Civil PE Exam - Practical or Academic?

Hello, first time poster here. A little about my background, I am a recent grad with a BS in Structures and have been working in Transportation in the last 2 years. I have been anxious to take the PE Exam as soon as I could; previously I was waiting to gain the requisite experience before I could apply/sign up (California). However, with the recent changes in CA now allowing you to take the 8 hour, this falls in line with my intention to take the exam ASAP and now without having to worry about my experience.

Now about my "experience"; I have been working on exclusively a big project here in CA for a great firm. The issue is, my firm's role on the project isn't in design but rather in Project Management. Consequently, in the last 2 years I haven't really gained any technical background that makes me feel confident to be qualified as an engineer. That's why I was weary over the last few years wondering when I could "qualify" to take the exam. However, now that I am able to immediately take the 8 hour, I have began acquiring materials, reviewing the CERM, etc to take the test as soon as April.

Now here's where I have some questions. Doesn't the initiative by the Board to allow you to take the national test any time after you obtain your EIT in ways imply that you don't necessarily need relevant work experience to take the test? As in, the test is not heavily reliant on practical experience? From the practice problems and exams I've looked over, would you guys say that the exam is more similar to an exam from school based heavily on theory (outside of strictly code-related questions)? As of now, my intent is to take the Structural depth since I at least have code experience from college, as well as all my notes from class to study from (I would sincerely hope that a good portion of what is covered on the exam is reflected in 4 years worth of lecture notes). What are your thoughts on taking the exam without design or technical related experience? 

Well, I'll offer up my thoughts on this...technically speaking, the requirements "to become licensed" speak to include education, examination, and experience.  One cannot qualify to become licensed having met only one of those requirements.  The exam is designed based on an occupational analysis of the actual practicing licensees...hence how important and frequent each aspect of the discipline is actually practiced.

The exam is not changing.  It is up to the individual to properly gauge their own strengths, weaknesses, and readiness in preparations towards being successful with the exam.  California statistics from decades of test takers (read this as 10's of thousands of people) easily show that more experience correlates to being successful in the exam and in practice.

Just study the practice exams and take the test. Experience has little to do with passing the exam in my opinion. Sure you may run across a question here and there that you can answer easier if you happened to have dealt with the code scenario at work, but that is what table of contents are for...In conclusion experience is only relevant when applying for your license.

The exam itself is academic in nature.  One can argue whether the exam should be more academic or practical, but the end result is moot.  As CAPLS stated, in order to gain licensure you have to accrue the necessary experience AND pass the exam.  So whether the NCEES structures their exam one way or another isn't overly pertinent.  But in reality, the exam itself is academic.  I'd actually argue that for the Civil PE exam, experience is actually detrimental, as it's structured in a way that penalizes someone the longer they are out of school.

smahurin said:

The exam itself is academic in nature.  One can argue whether the exam should be more academic or practical, but the end result is moot.  As CAPLS stated, in order to gain licensure you have to accrue the necessary experience AND pass the exam.  So whether the NCEES structures their exam one way or another isn't overly pertinent.  But in reality, the exam itself is academic.  I'd actually argue that for the Civil PE exam, experience is actually detrimental, as it's structured in a way that penalizes someone the longer they are out of school.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the response. This was the feeling I got that prompted me to ask this question as I reviewed the CERM and practice problems, that a lot of it looked just like homework or exam problems for a specific class. I do understand that the practical experience portion is essential for licensure, and I certainly don't intend on applying until I've actually worked in a more technical role (can't take the Seismic and Surveying tests in CA until I apply anyway), but I figured that since the 8 hour no longer requires practical experience per-say, that I could study up for it just like any other exam in school and at least get one step out of the way. 

Experience helps but is not a requirement and, in my humble opinion, the exam is very textbook based.  The test can be passed without direct work experience in the exam depth module you choose.  People do it all the time.  Heck, if I could pass CA-Seismic, that is proof that at least one of the exams can be passed by someone with zero work experience in the subject. 

Of course the exam is academic, it's a technical exam. The exam couldn't really be experienced based since everyone's experience is different. Experience will help you pass because the fundamentals that the exam tests you on should be familiar and well understood at the end of the 4+ years required. Since the exam is based on engineering theory and the topics are available to the test takes, of course it can be passed by studying alone.  

I'm jumping on this topic a little late, but it caught my eye.

I would say that the test is very academic in design simply due to the fact that they setup the problems to be solved in 6 min or less.   This never happens in the real world.   If the test were one geared at experience, they'd give you a bunch of problems and ask you to solve say 6-8 of them and give you nothing but blank paper to solve them on.   The test would then be graded by PEs who would apply some judgement to how you attempted to solve the problem even if you got the wrong answer .    This is of course impractical.  

Ultimately, the PE exam is testing your ability to knuckle down and get boned up on the stuff we learned in school.  Just about anyone with an inclination to mathematics and the discipline to study hard for a few months could pass the NCEES exams.   As others have pointed out, the exam is just one part of what it takes to get your PE.

kingofsting said:

they'd give you a bunch of problems and ask you to solve say 6-8 of them and give you nothing but blank paper to solve them on.   The test would then be graded by PEs who would apply some judgement to how you attempted to solve the problem even if you got the wrong answer .

Click to expand...

That's how the test used to be.

Yes, I remember when telling the former president of the company I work for how the test is structured now he was distraught.  He mentioned that when he took the exam 20 years ago it consisted of six problems that you had to choose four to answer.  You were only provided blank paper and it was "essay response" style. Solve away.

smahurin said:

Yes, I remember when telling the former president of the company I work for how the test is structured now he was distraught.  He mentioned that when he took the exam 20 years ago it consisted of six problems that you had to choose four to answer.  You were only provided blank paper and it was "essay response" style. Solve away.

Click to expand...

I believe that is how when I took it about 18 years ago... I believe my work experience helped me to pass it.