My theory (without knowing what statistics in particular you are looking at) is that some discipline fields (not the tests!) can't be "studied"... they need to be "experienced". Taking the test multiple times won't gain you any experience in the field, so if you fail the first time, you're likely to fail the next time (unless you've gained more experience in the field). And if you've got experience in the field, you're likely to pass the test the first time.
Not trying to go deep into the subject but one reason the repeaters' rate is so low is because they think "I will get it next time". Usually that kind of thinking is a recipe for failure.
Wow ... that is actually an awesome explanation!! I never thought of it that way.
+2 - spot on with that statement BIO!! I unfortuntately fell victim to that one as well ...
This is just another example of how engineering school ruined me.
I took the Oct 2006 Chem exam, and passed thank heavens. At least on the oct 2006 exam there was definitely stuff that you just had to know from experience, no book could have have told you the correct answer. I think the Chemical test is one that just isn't taken by a lot of people...those who do take it usually pass...the historical pass rates have been between mid-70's to 80's. Most are taking it for a specfic purpose or are just that bloody brillant...I wish I were part of the later group, but I'm not.The things in particular that caught my eye were the differences in Chemical and Metallurgical. One would think that there would be a similar spread for each discipline. The suggestion that some may benefit from experience makes sense, however in my case (chemical) I felt like most of the test content reflected what could be studied or looked up as opposed to what may be gained by experience. I am fairly confident that I scored very close to 70% (give or take 2 questions) which makes me reason that if I did fail that exam my chances (with similar but refined studying) would be much higher than the 27% on the next test. Oh well, I just wonder why such a difference with all the effort that is put into test development, score equating etc. I need to need to find a hobby.
Boy, wouldn't you rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it? Also, who knows how the laws will change in the future? What if the industrial exemption goes away?
As a ChE I will get a pay raise (~ 7 % on top of a very generous salary) and title change to Sr. Engineer when I get my PE. So yes, it is worth it for me. I am also concerned that that even the internal use of engineer title and the pay that goes with it may become a thing of the past without being licensed. My brother is also a ChE, but his company does not encourage licensure as my employer does, therefore it is not a priority for him. So it depends on each situation and any future career potential you envision.
Each company is different some want it others don't probably afraid you'll want for $ for obtaining it. I have a friend who consults/designs for production plants and they only have 1 ChE with a PE on staff. The state didn't give me any more money for getting it...it was a personal choice I made. One of the goals I set for myself and it is more of a respect earner than anything. I'm 27 years old and I look very young for age (hopefully that lasts as I get older), and I encountered a mentality from people...oh your just a kid you don't know anything etc... Once people see the initials after my name they started taking me more seriously.
