April 2019 SE Results Thread

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
FutureSE said:
I believe that is the direction the question was heading. I also believe the wording was terrible. I've had issues with this exam in the past but I've also studied for the better part of 2 years and taken enough coursework to literally dream about seismic design. While I initially fell victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect, I've passed through the valley of ignorance and now I am certain that I understand the material explicitly as far as exam scope is concerned. If this problem were worded  as to give proper indication of the direction in which to proceed rather than being open ended and vague, the section you mentioned would likely have been my first choice. Based upon my comprehension and memory of the question, it picked up in the middle of an analysis and wasn't clear about methodology, starting point, previously taken steps, etc. Maybe my reading comprehension sucks, who knows. I'm a firm believer this exam should be reworked to more accurately represent engineering design. Popping into the middle of a problem with limited time and information while asking very pointed questions makes it more of a riddle than an engineering problem and makes the test unnecessarily difficult. Especially since EVERY engineer solves problems slightly differently, whether that be from systems used, methodology, or even the order of the solution.  When I am designing, I don't start in the middle of problems and try to solve backwards. I start the problem with specific design criteria in mind and have a clear workflow from beginning to end where every decision I make is calculated in order. I believe a major issue with the passing rate of this exam is not that people do not understand lateral, but the way the essay questions are presented is unlike ANYTHING a practicing engineer would see. I also HIGHLY doubt "Subject Matter Experts" are used to grade the exam. I personally know engineers, who've received invitations to grade past exams, who know next to nothing about seismic detailing. Maybe if NCEES were a bit more transparent, I would have more faith in their organization. A "Trust us, you didn't pass," does not sit well with me at all. I would not accept blindly believing something in any other facet of my life, but our licensing organization shoves it down our throats. While I have little authority to do so now, I intend to help right what I believe to be an injustice for future examinees.
Click to expand...
FutureSE for president? Got my vote!

Part of me thinks some of their questions are truly thoughtful and open-ended, where they are attempting to gauge if there is a concensus on the interpretation of the codes (example: see the solution to the brace base plate punching shear question in the NCEES practice exam).

The other part of me thinks that structural engineers just suck at writing questions (and writing in general).

Speaking of the practice exam, anyone else notice the error they made in the errata for the wood shearwall question?

Like... wtf?? They need errata to fix the errata?!? Bro cant even errata properly, how the F he gonna grade our exams?

 
FutureSE said:
I believe that is the direction the question was heading. I also believe the wording was terrible. I've had issues with this exam in the past but I've also studied for the better part of 2 years and taken enough coursework to literally dream about seismic design. While I initially fell victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect, I've passed through the valley of ignorance and now I am certain that I understand the material explicitly as far as exam scope is concerned. If this problem were worded  as to give proper indication of the direction in which to proceed rather than being open ended and vague, the section you mentioned would likely have been my first choice. Based upon my comprehension and memory of the question, it picked up in the middle of an analysis and wasn't clear about methodology, starting point, previously taken steps, etc. Maybe my reading comprehension sucks, who knows. I'm a firm believer this exam should be reworked to more accurately represent engineering design. Popping into the middle of a problem with limited time and information while asking very pointed questions makes it more of a riddle than an engineering problem and makes the test unnecessarily difficult. Especially since EVERY engineer solves problems slightly differently, whether that be from systems used, methodology, or even the order of the solution.  When I am designing, I don't start in the middle of problems and try to solve backwards. I start the problem with specific design criteria in mind and have a clear workflow from beginning to end where every decision I make is calculated in order. I believe a major issue with the passing rate of this exam is not that people do not understand lateral, but the way the essay questions are presented is unlike ANYTHING a practicing engineer would see. I also HIGHLY doubt "Subject Matter Experts" are used to grade the exam. I personally know engineers, who've received invitations to grade past exams, who know next to nothing about seismic detailing. Maybe if NCEES were a bit more transparent, I would have more faith in their organization. A "Trust us, you didn't pass," does not sit well with me at all. I would not accept blindly believing something in any other facet of my life, but our licensing organization shoves it down our throats. While I have little authority to do so now, I intend to help right what I believe to be an injustice for future examinees.
Click to expand...
Can't agree with you more sir. The issue is actually simple: how do you write a test that SEVENTY percent of practicing engineers will fail? The only way to do that is by deception. It's an open book test. Most of us have passed the PE already. Most people have taken the test more than once. Everything is code based. So without deliberate obfuscation, the test would have a pass rate much higher, and NCEES would be out of business. The problem in question was particularly horrible. But I wasn't surprised because I don't expect questions to be fair, or well worded, or easily solvable. 

 
Nathan55 said:
Can't agree with you more sir. The issue is actually simple: how do you write a test that SEVENTY percent of practicing engineers will fail? The only way to do that is by deception. It's an open book test. Most of us have passed the PE already. Most people have taken the test more than once. Everything is code based. So without deliberate obfuscation, the test would have a pass rate much higher, and NCEES would be out of business. The problem in question was particularly horrible. But I wasn't surprised because I don't expect questions to be fair, or well worded, or easily solvable. 
Click to expand...
The old WA state exam had many years with 0% pass rates.  That's one of the tests that this exam was designed to replace.  So 30% is quite an improvement for people in WA.

 
Does everyone agree that, with the grading workshop June 7-8, the expected day is the following Friday, June 14?

 
cal91 said:
Does everyone agree that, with the grading workshop June 7-8, the expected day is the following Friday, June 14?
Click to expand...
that would be the best case scenario, so i'm not going to get my hopes up. what's the typical turnaround time from the grading workshop to posting of results?

 
SE_Hopeful said:
that would be the best case scenario, so i'm not going to get my hopes up. what's the typical turnaround time from the grading workshop to posting of results?
Click to expand...
I’ve seen it take (2) weeks after the grading workshop. I would say they would push to get it out the week after though as it will be the 12th week.

 
Nathan55 said:
Can't agree with you more sir. The issue is actually simple: how do you write a test that SEVENTY percent of practicing engineers will fail? The only way to do that is by deception. It's an open book test. Most of us have passed the PE already. Most people have taken the test more than once. Everything is code based. So without deliberate obfuscation, the test would have a pass rate much higher, and NCEES would be out of business. The problem in question was particularly horrible. But I wasn't surprised because I don't expect questions to be fair, or well worded, or easily solvable. 
Click to expand...
I don’t expect easily solvable as I think the exam should stress your engineering skill and judgement, but from an engineering organization that prides itself on professionalism, I do expect reasonably well worded and fair. Also, I’d venture to guess the SE is one of their smaller professions. Not retaking this thing is not going to put them out of business.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good morning all of you beautiful people with your "purty" mouths! I hope you all have a Wonderful Wednesday. Just a tidbit of advice, don't go on a white water canoe/camping trip with Burt Reynolds in the backwoods. It doesn't end well. Also, stay positive about this thing whatever result you get! Many many many competent engineers struggle with this exam. If you have issues passing, take a course. I've had to take two. Both School of PE and EET. While there was a lot of overlap between the two prep courses, they definitely helped me flesh out my understanding of high seismic/special detailing. I would also like to recommend Mr. David Conner's bridge books. He frequents the site here and all of us are lucky to have him. His bridge problem books will definitely help you pick up the low hanging fruit if you've never been involved with bridge design. Considering the bridge problems make up 20% of the morning exam portion, do NOT attempt to write them off. I'm seriously thinking about putting together a publication as well. I've tabulated and organized all of the material that I've used on my journey from PE to the 16 hour SE and it's fairly comprehensive as I've been compiling it for years. I think it would also function fairly well as a design reference as I've put many of my real life examples into it. Just a thought, it would still require getting together with a publisher and editing. I suspect many of you already use, or have used, the SERM. If you would give me an opinion as to whether a comprehensive study guide/design manual covering all materials, common determinate and non-determinate analysis methods, and design methodologies would be useful in addition to the publications that already exist, I'd be grateful.

 
FutureSE said:
Good morning all of you beautiful people with your "purty" mouths! I hope you all have a Wonderful Wednesday. Just a tidbit of advice, don't go on a white water canoe/camping trip with Burt Reynolds in the backwoods. It doesn't end well. Also, stay positive about this thing whatever result you get! Many many many competent engineers struggle with this exam. If you have issues passing, take a course. I've had to take two. Both School of PE and EET. While there was a lot of overlap between the two prep courses, they definitely helped me flesh out my understanding of high seismic/special detailing. I would also like to recommend Mr. David Conner's bridge books. He frequents the site here and all of us are lucky to have him. His bridge problem books will definitely help you pick up the low hanging fruit if you've never been involved with bridge design. Considering the bridge problems make up 20% of the morning exam portion, do NOT attempt to write them off. I'm seriously thinking about putting together a publication as well. I've tabulated and organized all of the material that I've used on my journey from PE to the 16 hour SE and it's fairly comprehensive as I've been compiling it for years. I think it would also function fairly well as a design reference as I've put many of my real life examples into it. Just a thought, it would still require getting together with a publisher and editing. I suspect many of you already use, or have used, the SERM. If you would give me an opinion as to whether a comprehensive study guide/design manual covering all materials, common determinate and non-determinate analysis methods, and design methodologies would be useful in addition to the publications that already exist, I'd be grateful.
Click to expand...
I think many people would find great value in a publication that didn't come with a course signup requirement. I feel like the advice that I've heard from people is practice problems are most helpful, and having a resource to use on the exam and beyond would be good value...as the textbooks I've kept from college don't really apply much to real life directly, only in partial concepts. 

 
bigirishman said:
The old WA state exam had many years with 0% pass rates.  That's one of the tests that this exam was designed to replace.  So 30% is quite an improvement for people in WA.
Click to expand...
Wow. That's a death star trench run if I ever heard of one.

 
tj_PE said:
I think many people would find great value in a publication that didn't come with a course signup requirement. I feel like the advice that I've heard from people is practice problems are most helpful, and having a resource to use on the exam and beyond would be good value...as the textbooks I've kept from college don't really apply much to real life directly, only in partial concepts. 
Click to expand...
Amen to that. I've learned that PPI and NCEES are simply inadequate. I'd almost go so far as to say...don't buy the NCEES Practice exam. EET does an excellent job. Really delving into commonly misunderstood portions of the code. Just wish they'd sell the binder & practice exams without needing to go to class. David Connor's bridge book is excellent. We need practice books for other subjects as well--concrete, steel...maybe even one dedicated to all the footnotes in the Seismic/Wind portions of ASCE 7. The PPI books are not up to the task.....and my guess is that since they are a large company, NCEES tells them there are things they can't publish. SERM attempts to do a good job, but I would rework that book entirely. It's merely a good starting point for lateral, and nothing more. I'd give it an "improvement required" for vertical.

Another thing to consider would be an "annotated" version of the code books. I find that it is time consuming to switch back and forth between the code, a code reference book, and a textbook. So my codes are jam-packed with notes, explanations, references, and things that are highlighted. Especially in the case of ACI, which is a labyrinth of clever misdirection.  

 
Nathan55 said:
Amen to that. I've learned that PPI and NCEES are simply inadequate. I'd almost go so far as to say...don't buy the NCEES Practice exam. EET does an excellent job. Really delving into commonly misunderstood portions of the code. Just wish they'd sell the binder & practice exams without needing to go to class. David Connor's bridge book is excellent. We need practice books for other subjects as well--concrete, steel...maybe even one dedicated to all the footnotes in the Seismic/Wind portions of ASCE 7. The PPI books are not up to the task.....and my guess is that since they are a large company, NCEES tells them there are things they can't publish. SERM attempts to do a good job, but I would rework that book entirely. It's merely a good starting point for lateral, and nothing more. I'd give it an "improvement required" for vertical.

Another thing to consider would be an "annotated" version of the code books. I find that it is time consuming to switch back and forth between the code, a code reference book, and a textbook. So my codes are jam-packed with notes, explanations, references, and things that are highlighted. Especially in the case of ACI, which is a labyrinth of clever misdirection.  
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think I opened the SERM  mayyyyyybe twice during the exam. and never before. mostly because I didn't study properly but anywayyyyy

and 1000% would love someone to make tabs for references and annotations would be fantastic too! or like sticky notes on clear material to supplement the code, and you just slide a solid piece of paper under it, or just solid i guess and you flip it up, but the sticky part would have to be clear!!! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nathan55 said:
Amen to that. I've learned that PPI and NCEES are simply inadequate. I'd almost go so far as to say...don't buy the NCEES Practice exam. EET does an excellent job. Really delving into commonly misunderstood portions of the code. Just wish they'd sell the binder & practice exams without needing to go to class. David Connor's bridge book is excellent. We need practice books for other subjects as well--concrete, steel...maybe even one dedicated to all the footnotes in the Seismic/Wind portions of ASCE 7. The PPI books are not up to the task.....and my guess is that since they are a large company, NCEES tells them there are things they can't publish. SERM attempts to do a good job, but I would rework that book entirely. It's merely a good starting point for lateral, and nothing more. I'd give it an "improvement required" for vertical.

Another thing to consider would be an "annotated" version of the code books. I find that it is time consuming to switch back and forth between the code, a code reference book, and a textbook. So my codes are jam-packed with notes, explanations, references, and things that are highlighted. Especially in the case of ACI, which is a labyrinth of clever misdirection.  
Click to expand...
All I used were the STERM, practice exams/problems and the codes themselves. For my studying I first went through the STERM cover to cover, only as a tool for me to learn the codes I wasn't experienced in (I'm only experienced in steel and seismic). After that all I did were practice exams/problems, (PPI Practice Exam, PPI SE Solved Problems, PPI 6-minute problems, NCEES practice exam, SEAOC Vol. 1and Connor's Bridge). For each practice book I'd do all of the problems, and then review the solutions, spending extra time on ones I missed. Then all I brought into the exam were the codes themselves, STERM and Connor's bridge. No textbooks / code refence books. I only used the STERM and Connor's Bridge book less than 5 times. For me, I felt that too much time would be wasted in the exam if I were to use a reference/text book to direct me to the code, rather than just going straight to the code itself. I know I am the outlier here, because the other 5 test takers with me had piles and piles of reference books and such, both on their table and on the floor. It looked daunting to me to have so much material, first thinking about what would be the book to grab on every problem and then finding the book among the library that was brought. I just had my several code books fanned out, none stacked top so I could immediately grab the correct one.

 
cal91 said:
All I used were the STERM, practice exams/problems and the codes themselves. For my studying I first went through the STERM cover to cover, only as a tool for me to learn the codes I wasn't experienced in (I'm only experienced in steel and seismic). After that all I did were practice exams/problems, (PPI Practice Exam, PPI SE Solved Problems, PPI 6-minute problems, NCEES practice exam, SEAOC Vol. 1and Connor's Bridge). For each practice book I'd do all of the problems, and then review the solutions, spending extra time on ones I missed. Then all I brought into the exam were the codes themselves, STERM and Connor's bridge. No textbooks / code refence books. I only used the STERM and Connor's Bridge book less than 5 times. For me, I felt that too much time would be wasted in the exam if I were to use a reference/text book to direct me to the code, rather than just going straight to the code itself. I know I am the outlier here, because the other 5 test takers with me had piles and piles of reference books and such, both on their table and on the floor. It looked daunting to me to have so much material, first thinking about what would be the book to grab on every problem and then finding the book among the library that was brought. I just had my several code books fanned out, none stacked top so I could immediately grab the correct one.
Click to expand...
I agree with this assessment, and also mention it in the Tips sections of my book.  I think 2 "bins" worth of books and references is enough. 1 bin for codes, the other for study guides, references, my book :), etc.  Also, I make book recommendations in my bridge book and I think if you use those you will be as good as you can get. Any additional may be too much. You can easily drown in reference materials if you bring too much.  

 
FutureSE said:
Good morning all of you beautiful people with your "purty" mouths! I hope you all have a Wonderful Wednesday. Just a tidbit of advice, don't go on a white water canoe/camping trip with Burt Reynolds in the backwoods. It doesn't end well. Also, stay positive about this thing whatever result you get! Many many many competent engineers struggle with this exam. If you have issues passing, take a course. I've had to take two. Both School of PE and EET. While there was a lot of overlap between the two prep courses, they definitely helped me flesh out my understanding of high seismic/special detailing. I would also like to recommend Mr. David Conner's bridge books. He frequents the site here and all of us are lucky to have him. His bridge problem books will definitely help you pick up the low hanging fruit if you've never been involved with bridge design. Considering the bridge problems make up 20% of the morning exam portion, do NOT attempt to write them off. I'm seriously thinking about putting together a publication as well. I've tabulated and organized all of the material that I've used on my journey from PE to the 16 hour SE and it's fairly comprehensive as I've been compiling it for years. I think it would also function fairly well as a design reference as I've put many of my real life examples into it. Just a thought, it would still require getting together with a publisher and editing. I suspect many of you already use, or have used, the SERM. If you would give me an opinion as to whether a comprehensive study guide/design manual covering all materials, common determinate and non-determinate analysis methods, and design methodologies would be useful in addition to the publications that already exist, I'd be grateful.
Click to expand...
I thought about doing something like this as well after writing my bridge book, but alas real life and work caught up with me. Just know that writing a book is very time consuming, and the time consumption continues after you are done if you plan to update it after NCEES updates their code references.  Also, there really is no need to go through a traditional publisher these days. Just use Kindle Direct Publishing (used to be known as Createspace before it was bought out by Amazon).  Fairly straightforward process to get your book on Amazon, and the royalties you get are much better than a traditional publisher. 

 
David Connor said:
I thought about doing something like this as well after writing my bridge book, but alas real life and work caught up with me. Just know that writing a book is very time consuming, and the time consumption continues after you are done if you plan to update it after NCEES updates their code references.  Also, there really is no need to go through a traditional publisher these days. Just use Kindle Direct Publishing (used to be known as Createspace before it was bought out by Amazon).  Fairly straightforward process to get your book on Amazon, and the royalties you get are much better than a traditional publisher. 
Click to expand...
hmmmm....  "Seismic Design for Midwesterners" by The Big Guy

 

Similar threads

B
SE Lateral Buildings April 2022
Replies
6
Views
2K
psustruct
P
T
SE April 2022 Exam Results Thread
14 15 16
Replies
314
Views
57K
Be-n
B
S
SE Exam - October 2023 Lateral AM Study Recs?
Replies
0
Views
1K
struct_ga
S
U
July Exam Results - Surveying
Replies
15
Views
3K
Medal90
M
M
CA Surveying Exam Results - January 2023
2
Replies
30
Views
8K
positive_swordfish
P

Latest posts

Back
Top