# Is there any advantage for passing SE I over Civil?



## THUDore (May 13, 2009)

Hi folks,

I'm a structural engineer and took the 2009 SE I. I believe I did well and should pass.

While waiting the result coming my way, I have a question for you guys:

Does passing a Structural I really give me any edge over a general Civil PE exam?

My state does not license Structural engineers that means I can take either SE I or Civil to become a PE here.

Considering the fact that the passing rate for SE is much lower than Civil, does it worth to take the SE rather than Civil? It really does not matter that much to me now since I have already took the SE, but the question really bothers me quite a bit.

I'd be grateful for your input on this topic.


----------



## kevo_55 (May 13, 2009)

Well, I would say yes and no. It really depends on what you would like to do in the future.

Your state may simply have a "PE" seal only but other states may not have this. Many states require the SE1, SE1+SE2, SE1+SE2+Civil, or Civil+SE2+"other exams." If you would like to be registered in those states, then that would mean that you would have to take more than just the SE1 or PE Civil exam.

So, what would you like to do with your career?


----------



## Dexman1349 (May 13, 2009)

Alot of it depends on your state as well.

Here in CO a PE is a PE is a PE. Doesn't matter if you took the structural, civil, electrical, mechanical, or whatever. Technically I could use my civil PE and stamp an electrical design (ethically I wouldn't). In Cali, a civil can design any structure under 4 stories as long as it's not a public building (school, police station, hospital, etc).


----------



## MA_PE (May 13, 2009)

FWIW: in MA your PE stamp also includes your discipline. Passing the civil exam would say "Civil" passing the SE-1 says "Structural".


----------



## ca73 (May 13, 2009)

THUDore said:


> Hi folks,
> I'm a structural engineer and took the 2009 SE I. I believe I did well and should pass.
> 
> While waiting the result coming my way, I have a question for you guys:
> ...



I work for a structural engineering firm in the Atlanta area and we hired a guy with mostly a civil background but did have a little structural experience. He was with us for about a year and applied to take the civil exam w/ structural emphasis and the engineering board wrote him to say that he had to take the SE1 exam because that was what he currently was practicing. As a side note, I took a preparation course for the SE1 with a guy who had taken both the SE1 and civil exams. He took the SE1 first and said he failed badly. He was so discouraged that he moved to the civil department at the company he worked for and later took the civil exam. He passed and said that he finished each session within 3 hours, therefore had ample time to go back and review the problems again.


----------



## THUDore (May 13, 2009)

ca73 said:


> I work for a structural engineering firm in the Atlanta area and we hired a guy with mostly a civil background but did have a little structural experience. He was with us for about a year and applied to take the civil exam w/ structural emphasis and the engineering board wrote him to say that he had to take the SE1 exam because that was what he currently was practicing. As a side note, I took a preparation course for the SE1 with a guy who had taken both the SE1 and civil exams. He took the SE1 first and said he failed badly. He was so discouraged that he moved to the civil department at the company he worked for and later took the civil exam. He passed and said that he finished each session within 3 hours, therefore had ample time to go back and review the problems again.


Interesting. My question is, in your company, do they pay structural engineers better than others? It seems that they should if it's harder to get a structural license. But I really doubt so.

I'm always wondering why the structural engineers made it so hard for themselves by coming up with three levels of exam, ie. SE I, SE II and rediculously SE III. I would have agreed if the structural engineers really made so much more money by going through the hell like that but in reality, they are just compensated at the same level with other engineers who just need one exam for all.

Are those who made rules just simply stupid or crazy?

Anyway, I know Georgia does license by disciplines. So I'm planning to get a structural PE when I get licensed here in TN with SE I under my belt.


----------



## ARLORD (May 13, 2009)

THUDore said:


> Interesting. My question is, in your company, do they pay structural engineers better than others? It seems that they should if it's harder to get a structural license. But I really doubt so.
> I'm always wondering why the structural engineers made it so hard for themselves by coming up with three levels of exam, ie. SE I, SE II and rediculously SE III. I would have agreed if the structural engineers really made so much more money by going through the hell like that but in reality, they are just compensated at the same level with other engineers who just need one exam for all.
> 
> Are those who made rules just simply stupid or crazy?
> ...


Getting licensed as a structural engineer is not about making the testing requirements easy, not about what other disciplines are required to do, or comparing salaries. It is about public safety, having competent engineers performing design in accordance with the codes and proper structural engineering theory. If structructural engineers do not do their jobs properly it puts public safety in jeopardy. There are many examples of lost of life due to engineering error, the bridge collapse in MN comes to mind, it's not the only one. We are still waiting for the results of the Dallas Cowboy's practice facility collapse.


----------



## kevo_55 (May 14, 2009)

^^ :appl: Very very true ARLORD.

If you're an SE, you will have to take more exams than your other civil counterparts and most likely not get pain much more.

If we wanted the big bucks we should have been EE's or just gone to business school.


----------



## THUDore (May 14, 2009)

ARLORD said:


> Getting licensed as a structural engineer is not about making the testing requirements easy, not about what other disciplines are required to do, or comparing salaries. It is about public safety, having competent engineers performing design in accordance with the codes and proper structural engineering theory. If structructural engineers do not do their jobs properly it puts public safety in jeopardy. There are many examples of lost of life due to engineering error, the bridge collapse in MN comes to mind, it's not the only one. We are still waiting for the results of the Dallas Cowboy's practice facility collapse.


While I totally agree with what you said about the responsibilities a structural engineer carries in his job, my point is structural engineers are not compensated accordingly.

Unfortunately this society gauges the weights of professions by its monetary system. If you don’t charge accordingly, people won’t listen to you. That’s why often times people don’t give a damn about structural concerns because you worth next to nothing. Low pay for structural engineers jeopardizes public safety.

Similarly, the medical doctors are responsible for saving lives, but they don't have to take 3 damn exams and they are paid accordingly.

That’s why I said the people whoever designed the 3 crazy SE exams are a bunch of jerks.


----------



## McEngr (May 14, 2009)

THUDore said:


> While I totally agree with what you said about the responsibilities a structural engineer carries in his job, my point is structural engineers are not compensated accordingly.
> Unfortunately this society gauges the weights of professions by its monetary system. If you don’t charge accordingly, people won’t listen to you. That’s why often times people don’t give a damn about structural concerns because you worth next to nothing. Low pay for structural engineers jeopardizes public safety.
> 
> Similarly, the medical doctors are responsible for saving lives, but they don't have to take 3 damn exams and they are paid accordingly.
> ...


I believe that the 3 exams are required so as to promote the profession as well - meaning that there are a lot of practicioners out there who are perfectly competent because their "residency" has been lengthy and rigorous, but it would be ridiculous to force them back into academia. There are those (myself included) that feel that the structural engineering profession should be measured more in the academic realm. If one has proven themselves in college, there should be a single exam and the compensation should be measured on the credentials of the designer. Ideally, it should be a BS and MS in structural engineering and a single 8-hour license exam at the end of a concurrent, work-related 2-year Masters program. The FE should be administered by NCEES as a condition to graduate from your BS degree. The PE should be administered by the NCEES as a conditino to graduate from your MS degree. This is the logical step.

Our society values education, and the add of exams after a PE licensure resembles some kind of vocational program. I realize that I'm speaking more on the sad condition of our profession, but I believe it's the more realistic step into making this happen. I believe it will happen within my lifetime. All of the exams are more than just to protect against negligence, as Arlord mentioned. It's also to promote the profession, we'd all be naive to assume otherwise.


----------

