2016 results
- Thread starter Clemson CE P.E.
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
jijir83
Expert in everything useless
This whole thread is cracking me up. I can now see that it will be much more valuable in helping me wait for the results than it was to get tips on the test itself. Haha!
I'm a bit surprised that anyone thought the practice exams from the exam administrator would be similar to the actual exam or even help in assessing likelihood of succeeding. The assessment comes down to the test taker. I got four free NCEES samples and did them before really studying to see what I could do. I got about 80% on each. I knew right away that they were not representative of the real exam. But they were useful in identifying trends in my knowledge. I used that to focus my studying rather than try to go through a reference book cover to cover. Then I reviewed the stuff I knew well but needed to make sure I approach properly. So, if someone took the test before studying as well but ended up with 40% in the beginning, then obviously approaching their studies in a similar manner would have been useful. So I think the practice would have served its purpose.
Maybe the user should petition that NCEES re-brands their tests as "sample problems/exams" rather than "practice exams". I don't think it matters since NCEES gives a breakdown of knowledge areas that they expect test-takers to know. Our job was to make sure we studied based on that. I actually thought the knowledge breakdown was useful for me to figure out what I was going to give up on. I settled on not bothering with pile dynamics/testings for the PM as well as concrete mix/pavement design and some cost stuff (interest rate, ROI stuff... that I couldn't do quickly). Some things are obvious engineering but if it went deeper than that, I wasn't going to bother. The reason why.... I figured they can't possibly ask a bunch of questions on those and there's no way I'm going to learn this stuff effectively enough to consistently get the right answer. That was my compromise. Sure enough, the last question in my packet was a question. I had an hour to spare so I tried to figure it out. I couldn't even figure out what they were asking for, what the plots were but C looked like a good option so, C it was. I really mean it looked good. I like the shape so that's what I picked. Ha!
Now, if anyone wants to help me fight the CA board on their ridiculous Seismic exam, that would be a worthwhile effort. Pass or fail, I'm going to give them my thoughts. Forcing a bunch of CEs of all focus to take a vertical seismic exam is just a money generating scheme. There are plenty of geotech related seismic problems they could use to frame that exam. I wouldn't even mind a breakdown like the 8-hr exam where there's a general morning and specific afternoon. There's enough material to do that. But I guess that's too much of an effort. Now I'm stuck studying for this nonsense for Tuesday. It feels like a scam and I know I'm going to fail. Not happy.
<Rant over>
I'm a bit surprised that anyone thought the practice exams from the exam administrator would be similar to the actual exam or even help in assessing likelihood of succeeding. The assessment comes down to the test taker. I got four free NCEES samples and did them before really studying to see what I could do. I got about 80% on each. I knew right away that they were not representative of the real exam. But they were useful in identifying trends in my knowledge. I used that to focus my studying rather than try to go through a reference book cover to cover. Then I reviewed the stuff I knew well but needed to make sure I approach properly. So, if someone took the test before studying as well but ended up with 40% in the beginning, then obviously approaching their studies in a similar manner would have been useful. So I think the practice would have served its purpose.
Maybe the user should petition that NCEES re-brands their tests as "sample problems/exams" rather than "practice exams". I don't think it matters since NCEES gives a breakdown of knowledge areas that they expect test-takers to know. Our job was to make sure we studied based on that. I actually thought the knowledge breakdown was useful for me to figure out what I was going to give up on. I settled on not bothering with pile dynamics/testings for the PM as well as concrete mix/pavement design and some cost stuff (interest rate, ROI stuff... that I couldn't do quickly). Some things are obvious engineering but if it went deeper than that, I wasn't going to bother. The reason why.... I figured they can't possibly ask a bunch of questions on those and there's no way I'm going to learn this stuff effectively enough to consistently get the right answer. That was my compromise. Sure enough, the last question in my packet was a question. I had an hour to spare so I tried to figure it out. I couldn't even figure out what they were asking for, what the plots were but C looked like a good option so, C it was. I really mean it looked good. I like the shape so that's what I picked. Ha!
Now, if anyone wants to help me fight the CA board on their ridiculous Seismic exam, that would be a worthwhile effort. Pass or fail, I'm going to give them my thoughts. Forcing a bunch of CEs of all focus to take a vertical seismic exam is just a money generating scheme. There are plenty of geotech related seismic problems they could use to frame that exam. I wouldn't even mind a breakdown like the 8-hr exam where there's a general morning and specific afternoon. There's enough material to do that. But I guess that's too much of an effort. Now I'm stuck studying for this nonsense for Tuesday. It feels like a scam and I know I'm going to fail. Not happy.
<Rant over>
Last edited by a moderator:
On one hand, I can understand why California would want their PE's of all shapes and sizes to know seismic design, since it would be technically feasible for them to stamp and sign off on plans that lean on the upper echelons of Chapter 11/12 of ASCE.
On the other, though, I totally feel for you. In my practice, I essentially work with Chapters 11-15 on a day-by-day basis, but even me or my bosses - one of which is an experienced SE - can miss some of the tiny minutiae of the Codes (Fun Fact: Don't install 1/2" sill anchor bolts when in SDC E in California).
guiman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2016
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2
Man I remember this question as well. Curious to know what the right answer was.
I had NCEES practice exams for 2001, 2008, 2014. They did a wonderful job of getting me ready with my timing, not being panicky when you see stuff that you have to look up in references...I spent every weekends during the last month locking myself in my office and doing only practice tests. Turned out not too bad at all.
jijir83
Expert in everything useless
I'm fine with them giving the exam. I just wish it were relevant to our disciplines. Same goes with the survey but at least that's more geometry/trig, construction etc... than anything. It bugged me that they asked a bunch of equipment questions but I can live with that. I don't think there's a non-structural engineer who would dare stamp a vertical/above ground seismic document. It also has to be approved by a SE, at least in our organization. Inflicting that test makes no sense. Oh! And how about the curves. They don't tell you how low it is but it is damn low. If you're relying on people's mediocrity to pass a number of other people, then you're just breeding mediocrity. I'll survive though. There's a reason why I didn't become an SE. Anyway, if I don't pass, I'll take a class next time.
EB NCEES REP
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2014
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 164
Does Cali provide good quality sample examinations like NCEES?
jijir83
Expert in everything useless
I couldn't help but read this with a sarcastic voice. But ok...
The CA state exams (Seismic and Survey) don't come with sample or practice problem sets. I didn't find any provided nor sold by the state. I didn't look very hard either. People typically take a class or use a study manual (Hiner, Mansour, Reza etc...). Those have loads of problems and questions. The real fun is doing these questions in 2.5 minutes each when some of them take you 5 just to read and sort out the parameters needed.
jmooney5115
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2015
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 5
buzzforbraves
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2015
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 2
I agree with the majority! AM portion was much easier than October exam. I took construction depth. I would agree as well on the fact that there were many qualitative questions and more questions requiring use of a reference. All in all, I feel good about it and thought the exam was fair. However, I don't know if that means much.
ptatohed
Licenced to Spell
This whole thread is cracking me up. I can now see that it will be much more valuable in helping me wait for the results than it was to get tips on the test itself. Haha!
I'm a bit surprised that anyone thought the practice exams from the exam administrator would be similar to the actual exam or even help in assessing likelihood of succeeding.
Personally, I felt the NCEES material was the most accurate as far as difficulty. I think, as a studying examinee, there is nothing better out there. We are lucky NCEES packages and sells sample exam questions. Most people will agree the level of difficulty of the 'Practice Exams' was very representative of the actual exam. I scooped up as many NCEES sample problems as I could, going all the way back to 1991!
Maybe the user should petition that NCEES re-brands their tests as "sample problems/exams" rather than "practice exams".
They were called "Sample Questions and Solutions" until very recently (2014).
Now, if anyone wants to help me fight the CA board on their ridiculous Seismic exam, that would be a worthwhile effort. Pass or fail, I'm going to give them my thoughts. Forcing a bunch of CEs of all focus to take a vertical seismic exam is just a money generating scheme.
I partially agree. I didn't and I still don't understand why all CEs need to know Seismic principles. But, keep in mind, it is really just seismic principles. As much as I dreaded the topic going into it, once you put forth the effort to study, it really is a simple exam. And when it's over, it's kind of a cool feeling to know you earned your PE in the state most difficult to acquire a PE.Good luck.
jijir83
Expert in everything useless
Well... I used to think that until I saw the test content and the scoring method used. I really would rather pass a test on my own merit as opposed to relying on a curve (which is where the majority of test takers fall). Engineers from CA often used that PE to get brownie points on East Coast projects and jobs/positions. What this is teaching me is to be suspicious of anyone without a SE degree or seismic specific training who claims to know seismic on the basis of having passed the CA PE. As it stands, it has little to no coverage for geotech or anything below ground, dams, water, transportation etc... All of which have seismic considerations to be taken into account. Other than the shear calculations and post earthquake inspections, the rest is a 1.0 exam for structural engineers. I have a similar issue with the survey but my issue with it is not as bad.
Thanks for the well wishes. As it stands, I have a good chance of passing. I have two co-workers who passed. They told me that they honestly ran out of time halfway through and picked a letter and/or randomly guessed the rest. So yeah... I just need to get one point about 50% and be as mediocre as the pack. 15 hours to go! Yay!
ptatohed
Licenced to Spell
I respect you opinion but I think you are overthinking it. As I said, it is just a seismic principles exam. Just so an engineer in an earthquake prone state has some basic understanding of seismology. I don't think anyone is claiming structural seismic knowledge based on passing this 2.5 hour exam. With a modest but diligent amount of studying, it is not a hard exam to pass. Study and just make sure you are in the top 40% and you got it!
The exam covers geotech (soil groups and how they relate to seismic waves), water and below ground (liquefaction), transportation (how to retrofit a highway overpass), etc., etc.
While I personally see no need for all Civils to understand seismic principles, I actually strongly agree with the CA engineering survey exam. I have worked on countless on-site (land development) and roadway (capital improvement) projects, all of which have required zero knowledge of seismic. But nearly all of them required a field survey.
Again, good luck. Keep us updated.
jijir83
Expert in everything useless
Will I be breaking agreement if I report back that none of these are on it?
3 hours to go!
ptatohed
Licenced to Spell
The exam you see at your 3pm appointment is not the same exam as the person who took it at 2pm, nor the person who will take it at 4pm.
Last edited by a moderator:
What happened if you didn't sign your answer sheet? I remember clearly signing the AM answer sheet, but only VAGUELY the PM answer sheet. Did anyone remember if your name was printed on the answer sheets? Damn, my mind is playing trick on me; probably due to all that stress and anxiousness :wacko:
If you didn't sign it then I'm pretty sure that means you don't agree to their terms; therefore, I don't think it will be graded.
