OPINION: 300 Hour CE PE Study Recommendation should be Revisited

It seems like throughout the web and within this forum the overwhelming recommendation is to study 300 hours for the 8-hour Civil PE exam. I understand that this study number is high because this number is given as a “regardless of someone’s skill level if they study 300 hours they should most definitely pass” benchmark, but I feel that throwing out 300 hours as the optimal study time could be doing more harm than good, so from someone who just passed the 8-hour exam I want to put another opinion out there for prospective test takers which might help them with their quality of life while they are studying!


After walking out of the 8-hour WRE exam I felt very confident I would pass.

Walking IN to the exam, however, was a completely different story as I was acutely aware that I had only studied half of the time recommended. I was nervous and really lacking in confidence. During the months coming up to the exam I felt the pressure of knowing that I wasn’t dedicating enough time (or so I thought) to studying and there were many moments where it felt useless and I would resign to finishing studying early because I was too stressed. I had prepared for the test by studying ~150 hours, including ~28 hours which were watching the ASCE PE review webinar series (which I would not recommend, but that is another story). I took the PE 3 years after finishing my undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering and was by no means a stellar CE student.

People come into the PE exam with a huge range of experiences so shouldn’t the recommendation for study time reflect that? Maybe there could be a range of hours based on experience going into the exam:

100-150 Confident in material; solid understanding of fundamentals; good test taker; degree/career experience directly related to test material

150-200 Somewhat confident in material; good understanding of fundamentals; good test taker; degree/career experience directly related to test material

200-300  Not confident with the material; haven’t actively practiced engineering in a long time, degree/career experience only related to some of the test material.

300+ Not at all confident with the material; haven’t actively practiced engineering in a long time; bad test taker

What do you think about this? Are there other examples of recommended study times already out there that I missed which do a better job of describing the range?

I think the 300 hours is just a conservative recommendation and like you suggested just a benchmark. I don't know how beneficial it would be to recommend study time based on pre-existing knowledge and other pre-existing factors because I think the number of study hours, even for people with similar experience, can vary greatly because people prepare and use their time to study in a wide range of ways. 

I think what's more important than the number of hours spent studying for the exam is how you're preparing for the exam. I took the exam twice, studying on my own both times, and I probably put in 150-200 hours of studying the first time. However, I didn't have a structured study schedule or plan the first time. The second time around, I had a much more structured and focused study plan and put in less than 100 hours. Now granted, the initial studying I did for the first exam contributed to my preparedness the second time.

But going into the exam, I would still recommend that first time test takers plan to put in 200+ hours into studying and preparing for the exam and if you feel prepared after only putting in a 100 hours or fewer, then you can certainly cut back on your studying. However, what you don't want is to have someone who thinks they may only need to put in 50-100 hours and wait until the month before the test to start studying and then realize afterwards that they needed more time to prepare. 

Yeah... You start scienc-ing it up, you'll be misleading people even more. All that matters is our personal experience. It has nothing to do with what someone from 2 years ago had to do and someone 2 years from now will need to do.

Personally, I think the 300 hours was adequate. Basically, I needed to give myself 100 hours in per month, about 25 hours per week. If you look at it that way, I think people will tell you that within 1 week, they were fine with all the topics, others will say it was 3 weeks etc... For me, that comfort moment came at 4-5 weeks out of my 12 weeks of allocated studying. I spread my 12 weeks over 6 months instead of 3 months because I had to study for Seismic and Survey as well. I started slowly, went on vacation, then picked up 3 months before the test and put in 20+ hours per week. Honestly, I probably put in an extra 100 hours, without even noticing, in doing problem sets.

It's up to everyone to do with it as they want. I could have stopped studying when I was fine with my knowledge level but I kept doing problems. I easily did over 400 problems. The test was a breeze, I thought, in the morning but it was also Geotech heavy. In general, I think the test was easier this time around than October. I know someone who failed again. He was confident this time. He went from 55% the first time to 70% this time and still didn't pass.

So really, let's not prescribe such guidance to people. I think people need to do loads of problems using a concise amount of reference material of their choosing and to do that over and over again. They also need to give themselves 3 months before the test and not jump in 2 weeks prior to the test. That just doesn't work for the majority of brains out there. For someone with consistent exposure to a wide range of engineering, they can probably put in 150 hours over 3 months while someone else needs 300 over 3 months. I needed closer to 200. I feel like the extra hundred made things a whole lot easier to get over this higher curve. I don't think you figure out how much more studying you need to add on until you're 3 weeks (50-75 hours) into studying. So really, giving yourself time before the exam is key.

I studied a lot more than 300 hours. But I didn't count hours because I didn't care. I used my ability to answer practice problems and find information in my references as my ready factor.

Good points all around. I see what you mean that prescribing it down to a range is kind of meaningless because of how individualistic study strategies and experience are. 

I think it would have been helpful to have had the 300 number explained in the way I am interpreting what you both are saying:

>start studying early as if you were aiming for 300 hours total with plenty of time in advance so you have flexibility

>spread your studying out, see how you feel about progress, and adjust the total study time you want to aim for as you go along.

>gauge progress on how comfortable you feel with the material, not on hitting the arbitrary number of study hours

I still like to use 300 as a recommendation when someone asks.  Perhaps it could be worded as such that the examinee should anticipate and be prepared for dedicating 300 study hours.  But, if after getting into it, they feel they are grasping or covering the material faster or slower than anticipated, they can adjust their total study hours accordingly.  Ex. if someone comfortably covers 30-40% of the exam topics in, say, the first 40-50 hours of study, they can assume and plan for a 150ish total study time.  If by hour 40, they have only covered 10-15% of the material, they can plan on needing the full 300 (or more) hours.  Thus, I still like using 300 in the early planning stages. 

Different strokes for different folks. YOU should know what YOU need to do to be successful. We all managed to graduate with our degrees right?  I personally studied for about 300 hours but that was just going at my own snails pace with the 10 months I had before the test. I am 5 years out of my degree in a military career that has nothing to do with ME T&F and everything to do with CE but am pretty good at taking tests. 

Know your strengths, know your weeknesses, and have fun. And it really is fun in a masochistic kind of way. Like the pain from flossing. 

Recommended study time is actually your age x square root of the  cut score

I brought almost 20 years experience, and 500+ hours of study over the course of a year to the exam. I'm pretty sure I got the highest grade anyone has ever scored on the exam.

But I do think 300 (lets say 200 QUALITY) hours is a good benchmark for your average dude or dudette.

There are very few of us who know all the topics in any given depth, and then the 5 AM depths ..... you're at 150 right there.

P-E said:

Recommended study time is actually your age x square root of the  cut score

Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, assuming a 60 cut score that would be 264 hours. Not a bad equation.  Maybe change cut to desired.

scatsob said:

Interestingly enough, assuming a 60 cut score that would be 264 hours. Not a bad equation.  Maybe change cut to desired.

Click to expand...

That equation had been scientifically proven. 

Would we call it a law then?

scatsob said:

Would we call it a law then?

Click to expand...

You might be on to something.  P-E's Effort Law

^^ LOL!

P-E said:

Recommended study time is actually your age x square root of the  cut score

Click to expand...

Haha! I like this. There should be a constant though. Maybe 50 to 100 for quality adjustment or buffer for problem solving or for calibration based on confidence as studies progress.

ST=A√TG + C where ST is study time hours, A is age in years, TG target grade and C a buffer constant in hours. [emoji1]

Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

P-E said:

That equation had been scientifically proven.

Click to expand...

Assuming that 60 really is the cut score that equation cones out to be 9 hours more than I studied and I passed so I would say that's pretty close.

So I could have studied 100 hours less and still passed!? If only this equation was posted before I started...

ptatohed said:

I still like to use 300 as a recommendation when someone asks.  Perhaps it could be worded as such that the examinee should anticipate and be prepared for dedicating 300 study hours.  But, if after getting into it, they feel they are grasping or covering the material faster or slower than anticipated, they can adjust their total study hours accordingly.  Ex. if someone comfortably covers 30-40% of the exam topics in, say, the first 40-50 hours of study, they can assume and plan for a 150ish total study time.  If by hour 40, they have only covered 10-15% of the material, they can plan on needing the full 300 (or more) hours.  Thus, I still like using 300 in the early planning stages. 

Click to expand...

That makes sense. The main reason I became weary of the 300 number was that I was also trying to pass both of the California civil state exams in the same exam administration. A full 300 hours plus the hours needed to pass the California exams just seemed impractical. But for those studying only for the 8-hour I think there is no harm in recommending 300 hours straight out.

DuckFlats said:

So I could have studied 100 hours less and still passed!? If only this equation was posted before I started...

Click to expand...

You studied for 500 hours?  Yeah, you would have been fine with only 400 . 

nickolos said:

That makes sense. The main reason I became weary of the 300 number was that I was also trying to pass both of the California civil state exams in the same exam administration. A full 300 hours plus the hours needed to pass the California exams just seemed impractical. But for those studying only for the 8-hour I think there is no harm in recommending 300 hours straight out.

Click to expand...

ham, what's your total breakdown for each of the three exams?  Did you pass all three in one administration?  Mine is about 250-300 8hr, 150-200 Survey, 200-250 Seismic.  Three separate consecutive administrations.