Something I stumbled upon, perusing the NCEES manual of practice:
So there IS a way to find out your score, even if you passed. The board needs to request it.
April 2019 SE Results Thread
- Thread starter Civil Dawg
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
So there IS a way to find out your score, even if you passed. The board needs to request it.
ChaosMuppetPE
Talk nerdy to me...
@Nathan55@TehMightyEngineer
As far as passing when I felt I was capable, I should've passed last October. I was really close. As far as this last exam, after 2 review courses and 2 years of study, I know this **** like the back of my hand. I probably got the I/R on steel because I was running short on time and either made a math mistake or skipped something. It's funny because by far I consider steel, wood, and masonry far easier in seismic design than concrete. Doesn't matter, I know them all now. The fact of the matter is, something else screwed up. I either got off on the bubbling or the scantron read my tick marks for skipped questions. I've paid for and requested a manual verification but I highly suspect I screwed the bubbling up. Maybe by the grace of @YAZRABADI's God, it was just my tick marks on the bridge problems and a few of the harder problems as that would likely be about 12 of problems I ran into, wrote a tick mark, and came back to. There were a couple answer changes as well. I could handle missing a few I thought I got right, but at the level of understanding I have on this material now, 15 is simply not statistically probable. I was guessing 38/40. For reference, last October exam I missed 5 more than I thought I had and I was MUCH better prepared this time. It's taken me about 2 years but I have been through every material code book, the SEAOC books, the IBC and ASCE, taken both the School of PE and the EET Lateral courses, and read/studied/solved problems in a couple text books that I picked up online for dynamic analysis. Hell, I can calculate Finite Elements, vibrations, resonant frequencies, and (least of all) perform Modal Analysis in my sleep. I know all there is to know in the material codes about the yielding mechanisms for the steel seismic lateral systems (as well as when to use expected vs omega vs design strengths), concrete systems, masonry reinforcement requirements, and wood subscript (inappropriate butt touching) gotcha provisions. I may not necessarily have the equations memorized, but I know exactly what needs to be done to achieve a proper hysteric diagram and I've even learned linear dash-pot damping for shits and giggles. All this to say, **** yeah I should've passed this last time, but I have the worst luck in the universe. If probability gives me a 50/50 shot at something, I swear my odds are more like 90/10 against my favor. Maybe more. I honestly think one of my ex's has delved into Voodoo and is stabbing my effigy every night before she goes to bed and every morning when she wakes up. I can't think of any explanation other than that and my leg is hurting as I type this. I don't necessarily believe it is economic as I am perfectly satisfied with my afternoon score or I would've lawyered up as I certainly believe the grading is inconsistent. Not much I can do about the multiple choice. You either got it or you didn't. Just wish I knew if mine were in a wad at the end of the exam because of the whole bubbling issue. Who knows, maybe I'll win the lottery and it was just my errant tick marks that made the scantron scream in anguish. May be doubtful, but a man can dream.
As far as passing when I felt I was capable, I should've passed last October. I was really close. As far as this last exam, after 2 review courses and 2 years of study, I know this **** like the back of my hand. I probably got the I/R on steel because I was running short on time and either made a math mistake or skipped something. It's funny because by far I consider steel, wood, and masonry far easier in seismic design than concrete. Doesn't matter, I know them all now. The fact of the matter is, something else screwed up. I either got off on the bubbling or the scantron read my tick marks for skipped questions. I've paid for and requested a manual verification but I highly suspect I screwed the bubbling up. Maybe by the grace of @YAZRABADI's God, it was just my tick marks on the bridge problems and a few of the harder problems as that would likely be about 12 of problems I ran into, wrote a tick mark, and came back to. There were a couple answer changes as well. I could handle missing a few I thought I got right, but at the level of understanding I have on this material now, 15 is simply not statistically probable. I was guessing 38/40. For reference, last October exam I missed 5 more than I thought I had and I was MUCH better prepared this time. It's taken me about 2 years but I have been through every material code book, the SEAOC books, the IBC and ASCE, taken both the School of PE and the EET Lateral courses, and read/studied/solved problems in a couple text books that I picked up online for dynamic analysis. Hell, I can calculate Finite Elements, vibrations, resonant frequencies, and (least of all) perform Modal Analysis in my sleep. I know all there is to know in the material codes about the yielding mechanisms for the steel seismic lateral systems (as well as when to use expected vs omega vs design strengths), concrete systems, masonry reinforcement requirements, and wood subscript (inappropriate butt touching) gotcha provisions. I may not necessarily have the equations memorized, but I know exactly what needs to be done to achieve a proper hysteric diagram and I've even learned linear dash-pot damping for shits and giggles. All this to say, **** yeah I should've passed this last time, but I have the worst luck in the universe. If probability gives me a 50/50 shot at something, I swear my odds are more like 90/10 against my favor. Maybe more. I honestly think one of my ex's has delved into Voodoo and is stabbing my effigy every night before she goes to bed and every morning when she wakes up. I can't think of any explanation other than that and my leg is hurting as I type this. I don't necessarily believe it is economic as I am perfectly satisfied with my afternoon score or I would've lawyered up as I certainly believe the grading is inconsistent. Not much I can do about the multiple choice. You either got it or you didn't. Just wish I knew if mine were in a wad at the end of the exam because of the whole bubbling issue. Who knows, maybe I'll win the lottery and it was just my errant tick marks that made the scantron scream in anguish. May be doubtful, but a man can dream.
Last edited by a moderator:
Chuckimus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2019
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 3
It is possible, I think there is a threshold of acceptable, so maybe 70% correct of the problem is acceptable. So three of those with an unacceptable may not be passing, but three 100% acceptable and one unacceptable is passing. That's how I'm thinking of it at least.
Sheik
Structural Engineer
Florida released finally. Lateral Building - 23/40 A A IR U. Felt I did much better than 23..
3rd try, so have to figure out if I have to reapply from the start or if can try again in October.
I COULD have taken the PE exam and likely had my license 2 years ago, but now I get to decide if I keep taking the SE lateral or PE since I have already passed the Vertical..
3rd try, so have to figure out if I have to reapply from the start or if can try again in October.
I COULD have taken the PE exam and likely had my license 2 years ago, but now I get to decide if I keep taking the SE lateral or PE since I have already passed the Vertical..
I'd suggest going the balla route and taking the PE on friday, then the SE lateral on Saturday. If you did that well on the SE lateral and already passed the vertical, the PE structural exam should be a walk in the park.
@FutureSE
Have you taken any courses beyond EET? State of Florida is requiring I take a review course to re-apply but EET is not on that list.
(b) Submit evidence of completion of one of the following board approved engineering examination review courses; the selected course must cover content for the examination in the engineering discipline the applicant intends to take.
1. Schools with an ABET approved engineering program; 2. Kaplan Engineering Education; 3. School of PE; 4. Testmasters Educational Services, Inc.; 5. SmartPros, Ltd.; 6. Professional Publications, Inc.,
School of PE looks sketchy,
Kaplan is PPI now
Testmasters doesn't have SE
PPI is combined vertical and lateral so half the course is a waste of time
What a pain in the ass this all is..
Have you taken any courses beyond EET? State of Florida is requiring I take a review course to re-apply but EET is not on that list.
(b) Submit evidence of completion of one of the following board approved engineering examination review courses; the selected course must cover content for the examination in the engineering discipline the applicant intends to take.
1. Schools with an ABET approved engineering program; 2. Kaplan Engineering Education; 3. School of PE; 4. Testmasters Educational Services, Inc.; 5. SmartPros, Ltd.; 6. Professional Publications, Inc.,
School of PE looks sketchy,
Kaplan is PPI now
Testmasters doesn't have SE
PPI is combined vertical and lateral so half the course is a waste of time
What a pain in the ass this all is..
ChaosMuppetPE
Talk nerdy to me...
I’ve taken School of PE and EET. Both were for the lateral portion of the exam. Both helped me in different ways and had their merits. I would have to say of the courses that EET was the most in depth and gave me the most benefit, though. In full disclosure , I did take EET live and School of PE was on demand. I would definitely recommend taking a live course too. The feedback from the instructors is instrumental to success in my opinion. Just be careful come test as apparently a review course can’t save you from yourself.
see if you have a school nearby that you can take a course at - those are usually 500 or less. probably both vert and lat but at least the price is better? I think Univ of Washington has one that they do a webinar version fo rthose far away
ChaosMuppetPE
Talk nerdy to me...
If anyone has trouble with dynamic analysis, this book kicks Uranus. It’s not a YUGE part of the exam (yuge courtesy of my favorite Mr. Cheeto Man), but it has been on every exam I’ve taken in some form or another.
ChaosMuppetPE
Talk nerdy to me...
I still wonder why in the hell the grading process is so secretive. Every class I’ve ever taken told us what would be weighted to which degree and roughly how the items were scored. I don’t know where the harm is in letting us know. Shame. Maybe I’m operating from ignorance, but I doubt other licensure boards are this secretive and arduous.
The school option actually requires 12 credit hours lol... Review course or literally 12 credit hours!
But closest school is 3 hours away that is ABET accredited regardless, so definitely couldn't go that route if I wanted to.
Chuckimus
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2019
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 3
I absolutely hate that about this exam. They don't tell us a **** thing about grading. And for us that aren't perfect at every test we take, being able to come up with a strategy is important. Mine turned into screw wood because it would be unethical for me to do anyway, as I have zero experience with it, and focus on what I know. I focused on concrete, steel, masonry, and analysis and did them completely. So I didn't fudge anything, I made sure it was correct and well explained. If you are struggling like me to pass (which I did, yay!), maybe try a different approach. I can't do four of those problems in four hours, and I don't think you should rush through something you haven't seen before
TehMightyEngineer
BRB Starting an Engineering Firm
I mentioned it earlier in this thread but we've never had good indications whether it was possible until now. You would have to be very confident you got AAAU on the afternoon to "confirm" it. We did theorize that a really high morning score would get you a passing score but we had failing scores well above 80% on the morning that were failed because of a U on the afternoon if I recall.
Either way, I'd say we can safely modify our understanding that an unacceptable on the afternoon will "generally" fail you.
I still find it hard to believe one Unacceptable can still pass, especially if left completely blank. A friend of mine took PPI and said someone failed with a score of 33 in AM and A/A/IR/IR in PM. That already sounds BS to me that you can’t pass with that score.
In my engineer head, I’m thinking...Say each problem contributes 25 pt in the PM. Maybe range of being Acceptable is 19-25 pt (76% and above), and IR is 15-18pt (60%-76%), and anything below 14 pt (<56%) is Unacceptable.
Based on that assumption, that PM score above gives a range of 68 to 86 pt. And even if you take 68 pt in PM and average it with 33/40 in AM, I’m still getting almost like 75% overall. And remember this is the low end of each range add up. If you take the high end, we get almost 85% overall. And with one Unacceptable, you can only match that if you score 95% in the morning. (95+75)/2=85...which is 38/40.
of course, this is all just assumptions and we will never find out how NCEES grade our exams. Hopefully @Chuckimus can enlighten me because I’m just SHOCKED.
In my engineer head, I’m thinking...Say each problem contributes 25 pt in the PM. Maybe range of being Acceptable is 19-25 pt (76% and above), and IR is 15-18pt (60%-76%), and anything below 14 pt (<56%) is Unacceptable.
Based on that assumption, that PM score above gives a range of 68 to 86 pt. And even if you take 68 pt in PM and average it with 33/40 in AM, I’m still getting almost like 75% overall. And remember this is the low end of each range add up. If you take the high end, we get almost 85% overall. And with one Unacceptable, you can only match that if you score 95% in the morning. (95+75)/2=85...which is 38/40.
of course, this is all just assumptions and we will never find out how NCEES grade our exams. Hopefully @Chuckimus can enlighten me because I’m just SHOCKED.
David Connor SE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2015
- Messages
- 248
- Reaction score
- 92
To really answer why they won't tell us anything about grading, I'd posit we consider two principles. First, who does this procedure benefit? And second, Occam's razor.
At some point, someone sat in a room and said "we need to grade essay problems subjectively, but maintain a believable--albeit superficial--patina of objectivity." We do know that in the past, all licensing exams were constructed response (essay). Additionally, we know that more information was provided on grading and errors as well. So what lead to the change?
NCEES procedure manuals state that this was done for the purposes of exam security. This is their most important (stated) goal. However, if exam security were the only, or actual reason, you would see a marked positive difference in the pass rate between first time takers and repeat takers. Seeing one administration of the exam would theoretically give you an unfair advantage when retaking, and, NCEES might limit examinees to a maximum number of attempts to maintain this illusion. But based on the metrics and passing rate data provided by NCEES, we know this isn't the case--seeing exam content in and of itself does not increase your chance of passing. Therefore the purposeful obfuscation on the essay grading must serve some higher purpose...otherwise it wouldn't be in place. The simplest explanation appears to be that the trick to the test isn't necessarily the exam content, but rather the grading procedures themselves. So now the real question: whom does this procedure benefit?
The public as a whole clearly is benefited by competent engineers. However, if the public were intended to be the main beneficiary, NCEES would be in the business of promoting that examinees previously deemed "incompetent" could improve and become competent. The simplest way to achieve this would be to provide grading information to licensure candidates, likely bound by NDAs similar to those signed prior to taking the test. But NCEES does not and would not risk taking this step. Why? The grading data must thusly be considered sacrosanct in a way that goes above and beyond how the exam content is classified. There must be proprietary methods which are applied generally to all essay problems; NCEES is concerned that being aware of those methods--more than the types of problems themselves--would skew pass rates to a point that continued exam administration would be unsustainable. The procedure in place clearly is not beneficial to the examinee in any way, and likely does more harm than good.
NCEES understands that providing a vague diagnostic doesn't raise your chances of passing the next time around. That, in my estimation, says volumes.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hindianapolis
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 99
- Reaction score
- 48
I still find it hard to believe this.....
@Sheik had an impeccable afternoon with 4A and a 24/40 morning and still didn't cut it. I find this to be fundamentally wrong. How can someone who has proven competency across the entire afternoon session, covering all conventional construction materials, fail the exam with a 60% morning session (fairly shallow questions). I find this especially disturbing!!....This is also magnified when you contemplate that, with a little bit of luck, he could've bubbled a couple of correct questions and made it......
