# Construction



## 4william (Apr 14, 2008)

What do you think the CUT score for construction will be? Or, do you think it will be the same as the others?


----------



## DrivingSideways (Apr 14, 2008)

I didn't take Construction, but I heard several people saying how easy it was? If I didn't have good luck with transportation this time, maybe I'll give Construction a try in October!


----------



## 4william (Apr 14, 2008)

I took the construction depth and it was not overwhelming. I am not a wiz, I just study hard. I'm thinking I got around a 53%. I think 55 to 56 is passing. I was wonderin g if the cut score will be different for this since it was there first time offering it.


----------



## ccollet (Apr 15, 2008)

cut score??

last time i "decoded" the diagnostic results that i got with the "F" letter and

figured that i got 55 right out of 80 which comes out to about 68%.

56 out of 80 is a 70%, passing...


----------



## Vishal (Apr 15, 2008)

This is a common misconception. The number 70 is just a number one needs to get to pass, as they say it is a score. It is not a percentage and definitely not the percentage of questions answered correct. There are threads on this board from the past exam results that try to "guestimate" the # of questions v/s the failing score. There is no definite answer as yet, it is all speculation. As you know the cut score has several things built into it. When you say that you got 70% correct out of 80, that is 56 correct, it assumes that all the questions on the test counts towards the final score. However, as we know there are some questions that are ambiguous and are taken out of the analysis when determining the final cut score, so I say even when we get the % of questions answered correctly, we don't know if it is a % out of 75 or 78 questions being considered for the final score. it is never going to be accurate, may be within 2-4 questions of accuracy.

Also, I don't think there is any adjustment suggested for a new depth section, since in that case the whole of AM section was made differently this time. Also, Water/Env PM was new too and Trans PM had some changes. As NCEES say it depends on the pool of test takers and the difficulty of the exam.


----------



## navy pe (Apr 17, 2008)

I took the construction portion without even studying for it and felt i smoked it.

My biggest issue is that there is no way someone should be a registered PE if they passed the construction portion.

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT IS NOT ENGINEERING!!!

AGC offers the Certified Professional Constructor, take that if you want to be a construction manager.


----------



## IlPadrino (Apr 17, 2008)

navy pe said:


> I took the construction portion without even studying for it and felt i smoked it.
> My biggest issue is that there is no way someone should be a registered PE if they passed the construction portion.
> 
> CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT IS NOT ENGINEERING!!!
> ...


Is this your first time taking the PE exam?


----------



## navy pe (Apr 20, 2008)

No, I took the Civil Structural last time and it whooped my butt.


----------



## IlPadrino (Apr 21, 2008)

navy pe said:


> No, I took the Civil Structural last time and it whooped my butt.


So how did you think the breadth portion compared? Even if the structural depth "whooped your butt", if you do sufficiently well on the breadth you should still be able to pass using just about any of the PE depths. Of course, many of us don't do sufficiently well on the breadth, but that's another topic!

I think maybe you're being a little too harsh in judging Construction Engineering (it's not Construction MANAGEMENT). Granted some of it is ridiculously basic but I think you'll find that with all of the depths.

Totally unrelated topic: What's the significance of your screen name? Are you in the Navy?


----------



## starkman (Apr 21, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> So how did you think the breadth portion compared? Even if the structural depth "whooped your butt", if you do sufficiently well on the breadth you should still be able to pass using just about any of the PE depths. Of course, many of us don't do sufficiently well on the breadth, but that's another topic!
> I think maybe you're being a little too harsh in judging Construction Engineering (it's not Construction MANAGEMENT). Granted some of it is ridiculously basic but I think you'll find that with all of the depths.
> 
> Totally unrelated topic: What's the significance of your screen name? Are you in the Navy?


I agree with IlPadrino, basically you are saying anyone who takes the construction depth and get s a PE is a fraud, and I take alot of offense to that. I work out in the field everyday, and make engineering decisions on a daily basis. Even though we don't design in an office and do drawings, doesn't mean engineering knowledge and reasoning aren't part of the job.


----------



## 4william (Apr 21, 2008)

navy pe said:


> I took the construction portion without even studying for it and felt i smoked it.
> My biggest issue is that there is no way someone should be a registered PE if they passed the construction portion.
> 
> CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT IS NOT ENGINEERING!!!
> ...



I am glad people are responding to your comments. I have had a complex every since I read your email. I worked really hard, took a test masters review course, and still do not feel like I just completely nailed the construction debth. I am thinking I got around 50%..........and am hoping this is enough to get me a passing grade. However, this was my first attempt at the PE and did not know what to expect!

I will be waiting to see if you pass or fail.


----------



## benbo (Apr 21, 2008)

navy pe said:


> I took the construction portion without even studying for it and felt i smoked it.
> My biggest issue is that there is no way someone should be a registered PE if they passed the construction portion.
> 
> CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT IS NOT ENGINEERING!!!
> ...


The real tragedy here is that you now have to retake the exam. Because I can't believe you would use the license when truly you believe that you shouldn't be a registered PE after taking the exam.


----------



## rcurras (Apr 21, 2008)

benbo said:


> The real tragedy here is that you now have to retake the exam. Because I can't believe you would use the license when truly you believe that you shouldn't be a registered PE after taking the exam.


Very true!!!

Besides, I have a couple of friends that took the Construction PM, and found it hard. Both of them have hands on experience in the construction field (both of them are Civil Engineers).

Thanks.

RC.


----------



## Vishal (Apr 21, 2008)

navy pe said:


> I took the construction portion without even studying for it and felt i smoked it.
> My biggest issue is that there is no way someone should be a registered PE if they passed the construction portion.
> 
> CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT IS NOT ENGINEERING!!!
> ...


abso-friggin-lutely offensive and ignorant that's all i can think of right now. what makes you come to this conclusion? i agree with all the posters here. if by some means you feel that construction PE depth exam is not sufficient to be a registered PE then I bet you are right.. coz it is just one of the requirements... remember, you had to submit an application and had to be accepted by the board.. yes, that my friend completes the requirements to be a registered PE - Education, Experience, Exam!! 3E's to a PE.......

Still you feel the urge to change the system then NCEES has a system.. volunteer to be an exam developer...that way you can have your say... but for that you will have to wait to be a PE yourself and in this case.. a PE with construction depth module  .


----------



## IlPadrino (Apr 21, 2008)

rcurras said:


> Very true!!!
> Besides, I have a couple of friends that took the Construction PM, and found it hard. Both of them have hands on experience in the construction field (both of them are Civil Engineers).
> 
> Thanks.
> ...


I'm not sure you're helping counter his argument... he'll likely counter that their experience is to be expected - after all, they aren't Real Engineers.


----------



## Road Guy (Apr 21, 2008)

there is a significant difference in construction engineering and construction management


----------



## navy pe (Apr 21, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> So how did you think the breadth portion compared? Even if the structural depth "whooped your butt", if you do sufficiently well on the breadth you should still be able to pass using just about any of the PE depths. Of course, many of us don't do sufficiently well on the breadth, but that's another topic!
> I think maybe you're being a little too harsh in judging Construction Engineering (it's not Construction MANAGEMENT). Granted some of it is ridiculously basic but I think you'll find that with all of the depths.
> 
> Totally unrelated topic: What's the significance of your screen name? Are you in the Navy?


I was better prepared this time for the breadth portion this time around.

I cannot wait until more people take the construction module and get other people's thoughts on it. It seemed far too basic. It is pointless to attempt to argue with what anyone has already posted, but I think time will show that some changes need to be made.

Yes, I am in the Navy.


----------



## navy pe (Apr 21, 2008)

starkman said:


> I agree with IlPadrino, basically you are saying anyone who takes the construction depth and get s a PE is a fraud, and I take alot of offense to that. I work out in the field everyday, and make engineering decisions on a daily basis. Even though we don't design in an office and do drawings, doesn't mean engineering knowledge and reasoning aren't part of the job.


I don't believe that I said anyone was a fraud.

Just out of curiosity, if you don't design in an office and do drawings, why are you attempting to attain your PE?


----------



## navy pe (Apr 21, 2008)

Vish said:


> abso-friggin-lutely offensive and ignorant that's all i can think of right now. what makes you come to this conclusion? i agree with all the posters here. if by some means you feel that construction PE depth exam is not sufficient to be a registered PE then I bet you are right.. coz it is just one of the requirements... remember, you had to submit an application and had to be accepted by the board.. yes, that my friend completes the requirements to be a registered PE - Education, Experience, Exam!! 3E's to a PE.......
> Still you feel the urge to change the system then NCEES has a system.. volunteer to be an exam developer...that way you can have your say... but for that you will have to wait to be a PE yourself and in this case.. a PE with construction depth module  .


Offensive -- I didn't mean to be, but ignorant, Have you taken both exams? Can you speak knowledgeably to the differences of both? Not that I am an expert on both exams, nor do I ever hope to be, but I have taken both exams and feel that that their is a sizable difference in level of difficulty between the two. I realize that there is a series of requirements that have to be met to even sit for the exam, but I feel more effort needs to be put forth by the board to do due just to the construction module. Maybe someday I will be able to help the board rewriting the exam


----------



## starkman (Apr 22, 2008)

navy pe said:


> I don't believe that I said anyone was a fraud.
> Just out of curiosity, if you don't design in an office and do drawings, why are you attempting to attain your PE?


To be fair, I kind of believe this proves my point about your knowledge of construction. Construction managers are employed typically by the contractor, and do alot of scheduling/estimating, and work with the foremen. The project engineers take care of all design changes, submittals, any and all problems during the construction process. The typical DOT wants you to have your PE to run a job, and almost all private firms require it. Besides all that, even if you think the depth was easy, and that's fine if it was for you, to base an entire profession on 40 questions you took on a single test is just plain ignorant, and I'm glad you admitted that in your post.


----------



## starkman (Apr 22, 2008)

Edited due to accidental repost.


----------



## starkman (Apr 22, 2008)

Edited due to accidental repost.


----------



## Techie_Junkie_PE_LEED_AP (Apr 22, 2008)

navy pe said:


> Offensive -- I didn't mean to be, but ignorant, Have you taken both exams? Can you speak knowledgeably to the differences of both? Not that I am an expert on both exams, nor do I ever hope to be, but I have taken both exams and feel that that their is a sizable difference in level of difficulty between the two. I realize that there is a series of requirements that have to be met to even sit for the exam, but I feel more effort needs to be put forth by the board to do due just to the construction module. Maybe someday I will be able to help the board rewriting the exam


Navy, I hope you passed or you will feel kinda rediculous. If you feel that way about the exam you took, I think you should decline the License if you pass and then take a 'real" PM module.

I think NCEES would pick exam writers with a better attitude and more respect for Licensure.


----------



## LionCE (Apr 22, 2008)

navy pe said:


> I don't believe that I said anyone was a fraud.
> Just out of curiosity, if you don't design in an office and do drawings, why are you attempting to attain your PE?


Probably for the same reason that most of us in construction (Heavy Highway/Vertical) do, because we want to be the project manager. Most clients won't let unregistered engineers lead jobs and with today's design/build projects it is almost imperative to have at least one registered engineer on the project.


----------



## csb (Apr 22, 2008)

All of our construction jobs required STAMPED as-built plans, as well as professional engineering judgment on the job site. Of course, if you think all it takes is a project management certification, tell that to the people who have been killed because of project manager change orders that are never reviewed by an engineer.

Just because the construction depth seemed plug and chug to you doesn't mean it's not valid. I'm pretty sure the same can be said of all the depths...if you're prepared for the exam, it's all about making the numbers do the right thing in the right equation.

Additionally, the ethics involved in you being licensed in construction because you couldn't hack the structural depth, and then continuing to do structural design are questionable. Being a PROFESSIONAL engineer is about more than passing an exam.


----------



## Road Guy (Apr 22, 2008)

I took the transpo PE, but now work in construction, I would rather stamp plans based on charts in the green book sometimes than get the calls that I now get 'Ughh the piles wouldnt drive to minimum tip, design firm and contractors shop drawing engineer disagree on revised length of tie backs required, over, what do we do?


----------



## Mike_NC (May 13, 2008)

I dont mean to "beat the dead horse"..

But I am planning on taking my PE Exam next Spring (2009) and I am more than likely going to take the Civil-Construction exam.

I got a degree in Construction Engineering, YES it is ABET accredited. Honestly, it is So similar to Structural Engineering, I could have stayed an extra semester and taking (3) more classes, 12 more hours and gotten a bachelors in Civil with a structural concentration. If you look up the definition to civil engineering, it will have construct or over see construction in there somewhere...

I am now working in a design position for a design-build contractor, however, I have worked in a field supervision position and I am also a licensed general contractor..

So I agree with the other threads, there IS a difference between a "construction engineer" and a field superintindent.

Also, a little off subject, anyone familiar with the architectural exam? I have some AIA's at my office that are interested in me taking that discipline..

The Architectural has a construction management section.. look over that stuff, WHICH IS CONSTRUCTION MANGEMENT, and not Construction Engineering.. Its all contract verbage, construction issues, etc.


----------



## CivilPEHopeful (Jun 10, 2008)

navy pe said:


> I was better prepared this time for the breadth portion this time around.
> I cannot wait until more people take the construction module and get other people's thoughts on it. It seemed far too basic. It is pointless to attempt to argue with what anyone has already posted, but I think time will show that some changes need to be made.
> 
> Yes, I am in the Navy.


Navy Pe,

I think you are way off base with your comments. I graduated with a civil engineering degree in '94 and spent a little over 12 years in the construction field with a private contractor. I now work in the engineering department for a city in the phoenix, az area. Having just passed the PE exam, and by taking the transportation depth, I feel I am that much smater in that area of expertise. I didn't even consider the construction modual because it is so new. The construction field is so broad, one could be exposed to anything. And with very little review material, I considered the construction modual a big risk to focus on.

That brings up another issue, the afternoon moduals and the morning session are only testing the academic side of engineering. Having been out of school for 14 years now, there is a lot more to this business than what I studied for on the exam.

I am finding I am better equiped at being a project manager over capitlal improvement projects having a construction background. In just the last 2 1/2 years of been exposed to the owners side, I have had to have more knowledge in design to be able to review plans. Having passed the test didn't instantly make me a different engineer, I have always felt I have been an good engineer. I have had this conversation with many different professionals along the way that have engineering degrees that either worked for a consultant, agency, contrator, whatever. They all have felt that problem solving is the main objective of an engineer, whatever your expertise may be. I have worked with superintendents that have a high school education that could school a structural engineer on an 8 story steel frame pretty quick. Running claculations through a computer doesn't always make you the smartest guy in the room. The biggest argument I think one person can make about engineering, is that no one can justifiy which discipline out weighs the other. The best direction I think you could make from here is to learn as much as you can, always respect the other profressionals you come in touch with on different projects, keep an open mind that you don't know everything, and enjoy the work you do.


----------



## LionCE (Jul 16, 2008)

navy pe said:


> I took the construction portion without even studying for it and felt i smoked it.
> My biggest issue is that there is no way someone should be a registered PE if they passed the construction portion.
> 
> CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT IS NOT ENGINEERING!!!
> ...


Just curious, if this individual passed.


----------



## IlPadrino (Jul 16, 2008)

LionCE said:


> Just curious, if this individual passed.


He passed... so you'd have to at least consider his perspective.


----------



## LionCE (Jul 16, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> He passed... so you'd have to at least consider his perspective.


Didn't see his name in the banner.

Well just glad that he didn't have to rephrase his comments.


----------

