I have very little faith in the accuracy of my survey exam results. Second time taking and first under the new Test Plan. Am shocked I didn't pass. Seems that they raised the bar and left no recourse for verification and with a diagnostic report that does little to help the test taker. Am betting the % of those who passed is down.
CA seismic and topo -June results
- Thread starter Okiryu
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
I'm with y'all with the surveying, but unfortunately i don't think the board is gonna do anything. I really thought I passed but didn't. New test plan doesn't look different than old one other than changing categories. Already mailed out my form for re-exam.
I agree- I think the surveying exam passing rate is much lower than before!
Just mailed the re-examination form!
Just dropped off the check for reexam too. Kinda tough for me to spend all these $$$. I already spent so much more in everything than what I got my Florida PE for. Hope the hustling is worth of my desire to move to CA.. 
Congrats to those who passed. hope you guys celebrate @Underground_Boss @ochakoala @drewdawg199 @Boba123 @rdv128 @APL
Which Survey book (reference+practice exams) did you use? I really appreciate it!
Which Survey book (reference+practice exams) did you use? I really appreciate it!
Last edited by a moderator:
drewdawg199
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2014
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 5
I used the EET Survey On Demand course, watched each video once, worked through every practice problem and did the 4 CBT exams twice each. I also got the Reza review book and did the practice problems in that book.
Definitely celebrated, was even better to see a license number assigned as of Friday!
Definitely celebrated, was even better to see a license number assigned as of Friday!
I took the online course by civilpesurveyingreview.com. I didn't feel it covered all the information in the exam but it was sufficient to pass the exam. It helped me speed up my problem solving skills and the practice exam were very helpful. The booklet doesn't have a lot of detail but there is space to include notes which I added.
I used Mansour's Review book. I wouldn't recommend it because it didn't really cover the type of problems that were on the test. Could be because of the new test plan or this test was just harder compared to the other ones. There are also a lot of grammar errors and unexplained solutions.
I would only suggest this book if you're really good with horizontal/vertical curve problems because that area is what this book lacks.
I took the EET surveying on demand online class as well. While I do not feel like it's perfect or near great, it sounds like there isnt an ideal method. EET felt well rounded at least. I gave up on watching the videos few chapters in and didn't "attend" their lectures. I want to focus on practicing and not listen to someone reading off slides for hours. However I did read through the whole EET binder on my own time and solved every single exercise. They also have 4 computer timed exams which are very valuable in my opinion; I also did each tests twice.
EET binder is the only reference I brought in the test. I was able to finish the whole test, but with only minutes to spare.
Last edited by a moderator:
rockb78
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 10
I got my survey results, too and it was a fail.
I am really surprised as I found the test pretty easy. I studied pretty hard, but nothing crazy. By my own (biased) estimate I at least got a 70%.
The diagnostic the state gives is completely useless. Three qualitative descriptors for four topics. I am really disappointed in the board. Considering how much they charge you would think they could put more effort into helping test takers understand how to do better.
It has frankly left me unsure of what I could do differently, which is a crappy feeling,
I am really surprised as I found the test pretty easy. I studied pretty hard, but nothing crazy. By my own (biased) estimate I at least got a 70%.
The diagnostic the state gives is completely useless. Three qualitative descriptors for four topics. I am really disappointed in the board. Considering how much they charge you would think they could put more effort into helping test takers understand how to do better.
It has frankly left me unsure of what I could do differently, which is a crappy feeling,
quique07
Well-known member
CAPLS
Well-known member
Please understand I am not offering the following to appear sarcastic or in any way not sympathetic to your situation.
It is not a licensing board's responsibility to help you understand how to do better. Technically speaking, you are the one who applied for the license. In essence, by submitting that application you made a decision, based on self evaluation, that you were ready to become licensed and offer services to the public in a professional and competent manner. No one forced you to do that. The licensing Board certainly did not do so. It is the licensing Board's responsibility to measure your competency level such that you are considered, at a minimum, competent to practice engineering for the benefit of the public.
I would definitely encourage you to review your diagnostic report in comparison with the published test plan specifications found at http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/applicants/refs.shtml and carefully evaluate your deficiencies in each area to see where you may need to focus more of your energy on while preparing for the next time you sit.
You can also refer to http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/applicants/diagnostic_reports.pdf to gain a better understanding for how to read/interpret the diagnostic report. This may help in your evaluation.
Good luck the next time you take the exam.
engineeringforfun
Well-known member
I don't think it's entirely fair to say that it's not the licensing board's responsibility to help us understand how to do better. The reason I say that is due to the fact that the California licensing board is the one that makes us take 2 additional exams to become licensed, as opposed to rest of the states that just require the national exam. If the licensing board is adding requirements on top of what it takes to be licensed as a professional engineer in the rest of the country, it's their duty to give us a better perspective on what it is that we need to know for those additional requirements.
The problem with the diagnostic report is it just tells you how you did in a broad category. Let's say for example I was deficient in construction surveys. Maybe I got 100% on horizontal and vertical control layout, but 0% on a number of other categories; the diagnostic report doesn't tell me which areas I'm lacking competency in. Additionally, in your second link, it talks about a score range and says not provided to candidates. Why isn't it provided? What is wrong with us knowing how far off we are from where we need to be? All it does is make the whole process less transparent and leaves candidates guessing as to what they did wrong. Sure the score ranges change with each exam and cut score, but if I got 0 of 17 in a certain area, that tells me how far off I am rather than if I got say 10/17. It's a reference point to understand how to better yourself. If we don't know what our mistakes are, how can we ever learn from them?
Just want to say I'm not taking a shot at you or the Board CAPLS, I'm just arguing that the way the system is currently implemented make it unnecessarily more difficult to pass the exam than it needs to be. When I took the surveying exam, I felt that none of the questions were difficult, but I ran out of time because I had a number of "long" problems. Which is fine; I will work on solving them faster and pass, but it's artificial difficulty. Because someone is a fast test-taker, does not make them a "competent", "professional" or "good" engineer.
drewdawg199
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2014
- Messages
- 27
- Reaction score
- 5
@engineeringforfun - just a suggestion - if you do enough practice problems, you should be able to quickly know which questions are "long". On the exam, recognize them, skip them (immediately guess and mark them) and come back to mess with them if you have time to kill. I did that and had about 15-20 minutes left for checking, educated guessing, etc.
rockb78
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 10
At 40 years old and having a doctorate degree I understand I make my own decisions. I am not sure why you are being so defensive of the board. I am trying to give constructive feedback.
I disagree with you and think that if the board is going to give a test for a license it should provide clarity on what one needs to do to pass. Right now it is a black box and not transparent. I think it is a waste to give a diagnostic report unless you want it to be useful, which right now it is not.
Last edited by a moderator:
CAPLS
Well-known member
engineeringforfun - I'm not taking your comments as a shot at me or the Board. I simply view what you are saying as a constructive observation, which is why I'm reading it. The licensing board is not the entity that makes anyone take the state exams, the Legislature is. Several events, related and not directly related, were occurring in the late 1970's and early 1980's that led to these state exams. The elimination of the authority of civil engineers to practice surveying; the recognition that the national exams do not sufficiently test for seismic-related factors in design or engineering surveying; and the insistence by professional societies for civil engineers to be able to retain a subset of surveying (topographic and construction staking), all of which led to the requirements to additionally test for engineering surveying and seismic principles. The Board is simply carrying out its duty to implement those requirements. If you wish to put the blame on anyone as to why California requires these two additional exams when other states do not, you should consider directing that towards the professional societies that demanded this authority and the Legislature for agreeing to it.
Beyond that info, I would like to more directly respond to your comments about the diagnostic, the detail of information provided to you in that report, and your examples. If you were to compare the new published test plan for engineering surveying exam, you will see how closely it coincides with the language in the PE Act, Section 6731.1 which provides for the authority of what engineering surveying, licensed civil engineers are allowed to practice...(You may be saying, "yeah, yeah, I already know that. What does this have to do with giving us more information on the diagnostic?" Please bear with me on this, I'm trying to get there.) In other words, what services you can provide to your clients as a licensee.
The Board doesn't have an expectation that a candidate will go and read books, take a seminar, practice solving examples, etc. in a sufficient amount to offer those services in a satisfactory manner to the public. The Board's expectations are that you have sufficient enough knowledge and actual work experience to adequately demonstrate competency in actually practicing those tasks for the public. Whether you have gained that knowledge and experience prior to applying for a license or whether you recognize your deficiency in your knowledge and experience level after failing an exam and then gain additional experience, it doesn't matter. You are expected to adequately demonstrate that you have a sufficient amount of experience to practice. Licensing is not an authority based solely upon one becoming knowledgeable or "book smart" in a subject. It's about the actual experience gained to demonstrate competency. And these exams are assuming that each and everyone one of you have the experience to actually practice.
Let's use your example of getting "...100% on horizontal and vertical control layout, but 0% on a number of other categories; the diagnostic report doesn't tell me which areas I'm lacking competency in." towards this. If (and maybe you do, I've no idea of your actual real world experience) you had sufficient actual work experience in performing all the surveying listed in that test plan (and the laws), you would already understand that horizontal and vertical control layout is a concept/task inherent in every one of the test plan areas listed. And not a separate category. And therefore could likely appear in some percentage of questions in each of the areas listed.
The Board expects you to possess a minimum adequate amount of knowledge and work experience in each of those areas to understand what all is involved in practicing/offering/performing those tasks and services to the public. The later pages in that test plan provide you with the detail that should help you understand what all is required to demonstrate that competence in each area. I can guarantee you that if you actually have/had the actual work experience in these tasks, you would virtually find the questions easy to answer and not as time-consuming as you may think. In many ways, its not up to the Board to "grow a crop" of new licensed individuals. It is for the individual to prove/demonstrate to the Board that you possess an adequate amount of competency to practice. The more you recognize your deficiency and gain the requisite experience to overcome that to pass the exam, then you are doing what you are supposed to do. I do wish you well and expect that you will eventually become licensed.
CAPLS
Well-known member
I appreciate you chiming in and providing your constructive comment. Nothing personal, but I've seen many individuals with many, MANY years of education that couldn't actually practice that which they have considerable knowledge in. Its all about protection of the public. I disagree with you in that if the individual that has truly gained the requisite knowledge and work experience, as required, were to apply and sit for these exams, that person would most likely find the exam easier and the clarity as a part of their own self evaluation of their performance.
rockb78
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2018
- Messages
- 29
- Reaction score
- 10
Not sure why this is turning into your evaluation of my education versus my practice. I brought up my education and age to state I understand I make my own decisions, not to say it means I should pass.
Getting back on topic, I felt the test was easy, yet I did not pass. The next logical step is to understand where one went wrong on the test. Currently, it is not clear how to do that. Saying you are deficient, marginal or proficient in four broad categories is not clear nor transparent.
You stated earlier that “It is the licensing Board's responsibility to measure your competency level such that you are considered, at a minimum, competent to practice engineering for the benefit of the public.” I agree with that, but the board also needs to let the public, including test takers, what the minimum competency level is. Otherwise the process is arbitrary, and the public is certainly not protected.
I am guessing you are on the board? If so, I hope you can relay these comments so the process is improved.
engineeringforfun
Well-known member
CAPLS, I appreciate the response. I didn't know about the first part, and I agree that I have an issue with the Legislature then. I suppose I disagree with how the board is carrying out the requirements then as far as the way the test is developed.
You mentioned that "The Board's expectations are that you have sufficient enough knowledge and actual work experience to adequately demonstrate competency in actually practicing those tasks for the public." This isn't remotely reasonable based on how both consulting and municipality work is conducted in this day and age. I work as a consultant for a mid-size engineering firm on water and wastewater planning and design projects as a civil/environmental engineer (EIT obviously). There is no way that my work would allow me to gain the skills/experience needed to pass the seismic exam. Taking a class and spending 70-hours learning the material let me do that on the first try.
Part 2 of that is that there is no way I would ever (theoretically) stamp a document having to do with seismic codes/calculations as it is not my area of competency and it would be unethical to do so. While I do some surveying work in the sense of topographic maps, things like vertical and horizontal curves aren't within my area of expertise. Surveying work is subbed out to PLS' and they provide us with topo maps. And if we're doing cut/fill, it's done in CAD. Like I mentioned before, the questions themselves aren't difficult, it's a time issue. There is no-one asking you to do cut/fill calculations in 2.5 minutes. This is where my biggest gripe is with the way the test is administered. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion from your quote: "I can guarantee you that if you actually have/had the actual work experience in these tasks, you would virtually find the questions easy to answer and not as time-consuming as you may think. In many ways, its not up to the Board to "grow a crop" of new licensed individuals. It is for the individual to prove/demonstrate to the Board that you possess an adequate amount of competency to practice." Competency should never be judged by time. "Faster isn't smarter". It never has been.
"You would already understand that horizontal and vertical control layout is a concept/task inherent in every one of the test plan areas listed. And not a separate category. And therefore could likely appear in some percentage of questions in each of the areas listed." Nitpicking which category I chose is just deflecting away from the fact that the diagnostic report is a lazy tool implemented by the Board. Based on the reactions to my post, others share my view.
leggo PE
Straight Waffle-izer
Guys and gals, it's easy to find the diagnostic of little use and be upset or bewildered or any other emotion when it comes to not passing. But really, the rules and laws are what they are, and you and the rest of us have to abide by them. You can complain about how unfair it is or whatnot for as long as you'd like, but that's not going to help you pass these exams.
There is a valid point in faster is not better, but these exams are beasts of their own. You need to be able to perform in the testing environment such as it is, which often translates to doing lots and lots of practice problems.
And as for the passing rates, let's wait until they're published to make comments on them, though yes, it's historically accurate that when a new test plan is implemented, for whatever reason, there is typically a dip in the passing rate.
Anyway, you will all get there! It's not impossible. If you thought the test was easy and came away with a poor diagnostic, as useless as it may be in the specifics, it means you didn't correctly solve enough problems for whatever reason. Whether it was a time issue, or any other issue, is at a certain point irrelevant. One should never assume they've passed, until they have the proof that they have. And trust me, everyone can get there!
So keep your heads up and don't give in. Keep at it!
There is a valid point in faster is not better, but these exams are beasts of their own. You need to be able to perform in the testing environment such as it is, which often translates to doing lots and lots of practice problems.
And as for the passing rates, let's wait until they're published to make comments on them, though yes, it's historically accurate that when a new test plan is implemented, for whatever reason, there is typically a dip in the passing rate.
Anyway, you will all get there! It's not impossible. If you thought the test was easy and came away with a poor diagnostic, as useless as it may be in the specifics, it means you didn't correctly solve enough problems for whatever reason. Whether it was a time issue, or any other issue, is at a certain point irrelevant. One should never assume they've passed, until they have the proof that they have. And trust me, everyone can get there!
So keep your heads up and don't give in. Keep at it!
Last edited by a moderator:
