Decoupling adding more test takers?
- Thread starter KevinA
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
CAPLS
Well-known member
Last edited by a moderator:
Ken PE 3.1
It's wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man
I guess I just do not understand the argument supporting decoupling. The exam title is, in part, called practices. So, let's change the name to the principles exam to alleviate any future confusion. I have heard arguments that it is better to take it early because in a few years the might have a family and such.
Has anyone ever heard or actually seen someone get blasted on a PE application to the board? Would you be stupid enough to ask someone that doesn't like you to vouch for you on the app?
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
Has anyone ever heard or actually seen someone get blasted on a PE application to the board? Would you be stupid enough to ask someone that doesn't like you to vouch for you on the app?
Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
But that's my argument. While the test may have the word "practice" in it, as it currently stands the Civil PE at least (no clue on the others) is a "principles" exam only with the explicit intent of testing things in which you have no "practice" on. The Civil PE exams account for approximately 50% of all PE exams usually. Whether the exam should or shouldn't be organized that way is up for debate.
But if the exam expressly tests things in which it is understood that you have no experience on, it's difficult to argue that experience is relevant (or should be mandatory) in order to take the test that intentionally doesn't test that experience. If you want to tell NCEES their exam structure is stupid and they need to change it, that's fine. I get that. But as a state board looking at what the exam currently consists of, I think it's only logical to decouple experience and the exam when looking at an exam that doesn't test experience. Experience is still required to gain licensure, but that's a totally different argument than requiring the experience in order to take the test.
Maybe you can argue that if all the other non-civil exams test experience, it should be required in order to sit for the exam. But it's still not consistent. If 50% of the exams don't test experience, I still think it makes more sense to decouple. If a person can pass the exam early, good for them. The board still makes them wait to get their experience to get licensed.
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
Back to the original topic of this thread....
There were 900+ people taking the PE exam at my location last Friday (plus 40 or so SE takers). I think that's probably higher by at least 100-200 people more than either offering last year (yes, I have taken this exam more than once).
There was one person in my office who took it without being able to apply for licensure. I wouldn't be surprised if it increased the numbers of test taker, at least in the beginning, until it equalizes out over time.
There were 900+ people taking the PE exam at my location last Friday (plus 40 or so SE takers). I think that's probably higher by at least 100-200 people more than either offering last year (yes, I have taken this exam more than once).
There was one person in my office who took it without being able to apply for licensure. I wouldn't be surprised if it increased the numbers of test taker, at least in the beginning, until it equalizes out over time.
PowerStroke79_PE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 70
This is true for the Austin sites in TX, I don't know by how much, but definitely more test takers. However, I have spoken to several who are and have taken it without applying for license and what I hear is a lot of, "well it doesn't matter how I do I just want to experience it." Honestly its been like 4 people only, but 4 out of 4 is still disappointing. Maybe they are playing it safe and just don't want to feel bad in case they fail, but I fear many will now take the exam without the necessary respect for it. It will be good money for NCEES for sure I guess.
MostlyCivil
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4
In California, you have been able to take the PE after only 2 years experience for quite a while. However, I recall seeing a graphic that showed years experience along the x and % passing along the y. It was a distinct bell curve with the peak at around 4 years. It would be interesting to see if this will continue to hold true. If that is the case, then it may indicate that having at least some experience and maturity may be beneficial.
PowerStroke79_PE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2013
- Messages
- 439
- Reaction score
- 70
Experience? Yeah for sure. Whether its in a University Library or your own basement doing PPI problems, working through ACI Handbooks, or other study materials. In the end the "experience" is going to depend on whether it covers a majority of the areas the exam does. I know people who are engineers, with licensed engineers as supervisors, and they spend 50 percent or more of their day working out schedules and doing the same inspections through out the year. This is probably gonna help you about 20% percent of exam material (MAYBE.)
Maturity? I'm not so sure. I've always taken these exams too seriously and I have issues during the exam. I wish I could just have other priorities and just have this in the back of my mind as important and a must do.
I believe the graphic you are looking for is the one attached. It appears in the NCEES 2016 Squared document ( http://ncees.org/wp-content/uploads/Squared-2016.pdf )
JHW 3d
Here's Johnny...
JHW 3d
Here's Johnny...
spacebanjo
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2017
- Messages
- 31
- Reaction score
- 1
From the current TBPE newsletter. 100% increase in examinees after decoupling!
