As someone with varied experience in my engineering career (i.e. - building design, power plant design, railway design, manufacturing design) and a building-oriented engineering education, I agree that the current SE examination is heavily biased toward building design. The differentiation between the building SE and the bridge SE is advantageous to the building folks and somewhat disingenuous to the bridge folks. Although, if we're honest about it, the "bridge" designation is a bit of a misnomer as well, it really is an AASHTO designation as far as the examination is concerned. There is at least one entire body of bridge engineers who will never apply AASHTO - i.e. railroad bridge designers.
The fact is, the vast majority of the SE examination evaluates knowledge and application of design codes and specifications for occupied building structures. Even though ASCE 7-05, for instance, has applications to non-building structures and non-structural elements, the majority of ASCE 7-05 derived test material is occupied building structure related.
That's the way it is. If you want/need the SE (building or bridge) designation and you aren't experienced applying building-related codes and specifications, you either become proficient or stay on the outside looking in. At some point in your career, it's possible that the professional designations and examinations become more specialized, but those of us involved in this thread will likely be beyond sitting for those examinations when/if they arrive.
There is something to be said about the knowledge and analytical skills gained by preparing and passing the SE. I do believe that those of us who pass the exam are better engineers for the experience. But let's not kid ourselves about the content and scope of the exam, whether you happen to be a "building person", a "bridge (AASHTO) person", or one of the "others"...
