April 2021 Post Exam Wait Period - Welcome to the Suck

Help Support Engineer Boards:

RBHeadge PE

Nucflash
EB Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
10,591
Reaction score
5,614
Location
Maryland
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?
 

jean15paul_PE

FEA Wizard
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
3,965
Reaction score
2,227
Location
Louisiana
...

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!!!!!! :)

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
 
Last edited:

RBHeadge PE

Nucflash
EB Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
10,591
Reaction score
5,614
Location
Maryland
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.
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.
 

jean15paul_PE

FEA Wizard
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
3,965
Reaction score
2,227
Location
Louisiana
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

Nucflash
EB Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2014
Messages
10,591
Reaction score
5,614
Location
Maryland
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
 

jean15paul_PE

FEA Wizard
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
3,965
Reaction score
2,227
Location
Louisiana
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.
 

Latest posts

Top