Thoughts on the SE Exam: A Message to Firm Leadership
By Nick Markosian, SEAU Member
As structural engineers, our careers are marked by a series of milestones — graduation from an accredited program, passage of the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam, and eventual licensure as a Professional Engineer (PE). For many, this is enough to build a fulfilling and successful career designing safe, efficient buildings and infrastructure.
But for those of us aspiring to the highest levels of technical leadership and responsibility, the Structural Engineering (SE) license represents the next step. It is a respected credential — one that opens doors to complex projects, senior roles, and broader influence within our firms and the profession at large.
From the start of my career, I’ve viewed the SE license as a personal and professional goal. Many of the leaders at my firm — and our peers across the industry — hold this credential. It sets a high bar and signals deep expertise and dedication to public safety.
Yet, as the format and delivery of the SE exam evolve, particularly with its transition to computer-based testing (CBT), the path to licensure has become more challenging in ways that don’t always reflect an engineer’s real-world competence.
The process has tested my resilience more than my engineering knowledge. Setbacks, long study hours, and unclear testing limitations have led to moments of deep doubt. Like many others, I’ve questioned whether I should continue — not because I lack motivation or ability, but because the experience itself can feel disconnected from the work we actually do.
Licensure itself does not make a competent engineer. We all know team members who bring value to projects daily through sound judgment, creative thinking, and technical rigor — with or without a specific credential. We should not discourage those who do not pass their exams on the first try. The ability to persist and grow through the process should be acknowledged, not penalized.
This is not a call to lower standards. The stakes of our work are high, and public safety must remain the foundation of our profession. But we must ask: Are we assessing engineering competence, or are we simply filtering for test-taking endurance and familiarity with restrictive software?
As firm leaders, you play a critical role in shaping how licensure is viewed and pursued within your organizations. You can offer support through mentorship, financial backing, and — just as importantly — understanding. Recognize that your younger staff may be navigating an exam process that looks very different from the one you experienced.
Retention, morale, and professional growth all intersect here. If the process becomes so grueling that it deters promising engineers from pursuing or completing licensure, our entire profession stands to lose. We risk creating a bottleneck of talent at a time when the industry needs more licensed engineers, not fewer. When engineers walk away from the process due to burnout, expense, or frustration with the system — not because they lack ability — we all lose. The long-term consequences may include decreased participation in licensure and a shrinking pool of qualified SEs at a time when our industry can least afford it.
My hope is that leadership teams will remain engaged in these conversations, advocate for improvements where appropriate, and continue to support the next generation as they navigate this demanding path.
Let’s ensure that licensure remains a meaningful, attainable goal — one that builds up our engineers rather than burning them out.
