Has anyone else been told to avoid the structural pm?

I've heard from several people, including people teaching review courses to avoid the structural pm and take geotech because it is much more code based and it is very improbable that one person is that experienced with all the different materials that are tested. Has anyone else heard this advice? I work in the structural field but also do some foundations.

The other issue is that I am interested in taking the SE in the future. It is not required in my region and probably won't be in my career, but it's a small world and it may come in handy some day. Will I be doing myself a disservice if I don't put in the time to study for the structural PE? Or will it even make a difference in the long run once I have more experience? Would it be taking an unnecessarily difficult and risky path to take the structural PE? Thanks for your thoughts.

Gopack,

If you work in structures I would say go ahead and sign up for the Structual PM. I nearly signed up for it for the spring 2012 exam but I work primarily Construction and did not believe I had enough structural experience to be sucessful on the exam. After reviewing some of the Structural PM sample questions I do not believe they are impossible, quite the contrary.

I would grit your teeth and do it.

All the best,

Jason

I do bridge design and I was told by my coworkers, most also do bridge design, not to take the Structural PM because it is hard and that I should take the Transportation PM. I decided to take the Structural PM because I think it will be more beneficial; If I don't pass, what I have learned while studying will be useful since my field of work is more on structures. After taking the test, the Structural PM was not as hard as I thought it would be, I guess working with structures everyday helped me prepare for the exam.



For me, choosing the type of exam more related to your field of work and studying for it will not only help you in passing the exam but also improving your job performance.

Well put.

If you primarily work in structural engineering, then take the structural PM module. Don't let it scare you away if that is your expertise. If you are strong in steel, concrete, and structural analysis then you will be fine...the amount of timber, masonry, and bridge questions on the PE is minimal.

I've taken both PE structural and SE exam and the PE is much easier and good preparation for SE.

I'm taking the structural depth in October and a little worried as I MOSTLY do steel at work, a little timber and very little concrete. Masonry I just pick out of a chart that was made here at the office by my boss...

Hopefully I can study enough to pass.

My first PE attempt was structural pm in April 2011, which I passed. It did require a lot of study in the areas of wood and masonry for me, since those topics were not a part of my BCE back in the day. I have worked in the precast/prestressed concrete industry doing mostly design and some drafting and estimating/sales since getting my BCE, so I don't exactly have a very "broad" spectrum of experience. Make sure you have all of the codes suggested, and that you understand them and know where to find stuff in them. Other than the codes, I studied from CERM (and companion book of problems), the structural depth reference manual, and the six minute solutions problem book (structural) - close to 300 hours total in the nine weeks leading up to the exam. I did have the AASHTO manual, but didn't spend too much time with it since I was told there would likely only be a couple questions that will require its use.

I have given some thought to the 16 hour SE exam, but with my specialized experience, I think it would be a very tall order for me to actually pass that monstrosity!

Don't be like me

When I took the Civil PE Exam, I was working for a small consulting firm and really had experience in many sub-disciplines. But I was moving toward a structural career. At that time we could flip through the exam, and pick the discipline we like the best. The day of the exam I picked water resources. Even though I passed, I really wished I had taken the structural depth.

When I applied for a license in another state, they required me to have the Structural I exam to practice structural (so I then took that as well). I am glad and proud of the both exams, but a little more so of the Structural I exam.

I think you will appreciate passing the structural depth as well because that is the area that you are working in.

Another point to consider is that the cut score for each depth module is supposed to help normalize the difficulty of the exam. So if the structural exam is more difficult, then it should also have a lower cut score. Further, if you kill the am portion of the exam, IMO you really can coast in the afternoon portion. If you take some of the pressure off of yourself mentally then you will likely do much better. Just prepare and do the best you can on exam day.

On a practical level, do as many problems as you can (i.e. about 200-250 hours worth). For the structural I exam, I worked through the Buckner (ppi product) practice problems almost entirely. I used the structural engineering reference manual as well as the CERM and I took many (if not all of the codes) referenced in the NCEES specs. The structural engineering reference manual covers many of the codes in the NCEES specs and may allow you to skip a few of the codes (such as the bridge codes, masonry, & wood) that are not always in your work library...

I took the PE last October, structural depth, and my first time. I didn't think it was all that bad. It wasn't any worse than the AM section. Honestly, I think some folks over-think and over-study sometimes and end up failing just as badly as those who don't study at all. Structural problems can particularly hang you up if that's the case.

I was your average engineering student with a focus on structural. I'm certainly no brain. My GPA was 3.1. My approach was common sense because the test is geared to this way of thinking.

I got the Goswami book and a couple of NCEES sample exams. (Some people swear by the CERM and that's fine, your choice.) I probably only studied a total of 15-20 hours, focused mainly on knowing my way around the Goswami book.

Sure, there were a couple of questions that I didn't know at all but the vast majority of questions are quick to answer if you measure your pace and try not to over-analyze it.