The Structural Engineering Licensure Coalition (SELC), an organization formed by the Council of American Structural Engineers (CASE), the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA), the Structural Engineering Institute (SEI), and the Structural Engineering Certification Board (SECB), has been advocating since 2012 for structural engineering (S.E.) licensure as a post-professional engineer (P.E.) credential in all U.S. jurisdictions. As part of that effort, SELC recently published its Vision for the Future of S.E. Licensure (the Vision), which builds on vision documents published by its parent organizations.
Professional licensure has been fundamental in the U.S. since Wyoming first instituted a licensing requirement for professional engineers in 1907. Civil engineers at that time tended to practice across a breadth of disciplines (structural, geotechnical, water resources, transportation, etc.). Over the decades since licensing first appeared, the profession has become compartmentalized, with engineers now tending to practice mainly in a single discipline. Taking responsible charge in more than one specialty is much less common now than it might have been decades ago.
The SELC Vision argues that the trend toward specialization, and the increasing complexity of engineering, should dictate specialization in the licensing process. Jurisdictions in the U.S. recognized this early, with Illinois creating a specialty license in structural engineering in 1915, less than 10 years after engineering licensure was first introduced. While the expansion of S.E. licensure has been relatively slow since then, now at least twelve states and two territories restrict either structural engineering practice specifically or the use of the title “Structural Engineer.”
Trends in the profession are strengthening the argument that specialized licensure is needed. For example, technology is changing how engineering is performed, new sophisticated analyses and design tools allow marginally qualified engineers to practice outside their specialty areas, and globalization engages stakeholders in remote and potentially unfamiliar markets. Moreover, the growing breadth and extent of information engineers need to assimilate complicates engineers’ work and the complexity of codes. In addition, the profession is challenged to acquire an ever-increasing essential formal education while many colleges are being forced to reduce classroom hours. These circumstances call for rigorous credentialing programs that effectively and adequately identify engineers qualified to design structures.
The process to attain licensure has improved over the years. Strict requirements for education, experience, and examination have evolved under the guidance of the National Council for Examination of Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Education accredited by Accreditation for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET) is typically required. Verification of applicants’ experience for licensure generally is mandated through affidavits from colleagues or supervisors. The signers of the affidavits attest that the candidate’s experience is progressive, requires the application of engineering knowledge, shows self-improvement, teaches the candidate to design, and puts the candidate in a position of responsibility for the design product. In addition, nearly all U.S. jurisdictions now recognize that meaningful continuing education is essential for the engineer to stay abreast of new technologies and changes in standards and codes.
Recently, certification of structural engineers by the profession has been discussed as a companion to S.E. licensure. The goal of certification is to raise the bar of structural engineering practice in the eyes of the public and validate additional outcomes necessary to be in responsible charge, especially as continuing education is mandatory and given that not all states have S.E. licensure. In addition, certification by the profession is advantaged by the control the structural engineering profession would have over its own regulation. Plus, profession-run certification would fill a void should licensure be diminished in some fashion.
While there is growing justification for specialized structural engineering licensure, threats continue to challenge the regulation of professional engineers and structural engineers in particular. For example, in the past several years, some U.S. jurisdictions have raised the possibility of reducing regulation of professions, including engineering, with the potential for licensure to be eliminated. Also, there is some resistance advanced by the structural engineering community itself, principally from two fronts: 1) the status quo within the profession, which contends that what we have done in the past is good enough for the future, and 2) the position held by many that holding a P.E. license and conforming to the relevant codes of ethics suffice. While both points had merit in the past and probably still do somewhat in the present, they do not speak well to the future and the profession’s evolution. Structural engineering licensure aims to protect public safety by restricting structural engineering to those who demonstrate that they are best qualified to practice by passing an objective and rigorous examination. Legislative support for this goal, through licensure, provides a strong base for long-term continuity of the merits of the profession and its influence on our built environment.
Ultimately, it is on the shoulders of the structural engineering community to advance S.E. licensure in the U.S. Communication regarding the positive and negative aspects of S.E. licensure should be more robust within the engineering community. In addition, improving outreach and discussion within the community is necessary to rally support to defeat legislative initiatives that would harm licensure. Please read SELC’s Vision (www.selicensure.org) if you wish to learn more about the history and importance of S.E. licensure in the U.S.■
