Structural depth is so hard.....

[godspell]

I felt very bad...  I even made guess on several problems...

 I think the depth was hard. What are your guys opinion?

If most of ppl think it is manageable, I should go back to study....

 

[tj_PE]

I thought it was difficult but not unmanageable. I had a few that I just couldnt get around to really focusing on due to the time constraints. But for me, the morning was extra difficult, especially compared to April's exam, because I don't have any experience in areas that are non structural. just relax until you get your results. you deserve it! we all do

 

[knight1fox3]

I thought it was difficult but not unmanageable. I had a few that I just couldnt get around to really focusing on due to the time constraints. But for me, the morning was extra difficult, especially compared to April's exam, because I don't have any experience in areas that are non structural. just relax until you get your results. you deserve it! we all do

Good to see you got back on the horse! Good luck on your results! :thumbs:

 

[tua85366]

I struggled on a couple problems in the afternoon session. Luckily I work with all materials for my work; both gravity and lateral applications.Pretty confident there.

What really killed me was the morning portion of the test. It was a lot more challenging than the I was expecting. Much more difficult than any of the practice exams I took and very conceptual! The afternoon saved me.

I'm hoping I got at least 25 right in the morning. Now the long wait...

 

[BG_TX]

I thought that the AM section was much more difficult that I expected based on practice exams and what I read online.  Maybe I just didn't study enough because I thought it would be much easier than the afternoon test.

I think I did fairly well on the PM section.  I think the test was a little easier than I thought/feared.  There were a few questions which were complete or almost complete guesses - but I'm not too worried about those.  You don't need 100% to pass...

 

[godspell]

What's the percentage are you guys are confident for the am portion?

 

[tj_PE]

Good to see you got back on the horse! Good luck on your results! :thumbs:

thanks!

 

[strangecat]

What's the percentage are you guys are confident for the am portion?

say 70-75% for me. Hoping i did better on the afternoon session 

 

[turtletuesday]

I'm fairly confident I was able to get at least 30/40 on the AM and 30/40 on the PM.  Fingers crossed!

 

[Jon Kirk]

For what it's worth...

I took and passed the 16-hour S.E. a few years ago and used those results to obtain P.E. licensure in several jurisdictions.  To make a long story short, New Jersey will not recognize the S.E. exam to obtain P.E. licensure -- they will only allow the 8-hour P.E. exam to be used to get a P.E. license.  So I took the Civil-Structural exam this October since that appears to be my only path towards P.E. licensure in NJ.  

I studied pretty hard on the Civil breadth part, since most of that was literally brand new information to me that I have never learned, even in college, and I don't do anything related to that information in practice.  I then briefly reviewed (I'd guess 40 - 60 hours) the structural stuff mostly by reviewing my S.E. study guides and the Civil Engineering Reference Manual from PPI2Pass.

I found the afternoon session of the Civil-Structural section to be extremely easy.  It was infinitely easier than the S.E. exam.  If any of you felt like you only borderline passed or struggled through more than just a couple problems, you will need to do A LOT more studying if you ever hope to pass the S.E.  The hardest questions of the Civil-Structural depth P.E. exam were easier than all of the questions on the S.E.  Frankly I'm a little concerned for public welfare that the Civil-Structural exam is the standard to practice structural engineering in most of the country. 

 

[turtletuesday]

For what it's worth...

I took and passed the 16-hour S.E. a few years ago and used those results to obtain P.E. licensure in several jurisdictions.  To make a long story short, New Jersey will not recognize the S.E. exam to obtain P.E. licensure -- they will only allow the 8-hour P.E. exam to be used to get a P.E. license.  So I took the Civil-Structural exam this October since that appears to be my only path towards P.E. licensure in NJ.  

I studied pretty hard on the Civil breadth part, since most of that was literally brand new information to me that I have never learned, even in college, and I don't do anything related to that information in practice.  I then briefly reviewed (I'd guess 40 - 60 hours) the structural stuff mostly by reviewing my S.E. study guides and the Civil Engineering Reference Manual from PPI2Pass.

I found the afternoon session of the Civil-Structural section to be extremely easy.  It was infinitely easier than the S.E. exam.  If any of you felt like you only borderline passed or struggled through more than just a couple problems, you will need to do A LOT more studying if you ever hope to pass the S.E.  The hardest questions of the Civil-Structural depth P.E. exam were easier than all of the questions on the S.E.  Frankly I'm a little concerned for public welfare that the Civil-Structural exam is the standard to practice structural engineering in most of the country. 

I think the vast majority of us Civil-Structurals do not intend to sit for the S.E. exam... at least I certainly do not.  It's common knowledge that the S.E. exam is significantly more difficult than the P.E. exam.  I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering and while I do a fair amount of structural design for work, I am involved in a wide variety of other types of Civil Engineering projects from dam rehabilitation to bridge inspection.  Not designing sky scrapers over here. 

 

[Jon Kirk]

I think the vast majority of us Civil-Structurals do not intend to sit for the S.E. exam... at least I certainly do not.  It's common knowledge that the S.E. exam is significantly more difficult than the P.E. exam.  I have a B.S. in Civil Engineering and while I do a fair amount of structural design for work, I am involved in a wide variety of other types of Civil Engineering projects from dam rehabilitation to bridge inspection.  Not designing sky scrapers over here. 

For people who do work in the civil engineering field that is not entirely focused on structures, the Civil P.E. is obviously the easiest path to P.E. licensure.  For me though, the prospects of passing the S.E. seemed easier than the Civil-P.E. because I have zero background in all of the other civil topics other than a basic overview of soil mechanics for foundation design.  My degrees were focused entirely on building structures, so it seemed logical to take an exam that focused entirely on that as opposed to an exam that forced me to be tested on a bunch of material that I would be teaching myself from scratch just for the purpose of the exam.

My main point of posting was that for people who do intend to take the S.E. exam, which is required to practice structural engineering for "significant structures" (which does not mean sky-scrapers) for an increasing number of states, you better hit the books really hard if you thought the Structural depth session was anything more than a joke.  I was expecting much more of a challenge in the afternoon than what the Civil-Structural exam presented.  

 

[ngmakhlo_PE]

For what it's worth...

I took and passed the 16-hour S.E. a few years ago and used those results to obtain P.E. licensure in several jurisdictions.  To make a long story short, New Jersey will not recognize the S.E. exam to obtain P.E. licensure -- they will only allow the 8-hour P.E. exam to be used to get a P.E. license.  So I took the Civil-Structural exam this October since that appears to be my only path towards P.E. licensure in NJ.  

I studied pretty hard on the Civil breadth part, since most of that was literally brand new information to me that I have never learned, even in college, and I don't do anything related to that information in practice.  I then briefly reviewed (I'd guess 40 - 60 hours) the structural stuff mostly by reviewing my S.E. study guides and the Civil Engineering Reference Manual from PPI2Pass.

I found the afternoon session of the Civil-Structural section to be extremely easy.  It was infinitely easier than the S.E. exam.  If any of you felt like you only borderline passed or struggled through more than just a couple problems, you will need to do A LOT more studying if you ever hope to pass the S.E.  The hardest questions of the Civil-Structural depth P.E. exam were easier than all of the questions on the S.E.  Frankly I'm a little concerned for public welfare that the Civil-Structural exam is the standard to practice structural engineering in most of the country. 

Some people take the structural depth session because they feel they understand that material enough, more than the other offered depth sessions, to get a passing score, not because they want to design the next Burj Khalifa. In my humble opinion, if one is that heavily involved in structural analysis and design they should be attending grad school and practicing for years before considered a true professional, the PE nor SE will determine complete and adequate competency in any subject matter. 

 

[turtletuesday]

For people who do work in the civil engineering field that is not entirely focused on structures, the Civil P.E. is obviously the easiest path to P.E. licensure.  For me though, the prospects of passing the S.E. seemed easier than the Civil-P.E. because I have zero background in all of the other civil topics other than a basic overview of soil mechanics for foundation design.  My degrees were focused entirely on building structures, so it seemed logical to take an exam that focused entirely on that as opposed to an exam that forced me to be tested on a bunch of material that I would be teaching myself from scratch just for the purpose of the exam.

My main point of posting was that for people who do intend to take the S.E. exam, which is required to practice structural engineering for "significant structures" (which does not mean sky-scrapers) for an increasing number of states, you better hit the books really hard if you thought the Structural depth session was anything more than a joke.  I was expecting much more of a challenge in the afternoon than what the Civil-Structural exam presented.  

Yes, I get what you're saying... I was just ball-busting because of the (possibly unintentional) condescending nature of your comment. 

 

[Jon Kirk]

Yes, I get what you're saying... I was just ball-busting because of the (possibly unintentional) condescending nature of your comment. 

Well I certainly didn't mean to be condescending to any individual person.

But I do think that the afternoon structural exam really shouldn't have been difficult for anyone who does structural design for a living, as long as they studied appropriately to review some of the fundamentals that you don't do in practice every day, or some of the structural materials (say, wood for example) if you don't do any design with those materials.  

If structural work isn't someone's primary field of practice but that's the exam they chose to take just to pass and get a P.E., then yeah I can certainly see how that would be a difficult exam.  Just as the morning breadth was very difficult for me since I don't practice any of the subjects outside of structures.  

If, however, a practicing structural engineer can't score very well on the structural depth with appropriate studying, then that would be scary to have that person out there with a license to show competency to practice structural design.  Sorry if that sounds condescending as well, but maybe it should be a reality check for any structural designers who struggled in the afternoon.

 

[turtletuesday]

For people who do work in the civil engineering field that is not entirely focused on structures, the Civil P.E. is obviously the easiest path to P.E. licensure.  For me though, the prospects of passing the S.E. seemed easier than the Civil-P.E. because I have zero background in all of the other civil topics other than a basic overview of soil mechanics for foundation design.  My degrees were focused entirely on building structures, so it seemed logical to take an exam that focused entirely on that as opposed to an exam that forced me to be tested on a bunch of material that I would be teaching myself from scratch just for the purpose of the exam.

My main point of posting was that for people who do intend to take the S.E. exam, which is required to practice structural engineering for "significant structures" (which does not mean sky-scrapers) for an increasing number of states, you better hit the books really hard if you thought the Structural depth session was anything more than a joke.  I was expecting much more of a challenge in the afternoon than what the Civil-Structural exam presented.  

I agree with you, and I truly hope that nobody who struggled on the P.M. session is designing and stamping structural plans with no oversight anytime soon after getting his or her P.E. license... 

 

[turtletuesday]

Well I certainly didn't mean to be condescending to any individual person.

But I do think that the afternoon structural exam really shouldn't have been difficult for anyone who does structural design for a living, as long as they studied appropriately to review some of the fundamentals that you don't do in practice every day, or some of the structural materials (say, wood for example) if you don't do any design with those materials.  

If structural work isn't someone's primary field of practice but that's the exam they chose to take just to pass and get a P.E., then yeah I can certainly see how that would be a difficult exam.  Just as the morning breadth was very difficult for me since I don't practice any of the subjects outside of structures.  

If, however, a practicing structural engineer can't score very well on the structural depth with appropriate studying, then that would be scary to have that person out there with a license to show competency to practice structural design.  Sorry if that sounds condescending as well, but maybe it should be a reality check for any structural designers who struggled in the afternoon.

I agree with you, and I truly hope that nobody who struggled on the P.M. session is designing and stamping structural plans with no oversight anytime soon after getting his or her P.E. license... 

 

[smahurin]

You might want to consider the fact that you study for the SE, took the SE, then studied even more for the PE. So you were even better prepared for the PE than you were for the SE, that may have had some relevance into how hard you felt each were...  I have taken both the PE and SE (not that it makes me an expert) but I think the SE AM questions are likely fairly similar to the PE PM questions in terms of difficulty.  

When I took the PE, I struggled through portions of the PM civil/structural depth.  I still passed.  Then when I went to take the SE, I studied more, and breezed through the AM portion of both SE sections.  Not because the questions were easier... I was just better prepared.  Could the AM SE questions be "harder" than the PM PE questions... sure I guess.  They may be slightly more difficult (they may not be) but I don't think they are several levels of magnitude harder as you are claiming.  

Either way, I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim that one test or another is the ultimate test of structural engineering competency.  Neither test are really reflective of what most structural engineers do on a daily basis.  Whether someone thought the PE or the SE were easy or hard doesn't make them a good or bad structural engineer.  

 

[turtletuesday]

You might want to consider the fact that you study for the SE, took the SE, then studied even more for the PE. So you were even better prepared for the PE than you were for the SE, that may have had some relevance into how hard you felt each were...  I have taken both the PE and SE (not that it makes me an expert) but I think the SE AM questions are likely fairly similar to the PE PM questions in terms of difficulty.  

When I took the PE, I struggled through portions of the PM civil/structural depth.  I still passed.  Then when I went to take the SE, I studied more, and breezed through the AM portion of both SE sections.  Not because the questions were easier... I was just better prepared.  Could the AM SE questions be "harder" than the PM PE questions... sure I guess.  They may be slightly more difficult (they may not be) but I don't think they are several levels of magnitude harder as you are claiming.  

Either way, I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim that one test or another is the ultimate test of structural engineering competency.  Neither test are really reflective of what most structural engineers do on a daily basis.  Whether someone thought the PE or the SE were easy or hard doesn't make them a good or bad structural engineer.  

Well said.

 

[Jon Kirk]

You might want to consider the fact that you study for the SE, took the SE, then studied even more for the PE. So you were even better prepared for the PE than you were for the SE, that may have had some relevance into how hard you felt each were...  I have taken both the PE and SE (not that it makes me an expert) but I think the SE AM questions are likely fairly similar to the PE PM questions in terms of difficulty.  

When I took the PE, I struggled through portions of the PM civil/structural depth.  I still passed.  Then when I went to take the SE, I studied more, and breezed through the AM portion of both SE sections.  Not because the questions were easier... I was just better prepared.  Could the AM SE questions be "harder" than the PM PE questions... sure I guess.  They may be slightly more difficult (they may not be) but I don't think they are several levels of magnitude harder as you are claiming.  

Either way, I wouldn't be so quick to proclaim that one test or another is the ultimate test of structural engineering competency.  Neither test are really reflective of what most structural engineers do on a daily basis.  Whether someone thought the PE or the SE were easy or hard doesn't make them a good or bad structural engineer.  

Interesting perspective on each exam's difficulty.  Perhaps you had a slightly harder PE structural exam and/or easier SE AM exam, but I definitely thought there was a substantial difference in the level detail and complexity of what the SE AM exam problems were asking, as well as how much information the problem would give.  For instance, the PE structural exam wood design problems gave you almost all of the relevant modification factors, whereas the SE made you figure out most of the factors.  Stuff like that where each SE problem seemed to take just a little longer or needed more input or research from the examinee to solve the problem.  But the concepts of what each exam ask are definitely similar and if you know your stuff and have a good grasp of basic structural analysis, you should be able to do fairly well on both. 

I would estimate that I was equally prepared for the structural portion of the Civil Structural PE and the SE, and I finished the afternoon PE session in about 3 hours and then had a lot of time to double check my work, repeatedly.  I finished both SE AM sessions with very little time to spare, certainly not time to go back and double check the math on everything.  

And I definitely agree that neither exam is the ultimate test of competency.  But it's hard to to say that someone who can pass the SE is totally incompetent.  No way you get through that without being both very well prepared and having a solid base of structural fundamentals.  That doesn't mean passing it necessarily makes you a good engineer, but I think it does prove that you're not a really bad one.  However I feel like someone who struggles with the afternoon PE structural session either didn't study near enough to brush up on the stuff that they don't do every day, or they just don't have a good grasp of the fundamentals, and it seems feasible that a weak structural designer could squeek through that exam and be given a false sense of confidence in their ability.