# How do you explain the pass rate statistics?



## Keith (Dec 1, 2007)

I find it very interesting that some disciplines enjoy a high pass rate for 1st time takers while the pass rates for repeat takers in the same discipline may be very low. On the other hand, some are split down the middle. I can reason that in some cases repeat takers may have a very small sample size skewing the statistics; however, this is not the case for every discipline. What are your thoughts?


----------



## IlPadrino (Dec 1, 2007)

Keith said:


> I find it very interesting that some disciplines enjoy a high pass rate for 1st time takers while the pass rates for repeat takers in the same discipline may be very low. On the other hand, some are split down the middle. I can reason that in some cases repeat takers may have a very small sample size skewing the statistics; however, this is not the case for every discipline. What are your thoughts?


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.

If I saw low first-time pass rates followed by high repeat pass rates, I'd conclude it's a "studiable" field.


----------



## Dark Knight (Dec 1, 2007)

Keith said:


> I find it very interesting that some disciplines enjoy a high pass rate for 1st time takers while the pass rates for repeat takers in the same discipline may be very low. On the other hand, some are split down the middle. I can reason that in some cases repeat takers may have a very small sample size skewing the statistics; however, this is not the case for every discipline. What are your thoughts?


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.


----------



## benbo (Dec 1, 2007)

IlPadrino said:


> 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.
> If I saw low first-time pass rates followed by high repeat pass rates, I'd conclude it's a "studiable" field.


This makes a lot of sense to me. And I would never have thought of it. :appl:


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2007)

IlPadrino said:


> If I saw low first-time pass rates followed by high repeat pass rates, I'd conclude it's a "studiable" field.


Wow ... that is actually an awesome explanation!! I never thought of it that way.



BringItOn said:


> 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.


+2 - spot on with that statement BIO!! I unfortuntately fell victim to that one as well ...

JR


----------



## NCcarguy (Dec 2, 2007)

actually, it's depressing to me....!


----------



## Keith (Dec 2, 2007)

Examination

First-time takers

Repeat takers

PE Agricultural

75%

44%

PE Control Systems

80%

49%

PE Fire Protection

42%

34%

PE Industrial

69%

40%

PE Metallurgical

55%

54%

PE Mining and Mineral

84%

35%

PE Nuclear 80%

80%

PE Petroleum

93%

33%

Examination

First-time takers

Repeat takers

PE Architectural

66%

26%

PE Chemical

81%

27%

PE Civil

67%

34%

PE Electrical and Computer

66%

27%

PE Environmental

73%

35%

PE Mechanical

64%

30%

PE Naval Architecture/Marine

89%

100%

PE Structural I

38%

25%

PE Structural II

51%

37%

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.  This is just another example of how engineering school ruined me.


----------



## benbo (Dec 2, 2007)

Keith-The results you give here are just for one year - they vary every year.

In October 2006 the Chem results were 76% for first timers and 44% for repeaters.

They have a link on "the other board" but everytime I put it here these guys must have something set up to change it to "the other board" so the link doesn't work. Either that or I've got a poltergeist in my computer. But it's over there.

I think that for these major exams it would even out over time.

Metallurgical is different, possibly because so many fewer people take it and it is a very specialized exam. I don't know.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Dec 3, 2007)

Maybe I should look at the Naval Architecture exam....


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Dec 3, 2007)

Based on the explanations I've seen here's my shot at explaning it.......

The group of "first-time" examinees is significantly different from the group of "repeat-taker" examinees.

The "first-time" group includes a more or less even mixture of high-performing, medium-performing, and low-performing candidates.

They all take the exam. Most of the high performers pass, some of the medium performers pass, and only a few of the low performers pass. Those who pass leave the exam group.

Those who do not pass become repeat takers. So what does the repeat taker group look like? It has only a few high performers (because most of them already passed), plus some medium performers, and most of the low performers.

So the repeat taker group -- unlike the first-timer group -- consists mostly of low performers. Assuming that the exams are of similar difficulty, there needs to be something different about the repeat taker to pass the second time because otherwise they will fail again. The repeat takers who had a bad day the first time or changed their approach will pass and be removed from the repeater group.


----------



## RIP - VTEnviro (Dec 3, 2007)

^ WINNER! :appl:


----------



## snickerd3 (Dec 3, 2007)

Keith said:


> 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.  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.

I took it because it will possible help in the future and I wanted to get it out of the way before I forgot everything, since I am a state regulator I don't my hands dirty very often if you know what i mean.


----------



## ClemsonEngr (Dec 3, 2007)

snickerd3 said:


> I took it because it will possible help in the future and I wanted to get it out of the way before I forgot everything, since I am a state regulator I don't my hands dirty very often if you know what i mean.



Do you think it is essential that Chem E's get their PE? My younger brother has his Chem E degree, and he asked me if I thought it would be worth getting his PE. (As I am a Civil I really didn't know what to tell him.)


----------



## Mike in Gastonia (Dec 3, 2007)

ClemsonEngr said:


> Do you think it is essential that Chem E's get their PE? My younger brother has his Chem E degree, and he asked me if I thought it would be worth getting his PE. (As I am a Civil I really didn't know what to tell him.)


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?

Hey, Luis. Wasn't it posted somewhere that Puerto Rico is already that way? If you're an engineer you have to be licensed?


----------



## Keith (Dec 3, 2007)

ClemsonEngr said:


> Do you think it is essential that Chem E's get their PE? My younger brother has his Chem E degree, and he asked me if I thought it would be worth getting his PE. (As I am a Civil I really didn't know what to tell him.)


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.


----------



## snickerd3 (Dec 4, 2007)

ClemsonEngr said:


> Do you think it is essential that Chem E's get their PE? My younger brother has his Chem E degree, and he asked me if I thought it would be worth getting his PE. (As I am a Civil I really didn't know what to tell him.)


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.

If you have the time to study and $ to take it, I don't see why any engineer shouldn't at least try.


----------



## ClemsonEngr (Dec 4, 2007)

Thank you Snicker, Keith, and Mike.

Good Advise.


----------

