# Passing SE scores



## ADB (May 14, 2012)

Just wanted to see if anyone else has heard something similar to this:

multiple choice portion - somewhere around 60% is passing adjusting up or down for the statistical process

essay portion - graded on a 0/2/4/6/8/10 basis, 6 is considered minimum competence

The key is that you have to pass BOTH portions individually, not as an average...


----------



## McEngr (May 17, 2012)

Seems reasonable to me, but I feel I'm in a lot of guys shoes - feel that they got at least 6 out of 10. I personally think 6 out of 10 would guarantee me a passing grade. Hopefully you're right.


----------



## Layman (May 17, 2012)

I did not perform as well as I expected last month on my bridge lateral. I skipped masonry completely during preparation and was aiming at 70% correct. You guys really increased my hope of passing the component.

Layman


----------



## jessie74 (May 17, 2012)

I feel the passing score for SE should be 7/10. PE is 6/10 and FE is 5/10.


----------



## Layman (May 17, 2012)

jessie74 said:


> I feel the passing score for SE should be 7/10. PE is 6/10 and FE is 5/10.


and college is 4/10 

I personally feel a bit worried if an engineer with 5/10 FE passing score designs anything for me.

Layman


----------



## McEngr (May 17, 2012)

http://www.ncees.org/About_NCEES/News/News_Pages/Update_on_April_2012_exam_scores.php

It looks like we are still having to wait the usual timeframe. I find it unusual that the exam workshop (held June 7-9) is held so late. It appears that the SE scoring is based off of the performance of randomly selected, yet highly qualified, SE's that then determine minimum competency. This is just a little speculation on my part, but most likely true.


----------



## dakota_79 (May 18, 2012)

ADB said:


> The key is that you have to pass BOTH portions individually, not as an average...


I don't believe that's correct. From NCEES:

" ...the candidate’s _*combined*_ performance on both sections (morning/afternoon) must demonstrate minimum competency"

http://www.ncees.org/Exams/SE_exam.php

That's what I'm banking on! Feeling good I nailed the mornings, but flopped around a bit on the afternoons.


----------



## dakota_79 (May 18, 2012)

PS - good find on that update McEngr. At least it's an answer, and we can probably narrow down the dates to start looking. Also, look on the bright side: we could be in these poor guys' boats:

http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=18906

Yikes!!


----------



## bmc846 (May 18, 2012)

Here is a link to a previous discussion from last October about exam results. Based on this it seemed that the morning and afternoon were seperate in that one unacceptable is a definite fail (guess it could drag you down enough to push the overall below the minimum). I'm still not sure on how a needs improvement impacts overall day scores. I felt better about lateral than vertical in October but passed vertical and not lateral.

http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=17875


----------



## daedalus34r (May 18, 2012)

dakota_79 said:


> ADB said:
> 
> 
> > The key is that you have to pass BOTH portions individually, not as an average...
> ...


The combined statement is a tad vague, all it says is that it takes both scores for evaluation. Personally I feel test takers should have to pass both am/pm individually, otherwise the SE license loses its meaning.


----------



## jessie74 (May 18, 2012)

the statement listed on the NCEES's website:

 ...the candidate’s _*combined*_ performance on both sections (morning/afternoon) must demonstrate minimum competency"

is very misleading. I think you have to pass both morning and afternoon sections, and for the afternoon section, you cannot get any "unacceptable". Not clear about "improvement needed", I guess you can only get 1 at most: say if you get 2 "improvement needed", you still fail....


----------



## yoduh9 (May 21, 2012)

I will use myself as an example for you. I took the new exam in October 2011. I passed the first day but not the second day. My score breakdown for day 2 was 32/40 correct in the morning session, 1 acceptable in the afternoon and 2 improvement needed in the afternoon. That resulted in a fail for Day 2.


----------



## Layman (May 21, 2012)

yoduh9 said:


> I will use myself as an example for you. I took the new exam in October 2011. I passed the first day but not the second day. My score breakdown for day 2 was 32/40 correct in the morning session, 1 acceptable in the afternoon and 2 improvement needed in the afternoon. That resulted in a fail for Day 2.


So you took the bridge module. Is the acceptable the 20-point problem or 10-point?


----------



## yoduh9 (May 21, 2012)

Yes, it was the bridge module. I believe it was one of the "10-point" problems, but I cannot recall.


----------



## McEngr (May 21, 2012)

Yoduh9, only you can be the judge of your own performance. Did the results surprise you? Thanks.


----------



## yoduh9 (May 21, 2012)

The results did suprise me a bit. During that exam, the problem I had was that I think for the 2 problems I got "Improvement Needed" I may have incorrectly answered the first part of the 5-part questions but I feel the remaining 4 parts were done accurately. I was always under the impression that the grader should take that into consideration and grade on theory and design, regardless if a math error was done and carried through. Oh well, personnally I am not the biggest fan of the exam because I don't feel it is a good judge of what an engineer is capable of, but being in Illinois it is a requirement. Best of luck to everyone who has taken the exam and those preparing now.


----------



## Layman (May 21, 2012)

Since the first administration of 16 hr SE in April 2011, many examinees posted in this forum their detailed results of failed components. I read all of them and have the following observation for your evaluations:

There is no failed component result that has a 24/40 or better morning score AND a 3-acceptables-1-Need-Improvement or better afternoon score.

In other words, every failed compent includes a 23/40 or worse morning AND/OR an afternoon worse than 3-acceptables-1-Need-Improvement.

Layman


----------



## jessie74 (May 21, 2012)

Layman said:


> Since the first administration of 16 hr SE in April 2011, many examinees posted in this forum their detailed results of failed components. I read all of them and have the following observation for your evaluations:
> 
> There is no failed component result that has a 24/40 or better morning score AND a 3-acceptables-1-Need-Improvement or better afternoon score.
> 
> ...


I think you are right, my another concern is: how much difference between "Need improvement" and "Acceptable"? Any guess?


----------



## Layman (May 21, 2012)

jessie74 said:


> Layman said:
> 
> 
> > Since the first administration of 16 hr SE in April 2011, many examinees posted in this forum their detailed results of failed components. I read all of them and have the following observation for your evaluations:
> ...


I agree with ADB that 6/10 and better means an acceptable, a conclusion that is also consistent my personal impression. If an unacceptable means no valuable engineering understanding offered, then Need improveemnt is something between these two.


----------



## ADB (May 23, 2012)

I agree McEngr that the test taker should know how well/poorly they did. But the secrecy of the whole exam process makes the pass/fail line really murky. I wish the whole process had more transparency and accountability, but that will never happen.


----------



## yoduh9 (May 23, 2012)

My confidence level was moderate to good. My thoughts were more in regards to "why would they ask that". From a bridge standpoint, I feel that they threw in some items that we as engineers normally don't use in the office, but after reflecting on it, I can see how someone in academia would look at it differently. As a side note, I have been taking the exam in Illinois, where there are additional regulations during the exam regarding what can and cannot be used as a reference. I feel that since the exam is to be a national standard now, all states should adhere to the rules set forth by NCEES. I also agree, more transparnecy and accountability would be nice but it will never happen.


----------



## McEngr (May 23, 2012)

Frustrating I'm sure. Perhaps this next one will be different.


----------



## jessie74 (May 23, 2012)

yoduh9 said:


> My confidence level was moderate to good. My thoughts were more in regards to "why would they ask that". From a bridge standpoint, I feel that they threw in some items that we as engineers normally don't use in the office, but after reflecting on it, I can see how someone in academia would look at it differently. As a side note, I have been taking the exam in Illinois, where there are additional regulations during the exam regarding what can and cannot be used as a reference. I feel that since the exam is to be a national standard now, all states should adhere to the rules set forth by NCEES. I also agree, more transparnecy and accountability would be nice but it will never happen.


That's why I suggest every exam taker to write a comment to NCEES: http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=18920

If we don't say anything, NCEES would take it for granted that their graders did everything all right and their scoring policy is perfect. Everytime after the exam, they send everybody a survey but all are minor issues; for tgrading such kind of the most critical issue for us SE exam takers, they never ask us for comments....


----------

