structural engineer certification

huangyhg

structural engineer certification
i am interested in members thoughts on the drive by the structural engineering certifcation board (
just what would being certified gain you?  doesn't sound like it carriers any legal weight.  just approval by a private organization to impress your clients with?
no such push that i'm aware of in louisiana.  in fact here we are registered as a pe, doesn't matter what the discipline is.
i find two items that seem to take any appeal away from the secb certification:
1.  the certification is not recognized by any state board.  
2.  some state boards and the ncees's model law structural engineer definition are starting to recognize the se 1 & 2 exams as minimum requirements to be a practicing structural engineer.  the secb's certification allows some pe's without the se exams to be grandfathered into the process.
galambos,
i want to take issue with your second point! i have been practicing structural engineering for 23 years. at that time se1 and se2 were not available. i took my pe exam in civil engineering. however, i answered all the structural problems in it.
since i did not take the se1 and se2 am i less of structural engineer? i do not think so. there are many great structural engineers who did not take the se1 and se2. i am not trying to diminish the value of these exams. however, credit must be given to those who met qualifications at some point of time. grandfathering must continue to take place otherwise we will commit great disservice to well qualified engineers.
my point is being a pe and being grand fathered in is not all that bad and it is not a wrong concept.
regards,
regards,
lutfi
lutfi...i'm in the same boat.  when i took the pe exam 26 years ago, i took the civil exam 'cause that's all that was offered close to my practice.
i see not point in separate certifications.  to me, that is somewhat demeaning to the profession to think that we need such to impress clients.  let's all concentrate on getting our profession's value and worth out in the public so they'll know that qualified, licensed engineers are a necessity to the public good.
ron
lufti,
certainly, we would all agree that there are pe's that are far superior structural engineers than a good quantity of se's.  not having taken it, certainly doesnt mean an engineer is a poor quality engineer.  in fact, im sure you are a better, more experienced structural engineer than i.  however, i am willing to wager that the se1 and se2 exam acts as a pretty good filter in terms of quality. this is probably the reasoning behind illinois, nevada, etc. to invoke the use of the se license.  in fact, one might consider that a practicing structural pe, could have earned registration having taken the transportation pm module rather than the structural module.  
i certainly never meant to imply that pe's are less of a structural engineer than an se, however, i dont believe that districts such as illinois and nevada will ever give much weight to a certification that does not require these higher level exams.  it seems to me that the exams are currently the only method available used to quantify quality or perhaps, knowledge.
i don't support the idea of grandfathering.  meaning no offense to lutfi or ron by any means, getting grandfathered in only means that you've been practicing for years and years.  it doesn't mean practicing correctly.  when i say "you", i mean a general "you" and no one in particular.  like i tend to want to say to contractors, just because you've been doing it this way for 30 years doesn't mean it's been done right.  grandfathering circumvents the idea behind testing and qualification.  someone who is a screw-up can continue to do so, just with another certification proclaiming competency.  of course, all my opinion.
this is a thread i started a while back on the secb, just for reference.
if someone has been practicing for years and years they have been practicing correctly.  otherwise, they'd be out of work, out of a license or in jail.
i took the civil pe exam in 87 and if memory serves me correct, 1/2 of the test was structural.
bagman,
i would disagree.  im not aware of any case where a structural engineer has been put in jail.  plus, i also believe that one reason behind using the se exams is to filter out some engineers who believe they are practicing correctly, but are unaware and not knowledgeable of modern advances in structural engineering, specifically those that pertain to life safety, i.e. seismic design.  to quote from dr nair from an article in aisc's modern steel,"it is important that we not assume that just because something works, or worked in the past, it is correct."
today's pe is split into a general civil breadth exam in the morning, and a discipline specific afternoon exam (transportation, geotech, water resources, environmental, structural).  a pe license does not reveal which portion of the exam was taken.
ucfse - your concerns about "grandfathering circumventing the idea behind testing and qualification" is true on its face.  but in reality, state boards who do not grandfather in engineers aren't gaining much, in fact they would be immediately denying a large number of good engineers the ability to put food on their table.
the idea behind grandfathering isn't circumvention, its transition.  
the theoretical lack of ensuring quality engineering is only a concern for a period of time...until those engineers who are grandfathered in are retired, dead, or have chosen to go into architecture (just kidding on that last one).
the goal of any new testing or certification will still be met; the grandfathering just allows it to be phased in and avoid the trauma of engineers losing their jobs, possible lawsuits against the board, and confusion within our industry.
perhaps someone knows what was done in the past in the states that have separate structural licensing. were certain engineers grandfathered in or were they forced to take additional exams? if they were grandfathered in, does anyone know what criteria was used?