Easiest State to pass PE EXam in?

[navyasw02]

Still pretty sure I'd rather study a few extra hours.... If you passed the test only becuase of the extra points, is it noted on your record? Would other states know that you didn't technically pass the exam? Since the exam is pass/fail in most states and no score is provided, I would think that it would just show that you passed...

I believe it does show up if you try for license in other states, which will do more harm than good to get the 5 points. I think getting 5 points for serving the country is simply stupid for this exam. Why not reward the vets a different way, maybe reduced fees to take the exam, or reduced renewal fees, or even waive those fees?

Maybe just give them the "PE" title without the right to stamp engineering work.

for lack of professional knowledge and given right circumstances, those vet. can kill as many people as they could in the battlefield.

I think that's a bit harsh of a statement. Your score on a multiple choice test is not directly proportional to your competence as an engineer. Your PE license on your wall doesn't say you got 95% of the test right vs. barely above the cut score and doesn't mean you're that much less likely to make an error.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

so in Georgia they basically say that veterans are not as smart and need a 5 score head start? :withstupid:

the test is about testing if someone is fit to make important decisions and designs. There is no rewarding of anything else than knowledge and ability...

what about nurses, cops, teachers... that all serve their country? Or engineers in general, where would the country be without engineers? Why not give everyone a 5 score advantage?

Preferential treatment is the worst form of discrimination... it also doesn't help the veteran. Since every veteran who is a PE won't get the same respect because everyone thinks he wouldn't have passed without the 5 scores.

 

[IlPadrino]

Oh, not again!

http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=10968

and the much longer and in-depth version: http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=6950

 

[Dark Knight]

so in Georgia they basically say that veterans are not as smart and need a 5 score head start? :withstupid:
the test is about testing if someone is fit to make important decisions and designs. There is no rewarding of anything else than knowledge and ability...

what about nurses, cops, teachers... that all serve their country? Or engineers in general, where would the country be without engineers? Why not give everyone a 5 score advantage?

Preferential treatment is the worst form of discrimination... it also doesn't help the veteran. Since every veteran who is a PE won't get the same respect because everyone thinks he wouldn't have passed without the 5 scores.

I hope you are kidding. I cannot believe somebody trully think in that way. While I do not agree with the 5 point buffer it is also true that if someone can be good enough to take a weapon and defend our country, he/she must be good enough to receive some benefits out of it. If that benefit is a 5 points head start in the PE test so be it. Who am I to go against that? Who are you?

About the test, IMHO, it is just a measure of mental endurance and there is a lot of luck involved. I would like to know how many of us, that already passed, will be willing to give a 100% guarantee that they will pass it again if they have to take it again.

More than that, How many of the Gods at the NCEES Mountain would pass the test if they have to take it. It is very easy when you have the answers...is not it?

I have met good engineers that were not able to pass the PE and morons who were able to pass it. Five points do not make a difference.

 

[navyasw02]

I hope you are kidding. I cannot believe somebody trully think in that way. While I do not agree with the 5 point buffer it is also true that if someone can be good enough to take a weapon and defend our country, he/she must be good enough to receive some benefits out of it. If that benefit is a 5 points head start in the PE test so be it. Who am I to go against that? Who are you?

I disagree. Benefits/recognition is one thing, lowering a standard is another. Giving preferential treatment to subsets of people only waters down the whole process. Should we give an extra 5 points to people with ADD or learning disabilities? How about people with one arm who cant write as quickly? People with deadbeat dads who had a tougher time growing up? Fat people who cant sit in the chair as easily? Conjoined twins with one twin being an art history major? Where does it end? A standard is a standard for a reason, and as applicants it is our responsibility to make sure we meet it.

 

[IlPadrino]

I disagree. Benefits/recognition is one thing, lowering a standard is another. Giving preferential treatment to subsets of people only waters down the whole process. Should we give an extra 5 points to people with ADD or learning disabilities? How about people with one arm who cant write as quickly? People with deadbeat dads who had a tougher time growing up? Fat people who cant sit in the chair as easily? Conjoined twins with one twin being an art history major? Where does it end? A standard is a standard for a reason, and as applicants it is our responsibility to make sure we meet it.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains: not everyone is treated the same. Take a look at the NCEES webiste http://www.ncees.org/Exams/Special_accommo...ommodations.php.

 

[navyasw02]

I disagree. Benefits/recognition is one thing, lowering a standard is another. Giving preferential treatment to subsets of people only waters down the whole process. Should we give an extra 5 points to people with ADD or learning disabilities? How about people with one arm who cant write as quickly? People with deadbeat dads who had a tougher time growing up? Fat people who cant sit in the chair as easily? Conjoined twins with one twin being an art history major? Where does it end? A standard is a standard for a reason, and as applicants it is our responsibility to make sure we meet it.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains: not everyone is treated the same. Take a look at the http://www.ncees.org/Exams/Special_accommo...ommodations.php website.

That's not the same as getting blanket bonus points for being in subgroup X like with the GA military deal.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

I hope you are kidding. I cannot believe somebody trully think in that way. While I do not agree with the 5 point buffer it is also true that if someone can be good enough to take a weapon and defend our country, he/she must be good enough to receive some benefits out of it. If that benefit is a 5 points head start in the PE test so be it. Who am I to go against that? Who are you?

I'm not saying they shouldn't get their benefits. They should get all benefits they are entitled to and were promised when they signed up. The same way other people were promised a pension, health care for working etc. Be it soldiers, firemen or anyone else.

What I'm against, is giving people an advantage for something that is unrelated to the test or the profession. And that advantage wasn't part of the benefit deal anyone was promised when signing up for service, nor was it the reason to sign up.

 

[IlPadrino]

I disagree. Benefits/recognition is one thing, lowering a standard is another. Giving preferential treatment to subsets of people only waters down the whole process. Should we give an extra 5 points to people with ADD or learning disabilities? How about people with one arm who cant write as quickly? People with deadbeat dads who had a tougher time growing up? Fat people who cant sit in the chair as easily? Conjoined twins with one twin being an art history major? Where does it end? A standard is a standard for a reason, and as applicants it is our responsibility to make sure we meet it.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains: not everyone is treated the same. Take a look at the http://www.ncees.org/Exams/Special_accommo...ommodations.php website.

That's not the same as getting blanket bonus points for being in subgroup X like with the GA military deal.

It is "preferential treatment to subgroups" and it is "lowering a standard" - those are your specific words. How can it be OK to have a different standard for a learning disability but not OK for other groups?

 

[navyasw02]

I disagree. Benefits/recognition is one thing, lowering a standard is another. Giving preferential treatment to subsets of people only waters down the whole process. Should we give an extra 5 points to people with ADD or learning disabilities? How about people with one arm who cant write as quickly? People with deadbeat dads who had a tougher time growing up? Fat people who cant sit in the chair as easily? Conjoined twins with one twin being an art history major? Where does it end? A standard is a standard for a reason, and as applicants it is our responsibility to make sure we meet it.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains: not everyone is treated the same. Take a look at the http://www.ncees.org/Exams/Special_accommo...ommodations.php website.

That's not the same as getting blanket bonus points for being in subgroup X like with the GA military deal.

It is "preferential treatment to subgroups" and it is "lowering a standard" - those are your specific words. How can it be OK to have a different standard for a learning disability but not OK for other groups?

Giving away points is getting something free without it being earned. Having different testing conditions still requires people to earn their passing score. That's the difference.

 

[IlPadrino]

Giving away points is getting something free without it being earned. Having different testing conditions still requires people to earn their passing score. That's the difference.

OK... now we're getting somewhere. This has nothing to do with "earning [a] passing score". Each and every state in the union is responsible for their own licensing of professionals. There is *no* national interest in licensing PEs (at least not yet) and so each and every state is free to decide how they want to manage the process. PEs are little different than Massage Therapists in many states.

Each and every state uses some combination of education, experience, and examination for licensing PEs. Georgia has chosen to let some experience offset some examination. If you consider this "lowering the standard" and you live in Georgia, write your legislature and let them know.

Have you read the other thread? Do you think there's a big difference between a 65 tester and a 70 tester?

 

[navyasw02]

Giving away points is getting something free without it being earned. Having different testing conditions still requires people to earn their passing score. That's the difference.

OK... now we're getting somewhere. This has nothing to do with "earning [a] passing score". Each and every state in the union is responsible for their own licensing of professionals. There is *no* national interest in licensing PEs (at least not yet) and so each and every state is free to decide how they want to manage the process. PEs are little different than Massage Therapists in many states.

Each and every state uses some combination of education, experience, and examination for licensing PEs. Georgia has chosen to let some experience offset some examination. If you consider this "lowering the standard" and you live in Georgia, write your legislature and let them know.

Have you read the other thread? Do you think there's a big difference between a 65 tester and a 70 tester?

No, I dont think there's much difference between a 65 tester and a 70, but if there wasn't a difference, why is the 70 the minimum? The Olympic committee doesn't take 5 seconds off the Jamaican bobsled team's time. Is there a difference between a team that comes in 32nd vs the team that comes in 31st? Neither is going to medal. Now if taking 5 seconds off the time means that they'll get on the podium, then that's a problem. In this case, we're letting guys stand on the podium that wouldn't necessarily be there.

 

[IlPadrino]

No, I dont think there's much difference between a 65 tester and a 70, but if there wasn't a difference, why is the 70 the minimum? The Olympic committee doesn't take 5 seconds off the Jamaican bobsled team's time. Is there a difference between a team that comes in 32nd vs the team that comes in 31st? Neither is going to medal. Now if taking 5 seconds off the time means that they'll get on the podium, then that's a problem. In this case, we're letting guys stand on the podium that wouldn't necessarily be there.

Can we stick with just one analogy?!?

There's not just one "Olympic committee" deciding how to treat all the professionals in the world. There are 53 "Olympic Committees" in the U.S. alone that exercise their authority over their jurisdiction (the 50 states, DC, PR, and Guam... if I haven't missed one or more) - and they're free to choose how they "qualify their athletes". NCEES is *not* the Olympic committee.

NCEES provides a service that just about everyone follows unchanged. Georgia is an exception. The cut score of 70 is deemed the border of "minimally competent" by NCEES. There has to be *some* number but there's also got be be a fairly large 95% confidence interval!

Bottom line (for me): If you accept that someone who takes the exam five times before passing with a 70 is "competent enough" to be a registered engineer, then you should accept that someone who fails with a 65% is probably "good enough". And remember, no state looks at just the exam on its own - they all use a combination of education, experience, and exam.

 

[Santiagj]

I hope you are kidding. I cannot believe somebody trully think in that way. While I do not agree with the 5 point buffer it is also true that if someone can be good enough to take a weapon and defend our country, he/she must be good enough to receive some benefits out of it. If that benefit is a 5 points head start in the PE test so be it. Who am I to go against that? Who are you?

I disagree. Benefits/recognition is one thing, lowering a standard is another. Giving preferential treatment to subsets of people only waters down the whole process. Should we give an extra 5 points to people with ADD or learning disabilities? How about people with one arm who cant write as quickly? People with deadbeat dads who had a tougher time growing up? Fat people who cant sit in the chair as easily? Conjoined twins with one twin being an art history major? Where does it end? A standard is a standard for a reason, and as applicants it is our responsibility to make sure we meet it.

I don't think the conjoined twin should be allowed to sit for the exam. Art History majors should not be allowed within 100 yards from a testing facility.

 

[navyasw02]

No, I dont think there's much difference between a 65 tester and a 70, but if there wasn't a difference, why is the 70 the minimum? The Olympic committee doesn't take 5 seconds off the Jamaican bobsled team's time. Is there a difference between a team that comes in 32nd vs the team that comes in 31st? Neither is going to medal. Now if taking 5 seconds off the time means that they'll get on the podium, then that's a problem. In this case, we're letting guys stand on the podium that wouldn't necessarily be there.

Can we stick with just one analogy?!?

There's not just one "Olympic committee" deciding how to treat all the professionals in the world. There are 53 "Olympic Committees" in the U.S. alone that exercise their authority over their jurisdiction (the 50 states, DC, PR, and Guam... if I haven't missed one or more) - and they're free to choose how they "qualify their athletes". NCEES is *not* the Olympic committee.

NCEES provides a service that just about everyone follows unchanged. Georgia is an exception. The cut score of 70 is deemed the border of "minimally competent" by NCEES. There has to be *some* number but there's also got be be a fairly large 95% confidence interval!

Bottom line (for me): If you accept that someone who takes the exam five times before passing with a 70 is "competent enough" to be a registered engineer, then you should accept that someone who fails with a 65% is probably "good enough". And remember, no state looks at just the exam on its own - they all use a combination of education, experience, and exam.

Whatever - I dont really need a whole lecture correcting the flaws of an analogy that I made to illustrate a point.

My bottom line is this - If you set a minimum on a "standardized" exam, then stick to it. People aren't declared competent because they have a PE license, they're declared liable.

 

[Dark Knight]

My bottom line is this - If you set a minimum on a "standardized" exam, then stick to it. People aren't declared competent because they have a PE license, they're declared liable.

:fencing:

That is the real bottom line.

 

[IlPadrino]

Whatever - I dont really need a whole lecture correcting the flaws of an analogy that I made to illustrate a point.
My bottom line is this - If you set a minimum on a "standardized" exam, then stick to it. People aren't declared competent because they have a PE license, they're declared liable.

I'm starting to wonder if you're serious in trying to make yourself understood.

But I'm sure of this: People aren't declared liable because they have a PE license.

 

[navyasw02]

But I'm sure of this: People aren't declared liable because they have a PE license.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Just because you ARE a PE doesn't mean someone's going to fire off lawsuits to random PEs. If you want to keep bickering over semantics, then maybe you should be on lawyerboards.com.

Of course people are declared liable with a PE. The whole point of licensing in general is to establish industry regulations and qualification standards, and enforce those regulations on those who are licensed and practice their respective field. Having a PE license allows you to be liable in court if the design that has your stamp on it fails. It also allows consumers to take action and report you to the state if you violate the regulations of the industry. It has NOTHING to do with whether you're GOOD at your job, it just means you CAN do your job and you've met the requirements to hold a license, to practice your field, and that you are legally responsible if you screw up.

 

[Paul S]

I think the answer to the original question is: Alaska. Go there and take the exam, it is way easy up there.

 

[IlPadrino]

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing?

I give up... you've got it all figured out and you see this as an argument. I've no interest in arguing; I was just trying to help you see another perspective.