CALIFORNIA RESULTS

[BigChil]

What I can not understand about this process is why we let it happen the way it does. We allow the Board to dictate to us how the exam is structured, what the critierion is for a pass/fail result without telling us how they reach that conclusion, and when they will give us the results of the exam.

However, the Board does not care about us in anyway shape or form. It could be argued that they in fact hope for our failures as it is in their best interest if we fail. If the number of new engineers each year receiving their licenses is low than the demand for engineering goes up and so does the value of the work performed and the subsequent fee they can charge for their services. Their interests are their own and no one elses. They are the holders of the golden key and they choose to give it out as they see fit. The Board does not care if we pass or fail. So why do we allow them to be our mentors and our betters?

The purpose of the exam is to show that we have met the minimum requirments to practice eningeering so that we may take responsiblity for our decisions. The Board does not garentee in anyway that we are compident or skill enough to actually practice engineering, only that we were able to proceed through their processes to a favorible conclusion. We can be sued, fined, stripped of our legal ability to practice engineering, and even jailed if our actions as engineers are deterimental to the common good. But, the Board, who acts as the judge and jury of our actions, fails to carry the same responsiblity for our actions as we do, even though they certify that we are capable.

Regardless of my opinion of the Board, the fact is by delaying the results of the exam so long after the exam results for other states have long since been posted it becomes clear that the interests of the Board is to limit the number of people actually passing the exam. Every second that the Board delays in providing the results limits the ability of engineers who did not pass from gaining the insight into where to put their studing efforts and by doing so reducing the number of people that will actually pass the exam the next time. I do not know if the actions of the Board are intented as punitive, but it appears they maybe. As results were available at the end of June, the Board could have chosen to meet then, but they didn't. But, why do we let it happen? Aren't the Board members just engineers who have already passed the exam? Is compassion and empathy lost for all souls who can't put the letters PE after their name by the ones that can?

The system is tuff enough without the apathetic stance of the Board.

 

[DrivingSideways]

Wow. Hear, hear BigChil. Well thought out post. I find any State body in California is bogged down in red tape and completely incapable of functioning smoothly, so the board's delay does not surprise. I'm not sure if their motives are as nefarious as you claim; I think it's more likely that they are affected by the same bureaucratic malaise as the majority of the state employees (I say this as a local government employee)

It won't change either... I think most people (well, me) won't want to complain too much until they pass the exam, so that the 'squeaky wheel's results don't 'accidentally' get lost. Then, once you pass... the motivation to make a big deal about it has passed.

I guess we should all be technically studying for the October exam right after taking the April exam, "just in case", but how likely is that. We all have busy lives and studying for the PE is no fun for anybody. Let's just hope that we get good news on August 5...

 

[PEGILL]

BigChil...you have struck the right cord of thoughts....I haven't thought as well and as deep as you have but it does makes me mad to think that whole world knows their results but us....the scrolling banner up at the top for all who have passed feels insulting right now (not to offend anybody who had passed...I am happy for all of you who had passed...good job)....I don't know if we as a public can attend the board meeting on July 31st....I believe you can...but I am not sure if you just walk in or you need to have invitation from board before you can attend the meeting as public member....I do want to let those guys know that how does it affects the people who they are supposed to represent and whose interest they should protect....I believe that those board members are not aware as how delaying the release of results effects the people emotionally knowing that their results are being withheld for no rhyme or reason.....

It is easier said than done to study immediately after you take your exam....I had planned to study also starting may 1st after the exam...never happened so far....you guys know why...until you get your results you have a hope of seeing light at the end of the tunnel.....I am having dreams about going to my mailbox and not able to find my letter....

If we can all email and tell board to have a decency of at least educating us (the prospective licensed engineers...who are desperately trying to work for the industry in this state) as why it takes so long to release the results.....

 

[BigChil]

As it was obvious in my previous posting that I am unhappy with the state of the system in California the question is how do we/they make it better? Here are my suggestions for the Board.

1. Provide detailed descriptions/statistics of our failures on the test. The testing agency provides us with simplistic statistical data on the categories in each discipline, but these statistics give us no insight into our mistakes. How are we to learn if we are not told/shown where we have failed. I am not suggesting that the Board educates us in how to fix our failings, just that they tells us what our failings are. Even if I passed I would be interested in my failings to learn from them.

2. Provided us with a form of appeal. Currently, there is no appeal process for the PE exam. In my case, there was a question that I know that I missed because in the testing process I was unable to walk away and rethink my approach to a specific problem. Upon further review, I was able to solve this relatively easy problem in a matter of a couple of minutes a few days later after the pressure of the test had passed. My point here is that if I did not pass by one question that I would like the chance for my complaint and explanation to be heard.

3. Define what the requirements for passing are. This board is filled with posted speculation as to what constitutes a passing grade and what doesn't. We are given some arbitrary point of reference that 70% is passing, but we don't really know. Further, because we can not appeal the results nor are we told what questions we missed we don't have any insight as how to educate ourselves and better our results. Moreover, we are forced to take the Board at it's word that our results are accurate. We don't live in a perfect world; the fact is that errors are unavoidable and should be anticipated. Why then must we assume that the Board is perfect, because we know that it can not be.

4. Make knowledge the prime criterion, not cheating. I have taken the test twice, in both cases I felt as though I was being watched by big brother. I did not feel relaxed nor at ease to solve engineering problems. I felt that I was un-trusted in my ability to solve the problems without some outside help. I do not condone nor support fraudulent behavior and would have turned in anyone that I saw was actually cheating, but in the legal system aren't we innocent until proven guilty? Cautious diligence is one thing, but oppressive suspicion is another.

5. Let us talk about the problems and our solutions. We are restricted from discussing the specifics of any question for fear that the question and answer would get out. But aren't they already out there? Go to any engineering book store and you will find 10 different solution manuals to very similar questions. In fact the testing agency it's self provides sample exams with solutions. Again, this overly cautious behavior comes from the point of view that we will cheat if given the chance. I offer this point of view. If the test and the approach were made such that we did not feel oppressed we would have no reason to try and get ahead.

Let's try to move past the current paradigm because it is elitist and is contrary to the actual ideals of engineering. As engineers we solve problems. That is what we do. So why do we have to accept this model as the best model. No model is perfect, but every model can be improved upon.

Here is my new paradigm. We are administered the test and are given a preliminary result within a week or two, as this is a scantron test and getting the answers is a relatively easy process. These are unverified results but they give us immediate feed back. We are allowed to take the test booklet with us to review the questions that we missed in case we want to appeal the results. Results can then be analyzed and the process can proceed similar to it is now. NCEES and the state boards can each review and certify the results in their own sweet time, but we the engineers have a benchmark of our performance. We know right then and there if we are going to have to study for a retake or if we passed. Moreover, we must redefine what it means to be a professional engineer. An engineer is someone who understands and is able to use the natural relationships to solve problems. We are thoughtful and intelligent individuals who find pleasure in using our minds to make the world a better place. True some of us are deceptive and dishonest, but that is no different in our profession than in every other. We as engineers must search for better paradigms and relationships between forces and the natural laws because that is what we do.

We should not let the current paradigm dictate the next; because, in ones failings one finds one’s self, but in ones ignorance we find nothing at all.

 

[benbo]

THese are the same things people have been complaining about for years. Everybody threatens to make this their mission in life. After they pass, they do nothing, and nothing happens. Let us all know how your assault on the board meeting works out.

 

[BigChil]

These are the same things people have been complaining about for years. Everybody threatens to make this their mission in life. After they pass, they do nothing, and nothing happens. Let us all know how your assault on the board meeting works out.

That is not the purpose of my post. My purpose was two fold: one, to qualify problems with the system that I see and second, to give my observations. Do I think that the system will change, it's unlikely. But, that is not a reason to ignore an obvious problem with the system. By putting to words what feels wrong with the system enlightens us all. We can choose to make a change or we can choose to pass the test and move on. However, the wrong action is to through up ones hands and say that is the way it is. Others may have "complained" about the system in the past and I am sure that others will complain about the system in the future; but inaction is the worst possible course of action if the system is perceived as broken.

I may not stand on the steps of the Capital and scream at the top of my lungs for change; but, it would be a disservice to being an engineer to sit on my hands and say or do nothing. Just by reading my post you are aware of how I feel. You may even agree, or not; but at least you have an alternative perception that is different than complacency.

One other thought is that I know that the NCEES monitors this site. Who is to say that my observations fall on deaf ears? A probative analysis of the system may lead to change and there is the possibility, however small, that change can happen just by saying it needs to happen.

 

[sehad]

That is not the purpose of my post. My purpose was two fold: one, to qualify problems with the system that I see and second, to give my observations. Do I think that the system will change, it's unlikely. But, that is not a reason to ignore an obvious problem with the system. By putting to words what feels wrong with the system enlightens us all. We can choose to make a change or we can choose to pass the test and move on. However, the wrong action is to through up ones hands and say that is the way it is. Others may have "complained" about the system in the past and I am sure that others will complain about the system in the future; but inaction is the worst possible course of action if the system is perceived as broken.
I may not stand on the steps of the Capital and scream at the top of my lungs for change; but, it would be a disservice to being an engineer to sit on my hands and say or do nothing. Just by reading my post you are aware of how I feel. You may even agree, or not; but at least you have an alternative perception that is different than complacency.

One other thought is that I know that the NCEES monitors this site. Who is to say that my observations fall on deaf ears? A probative analysis of the system may lead to change and there is the possibility, however small, that change can happen just by saying it needs to happen.

I sympathize that you have not received results yet. I couldn't imagine still having to wait. I understand your frustration. HOWEVER, you have made some pretty serious accusations. Some of which, if they are true, could possibly have very bad results for those in charge of the board. I can't speak for Cali, but my state board(La) sincerely has our best interest at heart. Have you tried getting a meeting with the board to discuss your concerns? Have you been through their side of the system to see what they are doing?

Your list of recommendations to the board. Almost all of these are problems that EVERY state has. It is a nationally given test. The Board does not dictate the rules.

I work in construction. It is very easy for me to look at a engineer's design and set of plans and say "this person made a mistake here or doesn't know what he's talking about". When I question the designer, 8 out of 10 times he/she has valid reasons for what he/she did. The point is, the only way to truely change a system for the better is to totally understand the system and also where the faults are.

 

[BigChil]

I sympathize that you have not received results yet. I couldn't imagine still having to wait. I understand your frustration. HOWEVER, you have made some pretty serious accusations. Some of which, if they are true, could possibly have very bad results for those in charge of the board. I can't speak for Cali, but my state board(La) sincerely has our best interest at heart. Have you tried getting a meeting with the board to discuss your concerns? Have you been through their side of the system to see what they are doing?
Your list of recommendations to the board. Almost all of these are problems that EVERY state has. It is a nationally given test. The Board does not dictate the rules.

I work in construction. It is very easy for me to look at a engineer's design and set of plans and say "this person made a mistake here or doesn't know what he's talking about". When I question the designer, 8 out of 10 times he/she has valid reasons for what he/she did. The point is, the only way to truely change a system for the better is to totally understand the system and also where the faults are.

I am not intending to accuse any particular person or group of people of malignant intent; but, rather an apathetic stance to the plight of examinee. California has chosen to delay the meeting of the Board until July 31st. This long delay maybe necessary for any number of reasons I grant you, some of which maybe unavoidable; however, in delaying, for at a minimum of 20 to 30 days, beyond other states their actions reduces the number of people passing the exam by some percentage. As passing the exam for a good many of us could come down to a single question wrong, every second of delay adds to the level of difficulty of passing and subsequently could cost someone a chance at passing. This is not an opinion it is fact. I am not saying it will, but rather it may.

Now as to their intent, I can not believe that the intent of the agency is to pass as many engineers as possible. It is to limit the number of engineers to the ones that can achieve their predefined criterion for a passing score. I grant you that the emphasis for this position is the protection of the rights of the public who we will/are serving; however, it does not go without noticing that they can benefit from our failures too. Moreover, I question the testing model in general. I am not arguing for or against the test itself. More, I am questioning the process of the test and the subsequent point of view of the testing agent, which appears to be apathetic to the examinee.

As for my observations and conclusions they are not really directed at anyone state or testing agency. Rather, they are general observation about the process in general whether they are part of the Board of California or the NCEES or the state of Louisiana for that matter. My point is that it appears that all parties who have a hand in the test have given the sum of their efforts to their own concerns and goals and not to the examinee. All of my observations and suggestions have positive points and negative points. But, who is to say that the process that we are forced to go through is the best for all involved and achieves the most desired result.

 

[Mike in Gastonia]

My point is that it appears that all parties who have a hand in the test have given the sum of their efforts to their own concerns and goals and not to the examinee.

As a member of the public, I am thankful that the "parties" are concerned about the health and public welfare and not the examinees' goals......

If all of these people were half as devious as you think they are, they'd be dangerous!

 

[mudpuppy]

in delaying, for at a minimum of 20 to 30 days, beyond other states their actions reduces the number of people passing the exam by some percentage.

How/why would delaying the release of results cause fewer people to pass?

 

[wilheldp_PE]

I don't know if we as a public can attend the board meeting on July 31st....I believe you can...but I am not sure if you just walk in or you need to have invitation from board before you can attend the meeting as public member....I do want to let those guys know that how does it affects the people who they are supposed to represent and whose interest they should protect....I believe that those board members are not aware as how delaying the release of results effects the people emotionally knowing that their results are being withheld for no rhyme or reason.....

First of all, you must be a registered PE in the state to be a member of that state's board. So unless your entire board is made up of people that received their California PE by comity, then they know EXACTLY how they are affecting the current batch of test takers by delaying the results. At this point, I see it as sort of like fraternity hazing. Bad habits like that usually get perpetuated because the current members were hazed, so they feel that the new members should have to go through the same ordeal they did. The current CA PEs had to wait an extra 2 months for results, so they are making the current testees suffer through the added wait.

There is seriously no reason for delaying the results this long. After so many years of administering the exam, the NCEES knows when the results will be released to the states within a week or two. California could easily adjust their schedule to accommodate this date, and get the results to their testees sooner. For some reason, they refuse to do it. I suggest that once you are eligible to be on the board, and I'm speaking to all CA PEs here, you should apply and try to force change from the inside.

 

[BigChil]

First of all, you must be a registered PE in the state to be a member of that state's board. So unless your entire board is made up of people that received their California PE by comity, then they know EXACTLY how they are affecting the current batch of test takers by delaying the results. At this point, I see it as sort of like fraternity hazing. Bad habits like that usually get perpetuated because the current members were hazed, so they feel that the new members should have to go through the same ordeal they did. The current CA PEs had to wait an extra 2 months for results, so they are making the current testees suffer through the added wait.
There is seriously no reason for delaying the results this long. After so many years of administering the exam, the NCEES knows when the results will be released to the states within a week or two. California could easily adjust their schedule to accommodate this date, and get the results to their testees sooner. For some reason, they refuse to do it. I suggest that once you are eligible to be on the board, and I'm speaking to all CA PEs here, you should apply and try to force change from the inside.

I agree 100%. I am ex-navy, hazing is a real thing and it does exist in our world.

 

[BigChil]

How/why would delaying the release of results cause fewer people to pass?

I am working on a response it is long and it is involved logic problem. If you or anyone else wants one, email me and I will send it to you. Still writing will have that shortly.

 

[BigChil]

How/why would delaying the release of results cause fewer people to pass?

First to the how. There is a set of numbers that equates to the number of people who take the test. These people are made up of first time takers and multiple time takers. There is a finite time between the time one begins studying to take the exam and the time of the exam and for each examinee that time is different. However, for the subset of people who are multiple time takers the interval between tests is fixed and finite. We know that first time takers are much more likely to pass the exam than multiple time takers. So for the first time takers the equation is simple X - Y = Z; where X = the number of days to prepare, Y = the number of days of preparation to pass the exam, and Z is positive for passing and negative for failing. For this subset the time it takes to get the results out has no bearing on the next test, because they have passed. However, what about the people that did not pass? For each of them the time X is critical. Because it is fixed and finite it limits the examinee in the time they have to prepare. So when the results of the last exam are not delivered in a timely matter, the time X gets smaller. For the multiple time take X becomes the summation of all X's. X1 is the initial time spent studying for the first test, X2 is the time taken to study for the second try, X3 is the third try and so on. So for X2 through Xn to be the most effective then must be as big as possible. For all Xs they are a function of time and preparation. The time factor is fixed no matter what the board does, but the preparation is the summation of all processed pieces of information. Because the Board holds back on the pieces of information it limits the time X to prepare. I.G. Less people pass that may have passed if there results were not delayed.

The numbers are with me here. Why are multiple time takers less likely to pass than first time takers? 70% to 30% Because multiple time takers either are the people that the X is so big they will never pass or because the preparation process must be amended to adequately prepare. As the time between the test is finite, if the Board delays getting the results out then that piece of information is not available until much later in the process. Subsequently, the time to amend their process is less; thusly, some people do not have enough time to make there X big enough to pass. Plan and simple.

 

[benbo]

First to the how. There is a set of numbers that equates to the number of people who take the test. These people are made up of first time takers and multiple time takers. There is a finite time between the time one begins studying to take the exam and the time of the exam and for each examinee that time is different. However, for the subset of people who are multiple time takers the interval between tests is fixed and finite. We know that first time takers are much more likely to pass the exam than multiple time takers. So for the first time takers the equation is simple X - Y = Z; where X = the number of days to prepare, Y = the number of days of preparation to pass the exam, and Z is positive for passing and negative for failing. For this subset the time it takes to get the results out has no bearing on the next test, because they have passed. However, what about the people that did not pass? For each of them the time X is critical. Because it is fixed and finite it limits the examinee in the time they have to prepare. So when the results of the last exam are not delivered in a timely matter, the time X gets smaller. For the multiple time take X becomes the summation of all X's. X1 is the initial time spent studying for the first test, X2 is the time taken to study for the second try, X3 is the third try and so on. So for X2 through Xn to be the most effective then must be as big as possible. For all Xs they are a function of time and preparation. The time factor is fixed no matter what the board does, but the preparation is the summation of all processed pieces of information. Because the Board holds back on the pieces of information it limits the time X to prepare. I.G. Less people pass that may have passed if there results were not delayed.
The numbers are with me here. Why are multiple time takers less likely to pass than first time takers? 70% to 30% Because multiple time takers either are the people that the X is so big they will never pass or because the preparation process must be amended to adequately prepare. As the time between the test is finite, if the Board delays getting the results out then that piece of information is not available until much later in the process. Subsequently, the time to amend their process is less; thusly, some people do not have enough time to make there X big enough to pass. Plan and simple.

Why can't someone begin studying before the results arrive? You don't need an analysis of your performance to prepare, people who pass the first time do so without any such analysis.

Actually, you could be studying now.

Also, if you don't think there is enough time to prepare you can postpone the test for six months, a year, whatever. It is up to the examinee when they repeat the exam. The problem is that a lot of people, and I know many, keep taking the test without changing much about their studying hoping they will squeak by.

 

[BigChil]

Why can't someone begin studying before the results arrive? You don't need an analysis of your performance to prepare, people who pass the first time do so without any such analysis.Actually, you could be studying now.

Also, if you don't think there is enough time to prepare you can postpone the test for six months, a year, whatever. It is up to the examinee when they repeat the exam. The problem is that a lot of people, and I know many, keep taking the test without changing much about their studying hoping they will squeak by.

What you say is true. You can begin studying as soon as you take the previous exam. But, without the information as to where you failed, the productivity of the preperation is limited. It is like saying, you go for a drive and take off at 70 mph. If the distance between speed limit signs is great than you may be traveling for a long time at 70 mph when the posted speedlimit is 55 mph and not know that you are speeding. Not until you get to the sign telling you how fast to drive do you know how fast to go. Otherwise you can only guess at how fast to go. Some quesses are better than others, but if the goal is to go the speed limit no faster or slower, we need to know what that is to actually achieve it don't we?

 

[benbo]

What you say is true. You can begin studying as soon as you take the previous exam. But, without the information as to where you failed, the productivity of the preperation is limited. It is like saying, you go for a drive and take off at 70 mph. If the distance between speed limit signs is great than you may be traveling for a long time at 70 mph when the posted speedlimit is 55 mph and not know that you are speeding. Not until you get to the sign telling you how fast to drive do you know how fast to go. Otherwise you can only guess at how fast to go. Some quesses are better than others, but if the goal is to go the speed limit no faster or slower, we need to know what that is to actually achieve it don't we?

Like I said before, the board is doing you a favor by giving you this information. People don't have this information the first time around. So in effect, the board is making it easier for people to study the second time around.

And like I said, it is entirely up to you how long you want to study. If you don't want to take the exam immediately (within six months) you can postpone it until you are ready. And you still have the additional information on your weak areas.

But all this is besides the point. The states set the rules, if you don't like it make it your life mission to change it. Some states require people to take additional coursework if they don't pass x times, some require more experience than others. That's just the way it goes. I took it, I hated waiting, but after I passed I moved on, and I suspect you will too.

 

[CivilPEHopeful]

As it was obvious in my previous posting that I am unhappy with the state of the system in California the question is how do we/they make it better? Here are my suggestions for the Board.
1. Provide detailed descriptions/statistics of our failures on the test. The testing agency provides us with simplistic statistical data on the categories in each discipline, but these statistics give us no insight into our mistakes. How are we to learn if we are not told/shown where we have failed. I am not suggesting that the Board educates us in how to fix our failings, just that they tells us what our failings are. Even if I passed I would be interested in my failings to learn from them.

2. Provided us with a form of appeal. Currently, there is no appeal process for the PE exam. In my case, there was a question that I know that I missed because in the testing process I was unable to walk away and rethink my approach to a specific problem. Upon further review, I was able to solve this relatively easy problem in a matter of a couple of minutes a few days later after the pressure of the test had passed. My point here is that if I did not pass by one question that I would like the chance for my complaint and explanation to be heard.

3. Define what the requirements for passing are. This board is filled with posted speculation as to what constitutes a passing grade and what doesn't. We are given some arbitrary point of reference that 70% is passing, but we don't really know. Further, because we can not appeal the results nor are we told what questions we missed we don't have any insight as how to educate ourselves and better our results. Moreover, we are forced to take the Board at it's word that our results are accurate. We don't live in a perfect world; the fact is that errors are unavoidable and should be anticipated. Why then must we assume that the Board is perfect, because we know that it can not be.

4. Make knowledge the prime criterion, not cheating. I have taken the test twice, in both cases I felt as though I was being watched by big brother. I did not feel relaxed nor at ease to solve engineering problems. I felt that I was un-trusted in my ability to solve the problems without some outside help. I do not condone nor support fraudulent behavior and would have turned in anyone that I saw was actually cheating, but in the legal system aren't we innocent until proven guilty? Cautious diligence is one thing, but oppressive suspicion is another.

5. Let us talk about the problems and our solutions. We are restricted from discussing the specifics of any question for fear that the question and answer would get out. But aren't they already out there? Go to any engineering book store and you will find 10 different solution manuals to very similar questions. In fact the testing agency it's self provides sample exams with solutions. Again, this overly cautious behavior comes from the point of view that we will cheat if given the chance. I offer this point of view. If the test and the approach were made such that we did not feel oppressed we would have no reason to try and get ahead.

Let's try to move past the current paradigm because it is elitist and is contrary to the actual ideals of engineering. As engineers we solve problems. That is what we do. So why do we have to accept this model as the best model. No model is perfect, but every model can be improved upon.

Here is my new paradigm. We are administered the test and are given a preliminary result within a week or two, as this is a scantron test and getting the answers is a relatively easy process. These are unverified results but they give us immediate feed back. We are allowed to take the test booklet with us to review the questions that we missed in case we want to appeal the results. Results can then be analyzed and the process can proceed similar to it is now. NCEES and the state boards can each review and certify the results in their own sweet time, but we the engineers have a benchmark of our performance. We know right then and there if we are going to have to study for a retake or if we passed. Moreover, we must redefine what it means to be a professional engineer. An engineer is someone who understands and is able to use the natural relationships to solve problems. We are thoughtful and intelligent individuals who find pleasure in using our minds to make the world a better place. True some of us are deceptive and dishonest, but that is no different in our profession than in every other. We as engineers must search for better paradigms and relationships between forces and the natural laws because that is what we do.

We should not let the current paradigm dictate the next; because, in ones failings one finds one’s self, but in ones ignorance we find nothing at all.

BigChil,

First of all, I can empathize with you on waiting for the results. Having to wait 4 months is extremely unreasonable, especially since it leaves you very little time to know if you need to retake the exam. It may be easy to say that a logical person should be able to make the quick analysis that one should assume they need to be prepared to retake the test and start studying far enough out so they are ready in October. Well, that's easy for someone that has no emotional side to them. That may be the case for a small population of potential PE's, but in my mind this is the exception not the rule. The board should be disciplined by NCEES for allowing this to continue for just the simple fact that the test is only offered 2 times a year.

I do however feel that knowing the exact reason to missing each question may not help all that much, or even using the analysis that NCEES provides. It has been generally my attitude since first studying for Engineering exams and prerequisite exams as long as 20 years ago, that having the ability to solve any type problem is more beneficial than trying to be prepared for a specific type problem. There is enough study material and sample problems available these days that it should be apparent if you know a subject or not prior to taking the exam. I have only taken the PE once and was fortunate enough to pass. However, I didn't feel any of the problems were tricky or unfair. I even made this statement to others I work with while waiting for my results between April and June. The questions were all very straight forward and the only regret I had was in the depth session. I took the Transportation depth and had some outdating reference materials (94 Edition of the MUTCD) and left some at home (Off Road Design Manual). However, a few of the problems I was able to reason through because of the studying I had done with related problems. I think the objective of the test is to see if a candidate has the ability to think on their feet and apply what they know from past experiences to new experiences. This is probably half the battle of engineering. I work for a municipality and although we have guidelines the design consultants need to follow, not everything fits into a neat little package every time. When I was in school, I loved having solution manuals and knowing what each correct answer was, but I also took the time to read the chapters and talk to professors about why the steps to solving the problem went the way they did. It was without doubt that at least a few problems would be presented on an exam that was nothing like the homework.

You seem like an intelligent individual and probably did fine on the test. If your thought process goes as deep on engineering as it dose in your posts, you are probably getting worked up over nothing. However, as difficult as it might be, maybe try just working a few problems each day and focus on preparing for the exam in October, just in case. Because on the off chance you didn’t pass, and you are ready to take the exam in October, and pass the October exam, just think how happy you will feel you didn’t mull over the April results and spent some productive time getting ready for the October exam.

Anyway, only you can make that decision, not the board or anyone else.

:unitedstates:

 

[BigChil]

Thank you for your kind words. The April Exam was my second time through. I know that I did much better than my first time and I hold out hope that I will have a positive outcome. However, the purpose of my posts was to provide feedback to the essence of the exam. I also did not feel as though the problems were overly difficult, in many cases they were just variations of problems that I had seen before and was able to work. But the process it's self is problematic and it does not need to be. As engineers we should be able to make the process better. We can provide better, more timely feedback. We can control the atmosphere of the testing situation, such that we are not treated as people who are going to cheat. We can be much less apathetic to the plight of the examinee.

That is what is wrong with the system in general. I think I touched on it in my first post. Why do we let the system be the way it is? No one who is taking the test likes the way it is handled. Then why do we let it happen? To who's benefit is the system set up? And if not for the benefit of the examinee, shouldn't it be? Another member said it very well, the society of engineers that we seek approval from is a fraternity. The test system is a form of hazing. We accept it because of two reasons. First, that we want the approval of our peers, and second, because we have no other recourse.

Maybe if I did not have to wait so long I would feel differently, but it still begs the question. We as engineers should not be satisfied that it just works. Isn't the whole point to look at systems and to make them better? Isn't that the principle of the test? We are given a number of problems and it is our goal to answer as many of them correctly as possible. If our approach is not sufficient don't we adjust our system to be more inline with the test? At some point we are satisfied that our approach is sufficient and that normally happens when we pass. But, don't we owe it to every potential test taker to look at the test to maximize the potential learning experience. In a way we are being told that change to the system is wrong. I disagree with that statement. Change is in fact inevitable.

By no means am I saying, make the test easier. The primary concern is the public's safety and well being, and we should be able to answer hard questions about the relationships between our applications and the physical world. If we can not model, analysis and deduct the safest approach we should step back and work to solving those problems. However, part of the test is the testing system and as an engineer I can not stand by and say nothing about a system that appears to be broken.

 

[sehad]

I am not intending to accuse any particular person or group of people of malignant intent; but, rather an apathetic stance to the plight of examinee. California has chosen to delay the meeting of the Board until July 31st. This long delay maybe necessary for any number of reasons I grant you, some of which maybe unavoidable; however, in delaying, for at a minimum of 20 to 30 days, beyond other states their actions reduces the number of people passing the exam by some percentage. As passing the exam for a good many of us could come down to a single question wrong, every second of delay adds to the level of difficulty of passing and subsequently could cost someone a chance at passing. This is not an opinion it is fact. I am not saying it will, but rather it may. Look at this way if the above is true, you may wait a month longer than everyone else for results, but everyone else waits 2 years longer to take the test.
Now as to their intent, I can not believe that the intent of the agency is to pass as many engineers as possible. It is to limit the number of engineers to the ones that can achieve their predefined criterion for a passing score. I grant you that the emphasis for this position is the protection of the rights of the public who we will/are serving; however, it does not go without noticing that they can benefit from our failures too. Moreover, I question the testing model in general. I am not arguing for or against the test itself. More, I am questioning the process of the test and the subsequent point of view of the testing agent, which appears to be apathetic to the examinee.

As for my observations and conclusions they are not really directed at anyone state or testing agency. Rather, they are general observation about the process in general whether they are part of the Board of California or the NCEES or the state of Louisiana for that matter. My point is that it appears that all parties who have a hand in the test have given the sum of their efforts to their own concerns and goals and not to the examinee. All of my observations and suggestions have positive points and negative points. But, who is to say that the process that we are forced to go through is the best for all involved and achieves the most desired result.

I agree that the delay is crazy. They may or may not have good reason for doing this. BUT, in California you are also eligible to take the PE exam with only 2 years of experience if I am not mistaken. It could be that part of that time is used to background check those with only 2 years expereince that passed to ensure they have the desired experience. I don't know how it works in California, but in La the board was not scheduled to meet until July 21. I received results on June 10th from NCEES and got my license number on June 17th. As far as I know, our board never met to do these things.

I do understand your frustration and I do not know how I would handle it. However, I do still stay that some of what you are saying is based off of assumptions and not facts. I can only say that the La board was more than helpful everytime that I called with questions. One lady even called me back twice when she had never promised to do so nor did I ask her to. From some of my travels, I have found most Engineers(notice I said most) to be very ethical and concerned with others. It may be some type of hazing that goes on even though I would think and hope not. Every action we take has a reason. Now, whether it is a good reason or not is a matter of opinion. The point of the matter is, the procedure is that way for a reason, possibly try and find out the reason then you may can understand why or take the proper steps to get it changed.

That aside, I am impressed with your ability to hold a intelligent conversation even though you are frustrated/upset/angry and others are taking a different stand. It speaks highly of you as a person in my opinion.