April 2019 SE Results Thread

[ChaosMuppetPE]

That may be oversimplifying it a bit.  You may have seen a problem before, but you:

A) Don't know how you did on it the first time, so you may get it wrong again (in this case recognizing a problem may be a downside)

B) Have likely seen many similar problems if you took practice tests and studied books specifically designed for this exam.  I actually had a question on my last test that I had seen the day before on a practice exam.  Almost word for word, with the the only difference being a single dimension.

Additionally, it's unlikely they're going to repeat the same question in back to back tests.  There's probably an algorithm that prevents that from happening.  So at best a question may appear two or three cycles later.  If you can remember specific questions from that far back, then good on you, you probably deserve the bonus point.

Think of it like this, they probably have a few hundred (maybe even a thousand) questions with lots of small variations.  If they started releasing diagnostics with specific questions, that number would whittle away pretty quickly.  They'd likely need to hire way more test makers to keep the pool of fresh questions up, which would increase the cost of the test even more.

Also, the lateral test seems rigged towards specific structures and areas because the ultimate goal was to eliminate the state exams in WA and CA.  So to appease the strictest you needed to screw over the the others requiring the test.  I can imagine a breaking point in the future, where Illinois, and Georgia, and anywhere else that decides to require this exam are forced with either allowing structural design with a PE (or just getting rid of that weird law in GA regarding which test you can take, which is dumb for many reasons), or they push back hard on NCEES and force them to soften the exam, which will likely force CA and WA back to state exams.  The goal to eliminate those exams was to allow easier license comity.  So it really appears like someone will need to make a hard decision, either NCEES, or the state boards.  CA specifically calls this exam a "mastery" exam, so it stands as bizarre that you need it for very simple structures in some non-seismic states, but I guess that's why I'm not an administrator.

So then they should allow you to see the physical copy of your grading if you are willing to pay shipping and for the proctor. After all, you’ve already seen the problems anyway. I know if I happened to fail this thing now I would gladly pay to see why but they won’t let you do that. It was something you could do in the past, I’m still putting it up to they don’t want people arguing about how inconsistent their “subject matter experts” are.

 

[kevo_55]

I am seeing stages 2-3 in this thread so far.

 

[Nathan55]

I think that to have that really reflect what's happening, change that "acceptance" to "acceptable".

 

[Civil Dawg]

I think that to have that really reflect what's happening, change that "acceptance" to "acceptable".

But then I may never reach the final stage of grief

 

[Nathan55]

Also, what if NCEES actually developed this forum as a way to obtain quantifiable data on the psychological trauma their exam and scoring process causes in aspiring engineers?

 

[Nathan55]

But then I may never reach the final stage of grief

It is a daunting prospect, for sure. That being said, the thing to keep in mind is that the test is HARD. 70% fail. 85% of re-takers fail. It requires a preternatural ability to perform quickly, under pressure and with a high amount of accuracy. And you can't miss portions of crucial code/design checks. You have to react reflexively to unique situations. In my honest opinion, just being able to finish both components in the allotted time is an accomplishment in and of itself. I'm relatively confident that a high percentage of engineers, walking in off the street, as it were, would not be able to complete everything...let alone achieve an "acceptable". 

Regarding the wait, I avoid NCEES until PE results come out. I'd love to provide constructive criticism to NCEES to improve their process, but...in the end, it's extremely unlikely anything good will come of it. They must protect their business model; if they open the door to reviewing the exam and give us the red pill, the entire system breaks down and 85% of people will pass. 

 

[ChaosMuppetPE]

I am seeing stages 2-3 in this thread so far.

I'm just consistently on step 3, sir.

 

[NahzSema]

I am currently going through stage 1 mentioned above. A little background of myself: I took both first time last October and passed only lateral. I felt that Friday was tough for me and it did not surprise me at all that I got only 23/40, A,A,IR,UA because I really didn’t understand some parts of the afternoon problems or what they were looking for. I also did not feel so confident about morning because there were a few questions I just blindly guessed due to time.

Retook vertical this past Friday and felt good walking out in the morning with more prep this time around. For PM, I finished all problems in time but rushed through last problem only to realize now that I may have missed an important check which could lead to domino effect from one part to the next. My question is, is this an automatic UA or in anyways can be spared as a IR? I really don’t know if missing that crucial check would put me under the category of “not understanding the concept”. I’d like to hear from you all because this is way too early for me to think about this for two months. Thanks in advance!

 

[SouthernEngineer]

I personally don't think a single check would automatically trigger an unacceptable. If you stated that you didn't have time to check it I think that demonstrates your knowledge of the subject.  Unfourtuanly it is up to the grader and his mood.  

 

[ChaosMuppetPE]

I am currently going through stage 1 mentioned above. A little background of myself: I took both first time last October and passed only lateral. I felt that Friday was tough for me and it did not surprise me at all that I got only 23/40, A,A,IR,UA because I really didn’t understand some parts of the afternoon problems or what they were looking for. I also did not feel so confident about morning because there were a few questions I just blindly guessed due to time.

Retook vertical this past Friday and felt good walking out in the morning with more prep this time around. For PM, I finished all problems in time but rushed through last problem only to realize now that I may have missed an important check which could lead to domino effect from one part to the next. My question is, is this an automatic UA or in anyways can be spared as a IR? I really don’t know if missing that crucial check would put me under the category of “not understanding the concept”. I’d like to hear from you all because this is way too early for me to think about this for two months. Thanks in advance!

I wish I could give you better news but I am convinced that I failed a wood problem last time over a check that I knew to do, got distracted and left out. I’ve also flip flopped on which parts I’ve passed in this exam. I really do think it is up to the leniency and the competency of the grader and from my experience, they are all over the place. I’ve seen people I wouldn’t trust to engineer a paper bag somehow get through this thing and some of the best PEs I know, can’t pass it. That is part of the problem with an exam that has essay questions, there is no way to insure 100% consistency. That is one reason I am advocating for being able to review your graded exam. As soon as I pass this lateral exam, I’m putting my name in the hat for my state board. It’s a long shot, but you have to start somewhere.

 

[NahzSema]

I wish I could give you better news but I am convinced that I failed a wood problem last time over a check that I knew to do, got distracted and left out. I’ve also flip flopped on which parts I’ve passed in this exam. I really do think it is up to the leniency and the competency of the grader and from my experience, they are all over the place. I’ve seen people I wouldn’t trust to engineer a paper bag somehow get through this thing and some of the best PEs I know, can’t pass it. That is part of the problem with an exam that has essay questions, there is no way to insure 100% consistency. That is one reason I am advocating for being able to review your graded exam. As soon as I pass this lateral exam, I’m putting my name in the hat for my state board. It’s a long shot, but you have to start somewhere.

Yeah thank you for the input. I’m hopeful that I’ll get some partial credits from other parts of the problem but at the same time if I were the grader I could see that as a big no check which can reflect incompetency. I mean, it’s probably the reason for such low passing rate because the room for error is so small. And I feel that sometimes we can be at lower risk of messing up the problem if we provide procedure instead of numbers to walk the grader through the problem. That saves time and eliminates room for numerical error. Just a thought. Good luck everyone and just enjoy the time now.

 

[AlexPE]

It was problem 3 part 2. I believe that I understood what they wanted us to do but I agree that it could have been worded much better.

I literally have had nightmares every night since the exam about this problem. I wake up thinking I figured it out, but realize it was just dream logic.

Without being too specific, I clearly remember the question asking us to find the "minimum" x. Whats messed up is you go through ELF and get x, but find its higher than X given in the table... well at least I did. Which means I have to be wrong... right?

Maybe I screwed up R, or maybe I was supposed to combine directions? But after reading through asce after the test again and again and again, I feel like the answer just isnt in there.

If someone out there thinks they got it, please PM me. I miss being able to sleep.

 

[AlexPE]

As for the rest of the exam, definitely harder than I had anticipated. I passed vertical last year and felt like it was fairly straightforward. I told my wife I aced it after I finished. But not this time! Think I straight up guessed on about 10 in the AM (worst feeling in the world is to "know" how to do a problem, but fail to arrive at any of the answers, or arrive smack in the middle between two answers).

Like that question about the sign. Such a simple question, we all know how to do it. But depending how you interperet the question, its possible to arrive at 4 of the available answers (I checked it 4 different ways, 2 directions and with/without safety factor). Maybe I just need to brush up on my english.

Sorry if Im being too specific. This exam has consumed me...I need to vent to someone who understands.

 

[ChaosMuppetPE]

I literally have had nightmares every night since the exam about this problem. I wake up thinking I figured it out, but realize it was just dream logic.

Without being too specific, I clearly remember the question asking us to find the "minimum" x. Whats messed up is you go through ELF and get x, but find its higher than X given in the table... well at least I did. Which means I have to be wrong... right?

Maybe I screwed up R, or maybe I was supposed to combine directions? But after reading through asce after the test again and again and again, I feel like the answer just isnt in there.

If someone out there thinks they got it, please PM me. I miss being able to sleep.

I was in your situtation, my ELFP "X" was higher that the dynamic "X". It's perfectly acceptable to be so, but that is NOT normal in practice. Just cross your fingers. I've already complained to NCEES about the wording of the problem. I don't know why they can't just directly ask what they are looking for rather than play the Bilbo Baggins game. "Guess what I have in my pocket!"

 

[ChaosMuppetPE]

As for the rest of the exam, definitely harder than I had anticipated. I passed vertical last year and felt like it was fairly straightforward. I told my wife I aced it after I finished. But not this time! Think I straight up guessed on about 10 in the AM (worst feeling in the world is to "know" how to do a problem, but fail to arrive at any of the answers, or arrive smack in the middle between two answers).

Like that question about the sign. Such a simple question, we all know how to do it. But depending how you interperet the question, its possible to arrive at 4 of the available answers (I checked it 4 different ways, 2 directions and with/without safety factor). Maybe I just need to brush up on my english.

Sorry if Im being too specific. This exam has consumed me...I need to vent to someone who understands.

Probably acceptable as worded but I wouldn't divulge anything else about the problem.

I feel the same way as a 4th time taker. What burns me the most is that I've flip flopped the sections I've passed. Also, (2) of the exams I certainly didn't feel like I had the time to finish (no time to check either). I took the PE years ago and thought it was the easiest test I've ever sat for (I've sat through harder interview exams). The PE took me (2) hours per section and the proctor told me good luck when I handed it to her on the way out. I knew I had the PE in the bag. I also took the Vertical, and though it was slightly harder than the PE, I thought it was very fair and still left knowing I passed. For the lateral, I've taken (2) review courses (EET and School of PE), bought and read (4) of the (5) Seaoc books. Read every line of AISC 341-10 and AISC 358-10. Read every line of ASCE 7-10 chapter 11 through 22 and 26 through 30 as well as the commentary as well as the TMS 402/602. I've certainly read the ACI 318-14 chapter 18 multiple times, but that book confuses the devil out of me since they reworked the chapters. You can go from chapter 18 to 10 to 22 to 25 and then 21 just to get an answer (<- that's a wee bit much in my opinion, if anyone in the ACI is reading, please streamline this). Anyway, the point is the exam is hard so don't sweat it. I've beat myself up over this thing for (2) years and I'm well above MENSA membership in IQ (not that it necessarily means anything, but engineers are generally much more intellectually inclined than the average populace). I've also had problems that come up almost in the middle of (2) answers on these exams. I saw (2) on this past exam, one of which I felt I could reasonably guesstimate, the other was a shot in the dark. Unfortunately, it's probably something in the problem statement we missed but who knows. Just get through this thing and run for your state board or some position to get some authority over this and help me push to fix this exam. I don't mind it being hard. I think it should be hard, but it should be engineering hard and people should know exactly why they failed upon leaving. They should certainly not be leaving asking themselves, "What the HELL were they asking for." Otherwise, I believe a disservice is being perpetrated on the examinees and the profession in general. In my opinion, they should just give us a few pieces of a structure and literally ask us to design it from start to finish. Breaking it into cryptic pieces and using cryptic language has to stop. If they just gave you a frame and said, "Hey, Mr. Wannabe SE, design this concrete frame for x-criteria." It would be much more straightforward than the way the exam is currently written. Hell, turn it into a 24 hour exam, but make it reasonably understandable. These "Subject Matter Experts" grading the exam are mostly drunk clowns with big shoes (and no children's birthday party bookings) and people from bum fights with a few reasonably competent people scattered about IMO. Hell, from some of the things I've seen on my previous exams, I wouldn't be surprised if NCEES hired floor sweepers from Labor Ready for grammar checks.

 

[AlexPE]

"Maximum moment" could mean plastic moment or elastic moment, factored nominal moment, allowable service moment, since it was steel - expected moment. Plus in either direction - or square root sum if SDC D or 1+0.3 if part of a bridge. Definitely not reduntant, but turns out 70% of you missed the overstrength factor...

Just kidding. But yea I wish we all got a challenge flag to use during the exam.

 

[TheBigGuy]

Wait, we needed to multiply that moment by the overstrength factor?

I felt good during the lateral.  Unfortunately, I felt good during the vertical last time but ended up doing poorly.  This time I felt amazing during the vertical, which means I probably did good.

 

[Nathan55]

Probably acceptable as worded but I wouldn't divulge anything else about the problem.

I feel the same way as a 4th time taker. What burns me the most is that I've flip flopped the sections I've passed. Also, (2) of the exams I certainly didn't feel like I had the time to finish (no time to check either). I took the PE years ago and thought it was the easiest test I've ever sat for (I've sat through harder interview exams). The PE took me (2) hours per section and the proctor told me good luck when I handed it to her on the way out. I knew I had the PE in the bag. I also took the Vertical, and though it was slightly harder than the PE, I thought it was very fair and still left knowing I passed. For the lateral, I've taken (2) review courses (EET and School of PE), bought and read (4) of the (5) Seaoc books. Read every line of AISC 341-10 and AISC 358-10. Read every line of ASCE 7-10 chapter 11 through 22 and 26 through 30 as well as the commentary as well as the TMS 402/602. I've certainly read the ACI 318-14 chapter 18 multiple times, but that book confuses the devil out of me since they reworked the chapters. You can go from chapter 18 to 10 to 22 to 25 and then 21 just to get an answer (<- that's a wee bit much in my opinion, if anyone in the ACI is reading, please streamline this). Anyway, the point is the exam is hard so don't sweat it. I've beat myself up over this thing for (2) years and I'm well above MENSA membership in IQ (not that it necessarily means anything, but engineers are generally much more intellectually inclined than the average populace). I've also had problems that come up almost in the middle of (2) answers on these exams. I saw (2) on this past exam, one of which I felt I could reasonably guesstimate, the other was a shot in the dark. Unfortunately, it's probably something in the problem statement we missed but who knows. Just get through this thing and run for your state board or some position to get some authority over this and help me push to fix this exam. I don't mind it being hard. I think it should be hard, but it should be engineering hard and people should know exactly why they failed upon leaving. They should certainly not be leaving asking themselves, "What the HELL were they asking for." Otherwise, I believe a disservice is being perpetrated on the examinees and the profession in general. In my opinion, they should just give us a few pieces of a structure and literally ask us to design it from start to finish. Breaking it into cryptic pieces and using cryptic language has to stop. If they just gave you a frame and said, "Hey, Mr. Wannabe SE, design this concrete frame for x-criteria." It would be much more straightforward than the way the exam is currently written. Hell, turn it into a 24 hour exam, but make it reasonably understandable. These "Subject Matter Experts" grading the exam are mostly drunk clowns with big shoes (and no children's birthday party bookings) and people from bum fights with a few reasonably competent people scattered about IMO. Hell, from some of the things I've seen on my previous exams, I wouldn't be surprised if NCEES hired floor sweepers from Labor Ready for grammar checks.

Just wanted to comment on ACI. That code is easily the most hilarious of the design codes. My theory is that it actually was developed in conjunction with NCEES to make our lives more difficult. I particularly am fond of the circular references that steal valuable time while you're doing the exam. Looking for how to detail a certain component of a deep foundation? Well surely ALL the requirements would be in the deep foundation section, right? Well no. Why do that when you can reference 3 other sections that obfuscate design requirements? The steel code (AISC) is a breath of fresh air by comparison. 

Also, regarding the deception in the exam...that's of course to be expected. It's not fair. But then again, all's fair in love, war, and the Lateral SE exam.

 

[SE_Hopeful]

I think the biggest confusion from Problem 3 Part 2 is coming from what NCEES labeled in the table, though I could be remembering wrong at this point

 

[SE_Hopeful]

I just got a survey and it says 'You will have a chance to submit comments at the end of this survey. If you have technical comments concerning exam questions, please submit those via the message feature in your MyNCEES account.'

Is that how we complain about the questions? I can't seem to find the message feature