extreme seismic activity. One of the primary difference between the 16 hour SE examination and the 8 hour civil-structural exam is the expansion of the topic of structural dynamics (at least this is my understanding, I could be mistaken). Seismic loading analyses and design isn't really a concern in New Jersey, so why should an engineer who practices entirely in New Jersey need to have a specialty in seismic engineering. To borrow from the author’s metaphor, should a podiatrist also be required to have an advanced understanding of gastroenterology? Of course not. If so, how much more will it cost to have an engineer with advanced education and a full understanding of how to design a sky scraper for the hurricane force winds of Miami and a suspension bridge for the earthquakes of the San Francisco bay area design a single story warehouse in South Dakota? Having the SE in certain areas is a great idea. But, in areas where this advanced level isn’t’ required, maybe it’s just more important to insure that clients know better than to heir and an electrical PE to design a highway overpass. Besides, the problem goes both ways, as an engineer about to sit for the 8 hour Civil Structural PE should I be hired in 6 months to design a the HVAC system for a new stadium? Perhaps strengthening the rules forbidding practice outside ones area of expertise is in order?
Many commented on the benefits and drawbacks of separate SE licensure, not just in here but on the "streets". There are various arguments that I want to note:<br/><br/>1. Taking additio...
November 17, 2011
Many commented on the benefits and drawbacks of separate SE licensure, not just in here but on the "streets". There are various arguments that I want to note:
1. Taking additional professional exams for PE's can be a burden, both in time and financially. Additionally, the time that somehow could be spent in delivering good quality work to our clients is being spent brushing up SE concepts and practice problems that somehow interfere with the desired way to perform engineering work (because of the way the exams are configured you have to work in certain ways that at times conflict with the way an engineering firm works).
2. For those of us who took and passed the SE, we now have right tools to tackle those that as structural engineers are qualified to do.
3. There is no question that SE examination preparation is a painfully time consuming activity, particularly for those who have to take it several times before passing. You know who you are!
4. Having an SE license adds not just respect, but also the required confidence to face difficult structural problems.
5. Those PE's who do structural work are finding it more challenging to qualify themselves as such; whereas those who are SE's are relieved from this fact.
These, and some other comments that I heard, are for sure part of a growing debate that now has been intensified now that the 16-hour SE exam is out there. One more thing to note: Maryland never offered the SE-II exam, and refused to give the 16hr-SE, but now it will be offered starting on the April 2012 administration, in the latest move by state boards to embrace this exam.
My take on this issue: only consider SE licensure if you intent to perform structural engineering work. Taking the SE exam will certainly give you the tools and confidence. Otherwise, look the other way...
1. Taking additional professional exams for PE's can be a burden, both in time and financially. Additionally, the time that somehow could be spent in delivering good quality work to our clients is being spent brushing up SE concepts and practice problems that somehow interfere with the desired way to perform engineering work (because of the way the exams are configured you have to work in certain ways that at times conflict with the way an engineering firm works).
2. For those of us who took and passed the SE, we now have right tools to tackle those that as structural engineers are qualified to do.
3. There is no question that SE examination preparation is a painfully time consuming activity, particularly for those who have to take it several times before passing. You know who you are!
4. Having an SE license adds not just respect, but also the required confidence to face difficult structural problems.
5. Those PE's who do structural work are finding it more challenging to qualify themselves as such; whereas those who are SE's are relieved from this fact.
These, and some other comments that I heard, are for sure part of a growing debate that now has been intensified now that the 16-hour SE exam is out there. One more thing to note: Maryland never offered the SE-II exam, and refused to give the 16hr-SE, but now it will be offered starting on the April 2012 administration, in the latest move by state boards to embrace this exam.
My take on this issue: only consider SE licensure if you intent to perform structural engineering work. Taking the SE exam will certainly give you the tools and confidence. Otherwise, look the other way...
The most serious problem with PE licensing is: Decisions regarding engineering qualifications are made by people who are NOT engineers; i.e., by NCEES (Jerry Carter and his colleagues, ...
October 26, 2012
The most serious problem with PE licensing is: Decisions regarding engineering qualifications are made by people who are NOT engineers; i.e., by NCEES (Jerry Carter and his colleagues, who are not engineers).
If separate Structural licensing is not administered by SEs, we will have accomplished nothing.
If separate Structural licensing is not administered by SEs, we will have accomplished nothing.
