April 2021 Post Exam Wait Period - Welcome to the Suck

[leggo PE]

anything yet, @vhab49_PE ??

Zilch for me.

 

[Deep_Freeze26]

Zilch for me.

SE Results are starting to come out.

 

[leggo PE]

SE Results are starting to come out.

Eeeeek! I’m still waiting here in CA, but yes, I see that!

 

[Deep_Freeze26]

Eeeeek! I’m still waiting here in CA, but yes, I see that!

Yup, good old Colorado for me so who knows when with DORA.

 

[civilrobot PE etc etc]

omg! it's happening!!

 

[DoctorWho-PE]

anything yet, @vhab49_PE ??

Nothing but an impending feeling of doom. And a twitch every time the email dings.

 

[RBHeadge PE]

The v1 version of the NCEES Mech Eng reference has a fair number of errors in it. ...

I understand that it's almost impossible to publish something with no errors, but when it's your only reference you kind of what it to be right.

That's bad. I hope they weren't egregious errors. Beyond it being a bad look for NCEES and ASME, it puts other things in doubt.

• How many other corners did they cut when they wrote the reference?
• Were all the questions in the exam bank cross checked to ensure that they could be correctly solved as intended with the information provided?
• Were all the questions in the exam bank cross checked to ensure that no questions were unsolvable without the supplied reference (excluding the obvious qualitative questions)?
• Were all the questions in the exam bank cross checked to ensure that anyone could ctrl-f the answer without any engineering background
• How many people got questions "wrong" because they used the mandated flawed reference?
• How many testers used the flawed reference during the exam? How many people are still using the v1 reference as part of their job because it's a free "comprehensive" reference?

A couple of the class providers reviewed it very closely and submitted feedback to NCEES. I think they are on v1.2 or v1.3 now after 1.5 -2 years, and most of the error have been found an corrected.

OTOH this is a good look for the private instructors who provided. It shows that they are really scrutinizing all of the details to make their students as prepared as possible for the exam. They're keeping current and not just running through the motions. And it demonstrates that they know their stuff.

I know one peer that is purposely holding off and not worrying one bit about it until it goes CBT.

It's a well thought out strategy. I'd probably do the same if I were in their position.

That's why I'm doing everything possible to pass in October.

^All this^
I'm totally cool with this thread veering into the discussion of future exam preparation. But for everyone reading this post: if you are taking the exam in October then don't even think about it converting to CBT next year. Study harder in the summer and early fall, kick the exams ass in October, come back here and spam in the spam thread and play the EB mafia games, see the green box, and never have to worry about the CBT exam!

Sure, they'll give you all the properties of a W10x22,

Is it bad that I had to look up "W10x22"?

omg! it's happening!!

Is the SE dropping?

 

[Deep_Freeze26]

Is the SE dropping?

Affirmative!

 

[RBHeadge PE]

Good luck to all the prospective SEs!

 

[civilrobot PE etc etc]

Let's go @leggo PE and @vhab49_PE and all other future SEs!!!!!

 

[steel]

Good luck to all the prospective SEs!

I'm hoping to get there someday, too! Minor setback to retake the PE again, but I'm a planner: I love making goals and creating plans to achieve those goals!

 

[Tiger15]

...

That's bad. I hope they weren't egregious errors. Beyond it being a bad look for NCEES and ASME, it puts other things in doubt.

• How many other corners did they cut when they wrote the reference?
• Were all the questions in the exam bank cross checked to ensure that they could be correctly solved as intended with the information provided?
• Were all the questions in the exam bank cross checked to ensure that no questions were unsolvable without the supplied reference (excluding the obvious qualitative questions)?
• Were all the questions in the exam bank cross checked to ensure that anyone could ctrl-f the answer without any engineering background
• How many people got questions "wrong" because they used the mandated flawed reference?
• How many testers used the flawed reference during the exam? How many people are still using the v1 reference as part of their job because it's a free "comprehensive" reference?

OTOH this is a good look for the private instructors who provided. It shows that they are really scrutinizing all of the details to make their students as prepared as possible for the exam. They're keeping current and not just running through the motions. And it demonstrates that they know their stuff.

....

To be fair, the NCEES Mechanical Reference was released almost a year in advance of the actual transition to CBT. V1.1 was released before the first CBT was administered. I'm not trying to bash NCEES, I think they did well, but $#!7 happens. And the latest version is what is provided on the computer when you take the test, so it's not like you could test using an older version. But yeah, you could download an old version and miss the corrections in your prep.

The errors were the same kinds of error that test takers make. Incorrect units in tables, missing a variable/exponent/coefficient from a formula, missing table entries, etc. If you're really interested in the discussion about what's contained in the Mech ref, what's not there, the errors, and people freaking out about whether they can ask you question outside of what's provided, feel free to read this old thread. It's like a crystal ball into your Civil Eng future!!!!!!
https://engineerboards.com/threads/necees-mechanical-pe-reference-manual-released.33324/
EDIT:
I just checked.
Mech ref v1.0 was release in Feb 2019
v1.1 was release in Dec 2019
First Mech CBT was April 2020

 

[RBHeadge PE]

To be fair, the NCEES Mechanical Reference was released almost a year in advance of the actual transition to CBT. V1.1 was released before the first CBT was administered.

The errors were the same kinds of error that test takers make. Incorrect units in tables, missing a variable/exponent/coefficient from a formula, missing table entries, etc. If you're really interested in the discussion about what's contained in the Mech ref, what's not there, the errors, and people freaking out about whether they can ask you question outside of what's provided feel free to read this thread.
https://engineerboards.com/threads/necees-mechanical-pe-reference-manual-released.33324/

Thanks. At least they caught the errors before anyone took the exam. That could've been bad. I'll have a look at the thread. I hope they check the exam bank against the reference manual.
It reads like it was a combination of typographical errors (less bad) and just plain wrong things.

 

[steel]

Is it bad that I had to look up "W10x22"?

I'm guessing you aren't structural, are you? haha!

Like my parents taking my great-grandmother to Christmas dinner:

Granny: "Where are we?"
Dad: "I could tell you, but you still wouldn't know!"

 

[Tiger15]

Thanks. At least they caught the errors before anyone took the exam. That could've been bad. I'll have a look at the thread. I hope they check the exam bank against the reference manual.
It reads like it was a combination of typographical errors (less bad) and just plain wrong things.

To be clear. V1.1 was better than v1.0, but there were still errors

 

[RBHeadge PE]

I'm guessing you aren't structural, are you? haha!

Nope, I'm a nukee. My knowledge of structural is really limited. I can write everything I know about structural on the back of a postage stamp with space left over.

I've spent most of my career on cross-disciplinary teams. But never had to do anything with a structural engineer. Let's just say that structural isn't really important in my specialty. Most of the civils I worked with were mostly modelers.

Reminds me of an embarrassing event about six+ years ago. I'm on a call with my lieutenants and we we're discussing a new problem. We can see on the drawings that "A36" is the material. For background: my principals were another nukee, a ME, 2 physicists, and a mathematician. Probably 150 years of experience on the call. None of us had ever heard of A36 before then. Spent like 10 minutes trying to figure it out before giving up. Later that day my main guy asks one of his civils what A36 is? Yeah, we were all embarrassed!

To be clear. V1.1 was better than v1.0, but there were still errors

SMDH

 

[Tiger15]

Nope, I'm a nukee. My knowledge of structural is really limited. I can write everything I know about structural on the back of a postage stamp with space left over.

I've spent most of my career on cross-disciplinary teams. But never had to do anything with a structural engineer. Let's just say that structural isn't really important in my specialty. Most of the civils I worked with were mostly modelers.

Reminds me of an embarrassing event about six+ years ago. I'm on a call with my lieutenants and we we're discussing a new problem. We can see on the drawings that "A36" is the material. For background: my principals were another nukee, a ME, 2 physicists, and a mathematician. Probably 150 years of experience on the call. None of us had ever heard of A36 before then. Spent like 10 minutes trying to figure it out before giving up. Later that day my main guy asks one of his civils what A36 is? Yeah, we were all embarrassed!


SMDH

I'm assuming that ME was a thermal-fluids person and not an MDM person. I'd expect an MDM-ME to have heard of A36 steel.

 

[RBHeadge PE]

I'm assuming that ME was a thermal-fluids person and not an MDM person. I'd expect an MDM-ME to have heard of A36 steel.

"Special projects" background.

 

[Tmanwatery PE]

Good Luck today to the SE takers!! Hoping you guys get good news!!!

 

[civilrobot PE etc etc]

What @Tmanwatery PE said!