NCEES Structural PE (SE) Examination - Refresher/Review Course Recommendations? 2

[Illbay]

I've been looking over a few of the packages for structural engineering examination (SE) review courses, and it's difficult to determine which of them to spend money on. I'd like some recommendations for people who've attended such courses.

"No one is completely useless. He can always serve as a bad example." --My Dad ca. 1975

 

[BridgeNerdGuy]

First and foremost, be aware the SE is transitioning to a computer based testing after the October 2023 cycle so the opinions you collect will be from people who studied for and took a different format of the exam. I feel for people testing in 2024/2025; they're literal guinea pigs for an already very difficult undertaking.

I personally spent 601 hours studying for the SE over 2 exam cycles. I took the PPI combined vertical and lateral course and the AEI lateral course. Bridge depth for both. Regardless of the course you take most of the heavy lifting happens outside of class and you need to be working problems, and reading codes in addition to any review class coursework.


- PPI Combined Vertical and Lateral:
[ul][li] This is a true review/refresher course. The instructors are not doing any in depth teaching of the material perse but rather providing a high level overview of possible exam topics. If you are very new to a subject the classes are hard to follow due to the pace. The pace of these lectures were very fast and often it felt like the instructors were simply reading off the slides and not providing much commentary or additional discussion to slides due to time limitations, you could tell the teachers wanted to give you as much info as possible and meant well but it often felt like an onslaught of information was being thrown at you.
[/li]
[/ul]
[ul][li] PPI makes some of the best published books for example problems and studying. The Structural Engineering Reference manual, 6 Minute problems for the SE, David Micenheimer bridge book, and the Structural engineering Solved problems are all solid resources. The last book in this list is similar to the PPI PE civil practice problems book, everyone seems to agree the questions are harder than on exam day but force you to really understand the topics covered by the exam. I recommed all SE examinees read the SERM as a baseline knowledge for the study effort.
[/li]
[/ul]
[ul][li] Overall this course was OK but i was happy with the money I spent for it. It was really good for the vertical portion as I had a good background in these topics. The lateral moved too fast for me as I was unfamiliar with ASCE 7 seismic provisions at the time and didn't have a strong enough background to keep up. The assigned homework was hard but I definitely felt I learned a lot and was prepared for the vertical AM on exam day. The homework problems were all from the books above; many problems took an hour or hours to solve and were formatted more like depth problems than 6 minute exam day questions.
[/li]
[/ul]
[ul][li] This course lacked bridge depth material. The vast majority of my studying for the bridge depth portion was done on my own and from FHWA design examples.
[/li]
[/ul]
[ul][li] The course included a forum for asking questions and discussing problems. The teachers were extremely helpful here and the back and forth between students was beneficial to my learning.
[/li]
[/ul]

AEI Lateral:
[ul][li] The pace was frustratingly slow at times! On the contrary this meant when we got to topics I had never seen they were covered in depth and from the absolute beginning. Much of the material was presented as if you had never seen the topic before which was beneficial for engineers without exposure to certain exam topics or design codes.
[/li]
[/ul]
[ul][li] The homework problems were significantly shorter than PPI but had a higher volume to solve. The homework problems were primarily formatted in 6 minute style short form problems. The course included "Mini-exams" at the end of each chapter/material/topic. I found these very useful for taking timed practice tests and exposing my exam day weaknesses.
[/li]
[/ul]
[ul][li] The instructor for the Concrete, Steel, and Bridges, Dr. Z, is the worst instructor & lecturer I have encountered in all of my years in a classroom including BS,MS, and professional conferences/courses/trainings. His slides were littered with errors, he only narrated slides and did not provide commentary on them, and was extremely condescending towards students with questions. He would aggressively respond or even disregard questions he didn't feel like answering; this man clearly felt joy but putting students down. I eventually stopped attending the webinars as my time was better utilized with self study rather than sitting through class only to have to re-read and solve all the class problems on my own anyway.
[/li]
[/ul]
[ul][li] The bridge depth literature included with the course was very good. Despite the errors and being taught by Dr. Z the 15 bridge depth example problems covered an array of topics that really had me prepared for exam day PM session.
[/li]
[/ul]
[ul][li] The forums were not very helpful here. The instructors were condescending in their responses and students did not have a discussion dialog like with PPI. The forums were literally just a data dump of threads by date instead of being organized by topic so it was difficult to see if others had similar questions as you.
[/li]
[/ul]

 

[driftLimiter]

I second AEI. I did their SE lateral and vertical on-demand course for my SE study and found the material, especially the printed material very helpful.

 

[driftLimiter]

A great resource I found was through the structural engineering reddit. There is a discord channel devoted to SE Exam Study Group. Lots of resource sharing and discussion takes place there.

Check it out you may find it useful.

I actually thought Dr. Z was a pretty cool guy he emphasized understanding and practicality. But I can understand why some find his personality off-putting. In any case the printed resources were invaluable for studying and for the exam. Things will be different for the CBT though so be aware of that. the discord has sticky posts for info regarding the upcoming change to CBT.

 

[Illbay]

To those who mention “Dr. Z,” surely you don’t mean Ron Ziemian. I’ve taken several online seminars with him and I cannot imagine him ever being haughty or contemptuous.

Otherwise, has anyone got an opinion on the SE Exam review series presented by NCSEA?

"No one is completely useless. He can always serve as a bad example." --My Dad ca. 1975

 

[BridgeNerdGuy]

It is Dr. Foued Zayati.

Picture this, we've all heard someone ask a question in a professional or academic setting where the instant response of half the room is "oof, you should really know that by now, you're destined to fail if you don't get this already." I found it refreshing and almost funny at first when Dr Z. chastised or grew frustrated with these types of questions. After a a few snide comments per lecture, coupled with a presentation style that very subjectively didn't jive with me, he became off putting and I started to feel for the students who were asking legitimate albeit maybe slightly elementary questions and getting verbally raked across the coals. All that said and done, I still recommend AEI with this caveat.

 

[ggcdn]

SEAW offers a refresher course in the form of a dozen or so lectures. I found the lectures were good but it was more breadth than depth.

-JA (working on [link calcs.app]Calcs.app[/url])

 

[human909]

I have a tangent question:

Do you believe that the PE exam is a good hurdle and helps to ensure high quality engineers and engineering out there in the field?

I personally spent 601 hours studying for the SE over 2 exam cycles.

I've been honestly gobsmacked about the requirements of the US PE exam. It is a hurdle that I'm glad I don't have here down under because it is one I doubt I would ever be able to achieve that. (I used to be pretty damn good at studying and exams, but now they simply don't click with me as a way of learning or testing.)

Here it is much easier to get registered as a professional engineer. Until recently there wasn't even an explicit legislative requirement to be registered! But that has now changed or is changing in most states, and in practice registered engineers have been required.

In terms of quality of output. Based on what I've seen and read I don't see the US PE system as having better outcomes. There still seems as many mediocre engineers over there than there are here. I unfortunately do see plenty of bad engineering here, fortunately it usually occurs as overdesign!

 

[Rdar43]

I've been looking into studying for the test as well and had a similar question. I took the PE a few years ago and still have access to the review course videos. Do the SE specific courses add a lot of additional info or would I be better off saving my money, rewatching the PE course, and then run through SE practice problems and research subjects that might not be covered?

 

[BridgeNerdGuy]

The SE was a whole different animal than the PE with structural depth IMO; significantly harder, more in depth, and time was much more of a concern.

There are some unicorns out there who have enough professional experience they could pass without extensive studying but for the vast majority of the population using PE structures
Depth to study for the SE would be insufficient.

 

[Illbay]

Do you believe that the PE exam is a good hurdle and helps to ensure high quality engineers and engineering out there in the field?

This is the argument that NSPE makes in its opposition to SE licensing laws: "The PE exam is a sufficient barrier to entry, to ensure the safety of the public."

I didn't realize that AUS was much less stringent in its requirements for qualification to practice engineering. I know that most of the world outside of the US, Canada and most of Europe, is convinced that merely possessing the appropriate degree from an institution of higher learning is sufficient - I've had conversations over the years with ex-pat engineers from the Middle East and Asia, and they are mystified that a PhD in Engineering does not make you "an engineer" in the eyes of the law here. But still in all, I support licensure laws ESPECIALLY where continuing professional development is concerned. Many's the time I've attended formal instruction to fulfill the professional development requirements, and found myself realizing how little I truly know about the intricacies of my own profession. I've learned a great deal of significance in fulfilling such requirements. When the requirements first began to be enacted into law in the various states (my original state of licensure, Alabama, was among the earliest), I thought it burdensome, but I've change my mind on that score, even though the requirements for continuing education due pose a burden. But I see it the same way I see my doctor's insistence that I exercise and follow a healthy diet. It would certainly be easier to eat ice cream in front of the TV rather than do so, but it's for my own good.

I know this is a bit off the original topic, but as I'm the O.P., I'll allow it.

"No one is completely useless. He can always serve as a bad example." --My Dad ca. 1975

 

[canwesteng]

The concept of a PE exam is a good one - the execution by NCEES is not. The breadth component is either useless or dangerous depending on your view. The SE exam is much better as an exam format, but state boards are probably requiring it in a lot of cases, and it's probably too hard judging by pass rates, although I guess you never know who is writing the test.

 

[driftLimiter]

The SE is generally used for tall structures , large structures, and critical structures in the US. I think it's incredibly important because the type of work that many people are doing on small buildings does not scale up so well.

Now that I have passed both the PE and the SE I can tell you they are very very different. The SE indicates that you are a specialist in structures. The PE indicates that you paid attention in engineering school.

I'm not saying it's the only way to do things but SE proves you have a focus in structures and building codes that are not covered in the PE

 

[Illbay]

The SE is generally used for tall structures , large structures, and critical structures in the US.

In practical terms relating to state laws, this is what's known in the NCSEA terminology as a "Partial Practice Act", meaning that there are certain critical structures the design of which should be left to a structural engineer with demonstrated ability. However, there are states - and NCSEA is pushing this for all states - where you cannot design anything that could be called "a structure" unless you are a licensed SE. Currently, those states include Illinois and Hawaii, though others such as California, Washington, Oregon and Utah are considering such restrictions as well.

I'm a PE in Oklahoma, but they have a "partial practice act" there, and as I'm considering moving there for "partial retirement," I think it would behoove me to attempt to pass the exams - even though I've been a PE for 37 years, about 95% of which time have been spent in structural design including seismic and high wind. You'd think there'd be a grandfather clause for such as myself - and I just had a granddaughter get married - but no. If I want to be "real" structural engineer in two of the states where I currently am (and have been for many years) a licensed PE, I will need to hobble in there and take that exam.

BTW, although one earlier poster mentioned that they are going to a computer-based test like it's a "bad thing," I'm planning on waiting to the end of this year when that's available. Would much rather drive the 15 miles to the test center than four hours to the state capital for a pencil-and-paper exam.

"No one is completely useless. He can always serve as a bad example." --My Dad ca. 1975

 

[Illbay]

By the way, I want to repeat an earlier query in this thread: Does anyone have any experience with the SE Review Course sponsored by NCSEA?

http://www.ncsea.com/education/sereview/

"No one is completely useless. He can always serve as a bad example." --My Dad ca. 1975

 

[Lomarandil]

Now that I have passed both the PE and the SE I can tell you they are very very different. The SE indicates that you are a specialist in structures. The PE indicates that you paid attention in engineering school.

I'm not saying it's the only way to do things but SE proves you have a focus in structures and building codes that are not covered in the PE

Exactly this. The PE is a scaled up FE exam. If you're a decent student and test taker (without mitigating life circumstances like a newborn child), most engineers should reasonably be able to pass this exam.

The SE is an absolute knock-down-drag-out test which really requires intense study, understanding, and grit to pass. And it shows.

I've met engineers without a license who I wouldn't recommend professionally. I've met engineers with a PE license who I wouldn't recommend professionally. But I've not yet met an SE who gave me concerns about their competence.

 

[Illbay]

I've never met an SE who gave me any concerns about their competence.

As I mentioned earlier, my careful attention to taking Professional Development courses that really go in-depth on specific topics - and this has been my habit - has really opened my eyes as to my own level of understanding of structural engineering. Honestly, while I consider that a few months' intensive study to enable one to pass the SE might up one's game, I submit that years of practice and constant attention to professional development equals or surpasses that effort.

"No one is completely useless. He can always serve as a bad example." --My Dad ca. 1975

 

[WARose]

First and foremost, be aware the SE is transitioning to a computer based testing after the October 2023 cycle so the opinions you collect will be from people who studied for and took a different format of the exam. I feel for people testing in 2024/2025; they're literal guinea pigs for an already very difficult undertaking.

I'd be curious how they will do this computer based exam. Mainly because: when I took the old SE II, it had a essay portion where you provided sketches (as well as verbiage). And from what I understand, the new exam has a version of that as well.

 

[driftLimiter]

I stopped paying attention to CBT stuff but I believe the 'afternoon' is still essay and manually graded. There is a lot of info on CBT at the discord link I posted above for those who are planning to take it I highly recommend looking into that.

 

[BridgeNerdGuy]

Drift, the exam is moving to full CBT after the October 2023 cycle, including the afternoon. The exam will now be 5 4 hour sessions instead of 2 8 hour exams.