PE Exam Discipline

[Tessa]

I am preparing to apply for and take the PE exam.  I am struggling with which discipline to take the exam.  In school my emphasis was structural, but my internship and jobs after graduation have been focused in transportation.  Has anyone else struggled with this?  Is it difficult to take the exam under a discipline for which you didn't focus on in school?

 

[matt267 PE]

I say go for the transportation depth.

Have you compared the exam specs for both tests yet? If so, which one had more topics that you're comfortable with?

 

[Voomie]

I would go with transportation because work experience teach more as an engineer than just your education.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[ptatohed]

Moving.

First I'll say you can pick either, Trans or Struct, and you'll be fine.  But, with that said, I am going to go against the grain and suggest Struct.  In my humble opinion, contrary to what most people think or say, I find the exam primarily text-book based and less "real life" based.  But, again, you'll be fine either way.  Pick one and jump in.  Good luck. 

 

[smahurin]

Moving.

First I'll say you can pick either, Trans or Struct, and you'll be fine.  But, with that said, I am going to go against the grain and suggest Struct.  In my humble opinion, contrary to what most people think or say, I find the exam primarily text-book based and less "real life" based.  But, again, you'll be fine either way.  Pick one and jump in.  Good luck. 

I agree with everything said here.

 

[StandardPractice]

 

[ptatohed]

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 6:56 AM, StandardPractice said:

I agree with his point #1 (align your Depth with your work experience) and point #2 (select a depth topic in which you did well in college). 

But #3?  Ethics?  Really?  What is unethical about choosing a depth in which you have little experience?  Nothing!  A civil engineering examinee is free to choose any of the available 5 depth modules for any reason they choose.   

Point #4 makes sense.  Affordability.  Some of the depths (ex. Structural and Construction) can cost a boatload more money for the codes than, say, Geotechnical or Water. 

 

[PowerStroke79_PE]

@ptatohed  I had an interview once that told me exactly this. "If you're applying for a structural position, why are you entertaining the idea of taking the WRE exam? Don't you think that's unethical?" My response was, well I'm entertaining taking a job where ever there is vacancy and it being civil related. In this case its a structural position,  but Im interviewing for a transportation position tomorrow. But I get where you're coming from. (Not really, lol) 

 

[cupojoe PE PMP]

@ptatohed  I had an interview once that told me exactly this. "If you're applying for a structural position, why are you entertaining the idea of taking the WRE exam? Don't you think that's unethical?" My response was, well I'm entertaining taking a job where ever there is vacancy and it being civil related. In this case its a structural position,  but Im interviewing for a transportation position tomorrow. But I get where you're coming from. (Not really, lol) 

This seems like short term thinking....pick an area that you see long term growth in and look for jobs in that field. Rapid fire looking for anything and everything doesn't make much sense long term.

 

[smahurin]

This seems like short term thinking....pick an area that you see long term growth in and look for jobs in that field. Rapid fire looking for anything and everything doesn't make much sense long term.

I disagree with this, simply because a civil PE is a civil PE.  Even in states that license or roster disciplines differently usually don't separate out the specific civil disciplines.  And states that do roster structural engineers differently usually use the SE to do so.  I still contend that you should take whichever civil exam you want.

 

[StandardPractice]

I agree with his point #1 (align your Depth with your work experience) and point #2 (select a depth topic in which you did well in college). 

But #3?  Ethics?  Really?  What is unethical about choosing a depth in which you have little experience?  Nothing!  A civil engineering examinee is free to choose any of the available 5 depth modules for any reason they choose.   

Point #4 makes sense.  Affordability.  Some of the depths (ex. Structural and Construction) can cost a boatload more money for the codes than, say, Geotechnical or Water. 

I believe ethics plays a significant role. I think you missed the point of the video though. He states you can take whatever depth you want as long as you can justify it in your mind. In other words. The drawing that you stamp after receiving your PE...are you comfortably stamping it because of knowledge base, experience, etc...if yes then it doesn't matter what depth you took.

 

[ptatohed]

I believe ethics plays a significant role. I think you missed the point of the video though. He states you can take whatever depth you want as long as you can justify it in your mind. In other words. The drawing that you stamp after receiving your PE...are you comfortably stamping it because of knowledge base, experience, etc...if yes then it doesn't matter what depth you took.

I think ethics is a moot point then.  Any depth can be justified in your mind.  I've heard of a few rare cases where an examinee will select the depth module that he/she has the least knowledge/experience in, for the purpose of learning more about it while studying. 

You are right, ethically, a PE should not be stamping plans he/she has little/no experience in - but that is unrelated to which depth module one may have selected as an examinee. 

A Civil PE is a Civil PE.   

 

[StandardPractice]

I disagree with this, simply because a civil PE is a civil PE.  Even in states that license or roster disciplines differently usually don't separate out the specific civil disciplines.  And states that do roster structural engineers differently usually use the SE to do so.  I still contend that you should take whichever civil exam you want.

I disagree 1/2 way. I civil PE with experience only in designing grading packages is different than a civil PE who only has experience designing round-a-bouts. Just because a person has a PE license doesn't mean they can design anything civil related without experience. For me the depth section for PE is an entirely different discussion than the area in which you work. The area in which you practice has greater emphasis on what jobs you can perform than which depth you take. I think you are mixing the two when they are separate discussions

 

[ptatohed]

I disagree 1/2 way. I civil PE with experience only in designing grading packages is different than a civil PE who only has experience designing round-a-bouts. Just because a person has a PE license doesn't mean they can design anything civil related without experience. For me the depth section for PE is an entirely different discussion than the area in which you work. The area in which you practice has greater emphasis on what jobs you can perform than which depth you take. I think you are mixing the two when they are separate discussions

I agree with you SP but I thought you were somehow making an ethical link between the plans a PE (later) signs to the depth module he/she (previously) chose as an examinee.  I just don't see the connection.  Maybe it's just me but I am still not convinced that ethics plays a part in the depth module an examinee decides to test in.