# Future PE Exam Topic



## cableguy (Dec 16, 2010)

I was looking at the December newsletter on the NCEES web site, and noticed this snippet:



> This year, the EPE Committee has several charges related to moving the FE exam to computer-based testing. The committee will also continue to develop a plan toeither move the PE exam to closed-book administrations with NCEES-supplied references or limit the amount of reference materials allowed in the exam room.
> 
> It is studying this issue to address security concerns and computer-based testing issues.


So it looks like CBT may be a future possibility - as well as making the PE exam closed book.

I kinda have mixed feelings about it, as an Electrical Power person, honestly, I didn't need most of the references I brought. I made my own formula book, and for the most part I didn't even need that. The most used book was probably the NEC (of course). I found that most of the "solutions" type problems were rather simplistic, so other than a sheet on Per Unit and basic power formulas, not much was necessary.


----------



## jv21 (Dec 16, 2010)

cableguy said:


> I was looking at the December newsletter on the NCEES web site, and noticed this snippet:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They have been talking about this for years. I think FL is mandating the CBT by 2014


----------



## Dleg (Dec 17, 2010)

I think it's kind of dumb. In the enviro field, you really need and use your references. What this will do is create a whole new batch of PEs who a) don't have enough good references to do their job (at least not the the level of us who took the current exam), and B) potentially think they can get by in their careers with their copy of the NCEES reference book, which can't possibly cover enough to be very useful.


----------



## asunw (Dec 17, 2010)

I agree, I do general civil and I wouldn't survive without my references. I do so many different types of projects, I would make mistakes if I tried to remember all the information I need on a daily basis.


----------



## FusionWhite (Dec 17, 2010)

I agree about the close book testing for the PE. If they go to a supplied reference then they might as change the name from Principles and Practices to Fundamentals of Engineering 2: The Engineers Strike Back.

The use of references is one way which tests your "practices" of engineering. A limit on the number of references would be good though. It makes you think and focus on the specific references which are useful instead of hauling in a shit ton of books just to cover you bases.


----------



## snickerd3 (Dec 17, 2010)

FusionWhite said:


> I agree about the close book testing for the PE. If they go to a supplied reference then they might as change the name from Principles and Practices to Fundamentals of Engineering 2: The Engineers Strike Back.
> The use of references is one way which tests your "practices" of engineering. A limit on the number of references would be good though. It makes you think and focus on the specific references which are useful instead of hauling in a shit ton of books just to cover you bases.


if they do limit reference material, i'm not sure how they would equally enforce it. for civils or other categories that are heavy on the codes and such would need a certain amount of books which would limit them to just the basics as where as a catgory like chemical if you gave us the option to bring in the same as the civil, that would give us equilvant of hauling in a ton of books to cover our bases.

if they set different numbers of allowed reference for the different tests, the proctors will have a hell of time trying to enforce it. I don't know about where you took the test, but the proctors in IL are just basically day laborers, they don't have a technical background. If the calculator doesn't look like the picture on their cheatsheet it is not allowed, even if it is the same make and model.


----------



## oilfieldsteve (Dec 17, 2010)

in my review class for petroleum this fall, the instructor mentioned that there was talk of limiting the references to the Society of Petroleum Engineer's textbook series (12 books on various topics). he also mentioned the possibility of making the exam harder, in light of the Macondo blowout, w/ even a 2 day exam similar to structural being discussed.

This is all a reaction to the US gov't changing their permitting requirements, making it mandatory for a PE to signoff on well designs as permits are submitted, so there has been a much greater emphasis put on the PE license in our industry than prior to the blowout.

the instructor's advice was basically: look for the testing / requirements to change, pass the test this time, and do everything you can to never let your license expire because we don't know what the future will hold.


----------



## Porta John (Dec 17, 2010)

i think changing to cbt would be a big mistake. i mean, if ncees is going to still have to mull over the statistical analysis and review certain problems w the possibility of throwing them out, changing to cbt doesn't seem like it would shorten the wait time for results, which i believe to be a big advantage of most computer based tests.

also, it would be really hard to use a computer based test with all of the references you have and calculations you need to take. not a lot of room for other stuff.

and yes, i agree with those above about limiting the amount of references. seems stupid to me. you should be allowed to have the books you practice with. i took a lot of references into the exam (more than most) but i knew them in and out b/c a lot were my college texts and notes. the exam didn't focus on some areas that i thought it might but oh well, at least i had the references when i needed them. how much can you truly limit someone, like me for example, who had to have references for FIVE different general subjects in civil, as well as a depth in structural that has a bazillion different topics/materials in and of itself (steel, concrete, masonry, wood, prestressed... buildings, bridges... loadings, codes... i could go on forever!!)???


----------



## benbo (Dec 18, 2010)

The use of whatever refences you want is one of the only things that makes the exam like real life.

As far as CBT, it depends on what they mean. If they just mean you take the test on a computer and it is basically the same type of test, I don't care.

If they mean a CAT - pr computer adaptive test like the GRE or GMAT, I'm completely against it. CAT is meant for skills based testing, not knowledge based testing. The PE is really a combination skill and knowledge test. In CAT if you miss an easier question you may never have a chance for harder questions. But for PE who decides what is easy and what is hard? Things that are easy for one examinee might be hard for another based on what they do or what they know. You might never get to the questions you actually know the most about. It would be inherently unfair.


----------



## Dleg (Dec 19, 2010)

oilfieldsteve said:


> This is all a reaction to the US gov't changing their permitting requirements, making it mandatory for a PE to signoff on well designs as permits are submitted, so there has been a much greater emphasis put on the PE license in our industry than prior to the blowout.


Has this already happened? What PE disciplines are allowed to stamp the well designs? Only petroleum? Or any PE, provided they have the experience? (I'm seeing little dollar signs floating in front of me...)


----------



## oilfieldsteve (Dec 20, 2010)

Dleg said:


> oilfieldsteve said:
> 
> 
> > This is all a reaction to the US gov't changing their permitting requirements, making it mandatory for a PE to signoff on well designs as permits are submitted, so there has been a much greater emphasis put on the PE license in our industry than prior to the blowout.
> ...


it has. we can't apply for most permits without having a PE sign off on it now. actually, we're having to have stuff re-certified by a PE even if we're making slight modifications that in the past did not require a permit modification. so our PE's will be quite busy.

most everyone doing the signoffs is PE-Petroleum; however, it comes back to a "level of expertise" issue, as the signoff is very specifically focused on drilling engineering. for example, my wife is a PE-Petroleum and we work for the same company, but she would never stamp any of the well designs because she is a reservoir engineer w/ no experience in drilling.


----------



## Dleg (Dec 20, 2010)

Interesting..... Another career path has opened...

Although, I would imagine the competition is pretty fierce for stamping PEs. There's no shortage of folks who are either working actively in the oilfield, or who have worked it in the past.


----------



## KansasStateGeoTech (Dec 20, 2010)

I think the best part of preparing for the PE exam was sorting through a hundred reference books, deciding which were useful, and organizing myself to optimize each.


----------



## Dleg (Dec 21, 2010)

Exactly. Before the exam, I had a few books here and there, and a lot of college texts in storage. I rarely used any of them. After the exam, I had a well-organized library that I know inside and out, and use almost every day at work. It would be a shame, I think, to deny future generations that same exercize.


----------



## oilfieldsteve (Dec 21, 2010)

Dleg said:


> Interesting..... Another career path has opened...
> Although, I would imagine the competition is pretty fierce for stamping PEs. There's no shortage of folks who are either working actively in the oilfield, or who have worked it in the past.


yes, while there are plenty of people w/ oilfield experience, there's really not that many licensed PE's, especially in drilling. it has never really been a point of emphasis in the industry. my wife got her's in 2005, and that's only because she wanted to do it. it was not required for work, nor did she see any tangible benefit from becoming a PE. i work for a major integrated oil company, and it was sort of difficult to actually find PE references. Some companies actually discouraged engineers from being licensed for many years, but that's all changed now.

the side of the business w/ the most PE's is actually the consulting side that validates oil &amp; gas estimates for purposes of property sales. like if a company wants to sell several existing fields, they'll bring in a third party to verify the associated reserves estimates. However, these folks field of knowledge is reservoir engineering -- not drilling or completions -- so i'm certain they'd have a difficult time getting comfortable enough w/ a well design to stamp it.


----------



## Rob in TN (Dec 21, 2010)

I see no problem with limiting the number of references for the PE exam. I think a few references should suffice. I cannot imagine taking the test with no references, however. I took the Power exam in October, and we had several NEC based questions. the format of the test (Power in particular) would have to changed quite a bit to eliminate outside references.


----------



## Dleg (Dec 21, 2010)

oilfieldsteve said:


> Dleg said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting..... Another career path has opened...
> ...


I knew absolutely no one with a PE license when I worked in the oilfield, and the very large company I worked for just flat out said there was no use in getting licensed. I did wireline services, open and cased hole, so I never drilled a well, but I feel pretty knowledgable of well design, having logged and completed literally hundreds.


----------



## oilfieldsteve (Dec 22, 2010)

i know where you're coming from, but the signoff involves mostly casing design, cement design, and pore pressure / frac gradient estimations, plus relief well planning.


----------

