For all of those who have taken/passed the S.E. Exam 2

[a7x1984]

I am about to start preparing to study for the P.E. However, I recently read an article in Structure Mag that tried to convince the reader how P.E.'s 40+ in age didn't have to worry about failing the S.E. exam - that it just required a strong study regiment and excellent organization of reference material. The author made it sound enticing, not scary! It got me thinking, would it be a better idea to try out the structural exam now, since I am young and not far removed from school. I was curious of his educational background, and found out he had just a B.S.C.E. What do you S.E.'s (or attempting S.E.'s) think?

If I got paid for every hour I worked, I'd be a wealthy man.

 

[ImminentCollapse]

I don't know about not worrying about failing. Regardless of age and experience, some people are just bad test takers and will struggle. INSERT "The best engineer I ever knew took the PE 6 times". The author's advice of strong study regiment and organization is correct though and will make it easier, not easy. I got the SE II on the first try and missed the SE I by one point (olden days). I went in the second time "not worrying" and got pasted. 3rd time's a charm.

I took it as soon as I was able and usually recommend the same (PE too) to all engineers. It was helpful that I was working through my MSE at the time, although I had no life with work, school and SE prep.

IC

 

[JedClampett]

Believe me, the SE test was hard in the old days (40 years ago) and I'm sure it's harder now.
It's funny. Everyone looks around and thinks, "...if that senile old so and so next to me got his SE in the 70's, it must of been easy...probably just had to spell his name close and they handed him the license"
When I took the Illinois SE in the 70's it was notoriously hard. I'd say 80% failed. But the trick was know your material, make good assumptions and don't go down any bad paths. Engineers who did a lot of calculations found it easier than management types. I'm not sure that reference material organization made much of a difference. I know for a fact that the quantity of reference material didn't help. I saw guys bringing in books with grocery carts.
But you should try the test as soon as you're eligible. The closer you are to the classroom, the easier the subjects you don't do regularly will be. Unfortunately, the cost of the test is so punitive now, that becomes a consideration.

 

[a7x1984]

Thanks for the comments. I didn't realize the cost of the test was so prohibitive.

If I got paid for every hour I worked, I'd be a wealthy man.

 

[SteelPE]

I took the exam back in 2004.... and I guess I had it much easier than Jed did because the failing rate when I took it was 65%.

I was always told that the exam is set up in such a way that any practicing engineer should be able to pass. I believe that statement is dependent on your experience and where you work. When I took it the exam more focus was on concrete and steel than wood, masonry and other materials. If you were working for a company that only designed using wood or lt guage materials you would find it difficult to pass. Unfortunately I know of someone who is in this situation and he has had a hard time getting through the exam.

Good luck.

 

[Hokie93]

If you know, or anticipate, that it is likely you will be practicing in numerous jurisdictions during your career, I recommend you take the 16-hour SE exam because it will allow for reciprocity in the vast majority of states. Another option would be to take the civil PE exam as your initial PE exam and take the SE exam a few years later after you have gained additional experience and confidence. The latter approach also has the benefit of removing a bit of the pressure since you will already be licensed (as a PE) when you sit for the SE exam.

 

[msquared48]

From experience, I agree with Hokie...

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

 

[IsaacStructural]

I agree with Hokie as well. Take the exams early in your career, they are very academic in nature. The SE exam is not the place to invent a new or creative way to calculate the stress on XYZ. There is also the practical thing that most engineers in their late 20s, when first eligible to sit for the exams, will likely have more time to prepare and study. Of course everyone's lifestyle is different, but taking the exams when you've got a toddler running around the house isn't ideal. Get them done now and you'll have them behind you forever. Plus you tend to get a bump for your career and more job security after you have them.

M.S. Structural Engineering
Licensed Structural Engineer and Licensed Professional Engineer (Illinois)

 

[MJB315]

I agree with what has been thus far, but I would like to add the following perspective. I am a young engineer and passed the 16-hour exam. It is academic in nature, but that's not difficult. What's difficult is knowing how to design all of the systems (including how the systems are put together and detailed) without a long career filled with experience to lean back on.

Further, everything has to be based squarely on the governing codes (clearly), but a recent graduate is rarely tested on the IBC, and a young engineer may not have needed to review every chapter in it during his work experience.

With that said, my advice for any young engineering taking the test is to read the structural chapters of the IBC/ASCE7 page-for-page, study architectural section / "how buildings come together" type books to understand how buildings are detailed, and be able to perform hand analysis comfortably. If you have those nailed down, your chances of getting "stuck" in the exam are lessoned- and time is key.

"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." -WSC

 

[a7x1984]

"What's difficult is knowing how to design all of the systems (including how the systems are put together and detailed) without a long career filled with experience to lean back on."

That is what I am worried about. I wondered if there was some balance to be had between being well-experienced and fresh out of school before taking it. Lateral analysis and stability worry me, because how often does anybody perform rigorous P-delta analysis?

With that said, does anybody know of some test question examples that could give me a "flavor" of what to expect? I do not want to invest in the full study guides until I am committed to taking it. And, I plan on knowing the IBC 2012 and ASCE-7 like the back of my hand. Maybe, I will take some personal leave to study...

Thanks, guys.

If I got paid for every hour I worked, I'd be a wealthy man.

 

[MJB315]

The review books / practice problems put out by NCEES is the best way to start. I found that the "Structural Engineer Reference Manual" by Allen Williams was a great "one-stop shop" and very useful for me. Outside of references like those, I'm not sure if you will find better examples of the problems that you'll face. Takers of the test sign an agreement as to not disclose the material in it, so I don't think you'll find many specifics online.

If you know (and can physically draw) the basic detailing behind shear walls / braced frames using all of the material systems, you're well on your way. You won't have much time to search for details and you really won't have much time to erase, redraw, and erase again. Knowing your ASCE-7 will allow you to generate the loads you need quickly.

As a rule of thumb: Be careful in the morning and confident and quick in the afternoon. All the choices on the multiple choice aren't unreasonable (so choose wisely!) and there's a lot of ground to cover during the constructed responses (so run like wind!). Again, the best way to see that is to review the material that NCEES itself puts out.

Good luck!



"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." -WSC

 

[a7x1984]

I wonder if only having a Bachelors in Civil/Structural makes it more difficult to pass than with the added Graduate degrees. Has anybody have a thought on that?

Before you doing anything creative, make sure the code likes the artwork you are trying to wow the world with.

 

[fancypants]

Know ASCE 7 sleep with it. This is how you get your loads.
Know IBC chapters for design. It amends things in the other codes.
Know how to design concrete and know ACI chapter 21.
Know the AISC seismic design manual.
Same goes for masonry and timber.
And same pretty much goes for AASHTO for a lot of common design problems. All of this assumes you want to design buildings. I cannot speak for the bridge test.

The test in my opinion is pretty much code driven as already mentioned. Once you get through school and if you were a good student, you have all the analysis skills you need. Its all about the code and you don't have time to hunt for things. You need to know where they are located and get to the pronto! If you have to learn something on the fly .... forget about it. The only place I know of to learn the codes are read them, study them, and then read them again. Work lots of problems using them. Know them well! Back in school we did not use codes that much with the exception of ACI and AISC 360. Oh we did do some wind code design and I remember hearing the word seismic once or twice.

 

[a7x1984]

Thanks, fancypants. Excellent perspective (maybe it is because that is what I was looking to hear!) I like that it focuses on the codes...as it should. Buildings are where I would go, as well. Closing thread

Before you doing anything creative, make sure the code likes the artwork you are trying to wow the world with.

 

[MJB315]

To think about it, a great reference for understanding Lateral Force Resisting System details would be a free document called FEMA-547: Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. The book walks through a dozen different building types (wood, steel, concrete, masonry) and highlights the common seismic detailing issues (as well as proposed solutions) found in each. It could be very useful-- I wish I knew about it from Day 1.

The document is availble for free (hard copy and download) here: [URL unfurl="true"]http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2393[/url]




"We shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us." -WSC

 

[msquared48]

Listen to "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" in your sleep.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

http://mmcengineering.tripod.com

 

[Archie264]

Regarding:

>>>Takers of the test sign an agreement as to not disclose the material in it, so I don't think you'll find many specifics online.<<<

Cute. What, specifically, do they hope to accomplish by making people guess at what to prepare for?

 

[a7x1984]

Mike: Is that after I take it, or the night before?

In Russia building design you!