CA seismic and topo -June results

[IwantthatPE]

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

Should I have received this email if I am testing in the 4th quarter? 

 

[IwantthatPE]

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. 

You got approved to take the exam in the same quarter they processed/approved your application? 

 

[wannacape]

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.

Hello @CAPLS I received the Approved for exam email. My mistake, I mailed in July, not June. I appreciate it

 

[blackorblue]

Back to the topic of the diagnostic report and its lack of clarity. One gripe I have and cannot fathom is why the board would withhold the cut score and points possible for each exam. They used to publish them but the last published result I could find was April of 2009. The diagnostic report only provides qualitative data (pass, fail, proficient, marginal, deficient) and nothing quantitative. The diagnostic report does clarify areas that need work but because it is still a qualitative aspect of a quantitatively graded test, it leads to an accountability issue. I share the same concerns about how seemingly useless the diagnostic report is (I've taken seismic 3 times now and haven't passed yet at the same quarter I first took seismic, I also passed the 8 hour and surveying) but the lack of quantitative data also leads to what appears to be a serious accountability issue because you can theoretically have answered more than the required number of questions correctly and not know based on the diagnostic report (I understand the diagnostic report is only provided to those who failed). Since. the exam is multiple choice only there is no appeal or inspection process for applicants (443(b) and 444(d)) there are no means of knowing what your quantitative score is, if your test was graded accurately or precisely. Its not that one would accuse the board of intentionally tampering with individual test results but serious engineer test takers will demand justification for their results when provided only a fail (qualitative) result for a test supposedly graded by number of questions answered correctly (quantitative). This leaves the lingering question of what the cut off point was and where one qualified relative to the requirement.

So far @CAPLS has provided more information on the process than most people I have queried on the subject have provided me (which I am thankful for) and I understand the board is only obligated to do what is written in applicable law but why is quantitative data from the test withheld, particularly cut scores?. The diagnostic reports mention that the number of questions answered correctly and the totals are withheld because they are useless without the cut scores, but why is such a critical piece of information kept from the public, particularly test takers that are trying so hard to surmount it?

 

[engineeringforfun]

Back to the topic of the diagnostic report and its lack of clarity. One gripe I have and cannot fathom is why the board would withhold the cut score and points possible for each exam. They used to publish them but the last published result I could find was April of 2009. The diagnostic report only provides qualitative data (pass, fail, proficient, marginal, deficient) and nothing quantitative. The diagnostic report does clarify areas that need work but because it is still a qualitative aspect of a quantitatively graded test, it leads to an accountability issue. I share the same concerns about how seemingly useless the diagnostic report is (I've taken seismic 3 times now and haven't passed yet at the same quarter I first took seismic, I also passed the 8 hour and surveying) but the lack of quantitative data also leads to what appears to be a serious accountability issue because you can theoretically have answered more than the required number of questions correctly and not know based on the diagnostic report (I understand the diagnostic report is only provided to those who failed). Since. the exam is multiple choice only there is no appeal or inspection process for applicants (443(b) and 444(d)) there are no means of knowing what your quantitative score is, if your test was graded accurately or precisely. Its not that one would accuse the board of intentionally tampering with individual test results but serious engineer test takers will demand justification for their results when provided only a fail (qualitative) result for a test supposedly graded by number of questions answered correctly (quantitative). This leaves the lingering question of what the cut off point was and where one qualified relative to the requirement.

So far @CAPLS has provided more information on the process than most people I have queried on the subject have provided me (which I am thankful for) and I understand the board is only obligated to do what is written in applicable law but why is quantitative data from the test withheld, particularly cut scores?. The diagnostic reports mention that the number of questions answered correctly and the totals are withheld because they are useless without the cut scores, but why is such a critical piece of information kept from the public, particularly test takers that are trying so hard to surmount it?

I 100% support this post. It's mind boggling that, for lack of a better term, the board is so sketchy when it comes to results of the seismic and surveying exams. While as CAPLS mentioned, the board isn't technically responsible for "helping" us pass, the lack of useful feedback is, in my opinion, a travesty.

 

[i totally agree.]

The board is not transparent about how they pass people on the seismic or survey. It is just a magical fail or pass.....shacking my head. The board is doing their job to encourage people to quit the field

Shame on you California Board

 

[CAPLS]

The board is not transparent about how they pass people on the seismic or survey. It is just a magical fail or pass.....shacking my head. The board is doing their job to encourage people to quit the field

Shame on you California Board

Haha, whatever

 

[leggo PE]

The board is not transparent about how they pass people on the seismic or survey. It is just a magical fail or pass.....shacking my head. The board is doing their job to encourage people to quit the field

Shame on you California Board

And then what is your take on the P.E. exam? NCEES doesn't publish cut scores either...

 

[Water_engineer]

The board is not transparent about how they pass people on the seismic or survey. It is just a magical fail or pass.....shacking my head. The board is doing their job to encourage people to quit the field

Shame on you California Board

I agree, it is easy for those who pass the exam to just dismiss this, but is is the truth. Can't help it when you feel you do well on the exam and receive a fail, just makes you wish you had more specific details on the diagnostic report than just a magical proficient deficient label like it is an essay