Architectural Engineering PE

[GT ME]

First of all, Architorture is not engineering.

In a top school, the SATs for achitecture students is several hundred points lower than the main engineering disciplines of Chemical, Electrical, & Mechanical. In fact, the SATs for achitecture was over a 100 points lower than Civil, which was lower than the 3 main engineering disciplines discribed above.

 

[StructuralPoke]

First of all, Architorture is not engineering.
In a top school, the SATs for achitecture students is several hundred points lower than the main engineering disciplines of Chemical, Electrical, & Mechanical. In fact, the SATs for achitecture was over a 100 points lower than Civil, which was lower than the 3 main engineering disciplines discribed above.

You know not of what you speak. Yes, architecture is not engineering, but architectural engineering is indeed engineering. If not, that diploma on my wall is not worth the paper it is printed on.

An AE can have different paths in school -- they can go structural -- like me, electical, acoustical, mechanical, etc. The reason I didn't take the AE PE was because I only know structural and it was a very small part of the test.

Anyway, I do hope you are sufficiently puffed up over how your (an engineer) SAT may have been higher than someone elses (an architect). Hurray for you.

 

[StructuralPoke]

http://content.aeinstitute.org/static/faq.html

What do architectural engineers do?

Architectural engineers generally specialize in one of a number of disciplines related to building design and construction including: structural engineering; electrical engineering (with an emphasis on building systems design); heating, ventilation and air conditioning; lighting; or construction. Each specialty area requires very different talents and responsibilities; however, all architectural engineers have a common interest in buildings.

 

[GT ME]

Figured you achitorture people would be bringing out the wup azz spray.

That's kinda scary when you say AE can go structural -- this is where I'm stupid....

I think structural should follow down the Civil Engineering Path -- and nowhere else.

You know not of what you speak. Yes, architecture is not engineering, but architectural engineering is indeed engineering. If not, that diploma on my wall is not worth the paper it is printed on.
An AE can have different paths in school -- they can go structural -- like me, electical, acoustical, mechanical, etc. The reason I didn't take the AE PE was because I only know structural and it was a very small part of the test.

Anyway, I do hope you are sufficiently puffed up over how your (an engineer) SAT may have been higher than someone elses (an architect). Hurray for you.

 

[GT ME]

Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning, & Refrigeration -- this is unconscionable -- those donkeys at NCEES are lost.

HVACR has nothing to do with AE -- it's closely related to Thermodynamics & Mechanical Engineering.

I'm dissapointed to hear the paths AE can go (not personally, but from an engineering stance).

How the hell does NCEES differentiate from AE, Structural, & Civil -- thoughts please.

http://content.aeinstitute.org/static/faq.html
What do architectural engineers do?

Architectural engineers generally specialize in one of a number of disciplines related to building design and construction including: structural engineering; electrical engineering (with an emphasis on building systems design); heating, ventilation and air conditioning; lighting; or construction. Each specialty area requires very different talents and responsibilities; however, all architectural engineers have a common interest in buildings.

 

[Ritchie503]

I'm glad to see that a forum has been started on this subject as I'm starting to look for reference material for the AE PE exam in April 2009. As the rest, I ran in to a wall when looking for such material and study guides. I graduated from Kansas State with bachelors in Architectural Engineering and have been doing Electrical since. After talking to a lot of people who have taken the EE PE, I was fairly certain I did not want to go that rout as it seemed to me that 90% of people with AE degree do not pass that exam. So now after finding out that majority of the states do offer AE PE exam, that is the rout I plan to go. Although I have not done structural for a wile now, I don't think it will be THE toughest for me as we did have a number of classes in it back and school and i do still have all my class notebooks with notes. (Thank god they graded us on how our notebook was organized and how neat it was). Construction Management is something I did not take any classes on, so will definitely need some time on that.
Can you tell us how in depth they went with electrical? Did they make you do lighting calculations and is it good idea to copy the recommended lighting levels from IES Handbook. Also, how much is there on Engineering Economics? Anything on LEED or ASHRAE 90.2?

Anyone who has taken the test, please feel free to thorough out a list books and other study materials that you felt was the most helpful in studding, or you felt was the most used during the test.

Thank you for all of your help!!!

Glad I can be some help to you during your studying and reference material gathering adventure (looking back this may the be tougher part for this PE exam). Well for the PE, they don't look at anything other than your answer, so backup/neatness doesn't matter (which can be both an advantage and a disadvanage). How in depth they get on electrical is tough to describe, since I deal with in on an day to day basis (I did not know some structual stuff as well as others, but the real goal is beating the cut score - if it was all structual I would not have done it - same for others in other areas). I have said before you must know how to do lighting calculations (this is to answer select questions correct without guessing), I am certain lighting calculations questions will show up again. If you have access to a IES handbook, it would not hurt to bring it. Some of the engineering economics questions were very simple to me, but I deal with cost type stuff on a daily basis. LEED I feel is handeled under a separate exam, looking at the NCEES list of subjects, I do not see LEED mentioned. The list I posted of sources for the exam does include ASHRAE 90.1 (from what I recall from memory) although I really didn't use it. Hope this helps.

~Ritchie503

 

[wilheldp_PE]

but the real goal is beating the cut score

False.

You do not know the cut score going into the exam, nor do you know the cut score even after you get your results. Therefore, it is an undefinable goal to reach for the cut score. Your goal should be to have a basic understanding of every topic in the study guides so that you can at least make an educated guess on every single question. If you can get to that point, the cut score will take care of itself.

 

[Ritchie503]

False.
You do not know the cut score going into the exam, nor do you know the cut score even after you get your results. Therefore, it is an undefinable goal to reach for the cut score. Your goal should be to have a basic understanding of every topic in the study guides so that you can at least make an educated guess on every single question. If you can get to that point, the cut score will take care of itself.

The real goal is to pass the exam; there are different ways to accomplish this which are in various other threads. I may have had a poor choice of words, but yes I agree it is best to know the subject matter that will be on the exam type which will help to do your best at every question. Which topics to study, how much on a certain topic, etc. is all going to be dependent on the examinee. Aim high and do your best.

 

[StructuralPoke]

Figured you achitorture people would be bringing out the wup azz spray.
That's kinda scary when you say AE can go structural -- this is where I'm stupid....

I think structural should follow down the Civil Engineering Path -- and nowhere else.

I don't think you understand what an AE really is. We aren't an architecture student that just took an extra class or two. Yes, it's true, I had to take some architectural design courses. I even had to take a couple of architectural history classes. That was in addition to my steel design classes, concrete design classes, timber, masonry, analysis classes (matrix methods), structural dynamics (in addition to basic staics and dynamics and all the other basic engineering courses), programming, foundations, soils... Oh yeah, acoustics and mechanical systems just to get a flavor for the other AE options. The only thing I didn't take was a AASHTO class. No clue about bridges going into the SE1.

An AE's education is somewhat parallel to an architect's, that's true. I like to say we had to take a couple of their design classes (to realize it really is just a bunch of pretty lines) and they had to take our structural materials classes (to realize it isn't pushing a button). I would be scared shitless if the architects I went to school with were responsible for the structure (like they were no too long ago!). The were not good with the numbers and we weren't good with the pretty part of design. We helped them and they helped us -- it taught us about the relationship we will have/endure/suffer through once we get out of school.

My office is full of AEs and Civils. The AEs come out of school knowing the processes/steps/relationships required to put a building together as well as the numbers. They know the building codes and how to run the numbers and especially detailing. The civils here in the office really know the numbers behind the design, but they are unfamiliar with the building codes and detailing is especially foreign to them (to start with). My buddy is a CE and I'll be honest, he does know some of his materials stuff better than me and the other AEs, but it took a little while for him to get comfortable with the codes and detailing.

If I had to do it again, I would still be an AE, but I would have taken an AASHTO class as an elective.

I cannot talk about the other tracts that an AE can go. Structural was the only option at my university and I didn't even know of the other tracts until I went to a national AEI conference. My education on acoustical and mechanical was limited to a single course, while I know that if a AE went the mech'l route, they would have all of their "upper level" classes going over thermo properties and HVAC systems just as mine covered structure.

That's why I took the SE1 not the AE. Structural is what I do, and I'm fairly good at it honestly -- so please don't imply that my education and/or ability is somehow second hand.

 

[IlPadrino]

False.
You do not know the cut score going into the exam, nor do you know the cut score even after you get your results. Therefore, it is an undefinable goal to reach for the cut score. Your goal should be to have a basic understanding of every topic in the study guides so that you can at least make an educated guess on every single question. If you can get to that point, the cut score will take care of itself.

I don't know of ANYONE who said their goal in taking the PE exam was to *gain* basic understanding of every topic in the study guides. The almost universal goal is the pass the exam in order to get licensed, and I disagree with your claim that doing so requires beating the cutscore.

To pass you have to convince NCEES that you are a minimally qualified engineer - and that doesn't require well-rounded knowledge (though it would sure help!). It just requires that you do better than the cut score (whatever it may be).

As an example that is counter to your recommendation, there are some problems that may appear on the exam which will require more than six minutes to solve (e.g. culverts, piping circuits, etc.). My advice is to pass over them and return only if there's sufficient time.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

I don't know of ANYONE who said their goal in taking the PE exam was to *gain* basic understanding of every topic in the study guides. The almost universal goal is the pass the exam in order to get licensed, and I disagree with your claim that doing so requires beating the cutscore.
To pass you have to convince NCEES that you are a minimally qualified engineer - and that doesn't require well-rounded knowledge (though it would sure help!). It just requires that you do better than the cut score (whatever it may be).

As an example that is counter to your recommendation, there are some problems that may appear on the exam which will require more than six minutes to solve (e.g. culverts, piping circuits, etc.). My advice is to pass over them and return only if there's sufficient time.

My point is this...you can't study with the goal of just getting 56 question correct because nobody knows what the exact cut score is. Even if you did know that you only needed to get 56 right, would you only study enough of the subject matter to answer 56 questions? What if one has tricky wording, or you forgot to study one aspect of a topic you thought you had nailed and it shows up on the test? Maybe not studying Biology for the extra 2% on the FE would be justified, but you better damn well know the other 98% of that test to give you the best possible chance to pass.

 

[IlPadrino]

My point is this...you can't study with the goal of just getting 56 question correct because nobody knows what the exact cut score is. Even if you did know that you only needed to get 56 right, would you only study enough of the subject matter to answer 56 questions? What if one has tricky wording, or you forgot to study one aspect of a topic you thought you had nailed and it shows up on the test? Maybe not studying Biology for the extra 2% on the FE would be justified, but you better damn well know the other 98% of that test to give you the best possible chance to pass.

I can't tell if you're being serious or not... how could anyone construct a study program to target 56 exactly?

Regardless of claims to the counter, anecdotal evidence on prior exams points to a cut score of about 56 questions... give or take a few and it's almost certain this has been the case. I haven't seen enough information on the current exam diagnostics to have an opinion on this year's exam.

Given the cut score is about 56 correct questions, you could completely ignore (for example) structural material in your study plan and still easily pass the WR/Env depth if you mastered the rest.

No one will argue the "best possible chance" aspect, but I don't think it's reasonable to master 98% of the PE Civil material. And if you're using the CERM as a guide for the realm of knowledge, forget about it!

 

[GT ME]

I do -- they don't call it Architorture for nothing.

Those courses you refer to are at the engineering technology level or engineering light -- not real engineering I assure you.

Architorture students would die in real engineering courses -- just like Industrial engineering students did when they competed with MEs in Thermodynamics.

I've seen it dozens of times in school and, more importantly, in the field.

I don't think you understand what an AE really is. We aren't an architecture student that just took an extra class or two. Yes, it's true, I had to take some architectural design courses. I even had to take a couple of architectural history classes. That was in addition to my steel design classes, concrete design classes, timber, masonry, analysis classes (matrix methods), structural dynamics (in addition to basic staics and dynamics and all the other basic engineering courses), programming, foundations, soils... Oh yeah, acoustics and mechanical systems just to get a flavor for the other AE options. The only thing I didn't take was a AASHTO class. No clue about bridges going into the SE1.
An AE's education is somewhat parallel to an architect's, that's true. I like to say we had to take a couple of their design classes (to realize it really is just a bunch of pretty lines) and they had to take our structural materials classes (to realize it isn't pushing a button). I would be scared shitless if the architects I went to school with were responsible for the structure (like they were no too long ago!). The were not good with the numbers and we weren't good with the pretty part of design. We helped them and they helped us -- it taught us about the relationship we will have/endure/suffer through once we get out of school.

My office is full of AEs and Civils. The AEs come out of school knowing the processes/steps/relationships required to put a building together as well as the numbers. They know the building codes and how to run the numbers and especially detailing. The civils here in the office really know the numbers behind the design, but they are unfamiliar with the building codes and detailing is especially foreign to them (to start with). My buddy is a CE and I'll be honest, he does know some of his materials stuff better than me and the other AEs, but it took a little while for him to get comfortable with the codes and detailing.

If I had to do it again, I would still be an AE, but I would have taken an AASHTO class as an elective.

I cannot talk about the other tracts that an AE can go. Structural was the only option at my university and I didn't even know of the other tracts until I went to a national AEI conference. My education on acoustical and mechanical was limited to a single course, while I know that if a AE went the mech'l route, they would have all of their "upper level" classes going over thermo properties and HVAC systems just as mine covered structure.

That's why I took the SE1 not the AE. Structural is what I do, and I'm fairly good at it honestly -- so please don't imply that my education and/or ability is somehow second hand.

 

[StructuralPoke]

I do -- they don't call it Architorture for nothing.
Those courses you refer to are at the engineering technology level or engineering light -- not real engineering I assure you.

Architorture students would die in real engineering courses -- just like Industrial engineering students did when they competed with MEs in Thermodynamics.

I've seen it dozens of times in school and, more importantly, in the field.

Hunh? Yeah, I said I took the basic engineering courses that everyone took. I don't see what your point is and I really don't think you do either. You don't like architects -- you know what neither do I.

And thermo was easy. If that is what you are hanging your hat on...

 

[StructuralPoke]

I do -- they don't call it Architorture for nothing.
Those courses you refer to are at the engineering technology level or engineering light -- not real engineering I assure you.

Architorture students would die in real engineering courses -- just like Industrial engineering students did when they competed with MEs in Thermodynamics.

I've seen it dozens of times in school and, more importantly, in the field.

And yes, you are repeating exactly what I said -- the architecture students struggled with the engineering classes.

 

[Road Guy]

GT_ME, either tone down your "*******-ness" or hit the road.

Thanks

 

[Mike in Gastonia]

GT_ME, either tone down your "*******-ness" or hit the road.
Thanks

:appl:

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Mike in Gastonia]

I couldn't have said it better.

I am a member of another message board and they only have one rule - "Don't be a *******". that pretty much covers it.......

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

^ That's pretty much a good way to go about life in general.