# Too many References!!!



## Geoffree McCleansville (Apr 18, 2016)

So I just took the PE Civil Transportation exam.

First, the morning:

     This was much easier than I expected it to be, but I found out from *thinking about* the morning section *by myself* during the break that I made some stupid mistakes;   All in all, I think i got 27/40.  That plus the 25% of the remaining questions equals about a 30/40 which is not terrible.  Again, I made some admitted mistakes.  Go back through all the questions if you have enough time.  They can be tricky and the wrong answer seems so right at the time.

Now for the afternoon:

     This was very frustrating for me.  I took the transportation portion and really struggled.  Not on things like horizontal curves, vertical curves, sight distances, taper lengths or anything important like that.  There were many, many questions referencing materials that I regrettably did not purchase.  I only bought the aashto green book and of course I had my notes from studying.  There were very basic lookup questions that I lost a lot of points on.  They were referencing HCM and MUTCD.  Unfortunately, I didn't purchase either of these.  I think it is unfair to have questions like this on the exam.  I know I'll get smacked for this, but I spent time doing calculation practice and such.  It seems like a money grab to me.  "Buy 500 dollars worth of books, and pass the exam."  I will not make this mistake again.  So my score on the afternoon, (I made tick marks), was a definite 19/40.  That plus 25% of the remainder puts me at 24/40.  

That is a combined score of 54/80.  I doubt I passed with that, and that's even if I was lucky enough to guess 25% correctly.   It is very discouraging that I could have passed this test if I'd just spent more money.  Literally 8-10 easy layup questions in the afternoon.  All you need is the DAMN MANUALS!!!!!!

Anyone else feel this way about the Civil Transpo exam?


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Apr 18, 2016)

The idea of the exam is to test on subjects used in industry.  Sounds like those are some references that might come in handy for a practicing engineer, and I'd wager that's why they're on the exam.  YMMV.


----------



## Geoffree McCleansville (Apr 18, 2016)

I agree that a huge part of being an engineer is being able to obtain the information that you need on your own using the proper reference(s).  However, I do not think that those types of questions should be weighted as equals on the scoring front being as you only need to flip to an index and read a definition.  I am also quite bitter because I was too cheap to buy what I needed for the exam.  I mean, it was right there!!!!  and it slipped away......


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (Apr 18, 2016)

Hmmm.  And when I took my test I was hoping for questions that would just be a look up.  Hardly a one to be found.


----------



## ductit (Apr 18, 2016)

If you are applying for a PE License, you should be an actively working in the specific field that you are applying for, and you should have access to the industry standard materials that go along with that field.  The conceptual &amp; lookup questions, as much as I also hate them, are critical in helping to establish that you know the field you are applying for, and didn't just do a bunch of practice problems.


----------



## thekzieg (Apr 18, 2016)

I also was really hoping for more lookup questions when I took my exam...looks like I passed it a year too early!


----------



## Chris C (Apr 18, 2016)

The MUTCD was free...so you didn't need to purchase them. I cannot imagine taking the afternoon without a majority of the references. The only one I didn't have was the _AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide._ I need to see a chiropractor after lugging all those things.


----------



## WantPE (Apr 18, 2016)

i felt the same way. AM was straight forward for the most part except for the typical 5-6 confusing questions. PM was so much more quantitative this time. I was hoping for more theory questions but i would say most of the questions required so much thinking.


----------



## ductit (Apr 18, 2016)

Chris C said:


> The MUTCD was free...so you didn't need to purchase them. I cannot imagine taking the afternoon without a majority of the references. The only one I didn't have was the _AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide._ I need to see a chiropractor after lugging all those things.


I had that one, but couldn't find the Roadside DG in the library at our office since someone apparently didn't return it, found the 3rd ed online and printed that out, it helped a little bit.


----------



## DuckFlats (Apr 18, 2016)

The MUTCD is free on the FHWA website, so you can't really call that a money grab. I think it shows that you are familiar with standard industry references. It was my first go around and there wasn't much in the depth that threw me for a loop. I agree it was harder than the morning, but that makes sense. I think you can make the same argument about curves, those are simple lookup equations and most have a table associated with them for site distances. If you know the speed and situation ( stop, passing, etc) it's on a table.


----------



## jnuengr (Apr 18, 2016)

S. Grant McMillan said:


> I think it is unfair to have questions like this on the exam.  I know I'll get smacked for this, but I spent time doing calculation practice and such.  It seems like a money grab to me.  "Buy 500 dollars worth of books, and pass the exam."


Yeah, this whole exam is a money grab. I mean, we already paid $$$ to get our engineering undergrad/graduate degrees. Now we pay the exam fees (sometimes twice  ), licensing, prep courses, tons of references we never use in our day-to-day ... it certainly is an industry. Rant over.


----------



## ngmakhlo_PE (Apr 18, 2016)

This was my first time taking the exam and can attest to the statements that the morning half was pretty simple. All straight forward, "fun" to solve problems. The afternoon Transpo section was heavily qualitative and did require a lot of reference materials, which I did have with me, but that being said, you only have about 6 mins. per problem so I found myself needing to move on from doing a lot of reading through my materials. Good luck to everyone that took the exam!


----------



## Clemson CE P.E. (Apr 18, 2016)

I mean... you could have looked at what references NCEES lists for transportation depth...  they don't post that information for nothing.


----------



## cpp11 (Apr 18, 2016)

Meanwhile, for the CE Structural PM portion, I didn't have to use the AASHTO Bridge Design or ACI 530 Masonry Design manuals.

I'm bummed that there weren't any Masonry problems, though, since those would've been such softballs...


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Apr 18, 2016)

S. Grant McMillan said:


> So I just took the PE Civil Transportation exam.
> 
> First, the morning:
> 
> This was much easier than I expected it to be, but I found out from* discussing the morning section with some other civil guys during the break* that I made some stupid mistakes;   All in all, I think i got 27/40.  That plus the 25% of the remaining questions equals about a 30/40 which is not terrible.  Again, I made some admitted mistakes.  Go back through all the questions if you have enough time.  They can be tricky and the wrong answer seems so right at the time.


So you agreed not to share exam information, but then on a message board you admit to discussing exam questions and you use what looks like your real name as your name on said message board? OK.......


----------



## ductit (Apr 18, 2016)

Chris C said:


> Mike in Gastonia said:
> 
> 
> > So you agreed not to share exam information, but then on a message board you admit to discussing exam questions and you use what looks like your real name as your name on said message board? OK.......
> ...


----------



## jnuengr (Apr 18, 2016)

Mike in Gastonia said:


> This was much easier than I expected it to be, but I found out from* discussing the morning section with some other civil guys during the break* that I made some stupid mistakes;


Generally, I'd just avoid doing this as a rule. When folks start talking about answers, I plug my ears, start singing loudly and run away! (Typical social skills for an engineer)


----------



## Geoffree McCleansville (Apr 18, 2016)

I thought you could.  The entire room was discussing the exam during the break.  Over 150 people.  I don't think you can publish the information, but discussing it after they have already taken it is fine I'm pretty sure...


----------



## ductit (Apr 18, 2016)

The candidate agreement would indicate that you cannot publish or discuss any exam questions.  It looks like they do not include any language that would make it "OK" to discuss them, even with others who just took the same test, during the lunch break or any other time.  Problem is, they would have to invalidate 99% of all examines since everyone was outside talking about it.


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Apr 18, 2016)

ductit said:


> The candidate agreement would indicate that you cannot publish or discuss any exam questions.  It looks like they do not include any language that would make it "OK" to discuss them, even with others who just took the same test, during the lunch break or any other time.  Problem is, they would have to invalidate 99% of all examines since everyone was outside talking about it.


I'm sure they're not naive enough to think that doesn't happen. I just don't think I'd be admitting it.... On a message board...


----------



## Supe (Apr 18, 2016)

No.  Just the one that admits to it in writing.


----------



## Geoffree McCleansville (Apr 18, 2016)

We weren't talking about it like: "What did you get on that such and such problem?"  I don't think that you could if you tried.  I'm pretty sure we don't get the same AM or PM test.  It was more general than that.  More so to do with equations and reference materials.  Then something would click that you biff'd on and you smack your forehead over it...


----------



## Geoffree McCleansville (Apr 18, 2016)

For some reason I can't edit my post.  If a member has access, please edit to remove.  I think it's out of context a bit, but I don't want it to seem like I'm trying to pull something off that I am not...

Thanks,

Plus that's my actor name....


----------



## knight1fox3 (Apr 18, 2016)

Post revised.


----------



## ptatohed (Apr 18, 2016)

Geoffree McCleansville said:


> So I just took the PE Civil Transportation exam.
> 
> First, the morning:
> 
> ...




1.)  You should have had all (well, most) of the recommended NCEES listed references. 

But 2.)  They may have appeared to be "easy look-up" questions but don't be surprised if there was more involved than just a simple page flip to the conspicuous correct answer.


----------



## jcs372 (May 4, 2016)

You can definitely get the MUTCD for free, and I think I found the HCM free somewhere as well.  May have been the year 2000 edition.  Those are must have references.  I brought a couple others but didn't really need them.  I took this exam twice now and the first time I also had the books but did not review them before the test.  I found myself running out of time due to the amount of lookup problems in the MUTCD.  Get familiar with the types of lookup problems you may need by studying the NCEES practice exams and other practice problems (I recommend Lindeburg because it follows with the CERM).  Then tab the manuals with short descriptions on the tabs.  I found this very helpful in the PM exam.

Good luck if you need to take it again.  Fingers crossed that we don't!


----------



## iwire (May 5, 2016)

I mean come on..you are taking transpo..you need MUTCD at least. Hell I am not in a tranpo engineer but I dealt with a lot ITS stuff....and I have use MUTCD alot


----------



## Doyee5 (May 10, 2016)

Chemical References:

Thermodynamics book
Chemistry book

Perry's 7th

Levenspiel Kinetics

FE equations

NCEEES/PPI Pratice tests.


----------



## ptatohed (May 10, 2016)

Doyee5 said:


> Chemical References:
> 
> Thermodynamics book
> Chemistry book
> ...


What does chemical have to do with this thread?


----------



## matt267 PE (May 10, 2016)

ptatohed said:


> What does chemical have to do with this thread?


Well, it is in the "Anything about the PE Exam" area.


----------



## Doyee5 (May 10, 2016)

ptatohed said:


> What does chemical have to do with this thread?


Ur right sorry, saw the post from jcs372 and thought this was about ChemE


----------



## Bcbillings (May 10, 2016)

ptatohed said:


> 1.)  You should have had all (well, most) of the recommended NCEES listed references.
> 
> But 2.)  They may have appeared to be "easy look-up" questions but don't be surprised if there was more involved than just a simple page flip to the conspicuous correct answer.




There were several questions that pointed you in the direction of a table or a chart only to find out some of the base assumptions used to make the chart had been adjusted in the problem statement. in those instances there was always a simple 2-3 step equation to plug and chug on to get an answer. I was really happy with how this exam worked out to line up with my day to day job and references!


----------

