# The switch to CBT PE has really begun



## snickerd3 (Feb 1, 2017)

I had seen hints that CBT was coming sooner rather than later, but I didn't think this soon!!!  Only one more paper and pencil offering of the Chemical test!!!

http://ncees.org/engineering/pe/pe-chemical/


----------



## envirotex (Feb 1, 2017)

Wow.  So is this only for Chemical?  When will they start phasing in the other disciplines?


----------



## snickerd3 (Feb 1, 2017)

I went through the other disciplines, it looks like it is just chemical for now.  They probably want to see how it goes.  Chemical isn't exactly a code heavy type so it makes sense it would be the first to make the switch to closed book


----------



## matt267 PE (Feb 1, 2017)

I wonder if having 1 reference to learn will make the exams "easier?"


----------



## snickerd3 (Feb 1, 2017)

matt267 PE said:


> I wonder if having 1 reference to learn will make the exams "easier?"


That's what I was thinking!!  At the very least more equitable since everyone has the same reference to look at no more, if I only remembered that other book that had that info in it

The 500+ page reference manual doesn't look half bad.  The kinetics chapter has more info than that of the Lindbergh reference manual. it would be interesting to see how the questions evolve to the closed book style.


----------



## snickerd3 (Feb 1, 2017)

on the other hand it eliminates the ability to pigeon hole problems so for some people this might make it harder.


----------



## matt267 PE (Feb 1, 2017)

I"m looking forward to downloading the Environmental and Civil-WRE reference manuals. Looks like they could be a good resource.


----------



## snickerd3 (Feb 1, 2017)

matt267 PE said:


> I"m looking forward to downloading the Environmental and Civil-WRE reference manuals. Looks like they could be a good resource.


tru dat and it's free.  When I took the FE we had to buy the reference manual because it wasn't electronically available back then.


----------



## matt267 PE (Feb 1, 2017)

snickerd3 said:


> When I took the FE we had to buy the reference manual


same here.


----------



## youngmotivatedengineer (Feb 1, 2017)

Any word on when the Civil would be available, or is it only once it goes to CBT? I'm not really sure how I feel about them switching Civil over to CBT. Since Civil is heavy on codes and charts,   I could see frustration kicking in when trying to navigate a computer based reference manual during the exam and trying to locate different sections or flipping back and forth between sections. It seems like it could be a big time waster. I took my LEED AP and GRE at testing centers, and those computers were not the most advanced.


----------



## snickerd3 (Feb 2, 2017)

youngmotivatedengineer said:


> Any word on when the Civil would be available, or is it only once it goes to CBT? I'm not really sure how I feel about them switching Civil over to CBT. Since Civil is heavy on codes and charts,   I could see frustration kicking in when trying to navigate a computer based reference manual during the exam and trying to locate different sections or flipping back and forth between sections. It seems like it could be a big time waster. I took my LEED AP and GRE at testing centers, and those computers were not the most advanced.


not a clue.


----------



## SK82 P.E. (Feb 2, 2017)

I liked how on the FE CBT,  you would do a quick word search on the FE Reference manual and get to something quick without thumbing through the index.  The one problem I had is this manual kept freezing up and lagging when I was trying to get to something.  I wrote a complaint about it in the survey they send out after taking it.  When I retook it, the person checking me in said that they corrected the problem with the manual. I was too nervous and focused on the test to ask if that was a response to my complaint or if they had a wide spread issue with the freezing.  

CBT test takers will miss out on seeing the crazy amount of books people bring to the test.  It's was kind of entertaining to see people haul in wagons and luggage cases.  One guy brought a shelved cart with all his books stacked on them.  He couldn't go 5 ft without all his books falling off.  I kind of laughed internally.  He ended up being one of the few people who finished up early in the evening - I wonder if he was laughing at the rest of us internally.


----------



## CU07 (Feb 2, 2017)

I can't find where I heard it, but I am pretty sure they are planning to release the PE reference manuals before the switch to CBT so they can be used on the last paper exams and get feedback on anything missing.  Since it's searchable electronically, that will be nice.  I remember thinking the paper FE reference was very disorganized.


----------



## snickerd3 (Feb 2, 2017)

the chemical ref manual is available to those taking the April test to print out and bind, but there is a huge disclaimer about not limiting your reference to just that for the april test.


----------



## gpoli111 (Feb 2, 2017)

CU07 said:


> I can't find where I heard it, but I am pretty sure they are planning to release the PE reference manuals before the switch to CBT so they can be used on the last paper exams and get feedback on anything missing.  Since it's searchable electronically, that will be nice.  I remember thinking the paper FE reference was very disorganized.


That sounds like a bad idea to me. Either the test has to be written as open book or centered around one reference manual. Why would they re-write the paper Civil test for one exam date around the reference manual OR write a reference manual around the paper test?


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Feb 2, 2017)

Won't this equate to dumbing down of the overall exam?


----------



## matt267 PE (Feb 3, 2017)

I might take pe exams for fun now.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Feb 3, 2017)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> Won't this equate to dumbing down of the overall exam?


To me it just seems that it's making it more of a standardized test vs. that of an exam where one must gain experience in their respective field. But perhaps they aim to capture that in the ref. manuals (not going to be easy). But why couldn't they just make the exam CBT and still allow it to be open book? 

Either way, it's an easy test anyway. Especially electrical power.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Feb 3, 2017)

I don't see how they can call the exam the "Principles and Practice" exam any more.  You can now take the exam prior to gaining any real engineering experience.  Plus, I don't know how you guys practice, but when I need to know something, I look it up in reference material instead of relying on my memory of said reference.  Switching to "closed book" exams for the PE does not adequately represent what engineering work is really like.  It encourages rote memorization of some facts or applications of certain formulas.  That is fine for the Fundamentals exam, because they are just that...fundamentals.  But the actual practice of engineering is vastly different from engineering school (unless you work only in R&amp;D).  I think they are diluting the profession for profit.


----------



## snickerd3 (Feb 3, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> To me it just seems that it's making it more of a standardized test vs. that of an exam where one must gain experience in their respective field. But perhaps they aim to capture that in the ref. manuals (not going to be easy). But why couldn't they just make the exam CBT and still allow it to be open book?
> 
> Either way, it's an easy test anyway. Especially electrical power.


The testing centers apparently don't have the space and it avoids differences in opinions btwn centers on what they allow in.



wilheldp_PE said:


> I don't see how they can call the exam the "Principles and Practice" exam any more.  You can now take the exam prior to gaining any real engineering experience.  Plus, I don't know how you guys practice, but when I need to know something, I look it up in reference material instead of relying on my memory of said reference.  Switching to "closed book" exams for the PE does not adequately represent what engineering work is really like.  It encourages rote memorization of some facts or applications of certain formulas.  That is fine for the Fundamentals exam, because they are just that...fundamentals.  But the actual practice of engineering is vastly different from engineering school (unless you work only in R&amp;D).  I think they are diluting the profession for profit.


THe swtich to CBT is actually more expensive to implement, the only one making more profit is the pearson testing company.  The only gain to NCEES was a theoretically more secure test by switching to CBT.


----------



## CU07 (Feb 3, 2017)

gpoli111 said:


> That sounds like a bad idea to me. Either the test has to be written as open book or centered around one reference manual. Why would they re-write the paper Civil test for one exam date around the reference manual OR write a reference manual around the paper test?


You misunderstand me.  It's going to be available in advance as an additional reference, not forcing people to take the paper test with only the reference manual.  Like @snickerd3 suggests for ChemEs since theirs is available.


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Feb 3, 2017)

snickerd3 said:


> THe swtich to CBT is actually more expensive to implement, the only one making more profit is the pearson testing company.  The only gain to NCEES was a theoretically more secure test by switching to CBT.


I was talking more about getting more people to pursue licensure, than I was talking about making more money off of each examinee.


----------



## smahurin (Feb 4, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> To me it just seems that it's making it more of a standardized test vs. that of an exam where one must gain experience in their respective field. But perhaps they aim to capture that in the ref. manuals (not going to be easy).


This is already essentially how the Civil exam is structured (other PE exams may be different).  Not to undersell the difficulty or make people bad... but I felt like I got an at least an 85% on the AM portion of the civil simply by bringing the CERM into the exam.  Its structured in a way that makes experience irrelevant, and simply encourages someone to mindlessly thumb through a reference manual for the correct section.  I guess I see CBT from the civil side as no different, it's just that you'd have a searchable PDF reference manual instead of a hard copy manual.  I'm sure other disciplines offer different experiences.


----------



## knight1fox3 (Feb 4, 2017)

smahurin said:


> This is already essentially how the Civil exam is structured (other PE exams may be different).  Not to undersell the difficulty or make people bad... but I felt like I got an at least an 85% on the AM portion of the civil simply by bringing the CERM into the exam.  Its structured in a way that makes experience irrelevant, and simply encourages someone to mindlessly thumb through a reference manual for the correct section.  I guess I see CBT from the civil side as no different, it's just that you'd have a searchable PDF reference manual instead of a hard copy manual.  I'm sure other disciplines offer different experiences.


I see your point, but let me ask you this. Would you / do you use the CERM for work? Because on the electrical side (as an example), I use NFPA 70 for work. And my experience with specifying designs that were NFPA 70 compliant helped me to be better prepared for the PE exam. Could someone who didn't have the same industry experience study NFPA 70 to prepare for the exam. Yes, but having that code and working with it in industry is a big help.


----------



## P-E (Feb 4, 2017)

I'm wondering how the CBT format will affect the spam thread.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Feb 5, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> > 4 hours ago, smahurin said: This is already essentially how the Civil exam is structured (other PE exams may be different).  Not to undersell the difficulty or make people bad... but I felt like I got an at least an 85% on the AM portion of the civil simply by bringing the CERM into the exam.  Its structured in a way that makes experience irrelevant, and simply encourages someone to mindlessly thumb through a reference manual for the correct section.  I guess I see CBT from the civil side as no different, it's just that you'd have a searchable PDF reference manual instead of a hard copy manual.  I'm sure other disciplines offer different experiences.
> 
> 
> I see your point, but let me ask you this. Would you / do you use the CERM for work? Because on the electrical side (as an example), I use NFPA 70 for work. And my experience with specifying designs that were NFPA 70 compliant helped me to be better prepared for the PE exam. Could someone who didn't have the same industry experience study NFPA 70 to prepare for the exam. Yes, but having that code and working with it in industry is a big help.


Agreed. There are many sections in the power section that are not covered very well in a single book. If it is the same test and they use a searchable pdf, it would need to be over 2000 pages of crap.


----------



## matt267 PE (Feb 5, 2017)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> Agreed. There are many sections in the power section that are not covered very well in a single book. If it is the same test and they use a searchable pdf, it would need to be over 2000 pages of crap.


Exactly why I think the test will end up being slightly easier. Plus it'll be shorter.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Feb 5, 2017)

matt267 PE said:


> > 6 minutes ago, Ken PE 3.0 said: Agreed. There are many sections in the power section that are not covered very well in a single book. If it is the same test and they use a searchable pdf, it would need to be over 2000 pages of crap.
> 
> 
> Exactly why I think the test will end up being slightly easier. Plus it'll be shorter.


Anything to coddle the next generation?


----------



## matt267 PE (Feb 5, 2017)

Ken PE 3.0 said:


> Anything to coddle the next generation?




I wonder what the old timers think about our multiple choice exam when they were graded on their work on the exam. Given a blank sheet of paper, they had to answer like 4 questions in the am and 4 in the pm.


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (Feb 5, 2017)

matt267 PE said:


> > 2 minutes ago, Ken PE 3.0 said: Anything to coddle the next generation?
> 
> 
> [emoji3]I wonder what the old timers think about our multiple choice exam when they were graded on their work on the exam. Given a blank sheet of paper, they had to answer like 4 questions in the am and 4 in the pm.


Sounds like my electronics final in college.


----------



## smahurin (Feb 5, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> I see your point, but let me ask you this. Would you / do you use the CERM for work? Because on the electrical side (as an example), I use NFPA 70 for work. And my experience with specifying designs that were NFPA 70 compliant helped me to be better prepared for the PE exam. Could someone who didn't have the same industry experience study NFPA 70 to prepare for the exam. Yes, but having that code and working with it in industry is a big help.


Nope, I haven't used the CERM for work in the 2+ years since I took the exam.  I used it for the PE, I used it for I think 1 problem on the SE, but otherwise it has set on the shelf collecting dust.  As a structural engineer I use my codes for day to day work.  The CERM is extremely useful precisely because I don't do hydraulics, hydrology, transportation, etc and it combines all the information needed for the exam that I won't use in real life.  Again, it was extremely useful, so I'm not knocking the manual, it's just that it's a $300 manual whose only utility is for the PE exam. So if NCEES is going to provide a necessary but otherwise useless reference manual free of charge to test takers, I'd say that sounds like a great idea personally.


----------



## smahurin (Feb 5, 2017)

But this sort of goes back to my very subjective opinion that the way the civil exams are structured is stupid.  I've said it before and probably sound like a broken record, but the intent of the civil PE exams is to test material in which they (the test makers) know that you know nothing about.  There are really only 2 plausible outcomes for such an exam.  Option 1, the exam appropriately tests your knowledge... and since it's understood the test taker knows nothing about almost 50% of the exam actually testing your knowledge would be unreasonably hard.  Or option 2 is that the test difficulty can be skewed such that a test taker can take and "pass" an exam in which half of the exam covers material they know nothing about.  

NCEES seems to have decided to pursue option #2, as it seems the more reasonable of the two stupid options.  Others may have differing opinions on the Civil exams, and that's fine, that's just mine.  And I'm sure other discipline PE exams (ME/EE/etc.) are different. But I just don't see a searchable PDF as really changing anything significantly on the civil (except saving the test taker money).


----------



## John QPE (Feb 7, 2017)

Coooool.....free reference materials.

Why have I never downloaded the FS Reference Guide before?


----------



## iwire (Feb 13, 2017)

kinda glad I took mine when it's still pencil and paper for EIT and PE...Our pencils will worth a lot now   

Suck to go between tab for reference! 

They cheapen the PE exam..it suppose to be the holy grail!


----------

