which civil PE test to take?

[Denob]

I'm a design engineer working in the linear infrastructure public works side of the fence (no plant work). I typically design water, storm, and sanitary lines with minor experience in paving, drainage, and roadwork. I should be taking my PE exam for the first time in October.

Which test should I opt for during the afternoon half of the PE exam? I hear both transportation or hydraulics as good choices, but I'm really not an expert in either.

 

[DMcGrath]

Take the hydraulics test if you have a choice - fewer references to collect, fewer chances of having the wrong edition, etc. Remember that the "mixes" of questions are posted on the NCEES website, so take a look at that while you are putting together your study plan. I was always told that you should take the hydraulics depth exam if you didn't have a particular area of expertise. It sounds like you at least have this area of familiarity at work, so build on it.

 

[francesca]

I'm in a similar position. I spent four years doing transport planning/modeling (which is covered by three pages in my PE review book), then a year and a half doing subdivision design (a little hydraulics, a little drainage, a little pump station design, etc.) and now I'm a grad student in transportation. I wish I could say that my grad classwork has prepared me well for the PE but I've learned so little it's shameful. (My college is in the top 50 engineering schools, apparently.)

So do I try to borrow a copy of the Green Book and have at the Transportation PE or do I go with Water Resources? I'm taking a hydrology class this fall which I do expect to be useful and it may tip me over the edge. At least I'll be able to say after taking the exam that I'm a well-rounded engineer!

 

[DMcGrath]

I was amazed at the difference in difficulty between various problem sets. The "Six minute" and Lindeburg review questions were significantly more complex than what I experienced on the actual exam. In a way that was good, but also having the NCEES published practice problems restored my confidence. The bottom line of what I am saying is go with what you are most confident in. Also, don't ignore the other discipline questions in your particular mix (low hanging fruit = good). Although I don't recommend this, you can change your mind which depth exam to take at any time, right up to the start of the afternoon session.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Go with your most comfortable discipline. ...and stick with it. Compare what appealed the most to you in school and what you're doing outside of school. While I took the structural PM, I work with several civils, two of them took the Hydrualics, one took the environmental and one took transportation. We all agreed, after the test, that is was really hard. No matter what you pick, pick something and study it to death.

 

[HgTX]

Pick something and study it to death, but also look at the others. You might be surprised to find out someone else's discipline is easier than yours.

When the first person told me to study all 5 cuz ya never know, I didn't take her seriously. When the second person told me two days before my exam (as I was fretting over how hard a time I was having with my chosen discipline, structural) that I might look at the other disciplines, I looked at the sample tests. And lo and behold, EVERYONE else's discipline was significantly easier than the one I'd selected.

I would up taking geotech. I did well. I would not have done well had I not thought to look at the other disciplines.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[DaveVikingPE]

Out of the folks I mentioned, I passed, the one who took transpo passed and one of the hydraulics engineers passed.

HgTX - I was under the impression (other post somewhere) that you took the structural PM. But... since geotech and structural are joined at the hip, you keep the bragging rights, eh?

but seriously... watch out for engineering economics. It's all over the exam.

I would like to think that everyone else's discipline was easier than structural, but I can't say that. It is odd that I was the only one of the group who had building codes with him. I also thoguht it was odd that "structural? yuck!" was the group's general concensus.

 

[LIGWY]

I have taken the transportation one and the structural one and have not been successful. When do you know what to take because my work is in all fields but not alot in a single one.

I did score about the same on both exams so now I wonder where do I go from here?

 

[HgTX]

Dave--no, I totally chickened out on the structural PM. I think I've already ranted about this elsewhere, but the other 4 disciplines I could have (or did) pass easily with only an undergrad class or two. I couldn't do a damn thing with the practice structural questions even with a structural MS under my belt (granted, I hadn't been working as a designer, but even so...). The people writing (composing, not taking, for you Canadians) that exam have a completely different mentality than the people writing the other disciplines, which isn't right--they should all require about the same level of instructional background. If you want the structurals to show more skill, make them take the Structural test rather than Civil--that's what it's for.

I took the test along with a couple of other co-workers from our bridge design office, all of whom had been cautioned by various parties (including a structural PhD) against taking the structural test.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[francesca]

Hmm.

Firstly, it's not just the Canadians who "write" exams, it's everyone except the Americans.

Secondly, structural failures critically impact significantly more people than do transportation/water resources/environmental failures. (Geotech is generally lumped in with structures.) We use transportation systems and structures every single day. We spend the greater part of the day inside a structure, though, so the risk (not hazard) due to a structural failure is higher, even if the hazards are on a par. It makes sense, therefore, that professional structural engineers should be held to higher account.

It doesn't make sense, however, that passing the water resources PE qualifies you to be a structural engineer. This is probably why other countries' certification processes frequently require a mix of experience crossing all disciplines, both design and construction.

 

[DaveVikingPE]

The only question on the structural afternoon test I wasn't prepared for was an "impossible" (my opinion/fault) prestressed concrete beam problem. That and a steel connection prying force question that didn't make sense at all.

"...It doesn't make sense, however, that passing the water resources PE qualifies you to be a structural engineer."

Varies state-by-state... I'm in New York and a PE is a PE; we don't have a separate CE, SE, EE whatever. But just because one passes the PE exam - whatever discipline - doesn't necessarily make you a smarter, better engineer. What it does say is that you have been judged at such a position in your career that you were allowed (key word) to take an exam, the prize for passing being those neat letters after your name.

What makes someone a smarter, better engineer is experience, preferably working for an old salt who's at least 40 years older than you and yells regularly - but doesn't fire you.

Be that as it may, GET YOUR PE. Magic doors open afterwards.

 

[HgTX]

"It makes sense, therefore, that professional structural engineers should be held to higher account."

And that is exactly why there are the Structural I and Structural II exams. States that want to hold SEs to higher standards should and do require those exams instead of or in addition to the general civil exam.

When my test results were reported, it didn't even say which afternoon test I took. What kind of higher standard is completely on the honor system?

Within the general CE exam, all disciplines should be at the same level. I don't necessarily mean the same difficulty level, but require the same level of background. Shouldn't have a couple of undergrad classes be enough for four of the five, and then a significantly deeper level of understanding for the fifth.

Hg

Eng-Tips policies: faq731-376

 

[francesca]

I agree. Really, if a couple of undergrad classes is all it takes to pass the PE exam, then what's the point anyway? You've already passed the classes once. The old format (non multiple-choice) was more condusive to asking questions that required engineering judgement, but of course then the solutions were subjective. No system is perfect, I guess we've got to make the best out of what we have.