CA seismic and topo -June results

[engineeringforfun]

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!

I agree with all of your points. It's more of a general discussion and "constructive" criticism. We all have to go through it though so it is what it is. 

 

[HMAmaster]

For reference, I took the Civil Surveying exam  Monday June 25, 2018. I got my results on Thursday July 12, 2018 at 3:45 PM. I saw somewhere on this forum that someone had their results letter with the wrong date (June 12 instead of July 12). I also had this mistake on my results letter. No biggie.

This was my first time taking the exam and I passed. I took Kirk Torossian's class at https://www.civilpesurveyingreview.com/.

The class provides online access to various lectures which include quizzes at the end of each lecture. There's also 4 timed computer based exams simulating the actual test. You also get a manual. The manual is very basic but will get the job done. There's plenty of notes space for you to add additional test problems and information you may find useful during the test. His class is still based on the old test plan. I took the exam last month with the Board's new test plan and it sort of threw me off during my exam. Hopefully Kirk tailors his course to reflect new test plan for next cycle for future students. Kirk knows how to communicate the subject matter clearly and easy to comprehend. I highly recommend his course.

I also had reference materials for Mansour's course (https://passpe.com/product/surveying-review-professional-license-sur/) that my colleague gave me after he passed the exam. I don't recommend Mansour's materials. His lectures and manual are extremely difficult to comprehend. It left me confused on certain topics. I had to go back to Kirk's lectures to clear my head the right away again. Plus the Mansour course is a couple of hundred bucks more expensive than the Torossian course.

My exam experience highlighted below:

- I finished the exam with ~5 minutes left. I skipped about 5-8 questions which I had to go back and just click on an answer (didn't make any educated guesses). I ran out of time when I was on the last question that I skipped. Failed to submit an answer to this last question.

- To summarize: 55 questions total. Wild guesses on 8 questions, educated guess on another 5-8 questions. The rest I was confident I got right. So if I got all the wild guesses and educated guesses wrong, I would have gotten a 39/55 = 71% AT BEST on the exam.

Hope this helps some!

 

[rockb78]

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!

Yeah, I was trying to comment on the diagnostic and provide feedback. I understand it is a hoop we all have to jump through, and I'm certain I will pass. 

 

[CAPLS]

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.  

Again, I appreciate your feedback.  I am not a board member on the board.  I too am a licensee who went through the application and examination process just like everyone else.  I also took advantage of the opportunities to work on the exam after I became I became licensed and I can assure you the process nor the determination of the competency level is arbitrary.

 

[CAPLS]

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. 

It is good to see that you recognize your own areas of expertise.  Not everybody is willing to say that.  However, the fact remains that once licensed, you are authorized to practice within the entire range of the practice that your license allows you to do and you must be considered as minimally competent to do that.

This is a good discussion and I realize you may not be receiving the answers you are hoping for, but a good discussion nonetheless...at least for me.

 

[wannacape]

@rockb78 @engineeringforfun I experienced the same feeling about survey test like you. I thought there is unnecessary challenge in it (in contrast I felt the seismic test is designed more reasonable even though the subject was out of my league). I don't get it why there are so many tedious problems seemed to be included just to make test hard allowing you no time to think. After some research I realized survey exam catches a lot of people off-guard the first time and failing is the hard way they find out. I really appreciate the folks who passed and shared some tips/strategies above! Hope I pass next time (and move on).

 

[engineeringforfun]

It is good to see that you recognize your own areas of expertise.  Not everybody is willing to say that.  However, the fact remains that once licensed, you are authorized to practice within the entire range of the practice that your license allows you to do and you must be considered as minimally competent to do that.

This is a good discussion and I realize you may not be receiving the answers you are hoping for, but a good discussion nonetheless...at least for me.

Agreed, definitely a good discussion. Thanks for engaging 

 

[quique07]

General question, and just for my knowledge...

Everyone who took their exam in June (June 1-June 30) got their result in Mid-July? Is there any potential that if you take it like the last week of the month, or even the last day of the month, that your results will come not on the following month, but the one after? just because it was so late in the month? 

 

[CAPLS]

General question, and just for my knowledge...

Everyone who took their exam in June (June 1-June 30) got their result in Mid-July? Is there any potential that if you take it like the last week of the month, or even the last day of the month, that your results will come not on the following month, but the one after? just because it was so late in the month? 

No

 

[IwantthatPE]

General question, and just for my knowledge...

Everyone who took their exam in June (June 1-June 30) got their result in Mid-July? Is there any potential that if you take it like the last week of the month, or even the last day of the month, that your results will come not on the following month, but the one after? just because it was so late in the month? 

I took the survey exam June 29th and got results July 12th. Hope this helps. 

 

[quique07]

^^ both answers. 

Yes, both answers helped. thank yo very much! 

 

[drewdawg199]

Impressive timing by CA Board, received wall certificate today in mail after passing my last state exam in June cycle!

 

[wannacape]

Impressive timing by CA Board, received wall certificate today in mail after passing my last state exam in June cycle!

Nice!! Did you pass on the first try?

 

[drewdawg199]

Nice!! Did you pass on the first try?

Yep

 

[wannacape]

Any one submitted a re-exam form in June has heard back from board yet? I don't see my cash checked yet, wondering how long it usually takes..Thanks.

 

[quique07]

Any one submitted a re-exam form in June has heard back from board yet? I don't see my cash checked yet, wondering how long it usually takes..Thanks.

Yes, I submitted my form like on June 13, and got approved the first week of July for Quarter 3. I'm already register to take it in September. 

 

[leggo PE]

Any one submitted a re-exam form in June has heard back from board yet? I don't see my cash checked yet, wondering how long it usually takes..Thanks.

You may want to try to contact the Board. I would think your check would have at least been cashed by now.

Perhaps @CAPLS could assist.... 

 

[CAPLS]

Any one submitted a re-exam form in June has heard back from board yet? I don't see my cash checked yet, wondering how long it usually takes..Thanks.

PM me with your contact info so I can look into it.  Everyone submitting a re-exam form prior to July 1 should have already received notification to schedule.  Please include the email address you provided to the Board and check your spam filters and junk folders.

 

[IwantthatPE]

I got an email from the board saying my re-exam fromwas processed and that I’ll receive info from Testing center to schedule. Is this the standard? 

 

[CAPLS]

I got an email from the board saying my re-exam fromwas processed and that I’ll receive info from Testing center to schedule. Is this the standard? 

Yes.  And you should have received the email from Prometric to schedule.