PE Structural Depth Exam vs. SE Exam in 2019 2

[destory]

I saw some previous threads about this but nothing in the last few years. Now that both exams have been around for a few years, what is the general opinion on which exam to take? My two options are the PE Civil: Structural Depth or the 2 day SE exam.

I currently live in Texas and I have already asked the Texas Board about their licensing and they said they do not offer a specific SE license but that both tests are viewed as equivalent tests for the purpose of a PE license. However, I do not know how other states are. For the states that offer SE licensure, do they require you take the PE exam first or is the SE exam alone enough to be granted an SE license?

I am also curious if there are preferences one way or the other for companies? If I decide to transition to another company does having the SE exam under your belt make a difference in states that do not recognize the specific SE License?

Thank you in advance!

 

[Rabbit12]

Daywalked, I'll echo your sentiment in the last sentence. The PE was easy for me as well and the SE was tough. I took the gravity and lateral back to back and failed the lateral on my first attempt. Passed it on my second attempt.

IMO anyone who minimizes the prep required for the PE is either very very smart or arrogant. The majority of people won't be able to minimally prepare for that test and pass. You really have to manage your time especially in the afternoon to finish. There won't be time to "learn" during the exam.

I don't intend to scare anyone about the SE it's a tough test but with proper prep it's doable and VERY rewarding when you pass.

 

[Leftwow]

I'm sitting for the Structural PE in april, there's no way I'd be able to pass the SE with my current level of experience. Relearning the basics of things like geotechnical, traffic and hydrology is taking me quite a while. I spent about 40 hours just on hydrology and I still going to have to revisit it the week before the test. I think the average equivalent of study time they say you need is about 200 hours to pass the PE, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was way more for structural PE's.

I know 5 people that graduated with me, and only 1 out of those 5 people ended up passing.

Edit: However, it seems all my buddies in other civil disciplines have been able to pass FYI.

 

[Ron247]

Kootk,

First, I never take constructive criticism personally. That is one method we use to learn. I disagree that the only test of Structural Engineering is passing the SE. Not passing the SE means you have not passed a written test which is not the same as "untested". Collectively, we all have designed structures that have been built and have not fallen down yet. We are all tested daily in that respect. Also, passing the SE is somewhat like getting a PhD. It means you have completed a rigorous phase in your field, but it does not mean you even know 20% of what you will need to for your entire career. We are in a perpetual learning curve.

Leftwow, Why are you relearning traffic and hydrology if you are taking the SE? Do you mean you are taking the CE?

 

[Leftwow]

I'm taking the PE exam with structural depth, which is the afternoon portion, not the SE. SE would be too hard for me right now.

It seems like SE would require a really advanced and in-depth knowledge of the codes, and at the moment I'm just not capable of spending the time to go through all that.

 

[straub46]

When I took the Civil PE w/ Structural Depth, I thought the exam was pretty easy, and I'm sure I over prepared. I probably put in about 200 hours for it.

I'm sitting for both parts of the SE Exam in a month, and I feel like I could struggle. I've worked in a moderate snow, low seismic/wind area, doing steel design for my whole career. Relearning the other materials, as well as the special seismic requirements for all the materials has proven to be quite difficult.

I'm a proponent of taking the PE first and getting the raise that comes with it. It's a much easier exam. Then, if you're company needs to do work in areas where an SE license is required, or you feel like challenging yourself, you can take the SE at a later date (and hopefully get another raise!)

Go Bucks!

 

[WARose]

Having the SE license (in a non-SE state) has been a big advantage for me. Helps you stand out.

Preferably it would be best to have both (Civil PE+SE) because of some of the quirks in some western states (as noted in this thread).

Just try not to get discouraged. It took me numerous attempts to get through the old SE I&II (something like 6-7 times total). The new test has an equally abysmal pass rate.

 

[KootK]

First, I never take constructive criticism personally

Great, but please recognize that I offered you no criticism personally, constructive or otherwise.

I disagree that the only test of Structural Engineering is passing the SE.

We're not in disagreement about that as I never said that passing the SE was the only test of a structural engineer. I didn't even say that it was a good test of a structural engineer. I'm simply expressing my opinion that, by virtue of education and training, I don't feel that most structural engineers with well rounded experience will require hundreds and hundreds of hours of study to pass the SE exam. And of course there are exceptions. Some folks just suck at test taking regardless of the extent of their understanding. One of my kids is that way. And SE is a high pressure test.

In my experience, 95% of the job is just statics, drawing development, and project management anyhow. I'd actually prefer all states to follow the model where a Civil PE qualifies one to do most structural work and an SE is only required for projects of a certain scale or importance. I disdain the SE only model used in some states like Hawaii. I've made some good money stapling various 300lb objects to cell phone towers in Illinois simply because you need an SE to sign off on it.

Not passing the SE means you have not passed a written test which is not the same as "untested"

Note that, in my facetious comment about you being "untested", I pretty clearly stated that I meant the literal SE test which has been the subject of this thread. For all I know, you're a breast cancer survivor and accomplished astronaut who dabbles in structural engineering on the side.

Otherwise, he's untested...literally.

 

[KootK]

IMO anyone who minimizes the prep required for the PE is either very very smart or arrogant.

There's a third option, in addition to arrogant and very, very smart:

III) Strategic.

I truly feel that, if one values their time as they should, the smartest way to go about the licensing exams is link this:

1) Wing it. Minimal prep with a couple of good references. For SE, I recommend ASCE7 and the Structural Engineering Reference Manual. Maybe you pass, maybe you don't. Either way, you haven't wasted gobs of prep time until you know that you need to. The exams are not cheap but they pale in comparison to the value of 300+ HRS of your time. Additionally, now you've got a great feel for exam content and atmosphere.

2) If you failed the last time, amp up the preparation work and take another swing.

3) Repeat.

I recommend this strategy not to be arrogant but because I think that it really is solid advice. And I feel fairly well qualified to give that advice. My US exam history is listed below. If I'd put 300 HRS prep time into each of those exams, I'd be 105 YRS old by now. Note that, fail or pass, none of my scores were 5% higher or lower than the bar. Whether I prepared a little or a lot, it didn't seem to make much of a difference.

FE (Grossly over-prepared)
PE Structural I (Grossly over-prepared)
Structural II
California Surveying
California Mini-seismic
WA Structural III (Fail)
WA Structural III (Fail)
SE Vertical
SE Lateral
PE Civil/Structural (OR)

 

[Ron247]

KootK,
I apologize. I guess I am reading your comments with a "filter" at times. But to say your comment was "facetious" but the comment itself stated "literally" is kind of what has my filters out of whack. Facetious means "not meant to be taken seriously or literally".

 

[KootK]

For folks with families and serious work responsibilities, I'd be curious to know how may hours we feel is practical for an exam preparation run. For me it breaks down like this:

- 4 months prep. Anything I learned more than four months ago is pretty useless to me.
- 4 HR/Week study time. Mostly like on the weekend.
- 1 WK/Month no study time. There's always one weekend pack with family commitments.

4 months x 3 study weeks/month x 4 HRS/study week = 48 HRS

That's about the best I can do.

 

[KootK]

I apologize. I guess I am reading your comments with a "filter" at times. But to say your comment was "facetious" but the comment itself stated "literally" is kind of what has my filters out of whack. Facetious means "not meant to be taken seriously or literally".

When you commented as you did, you could not have been confused by my use of the terms "literally" and "facetious". Those terms were used in different posts, "literally" occurring before your response and "facetious" occurring after. Regardless, my intent was this:

1) Originally I said that you were untested, literally, because you had not taken the literal exam being discussed and I wanted to separate that from other ways in which you may have proven yourself worthy as a structural engineer and human being. I was deliberately tying not to offend although, clearly, I failed in that.

2) The statement was facetious because, of course, I realize that you surely did not study 499 HRS and fail. It was meant to be humorous comment and therefore, by definition, not to be taken seriously. Again, another fail apparently.

So I see no inconsitency. Frankly, I don't take any of this very seriously and wish that I'd not gotten involved with this thread in the first place. I'm only tethered to it now because Rabbit12 thinks that I'm arrogant and went and tied my general comment to your specific handle. A favor for which I'll be eternally grateful.

 

[EDub24]

My daughter was a year old when I started studying for the SE exam. For me personally I started 6 months out because of work/family duties. I spent a month going over concrete then the next month going over steel (basically reading the PPI books and doing every problem I could get my hands on). Then I started a review course where I went over concrete/steel again followed by all the other topics.

I would study an hour during my lunch break then 1-2 hours at night after my daughter went to bed. Weekends were roughly the same. An hour when my daughter napped then 1-2 hours at night. Let's say that was 15 hours/week. Factor in at least 2 weeks I didn't do anything and that came out to be roughly (6 months x 4 weeks/month -2 weeks)*15 hours/week = 330 hours.

Luckily I passed both the first time because my wife made it clear I wasn't taking the exam again haha.

With that said I think someone can reasonably do at least 10 hours/week. That's 1 hour each night plus a couple lunchtime sessions thrown in for good measure.

 

[jayrod12]

I can tell you that there is no way in hell I would be able to spend 10 hrs per week for 6 months studying for an exam. To me, my time is worth something, even if you way undervalue yourself it's still worth something. I always weigh my personal cost against whatever else could be affected and choose the path accordingly from there.

Granted, I'm in the great white north and we don't have to jump through those same hoops. School good? Pass the ethics exam? Finish your PD, volunteer and experience hours? If that answer to all of those is yes, here's your stamp.

 

[Ron247]

KootK:

I 100% agree about the different abilities people have when it comes to test taking. Add to that, the point about if you work in these areas (well-rounded experience) routinely you should not have to study as much for the SE test. And lastly, add your exam prep scenario. Each person has a different make-up of these 3 key pieces of the exam puzzle.

For Those Still Tuned-In:
The study method and the test taking method you have a lot of control over. Wise choices in those 2 areas will help a lot. You have very little control over your current family and life responsibilities other than to just ignore them (which will not work out well for you). I doubt there is a one-size fits all method but you should be getting some working ideas from this thread.

 

[Ron247]

KootK:
You win. This just is not worth it.

 

[WARose]

For folks with families and serious work responsibilities, I'd be curious to know how may hours we feel is practical for an exam preparation run. For me it breaks down like this:

- 4 months prep. Anything I learned more than four months ago is pretty useless to me.
- 4 HR/Week study time. Mostly like on the weekend.
- 1 WK/Month no study time. There's always one weekend pack with family commitments.

4 months x 3 study weeks/month x 4 HRS/study week = 48 HRS

I think the most I ever put into any one attempt was about 120 hrs. I think the 300 hrs deal (that you see recommended in a lot places (see the 'Structural Engineering Reference Manual' for one)) has a lot of merit.

Unfortunately for me, I was a part time grad student and working 50 hr weeks while I was trying to pass this stuff. (Not to mention my other responsibilities.) So 300 hrs was out of the question. (Ergo my zillion attempts at the thing.....almost all of them being for the SE I.)