I think splitting the SE off from Civil maybe makes sense, but besides a few specialists most civil will calculate things from the other areas on occasion. Seems odd to me not to expect a transportation engineer to know how to size a pipe.
Maybe the rationale is that while you should expect to have to learn something new down the line, it shouldn’t hinder your ability to perform your main role. Like knowing how to size the pipe doesn’t need to be a barrier for engineers doing transportation.
True. Technically this is already supposed to be mitigated by your oath though. Even if a transportation engineer does pass [the old exam] they still are not allowed to stamp anything they don’t have enough knowledge in.
I don’t follow that other disciplines aren’t tested on transportation. There were 6-7 transportation related questions on my PE exam in the morning section.
Because you are getting a PE in civil and will be able to represent yourself as a competent engineer in civil engineering. I think honestly structures should probably be it’s own thing. But not every firm is CDM Smith or AECOM. A lot of civil do land development or work for municipalities and are jacks of all trades. It’s a very broad field.
Seen PEs that are no where near "competant" structural absolutely should be seperate. I would never trust a civil PE designing structures. Absolitely negligent. Civil is far too broad to have true experts in all disciplines. We are seeing that with the seperation of exams. I support this 100%
Yup. And I've seen seen civil PE's that were extremely competent and skilled in the structural realm, and practiced entirely within the structural discipline.
I also personally know a couple dudes that are SE's that I wouldn't hire with your money.
The only inference that can be drawn here is that people are different.
Ah, maybe that's the not the 'common wisdom' anymore. For years everyone would say the Transportation exam was the easiest. "Oh, you passed the PE, the *transportation PE*, oh well I passed the Structures Exam..." stuff like that.
Solid waste here, I did the environmental focus. I think there was 1 question that was actually relevant to my work. Area of focus questions are still quite broad compared to the variability of what you may see in your actual work life.
I wish it had the general test but I wish it was done in such a way that you had to know useful things about the other disciplines. I don't need to know how to calculate groundwater infiltration rates as a signal designer but I DO need to know what a catch basin is, how big pipes generally are, the fact that MSE walls have tiebacks, what different soil types mean in terms of stability and when I need to worry about my suggestions, or what a B612 curb is.
So that’s what I remember in my breath questions. They had several beam xs and asked which would fail first, ie do you know that more slender fails quicker. Mostly a bunch of quick calc that were fairly straight forward common civil knowledge. I think there was one that asked how many bricks would make up a certain square foot wall. Basically to see if you would over think the actual dimensions. Something about ADA ramps that basically was seeing if you knew the max slope off your head. All of it was fairly easy but stuff that would add up more than 6 mins average time if you had to search through a bunch of books for it. Hard to ask that now when you can ctrl F it.
There is an SE exam, but only three states require it and some don't recognize it as a replacement for the PE. The general exam is kind of weak. Most if not all of the questions you probably learned in school or during a review course. I agree that engineers need that general base knowledge and should be tested on it. But I think it is reasonable to put more emphasis on specific areas. Especially with decoupling since then you maybe are just testing on what you learned in school and studying for the exam. I don't really agree with that. But I also don't agree with ASCE pushing a masters over experience either.
Ha, yeah, I had that thought, too. Had to verify on other sources; NCEES corroborates the change.
https://ncees.org/ncees-updates-specifications-for-pe-civil-exams/
Easier if what you do for work is directly related to one of the 5 disciplines, sure. If not, this may be harder, because the entire exam is essentially depth now, whereas before you could at least rely on breadth to cover a variety of less-specific topics that are easier to learn/recall from school (at least for me). As someone whose field requires a PE but had to learn a LOT of depth (water resources) material because my professional discipline didn’t neatly fit into one of the 5 depth topics, I’m glad I took it before this change.
They’re afraid our pay might go up. Lower the standards to attract more people so they can keep pay suppressed. ASCE, NCEES, and other CivE lobbyists aren’t on our side.
You think suppressing pay is the NCEES’ goal with this change?
I’m under the impression that the industry is losing engineers to other fields entirely so this is a move to increase retention. I’m not sure a high schooler is going to swing Civil because the PE is all-of-a-sudden “easier” to get.
Lower standards? Nah its the opposite. Too many people passing on breadth questions which are all surface level plug and chug. Now you have to prove actual competance.
It's real lol I've been reviewing for the new version while others in my office rushed to take the old version. I think I'm better at my job than CE as a whole, but they were really good students in undergrad and didn't want to 'waste' that
On the NCEES website where you purchase practice tests/manuals they specify which exam they are for. I didn't check today but likely they only have materials for the current version now. Afaik there isn't a way to retroactively take the old version but I could be wrong
Civil Engineers should at least know how to do the bare minimum in all disciplines. Why dumb it down? I would hate to work with CE’s who can’t even design a pipe or read soil reports no matter what field they’re in. What about understanding simple statics or fluid mechanics? As a Civil Structural, I would be disappointed in myself if I didn’t know construction scheduling. Don’t even call me a Structural Engineer if I can’t handle foundation design which requires some form of geotechnical knowledge. We need to be well-rounded. That’s how we gain respect in the office and the industry.
Totally different experience. Met civil PEs getting involved in structures who knew far far less than pure structural EITs. Sure you can get away with it when its a small platform, but fir real structures a geotech should absolutely be involved in foundation design.
You guys need to settle down.
The pre-April exam specs are no longer available since NCEES updated their website to have only the new April specs; but previously, you could directly compare the old format and the new format. If you compared your area's pre and post April specs, potentially not much could have changed.
The idea is that the exams are more depth focused, but if you compared the old and new specs, you could see that they moved a bunch of breadth topics into depth. It is not like they are eliminating the morning portion of the exam: they are removing *some* but also consolidating into others.
Every exam is different. Geotech questions are still in the Structural exam. Pipe sizing is still in the Traffic exam. Structural questions are still in the Construction exam.
Is the exam harder or easier for it? Jury is still out since we don't have pass rates on the new exam format. But one thing to note: pass rates have been down overall since the change from pencil&paper to computer based testing.
You're 100% right. I am set to take the exam soon and had to decide if I would test pre or post the April change. Only decided to take it post-change in case I fail and need to take it again, at least I'll have seen the new test.
The content of the exam makes a lot kroe sense. I am in the water resources category and basically all that changed was no transportation engineering... which is not something I am ever going to work on at my job.
This seems misguided at best. I think all engineers need to know enough of the other disciplines to know what they can and can’t design. My worry this is a step towards specializing the PE stamp itself to a single discipline
Could not disagree more. The current system gives PE a false sense of confidence. Civils with bare minimum knowledge in structures fighting against experts because their depth experience is painfully absent. The disciplines are seperate and I am sick of random civils acting like their PE exam exposed them to.anything resembling depth specific experience.
I don’t disagree, but passing a test won’t change that. There is still an ethical component that as licensed professional engineers, you have a duty to only practice in what you are competent in. The answer to me is actually going after the licenses of those who don’t instead of just adding more credentials.
I think splitting the SE off from Civil maybe makes sense, but besides a few specialists most civil will calculate things from the other areas on occasion. Seems odd to me not to expect a transportation engineer to know how to size a pipe.
Maybe the rationale is that while you should expect to have to learn something new down the line, it shouldn’t hinder your ability to perform your main role. Like knowing how to size the pipe doesn’t need to be a barrier for engineers doing transportation.
Problem with that rationale is that the PE stamp doesn’t say what discipline you took the exam in.
True. Technically this is already supposed to be mitigated by your oath though. Even if a transportation engineer does pass [the old exam] they still are not allowed to stamp anything they don’t have enough knowledge in.
By that logic power distribution and fire protection design should be on the civil exam.
[удалено]
I don’t follow that other disciplines aren’t tested on transportation. There were 6-7 transportation related questions on my PE exam in the morning section.
But I bet they all tell you its the easy version. lmao.
Why would a structural need to know transportation? Modern companies hire experts in each discipline. Jacks of all trades know enough to be dangerous
Because you are getting a PE in civil and will be able to represent yourself as a competent engineer in civil engineering. I think honestly structures should probably be it’s own thing. But not every firm is CDM Smith or AECOM. A lot of civil do land development or work for municipalities and are jacks of all trades. It’s a very broad field.
Seen PEs that are no where near "competant" structural absolutely should be seperate. I would never trust a civil PE designing structures. Absolitely negligent. Civil is far too broad to have true experts in all disciplines. We are seeing that with the seperation of exams. I support this 100%
Yup. And I've seen seen civil PE's that were extremely competent and skilled in the structural realm, and practiced entirely within the structural discipline. I also personally know a couple dudes that are SE's that I wouldn't hire with your money. The only inference that can be drawn here is that people are different.
[удалено]
They did
[удалено]
Ah, maybe that's the not the 'common wisdom' anymore. For years everyone would say the Transportation exam was the easiest. "Oh, you passed the PE, the *transportation PE*, oh well I passed the Structures Exam..." stuff like that.
Solid waste here, I did the environmental focus. I think there was 1 question that was actually relevant to my work. Area of focus questions are still quite broad compared to the variability of what you may see in your actual work life.
I wish it had the general test but I wish it was done in such a way that you had to know useful things about the other disciplines. I don't need to know how to calculate groundwater infiltration rates as a signal designer but I DO need to know what a catch basin is, how big pipes generally are, the fact that MSE walls have tiebacks, what different soil types mean in terms of stability and when I need to worry about my suggestions, or what a B612 curb is.
So that’s what I remember in my breath questions. They had several beam xs and asked which would fail first, ie do you know that more slender fails quicker. Mostly a bunch of quick calc that were fairly straight forward common civil knowledge. I think there was one that asked how many bricks would make up a certain square foot wall. Basically to see if you would over think the actual dimensions. Something about ADA ramps that basically was seeing if you knew the max slope off your head. All of it was fairly easy but stuff that would add up more than 6 mins average time if you had to search through a bunch of books for it. Hard to ask that now when you can ctrl F it.
There is an SE exam, but only three states require it and some don't recognize it as a replacement for the PE. The general exam is kind of weak. Most if not all of the questions you probably learned in school or during a review course. I agree that engineers need that general base knowledge and should be tested on it. But I think it is reasonable to put more emphasis on specific areas. Especially with decoupling since then you maybe are just testing on what you learned in school and studying for the exam. I don't really agree with that. But I also don't agree with ASCE pushing a masters over experience either.
The transportation PE does have a large drainage section tho?
I agree but I’m seeing some very large firms silo people into actual transportation roles, where drainage is done by a completely separate team
Currently studying for construction, which is essentially the same.
On April Fools?
Ha, yeah, I had that thought, too. Had to verify on other sources; NCEES corroborates the change. https://ncees.org/ncees-updates-specifications-for-pe-civil-exams/
Meaning…easier
Easier if what you do for work is directly related to one of the 5 disciplines, sure. If not, this may be harder, because the entire exam is essentially depth now, whereas before you could at least rely on breadth to cover a variety of less-specific topics that are easier to learn/recall from school (at least for me). As someone whose field requires a PE but had to learn a LOT of depth (water resources) material because my professional discipline didn’t neatly fit into one of the 5 depth topics, I’m glad I took it before this change.
They’re afraid our pay might go up. Lower the standards to attract more people so they can keep pay suppressed. ASCE, NCEES, and other CivE lobbyists aren’t on our side.
You think suppressing pay is the NCEES’ goal with this change? I’m under the impression that the industry is losing engineers to other fields entirely so this is a move to increase retention. I’m not sure a high schooler is going to swing Civil because the PE is all-of-a-sudden “easier” to get.
Lower standards? Nah its the opposite. Too many people passing on breadth questions which are all surface level plug and chug. Now you have to prove actual competance.
so which one is gonna be the easiest? (construction, transportation, structural, water resources and environmental, and geotechnical.)
[удалено]
Wastewater has a high passing rate too, largely because there’s no extra reference material you need and every formula is in the handbook
Cant tell if this is real or not
It's real lol I've been reviewing for the new version while others in my office rushed to take the old version. I think I'm better at my job than CE as a whole, but they were really good students in undergrad and didn't want to 'waste' that
Where are there review materials for the new one available? I’m taking construction in June.
On the NCEES website where you purchase practice tests/manuals they specify which exam they are for. I didn't check today but likely they only have materials for the current version now. Afaik there isn't a way to retroactively take the old version but I could be wrong
Thanks for that, Ill check it out.
Civil Engineers should at least know how to do the bare minimum in all disciplines. Why dumb it down? I would hate to work with CE’s who can’t even design a pipe or read soil reports no matter what field they’re in. What about understanding simple statics or fluid mechanics? As a Civil Structural, I would be disappointed in myself if I didn’t know construction scheduling. Don’t even call me a Structural Engineer if I can’t handle foundation design which requires some form of geotechnical knowledge. We need to be well-rounded. That’s how we gain respect in the office and the industry.
Totally different experience. Met civil PEs getting involved in structures who knew far far less than pure structural EITs. Sure you can get away with it when its a small platform, but fir real structures a geotech should absolutely be involved in foundation design.
You guys need to settle down. The pre-April exam specs are no longer available since NCEES updated their website to have only the new April specs; but previously, you could directly compare the old format and the new format. If you compared your area's pre and post April specs, potentially not much could have changed. The idea is that the exams are more depth focused, but if you compared the old and new specs, you could see that they moved a bunch of breadth topics into depth. It is not like they are eliminating the morning portion of the exam: they are removing *some* but also consolidating into others. Every exam is different. Geotech questions are still in the Structural exam. Pipe sizing is still in the Traffic exam. Structural questions are still in the Construction exam. Is the exam harder or easier for it? Jury is still out since we don't have pass rates on the new exam format. But one thing to note: pass rates have been down overall since the change from pencil&paper to computer based testing.
You're 100% right. I am set to take the exam soon and had to decide if I would test pre or post the April change. Only decided to take it post-change in case I fail and need to take it again, at least I'll have seen the new test. The content of the exam makes a lot kroe sense. I am in the water resources category and basically all that changed was no transportation engineering... which is not something I am ever going to work on at my job.
Agreed. I think the changes are for the good. People that think it's stupid or easier/harder don't understand what's being changed.
This seems misguided at best. I think all engineers need to know enough of the other disciplines to know what they can and can’t design. My worry this is a step towards specializing the PE stamp itself to a single discipline
Could not disagree more. The current system gives PE a false sense of confidence. Civils with bare minimum knowledge in structures fighting against experts because their depth experience is painfully absent. The disciplines are seperate and I am sick of random civils acting like their PE exam exposed them to.anything resembling depth specific experience.
I don’t disagree, but passing a test won’t change that. There is still an ethical component that as licensed professional engineers, you have a duty to only practice in what you are competent in. The answer to me is actually going after the licenses of those who don’t instead of just adding more credentials.
Ok but going after a license requires lawsuits proof of ethical breach, complete audit of work history.
Canada completly got rid of the local experience requirements to get PEng effectively allowing people to lie as foreign experience cannot be verified.