# Why do civil engineers have to take so many exams?



## DummyCivilEng (Jun 16, 2015)

This has been a nagging question - why is the civil engineering industry so focused on certifications and professional exams for a work that is in general quite repetitive and boring? Let's face it, most procedures in civil engineering are tried and tested methods, have been extensively catalogued in codes, etc., and are based more on empirical approachs and less on first principles.

For example, I don't see Aerospace, Mechanical (those not working in the civil engineering industry), and Petroleum engineers so focused on professional certifications like civil engineers. Yes, exams for these fields are available. But these are taken for reasons very different than those in the civil engineering industry - it appears that most civil engineers take these exams because 1) it is a requirement, and 2) due to the fact that most companies do not give you a promotion or raise if you do not have licensure. As a side, civil engineers' salaries (excluding management) are in general lower than most other engineerings fields.

For those who claim that public safety is of utmost importance, surely, this must also a concern for the other engineering fields. These fields do make good and safe engineering products, and go through periodical technological changes. Yes, engineers in these fields do have to keep up, but not through some external force such as a exam that aims to test you on how fast one can look up an equation in a book or code.

Really, I'm not trying to bash anyone here, but just simply trying to understand. Any thoughts?

Dummy


----------



## envirotex (Jun 16, 2015)

In Texas, petroleum engineers have traditionally been suject to an industry exemption that "allows full time employees and other personnel under the direct control of a private entity to perform engineering services exclusively for the private entity without the requirement to be licensed as professional engineers."

The nuances have changed some after the Macondo well blow-out, especially for drilling engineers.

http://engineers.texas.gov/nm/EAOR34ResponseFinal52114.pdf

I think that it is interesting that only 20% of "engineers" have a license...


----------



## John QPE (Jun 16, 2015)

DummyCivilEng said:


> Really, I'm not trying to bash anyone here, but just simply trying to understand. Any thoughts?


We're better. We need a way to weed out all non-hackers.


----------



## phecke (Jun 16, 2015)

You say that things are pretty routine and to some extent that's true, but as a structural engineer (part of civil) a big part of my job is determining load path and getting it to the ground in safe way. Sure this sounds easy, but as you know, structures are rarely nice boxes. Now, you could make the case that other engineers have to deal with difficult things too and that this is no difference between the civil.

However, the bigger issue is that civil/structurals almost ALWAYS deal with another entity/party. A structural engineer doesn't work to make a new pump or airplane for an industrial client or to sell to other companies. We almost always deal with members of the public who are trusting us and our decisions because they have no idea how structures/civil-ish stuff works. We also do work for government entities more, and they often require licensing.

Also keep in mind that as a civil or a structural engineer, you get one shot at getting it right. A mechanical or aerospace etc can test their designs in a lab relatively easily. A structure is built, there is no real test beforehand. If a mechanical engineer's pump fails, or HVAC system malfunctions, or engine blows up, there is less of a human/property cost a great deal of the time (admittedly not always) as opposed to a structural collapse here hundreds could be injured, and the property damage and impact to the life of the general populace is greatly hindered.

When it comes to aerospace, there is a great potential for loss of human life as well, but you have pilots and maintenance crews on aircraft all day everyday to mitigate some of that risk. A structure is used everyday by pretty much everyone with limited maintenance/safeguards to prevent accidents.

This shows what I mean:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/16/5-dead-8-injured-in-balcony-collapse-in-california-police-say/

If this were an aircraft, a pilot could say, no we're at max weight. Or the engines aren't checking out properly. A mechanical engineer could tightly control pump flow to prevent cavitation. 13 people on a balcony is probably too many and we try to design/account for that and create details so that a building can be constructed properly and easily by contractors who may be looking to cut corners.

tl;dr

So even though civil/structural is viewed as routine, it:

1.) Really isn't routine

2.) Has a high risk of life loss/damage

3.) Doesn't have tight safeguards to prevent accidents

4.) There is rarely a test/prototype design.


----------



## OffShawz (Jun 16, 2015)

envirotex said:


> In Texas, petroleum engineers have traditionally been suject to an industry exemption that "allows full time employees and other personnel under the direct control of a private entity to perform engineering services exclusively for the private entity without the requirement to be licensed as professional engineers."
> 
> The nuances have changed some after the Macondo well blow-out, especially for drilling engineers.
> 
> ...




They're still trying to get Pet Engineers licensed, and I think they're going to have a hard time doing it until there's more "crackdown" on requiring them in-house for most Operators. Of the engineers in the office, only my boss and I have PEs, other than a few contractors.

There's a move by SPE to get the YPs on board, but the older guard are going to be a lot more hesitant unless legislated to do so. I dont see that happening anytime soon in the Republic of Texas.


----------



## caley89 (Jun 17, 2015)

I think because infrastructure is so critical to public health and safety (water/wastewater plants, bridges, buildings), we really want to make sure they get done right and that not just anyone is going out and designing these things.

The infrastructure I mentioned is an order of magnitude more critical to public health and safety than anything else I can think of that another discipline would be designing. Just based on how many people infrastructure affects.


----------



## KatyLied P.E. (Jun 17, 2015)

phecke said:


> You say that things are pretty routine and to some extent that's true, but as a structural engineer (part of civil) a big part of my job is determining load path and getting it to the ground in safe way. Sure this sounds easy, but as you know, structures are rarely nice boxes. Now, you could make the case that other engineers have to deal with difficult things too and that this is no difference between the civil.
> 
> However, the bigger issue is that civil/structurals almost ALWAYS deal with another entity/party. A structural engineer doesn't work to make a new pump or airplane for an industrial client or to sell to other companies. We almost always deal with members of the public who are trusting us and our decisions because they have no idea how structures/civil-ish stuff works. We also do work for government entities more, and they often require licensing.
> 
> ...


I'm an EE so I won't even pretend to be an expert on civil but, to go along with Phecke about how CE's have to deal with the public and governemnt, aren't most of your private consulting firms CE based? That's going to automatically require more of them to be licensed anyway. Correct? I specialized in EE Power and also work for an electric utility. In Alabama, since I work for a utility I am exempt from being required to have a license. i chose to get my PE so that I could have more credibility with our customer base.


----------



## dontlikebeinganeng (Jun 17, 2015)

Disclaimer: PE in California, both civil and mechanical. Chemical education. Petroleum industry and my duties function as a petroleum engineer. Now to have company pay for PE in electrical.

It doesn't serve any good to attack/critique the petroleum industry regarding licensure. Industrial exemption protects the petroleum industry just as it protects manufacturing, aerospace, and even electrical industry (non power generation side).

If anything, civil engineers need to advocate higher wages as civil engineers are paramount to public safety. Historically civil engineers work for the government which can probably be the main culprit in lower salary.


----------



## cupojoe PE PMP (Jun 19, 2015)




----------



## DummyCivilEng (Jun 20, 2015)

Thank you for all your comments, though I do not understand some of the implied meaning of some of the picture comments.

To be clear, I am a civil engineer. But I respectfully disagree with many of the statements that you have made. As you may know, only one counterexample is required to nullify each statement claimed to be true:

1) Your argument that civil engineers get only one chance to design things right is weak. In many cases, engineers in other areas also need to get things right the first time, for reasons of cost, environmental hazard risks, and loss of life. To further weaken your argument, many scenarios and risks today can be evaluated and assessed, with the correct application computational tools, before a structure is put into construction. Such computational tools are prevalent in the other fields because of incomplete information, high risks, high cost of exploration/testing (tests are not as cheap as you think - one car crash test could cost a million dollars, and one drill to assess location of oil reservoir costs millions of dollars and involves significant risks), or high uncertainty.

2) The issue of safety is always a top consideration for all engineering fields; to simply say that it is more critical in CE does not make CE more superior or safer than the other fields, or that the other fields do not care about safety. The fact that they are doing experiments (since it is possible anyway) only shows that they do care about safety. PE certification does not lead to safety. Safety comes only if we care about safety.

3) Your link to the balcony example provides no information whatsoever to indicate the reasons why the balcony collapsed. It could be due to lack of oversight when it comes to construction or just the fact that nobody anticipated that 13 people will be standing on the balcony. Even if you took the PE exam, you may not have anticipated that 13 people would be standing there. Were they jumping up and down or dancing on the floor? Would you design it to take 100 people? No structural component will withstand an infinite amount of load; we design components for anticipated loads plus safety factors to account for errors and uncertainty (this is already described in the codes). In other words, if you need a probability of failure of 0.00001 % for a load of X amount of load, then you design to that specification accordingly. Uncertainty quantification is required in all designs, whether in CE, ME, PE, or whatever. This need exists independent of the need for PE exam. Most likely (again, no evidence), the building was designed by a PE-certified engineer - I could turn around the argument around and say "well, the PE didn't help - the building should be safe, correct?".

4) You claim that civil/structurals deal with another entity/party. I would say that you may want to consider a more general definition of engineering - that is, we as humans, the environment, and the earth are at the receiving end from the use of engineering components and products.

The reasons you have provided are the most common (and I've heard them countless times), but I don't think they are the core reasons why the certification requirement has become so prevalent.

I agree with "dontlikebeinganeng" that civil engineers need to advocate for higher wages. While this is tangential to my initial question, it is hard to understand why civil engineers (and everyone working in the field including contractors and builders) are compensated so low when most of us are working hard and doing the long hours to do good. I hope my last statement clarifies my position about CE - that is, this field is noble, important, and has great impact on society, but we deserve to be well compensated.

With increasing competition, many companies continue to seek ways to minimize cost (low salary), and engineers (and everyone else in the field) are driven hard to deliver quickly, and are often left on their own to figure things out. I think this lack of mentorship, guidance, and motivation, are the the main reasons that contribute to many of the problems in the CE field. I don't think the lack of PE is why we are facing these issues. The other thing concerns the education of CEs - that is many of our applied coursework is based on design-by-catalogue approach and not based on first principles. Such an approach to early learning affects the way how CEs learn and approach design and engineering long after they have left school
Surely, there must be other reasons as to why there is so much focus on certification.



phecke said:


> You say that things are pretty routine and to some extent that's true, but as a structural engineer (part of civil) a big part of my job is determining load path and getting it to the ground in safe way. Sure this sounds easy, but as you know, structures are rarely nice boxes. Now, you could make the case that other engineers have to deal with difficult things too and that this is no difference between the civil.
> 
> However, the bigger issue is that civil/structurals almost ALWAYS deal with another entity/party. A structural engineer doesn't work to make a new pump or airplane for an industrial client or to sell to other companies. We almost always deal with members of the public who are trusting us and our decisions because they have no idea how structures/civil-ish stuff works. We also do work for government entities more, and they often require licensing.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 20, 2015)

As an electrical commenting in a civil thread, here's my 2 cents.

Most if what 'we' are required to do is self imposed as an industry. NCEES is nothing more than an evolution of a self imposed standard.

Could it be as simple as civil/structural engineers set their standards a bit higher?

Maybe because they needed to separate the pack, maybe they were arrogant, maybe some other reason. Governments tend to not know what we do, so they rely on others to inform them as to what is needed.

Or, the simple answer is, no one here knows. They threw out ideas almost as quickly as you shot them down. So maybe you have a better theory to share?


----------



## DummyCivilEng (Jun 20, 2015)

Looking at the high fees and the amount of entities that I need to deal with just for the application, I feel like sometimes that are they are out there just out to take my money, and not so much on really educating people.



Ken 3.0 said:


> As an electrical commenting in a civil thread, here's my 2 cents.
> 
> Most if what 'we' are required to do is self imposed as an industry. NCEES is nothing more than an evolution of a self imposed standard.
> Could it be as simple as civil/structural engineers set their standards a bit higher?
> ...


----------



## DummyCivilEng (Jun 20, 2015)

Or the other reason is that we didn't learn anything tangible in our CE undergrad, and now you need read from a cookbook and then test you how fast you can look up an equation? At least that's what I've heard from my friends. I don't know.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Jun 20, 2015)

That pretty much sums it up imho


----------



## mikeyd917 (Jun 25, 2015)

I believe it has to do mostly with litigation. If a building / balcony / elevated walkway fails, there needs to be an explanation. If there's no "license" to prove that engineer has been tested by the state, how can the engineer be released of liability. Many states have many different building codes depending on the environment, California has tall buildings and earthquakes, Florida has hurricanes, Alaska has perma-frost, etc... So what's the best way to verify the engineer that's designing the public space in which your family will be working?? Licensure...

I just took it in April and it's partly how fast you can look up answers and partly how well you understand the material, but if you don't understand the subject you're being tested on you're not going to pass the test. You can understand the material and still fail.

My opinion why civils make less than the rest of engineers...we're a dime-a-dozen...ha...


----------



## bhook20 (Jul 14, 2015)

mikeyd917 said:


> My opinion why civils make less than the rest of engineers...we're a dime-a-dozen...ha...




That is the most valid statement thus far. Civil engineers make up the majority....which is a gift and a curse. The gift is there are always jobs available while the curse is that there's no real incentive to pay CE's significantly more because there will be someone else willing to work for less.


----------



## DummyCivilEng (Jul 17, 2015)

Civil engineering is one of the easier engineering fields to get in.



bhook20 said:


> mikeyd917 said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion why civils make less than the rest of engineers...we're a dime-a-dozen...ha...
> ...


----------

