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

 

[driftLimiter]

Here is a note from the NCEES podcast on the topic.


-Depth: The depth essay format of the pencil-and-paper exam will be replaced with alternative item-type "scenarios". Both the vertical depth and lateral depth (for BOTH bridges and buildings) will feature 5 unique scenarios, each scenario worth 12 questions. Therefore, each component will have 60 questions, 20 of which are ungraded pre-test questions (one of the five scenarios, plus 2 additional questions from each of the other four scenarios). In short, 1/3 of the depth sessions will be ungraded pre-test questions.

 

[Enable]

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

I'm tempted to go challenge accepted on this one. I have no need for the credential but if it's actually a test where passing means something (as opposed to those that are a poor validity measure - most I would say these days), then I probably would like to do this.

I'll obviously look into it when time permits but since we're on the subject. Anyone know how a Canadian with no home US jurisdiction signs up for this thing? Do I first have to get reciprocity with a state for my P.Eng. then sign up with that as my home state?

 

[Illbay]

Anyone know how a Canadian with no home US jurisdiction signs up for this thing?

I have not kept up with this but at one time at least NCEES had what they called a “Model Law Certification” which was basically taking and passing the test even if no jurisdiction in which you are currently licensed has an S.E. law.

If this still exists I’d think this would be your ticket. NCEES would add this credential to your account.

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

 

[Lomarandil]

I don't think that's what the Model Law certification is.

My understanding was that model law meant that you met a threshold set of criteria for licensure (education, quality of experience, # of references) accepted by many jurisdictions. As such, you could be "fast tracked" for reciprocity approval since NCEES was certifying to those states that you meet or exceed their unique criteria.

 

[driftLimiter]

Anyone know how a Canadian with no home US jurisdiction signs up for this thing?

I know that NCEES actually administers the exam independently of any state board. However when you register for the exam you select your 'home' board of engineers. NCEES has some partner boards that appear to be outside of the US.

You could start by contacting NCEES and making an NCEES account to try to sign up.

 

[Illbay]

My understanding was that model law meant that you met a threshold set of criteria

Indeed, but a central criterion is taking and passing the exam.

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

 

[JLNJ]

When I took the SEII, it was like 7 straight hours of writing. It was real-time problem solving and documentation of the thought process.

I don't know how they can replicate that in a multiple-choice format.

 

[human909]

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.

Ah, my mistake a bit here I didn't realise until afterwards that the SE was a different exam to the PE. But my questions and comments still apply.

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.

Agreed with your latter point continuing professional development is essential.

To clarify. Australia does have specific and enforced requirements for continuing professional development. And the system here largely does (thankfully) filter out engineers suitably. Probably only 5% of civil/structural engineer are registered or otherwise certified. So it probably is similar to the PE in mostly allowing only those suitable of becoming a professional engineer to do so.

Here to become a PE you simply need an 5 years experience, an interview and references from professional engineers or other suitable sources. It isn't a big challenge.

I don't really have an opinion on how 'professional engineers' status should be acquired. I am glad personally that I didn't have to take an exam, though that doesn't mean I support the approach. All that said I am still proud of having PE status, and am acutely aware of the professional and ethical responsibilities.

 

[271828]

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

That seems like an enormous amount of time. When did you take it?

Around the turn of the century, I took the Structural I PE exam first. I studied every weekend for about four months. I'm guessing I was at about 150 hours. Passed easily. I didn't think any of it was challenging.

For the Structural II, I didn't study at all. There were too many different systems that could come up, so it seemed pointless to study. Back then, it seemed like a "take it until they give you a system you've used before" type of test. LOL

The first time I took it, there were three of us from our firm. We all got killed. Walked out of there wondering what hit us. I sketched the scenario for a couple of our SEs, including one seismic expert with a CA SE license, and they all said they were shocked that was on the exam. That time, the pass rate was 15%.

We took it again the next semester and I walked out of there with a lot of time to spare. I don't know what the pass rate was, but I suspect it was high. It's like they felt sorry for us because of the previous exam.

 

[Illbay]

Around the turn of the century, I took the Structural I PE exam first.

Do I not understand correctly that the present-day version of the test (at least until the CBT comes on November 1) is far more difficult?

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

 

[Illbay]

This webinar should clarify some things about the upcoming CBT for the "PE Structural Exam" which is the official designation of NCEES for the exam we are discussing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRqPYkrRv9c

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

 

[BridgeNerdGuy]

That seems like an enormous amount of time. When did you take it?

I took the exam in 2022 & April 2023. From reddit and engineer boards it seems 200-300 hours per exam is the going rate these days as the exam only gets broader and codes only get larger. My time includes 1 failed attempt at lateral; with 30 days to go I realized passing the lateral PM was a longshot so I doubled down to make sure I passed vertical. It's definitely possible to pass with less study time & I overstudied for lateral attempt 2. My breakdown was 350hours combined vertical and lateral + 251 lateral.

As a bridge guy who doesn't practice seismic in my state the exam pretty much all material I don't get the opportunity to professionally so that increases the demand on study time (majority buildings AM and seismic bridge PM).

 

[271828]

Do I not understand correctly that the present-day version of the test (at least until the CBT comes on November 1) is far more difficult?

Not sure -- it might be.

Back then, the Structural II seemed like a crapshoot. On my first attempt, the seismic problem was ridiculously difficult and the pass rate was extremely low. On my my second attempt, it was very vanilla and easy.

I know a couple of great structural PEs my age who gave up after about three tries. They kept getting problems with seismic systems they had never used before. They couldn't figure them out fast enough for the exam.

 

[Illbay]

Back then, the Structural II seemed like a crapshoot. On my first attempt, the seismic problem was ridiculously difficult and the pass rate was extremely low. On my my second attempt, it was very vanilla and easy.

Take a look at the YouTube video I linked above. The first twenty minutes is sufficient. The presenter talks about the history of the exam and how much it has changed.

If you watch further into the presentation, where the new CBT format is discussed, he makes it seem like the new CBT is going to be, if not easier, at least more consistent for those studying for the exam.

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

 

[TheDW]

easier

We'll see, but all we know for sure as of now is that its longer and more expensive...

 

[WARose]

Around the turn of the century, I took the Structural I PE exam first. I studied every weekend for about four months. I'm guessing I was at about 150 hours. Passed easily. I didn't think any of it was challenging.

For the Structural II, I didn't study at all. There were too many different systems that could come up, so it seemed pointless to study. Back then, it seemed like a "take it until they give you a system you've used before" type of test. LOL

The first time I took it, there were three of us from our firm. We all got killed. Walked out of there wondering what hit us. I sketched the scenario for a couple of our SEs, including one seismic expert with a CA SE license, and they all said they were shocked that was on the exam. That time, the pass rate was 15%.

It was kind of the reverse when I took it. When I passed the SE I (in 2006), the pass rate for repeat takers was something like 10%. The SE II (which I took some years later) had a much higher rate.....and I got it (IIRC) the first time.

The bridge & wood part of the SE I is what kept killing me. (Two things I don't do much of.)

 

[Illbay]

but all we know for sure as of now

Actually we know quite a bit more than that. See the YouTube link above. It explains things in detail. For instance rather than saying “it’s longer,” you can say “more time is given.”

And allowing you to take each section separately definitely takes any sting out of the time element.

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

 

[TheDW]

Multiple choice goes from 40 to 55 questions each, and afternoon from 4 to 5 questions. Everyone now has to take off minimum 4 days of work instead of 2 and likely has to pay a premium for cbt.

Given the history of the exam i would be very surprised if pass rates improve.

You have the same time per question so time management is still huge.

 

[canwesteng]

How much do you need to know about bridges for the breadth portion of the current exam?

 

[TheDW]

its 1/4 of the breadth. Bridge guys usually say theyre very basic questions but since my only exposure to bridges was studying i thought they were pretty tough unless i got lucky and flipped to the right part of aashto