structural p.e. i or ii

huangyhg

structural p.e. i or ii?
structural i (se1) is basically equivalent to the principles in practice (pe) exam except that the se1 is focused entirely on structural issues while the pe exam is more general civil oriented.  so your best bet, if you are a structural-type is to take the se1.
the se2 exam is the next step in the sequence.  it is only required if it is necessary for licensing in particular states (illinois is one of them) as a "structural engineer" - se verses a "professional engineer" - pe.
some states require further testing and i believe that there is now an se3 in development or already used for western states licensing in high seismic areas.
jae,
excuse my ignorance (i am not educated within the usa) but if you are structurally orientated like myself, can you do the se-i as a substitute for pe and still use the post-nominals "p.e"?
i guess that once you pass the se-ii you are able to use "s.e".
i had always thought (it would seem incorrectly) that you must first do pe (civil), then se-i, then se-ii.
if you do the pe (civil), can you do se-ii without doing se-i, for those states that do se-ii examinations?
it would therefore seem that the intention of the se-i exam is purely for those who are concentrated in structures and never practise in civil type works.
tia
the se1 can indeed be used as a substitute (in the us) for the pe exam and you can then be licensed as a pe.  technically, you cannot call yourself an se if you only pass the se1 exam.  most states in the us only acknowledge the pe designation officially and usually allow the individuals to refer to themselves as a "structural" engineer, "professional" engineer, etc. as indicative of their own designated area of expertise.
in fact, most states leave it up to the individual to ethically practice only within their designated area of expertise.  if i were to attempt to design a sanitary sewer, being a structural engineer, it would be a violation of the state licensing law in that i was practicing out of my area.  i am responsible for keeping myself involved only in areas where i am competent.
once you pass se2, you then, technically can call yourself an se, even though most states do not legally distinguish between se and pe in terms of titles.  out in the western states, with higher seismic zones, there is a legal distinction in that an se has indeed passed the se2 (and in some cases the se3 or western states exam) and holds the legal title of se (i.e. california).  
most all states allow pe's to design structures if that's their area of expertise - whether they passed the pe or se1 exam.
illinois does not allow pe's to design structures.  you must pass the se2 and be licensed as an se.  california allows pe's to do structural up to a point - high rise, schools and hospitals are for se's only.  washington state allows the local governing entity (the city) to designate when an se is required over a pe.
there's probably a lot of other laws in other states - each is different.
you cannot pass the pe and then skip se1 to take se2.
thankyou jae for your very thorough response.
incidently, be on the look out for more se states.  the structural engineers associations are now in nearly every state.  about four years ago there were only a handful of them and mostly generated of those initially started in ca.
while this isn't a bad thing, it does bring to mind that the state of california doesn't allow reciprocity for illinois ses etc.  although the two states have similar seismic zones (meaning they each have 1-4 or a-d not discussing the frequency or mce).  i would hope that in the future the states will consider reciprocity as is common with the pe.
qshake, p.e., s.e.
qshake, p.e. s.e.
that must mean that ca's se-ii exam is different from il's se-ii exam?
but the se-i would be the same for both states, and administered by the ncees - right? or is it a state by state exam?
does il. provide recipocity for ca. s.e.'s?
why does the usa not have national registeration - or am i starting a flaming war here!
personally, i think the s.e. designation is a good thing, but the system is very confusing by the fact that it is administered on a state by state level. basically 50 different rules and regulations.
i recently saw in the structural engineer magazine where one engineer is registered in more than 50 states and territories! wow that is a lot of fees - basically a tax for engineering professionals.
ca does not currently use the national ncees se exams.  they are still using the western states structural exam.  however, they are now the only western state that still uses that exam.  hi, or, wa, etc. have all dropped the western states exam and use the ncees exams.  wa supplements these exams with a se-iii exam that covers seismic design in more depth.  eventually, ca is expected to adopt a similar procedure.
the various structural engineering organizations across the nation have discussed pushing for more uniformity in structural licensing regulations nationwide.  as it currently stands, they are exploring a self-regulated "certification" procedure.  unlike licensure, certification would not carry any legal powers, but some envision it as a first step in the process of national uniformity.  the thinking is that if certification became a de facto standard for the industry, it would be easier to persuade each state to fall in line.  they are just now starting to work out the details of the certification requirements.
ingenuity, i agree with your points and to answer your question i am not sure if illinois accepts ca se but i am lead to believe that they would as i view the western states structural exam more stringent although a bit more focused than the ncees exam.
good points/information taro.
i'm licensed in illinois (se) and california does not recognize the se for licensing in their state.  
my understanding is that if i want to perform structural design in california, i must go to california and take a 5 hour test (2.5 hours seismic and 2.5 hours surveying) to get licensed as a civil pe in calif and with this license i could do most structures...just not schools, hospitals or high-rise.  to do this, i only need a pe license in another state for the reciprocity.
this gets me licensed as a pe in california, not an se.  to get licensed as an se you must pass the western states exam and...get references from, i believe, 3 to 5 other california se's.  this really limits the se population in ca.
i haven't taken the 5 hour test (even though my employer wants me to) because of the dang surveying part....i've seen the questions and many relate to star gazing, which i am extremely bad at...haven't done that since i courted my wife
jae, that was my point earlier is that ca doesn't accept reciprocity and that we as structural engineers should, perhaps via sea, endorse some method which would allow for this.  most se requirements have developed because of the seismic requirements and while i believe special education or training is necessary to address this (its not really taught at the undergraudate level) then a seperate license makes sense in order regulate it.  however, there are other states that have similar concerns and seismic design/analysis should not be substantially different in one area from another.  thus reciprocity should be granted.  yet in ca, wa and other states not only is reciprocity not accepted but to apply for the license you must have the endorsement of two or three licensed ses in that state.  just try to do that without living there...seems like an exclusive club if you ask me!  but i guess it says something for wanting to tap your own resources in state first before allowing work to cross borders.  the result just screws up the national system though!
q...agreed.
i think its really a chore to maintain multiple licenses in various states and to keep track of each state's sealing, legal, continuing education, and licensing requirements.  
california is quite unique in that the frequency of seismic activity make it a very important aspect of design that engineers in other states may not be even qualified to perform.  perhaps a national license for general engineering in most states is feasible, but in some cases, special testing and/or qualifications could still be valid for a particular state.
structural design is really the same everywhere (with the seismic exception).  
the big issue with the states, i think, is maybe the enforcement of ethics, law, and competence in each state.  while i like the ease of a national license, i don't believe the feds have the competence to do as well as the individual states.