Old PE Exam vs. Current

[JedClampett]

When I was fresh out of the university working at my first job, I thought that the PE (or for me the SE) exam must of been much easier in the "old days." I mean, "...look at some of those worthless sacks of fertilizer, all fat and happy, that passed it in the bygone days."
Now that I've passed my exams and many, many years have passed, I've had it implied to me that the old exams (the ones I passed)were much easier.
My question is: How many of you oldtimers think you could pass the new exams? Are they really tougher or have they just changed format? I, for one, would never want to try, but it does vex me.

 

[zdas04]

The old exams gave part credit for showing your work on a much smaller number of questions. How much part credit was incredibly subjective. I studied for the old format and then discovered that I had just missed the last time it was given and took the new format. The best part of the new format is that it is nearly objective (if too many people get a question wrong they throw it out so it is not perfectly objective).

I found the study material for the old format to be more difficult than the stuff I used for the new format. I can't speak to the test itself.

David

 

[JAE]

I had to work the problems on the PE exam uphill both ways in a snowstorm.

 

[msquared48]

I didn't know they had an exam for old PE's!

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

 

[JedClampett]

In the old days, only engineers with over 170 IQ's and over 75 years of experience could take it. It was 1000 questions in Sanskrit on art, history and Monty Python and the Holy Grail trivia. You had 20 minutes to do it and wrong answers were deducted from right ones.
And you kids nowadays think you have it tough.

 

[zdas04]

No, it was two questions: (1) Define "life"; (2) Create an entity that meets that definition from dirt, water, and electricity, show your work.

No Sanscrit or Monty Python. At least not in the ME version, the SE might have been more esoteric.

David

 

[JStephen]

I didn't have to take the tests to get my PE, but had to take them a few years later to get my PE in another state. While I understand the motivation for it, it is hard to comprehend why I should have to go re-study a topic I haven't thought about since college a dozen years earlier in order to do work completely unrelated to that. That's like telling a doctor "You can't practice medicine until you show adequate proficiency with the Rubik's Cube." Or telling a regular person, "You can't get your driver's license until you pass this test on refrigerator repair."

 

[KENAT]

"it is hard to comprehend why I should have to go re-study a topic I haven't thought about since college a dozen years earlier in order to do work completely unrelated to that"

That's been my thoughts on the PE ever since I discovered what was involved and that there wasn't really an Aero test.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[francesca]

The new one is a joke; the EIT is harder. I had a plug-and-chug Manning's equation and THEY GAVE ME THE EQUATION. The old exam tested your knowledge, the new one tests how fast you can find the right equation in the reference book.

 

[fattdad]

Here's an old-exam story (mine). I had four or five morning questions and I could choose from like 8 or 10. So, I chose three or four that came to me easy. Then I had one more to choose. I took a survey question, that was based on a closed traverse and they wanted to know the area. I used cross products and got some answer. Problem is, I'd never done this in practice, just from what I read during that open-book exam.

Knowing that I was on thin ice, I used my ruler and compass and made a graphical solution on the grid paper of my exam book. You know 1 in = 20 ft or so and then the angles. When my graphical traverse was complete, I counted grid blocks and determined the acreage. I got a different answer from my cross-product solution. I took my No. 2 pencil and put a big "X" across my complicated math and used an arrow to say, the answer was 11 acres (or whatever) using graphical solution.

The afternoon was another four or 5 questions, but these were multiple choice and included 10 parts each. Again, I picked the ones I could easily master and then took an engineering econ question. Future worth - easy. Past worth - easy. One other easy part and then it got over my head. I only got three elements of that question and walked out of the exam. I was done enough for me.

When I got my results, I scored a 93. I got full credit for my graphical solution and only missed the parts of the econ question that I didn't solve.

Thankfully, I had a book to show my work!

f-d

¡papá gordo ain’t no madre flaca!

 

[msquared48]

I took my EIT with a slipstick and about three books on the desk. It was multiple choice, but one H#%% of a lot of questions. Nevertheless, I finished both the morning and afternoon sessions an hour early.

For the PE and SE, I had an HP33E calculator and about 10 reference books for the problems. As I remember, there were 7 or 8 in each session of which you had to do 5. No multiple choice. Multple choice can involve guessing to some degree, but the written solutions leave no room for that. I was working right up to the buzzer on most of the sessions in these exams.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

http://mmcengineering.tripod.com