PE Exam

[tdsull]

I and another co-worker who are not licensed have been following the multiple threads regarding PE exam results.

Our question to the Structural Engineering community is simple: why are the passing rates so low as compared to other engineering disciplines?

All comments, thoughts, rants, raves welcome.

 

[hippo11]

I think it's because it takes a lot of experience with different types of materials and details to get a good understanding of the nuances of structural behavior, how stresses distribute in flexure, shear, etc.

There's a reason many structural firms require a master's for their structural engineers--it's one of the toughest engineering specialties.

 

[RareBugTX]

I agree with Hippo, Structural is complex, although I have heard Electrical, Mechanical and chemical majors stating that it is the easiest and lightest of them all. I think they need to say it to keep their self-esteem high.

 

[tdsull]

I agree somewhat. But there are tremendous nuances, details and in depth understanding that go into all engineering disciplines.

I feel as though there is a deeper issue at hand.

Is there a disconnect form the theoretical community and the practicing engineer? How can someone go to school for 4 years then practice for 4 plus years and bomb the test.

Are people not getting the proper mentoring? Do we get lazy and just “hit it hard” because we don’t truly understand the structural behavior or the building code? Is the review board letting people take the test who do not really posses the proper schooling or background? Thus creating a false rating as to the percentage of truly qualified individuals taking and passing the test.

 

[UcfSE]

Some people don't study properly, others are too arogant to believe they need to work hard or study hard, or have a false belief in their abilities. The rest just don't have what it takes. According to ncees, that's totals about 68% of those who took it. When we fail things like that we can only blame ourselves.

 

[PMR06]

I think the problem is that not a lot of firms do every kind of structural engineering. EITs are getting trained to do their specific job, not necessarily to pass the SE1 test. For example, if XYZ Structual Firm only designed steel structures, maybe the occasional foundation, what PE at that company is going to set down with an EIT and go thru the nuances of wood design? Then throw in 20% bridge content and the test is even tougher. And in my opinion, the argument that the EIT should learn the other material disciplines on their own is unfair. People learn by seeing and doing, not by reading a code and working cookbook examples.

I was fortunate to have worked most of my EIT time for a firm that does a little bit of everything, so I passed the SE1 first time. I did work for 6 months at a large firm, and realized after a week that there was no way I could get the training to pass the PE only from the work experience there.

My advice for new EITs aiming to pass the SE1... Chase the diverse work experience, not the paycheck!

 

[CJJS]

Graduate school really helped me pass the SE1. I didn't have all that diverse experience with design. And studying a lot.

 

[jt12]

Public safety is more of a concern with Structural Engineering than other branches. If a structure collapses, people probably get injured or die. It makes sense that the test should be harder to protect the public.

 

[csd72]

Sounds liek the setup of the SE exams forces you to become a generalist before you can have the opportunity to become a specialist.

 

[COEngineeer]

Amen PMR06. My first 1.5 yrs of experience as an EIT I may have used my calculator once or twice. It does count toward my PE experience but.....

http://www.swijetty.com

Sea Water Intake and Jetty Construction

 

[JStephen]

"Public safety is more of a concern with Structural Engineering than other branches."

My observation with testing in general is that you can take any given body of knowledge and write a test that anybody can pass or write a test that nobody can pass or anywhere in-between. I think the statement above probably sums up the issue, in that they've simply made the test more rigorous because they thought they needed to.

Another difference in the fields is that structural work tends to be more focused, which means a test can be that much more specific. So in an ME test, you might have some question relating to a boiler or pressure vessel, but they don't expect the people taking the test to know the B&PV Code inside and out, because 95% of ME's never need the thing.

 

[Boiler8019]

"Jack of all trades, master of none" It is mainly due to the breadth of the information. They expect you to be a master of 7 completely different subject areas whereas other disciplines are much more focused...on the test and in practice. In 4 years of experience you're either going to be master of one or two subjects or have just touched upon all of them.

Start studying!

 

[tdsull]

There are some interesting comments in each one of your responses. If I cut and paste portions of each I come to the following conclusion…

“I think it's because it takes a lot of experience with different types of materials and details to get a good understanding of the nuances of structural behavior, how stresses distribute in flexure, shear, etc. Some people don't study properly, others are too arrogant to believe they need to work hard or study hard, or have a false belief in their abilities. The rest just don't have what it takes.
According to ncees, that's totals about 68% of those who took it. I think the problem is that not a lot of firms do every kind of structural engineering. EITs are getting trained to do their specific job, not necessarily to pass the SE1 test. For example, if XYZ Structual Firm only designed steel structures, maybe the occasional foundation, what PE at that company is going to set down with an EIT and go thru the nuances of wood design? Then throw in 20% bridge content and the test is even tougher. And in my opinion, the argument that the EIT should learn the other material disciplines on their own is unfair. People learn by seeing and doing, not by reading a code and working cookbook examples.
"Jack of all trades, master of none" It is mainly due to the breadth of the information. They expect you to be a master of 7 completely different subject areas whereas other disciplines are much more focused...on the test and in practice. In 4 years of experience you're either going to be master of one or two subjects or have just touched upon all of them.

Start studying!”

Do you think on any level the powers that be see this situation in this fashion?

 

[ARLORD]

I passed the Str I in 2002. I took it because I failed the Civil back when it was all essay, you had to show your work. After having to show all of your work for the PE exam, going to multiple choice was a lot easier for me. In 2002 Str I had one of the HIGHEST passing rates, around 80%. I took the STR II in 2002 and I failed it, it is also all essay. In 2002 STR II had a passing rate below 20%. If you know 3 of the 4 building materials pretty well and you study, you should pass. YOU HAVE TO STUDY.

 

[henri2]

What are some of the factors that enhance an individuals chances in the SE exam series? Here are couple.

1. Diverse structural design experience. PMRO6 has offered some sound points. What of structural plan review experience?

2. Masters degree in structural engineering. This will obviously depend on the content of the program. Chelapati of IIT has developed a curriculum that has as one of its primary goals, passing the CA SE exam.

http://www.irvine-institute.org/pdf/ms_sedp.pdf

...and I expect he'll add bridge design at some later stage

3. Exam preparation seminar that includes practice exams/tests. I'd imagine that this will be particularly helpful for individuals who do not have the sort of design experience that will improve their chances. There are many seminars available for the FE and PE(civil)but that does not seem to be the case in many parts of the country for the SE exam. Most SEs I know in CA attended a review seminar.