Engineering Economics

[amzngsurf]

Were there any questions on the subject of Engineering Economics in the new Electrical - Power format for the PE exam? I searched the forum but found no questions regarding this subject for the new format.

 

[rshankle PE]

Were there any questions on the subject of Engineering Economics in the new Electrical - Power format for the PE exam? I searched the forum but found no questions regarding this subject for the new format.

Third bullet in "NCEES Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination: ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER - POWER Exam Specifications" has the following:

The exam is developed with questions that will require a variety of approaches and methodologies, including design, analysis, and application. Some questions may require knowledge of engineering economics.

Here is the link: http://www.ncees.org/Documents/Public/Ele%...0Apr%202009.pdf

 

[amzngsurf]

I understand the question could be on there. I was just curious if they actually had one on the current test. Understanding if they didn't they could still have one on the next test. Just curious is all.

 

[nmh0408]

I understand the question could be on there. I was just curious if they actually had one on the current test. Understanding if they didn't they could still have one on the next test. Just curious is all.

Last April, there was couple of questions on Engineering Economics, in October there was none!

 

[MechGuy]

I understand the question could be on there. I was just curious if they actually had one on the current test. Understanding if they didn't they could still have one on the next test. Just curious is all.

Last April, there was couple of questions on Engineering Economics, in October there was none!

Engineering Econ is a topic every engineer should understand.... equations are fairly easy and problems are even easier when you use the Econ tables. Study it for a bit and be prepared for the test and for when you'll eventually need it on the job.

 

[benbo]

I understand the question could be on there. I was just curious if they actually had one on the current test. Understanding if they didn't they could still have one on the next test. Just curious is all.

I don't think you have to guess.

If the NCEES exam specs say 4% of the test is economics, that means there will be 3 economics questions on the test (they round it). It doesn't mean there might be 4%, it means there will be 4%. Of course, that doesn't mean you will necessarily recognize it as an econ question. At least that's my understanding.

These were the absolute easiest questions on my test, although that was several years ago.

 

[eedave]

I understand the question could be on there. I was just curious if they actually had one on the current test. Understanding if they didn't they could still have one on the next test. Just curious is all.

Last April, there was couple of questions on Engineering Economics, in October there was none!

Engineering Econ is a topic every engineer should understand.... equations are fairly easy and problems are even easier when you use the Econ tables. Study it for a bit and be prepared for the test and for when you'll eventually need it on the job.

Engineering Econ questions are really quite simple. Study the equations and tables for an hour or two, make sure you can solve each of the different problem types and you'll be money. Easy points.

 

[z06dustin]

I don't think you have to guess.
If the NCEES exam specs say 4% of the test is economics, that means there will be 3 economics questions on the test (they round it). It doesn't mean there might be 4%, it means there will be 4%. Of course, that doesn't mean you will necessarily recognize it as an econ question. At least that's my understanding.

These were the absolute easiest questions on my test, although that was several years ago.

This is absolutely incorrect. They don't represent their percentages accurately.... at least based off of my experience. Several areas that were said to be covered, had 0% representation on the actual test when I took it, and one area accounted for twice as many questions (percentage wise) as that section should have.

YMMV, maybe yours will be exactly as they described, but I believe it to be a much broader generalization...

 

[benbo]

I don't think you have to guess.
If the NCEES exam specs say 4% of the test is economics, that means there will be 3 economics questions on the test (they round it). It doesn't mean there might be 4%, it means there will be 4%. Of course, that doesn't mean you will necessarily recognize it as an econ question. At least that's my understanding.

These were the absolute easiest questions on my test, although that was several years ago.

This is absolutely incorrect. They don't represent their percentages accurately.... at least based off of my experience. Several areas that were said to be covered, had 0% representation on the actual test when I took it, and one area accounted for twice as many questions (percentage wise) as that section should have.

YMMV, maybe yours will be exactly as they described, but I believe it to be a much broader generalization...

It's approximate percentages, but just because you do not characterize a problem the same way they do doesn't mean it's not correct. THe error is usually a disagreement in how the problem is characterized. You should contact NCEES and tell them they are misrepresenting their exams if you believe it to be true.

I'll tell you that when I took the test there were others who took the same test claiming the percentages were all screwed up but I found them to be pretty much right on. So maybe both me and the exam creators are wrong, or somebody else.

It doesn't matter anyway in the context of this question. If there is something listed in the specifications you should assume it'll be on the exam, and give it the appropriate level of attention. Advising otherwise is, how shall I put it, "absolutely incorrect." Anybody who doesn't spend at least a little time on economics is risking missing some low lying fruit and is nuts, IMHO.

 

[z06dustin]

It's approximate percentages, but just because you do not characterize a problem the same way they do doesn't mean it's not correct. THe error is usually a disagreement in how the problem is characterized. You should contact NCEES and tell them they are misrepresenting their exams if you believe it to be true.
I'll tell you that when I took the test there were others who took the same test claiming the percentages were all screwed up but I found them to be pretty much right on. So maybe both me and the exam creators are wrong, or somebody else.

It doesn't matter anyway in the context of this question. If there is something listed in the specifications you should assume it'll be on the exam, and give it the appropriate level of attention. Advising otherwise is, how shall I put it, "absolutely incorrect." Anybody who doesn't spend at least a little time on economics is risking missing some low lying fruit and is nuts, IMHO.

Again, YMMV, but in my test there were supposed to be NEC and NESC questions. Without talking specifics, there were 0 from one category and too many from the other. I don't think you can say "miscatagorized" when the question reads "According to the ____ code of ____".

 

[benbo]

First, I assume you are not advising anybody to do anything but assume the specifications for the exams are basically what NCEES provides, and to study accordingly?

Second, I don't know about your specifications, but the current power exam lists 12.5% in a "Codes and Standards" section which includes, as examples with no specific percentages, NEC, NESC, and shock and burns.

I am certain there are multiple ways to interpret that descriptor, and many of them would not include reference to specific code section numbers.

Maybe you would not call them code or standard questions. but someone else might.

 

[z06dustin]

First, I assume you are not advising anybody to do anything but assume the specifications for the exams are basically what NCEES provides, and to study accordingly?
Second, I don't know about your specifications, but the current power exam lists 12.5% in a "Codes and Standards" section which includes, as examples with no specific percentages, NEC, NESC, and shock and burns.

I am certain there are multiple ways to interpret that descriptor, and many of them would not include reference to specific code section numbers.

Maybe you would not call them code or standard questions. but someone else might.

Here's all I'm saying:

The breakdowns (http://www.ncees.org/Exams/PE_exam.php) are just rough guides, nothing more.

You said:

If the NCEES exam specs say 4% of the test is economics, that means there will be 3 economics questions on the test (they round it).

This isn't true. I can't go into specifics; I don't want my score invalidated, but one section (call it section A) claimed to be X% of the exam. The question specifically stated "according to ____" which places it into that catagory, and it ended up being Y% of the exam where Y>X. So even if you're right, and there are other questions which are code questions which I didn't count... that would make NCEES's guidelines even LESS accurate.

I don't think that NCEES ever intended that their exam guidelines were so exact as to say:

...exam specs say 4% of the test is economics, that means there will be 3 ...questions on the test (they round it).

I think they're only guidelines. Plan accordingly. There could be 0 economics questions on the exam. There may be 0 NEC questions. No one can be certain.

 

[z06dustin]

Here's PE to BE's explanation of the %age breakdown:

http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry6759554

Let me also add that we had almost 15 NEC questions (between morning and afternoon), which is about 18.75% not 12.5% as stated in the exam description.

 

[benbo]

Okay, I disagree with you, that's about all I can say. Maybe they aren't precise, but I believe the specifications are meant to be fairly accurate, otherwise NCEES is intentionally misleading the exam takers, and I do not believe they are. Nowhere do I see them referred to as rough guidelines. To me, "specific"ations implies a certain level of "specific"ity.

This isn't true. I can't go into specifics; I don't want my score invalidated, but one section (call it section A) claimed to be X% of the exam. The question specifically stated "according to ____" which places it into that catagory, and it ended up being Y% of the exam where Y>X. So even if you're right, and there are other questions which are code questions which I didn't count... that would make NCEES's guidelines even LESS accurate.

This I don't understand at all. "The question". That means one question, 1/80, or around 1% (1.25%) of the test. Are you saying the specs claimed a section had 5 questions, and you found a problem that you believe made it 6 questions, and therefore the specs are now just rough guidelines?

Anyway, we just disagree on this, and I think a wise person would assume the specs to be pretty much correct. In your case the specs might have been completely off, I don't believe that is frequently true, and just like all other sorts of legends and theories about cut-scores, and pass rates and everything else, people are best advised to ignore anecdotal information off the web and pay attention to what the exam developers and state boards actually say.

 

[nuclear bus]

Just adding my two cents, last October I do not recall seeing any questions regarding eng. econ. I think it would have been pretty obvious had there been. I also don't recall any questions regarding NESC and I really could have used at least one easy one like asking me if the NESC covered copper mines There also seemed to be too many of the kind I didn't know and not enough of the kind I did

 

[benbo]

Just adding my two cents, last October I do not recall seeing any questions regarding eng. econ. I think it would have been pretty obvious had there been. I also don't recall any questions regarding NESC and I really could have used at least one easy one like asking me if the NESC covered copper mines There also seemed to be too many of the kind I didn't know and not enough of the kind I did

I was going to comment on this, but I think I've said my peace. But I will say you should probably be a little more careful divulging what wasn't on the test. Maybe it doesn't matter, but it might. I don't think anybody can really tell anything from what you wrote here, but I think it's best to be on the safe side.

That said, I also think I should reiterate, for people who are actually studying and want to know how to best prepare-- your best bet is to believe the specs. I have no idea what was on these guy's exam, and it has absolutely no bearing on what will be on your exam. But I would trust an official publication more than reports from a couple exam takers.

 

[benbo]

One question for anyone who did not pass the October erxam and is willing to answer. I assume you recieved a diagnostic. Did anybody recieve a diagnostic which seems to show that indeed there was a question or questions on economics, or several questions on standards? Because if you did, and these posters are correct, that would indicate that not only did NCEES basically make up these specifications, they made up the diagnostics.

Many people on here have posted diagnostics and attempted to calculate their raw scores using their diagnostics and the problem distribution numbers given in the exam specifications. If these numbers can be completely off, and are just broad generaliztions, better to know it now so people can stop that pointless practice.

 

[z06dustin]

I have no idea what was on these guy's exam, and it has absolutely no bearing on what will be on your exam.

This I agree with. Study what's on the NCEES breakdown, and be prepared for everything on there.

I'm as paranoid as you are benbo, so I won't go into specifics, but on my exam there were at least 4 sections mentioned on the NCEES paperwork which were not covered by the exam. There were not, however, any questions on the exam which weren't mentioned on the NCEES paperwork.... so I would guess they won't surprise you with anything. However don't bank on a certain area carrying you because NCEES says it will be a certain %age, it may be no where near that.

 

[benbo]

I have no idea what was on these guy's exam, and it has absolutely no bearing on what will be on your exam.

This I agree with. Study what's on the NCEES breakdown, and be prepared for everything on there.

I'm as paranoid as you are benbo, so I won't go into specifics, but on my exam there were at least 4 sections mentioned on the NCEES paperwork which were not covered by the exam. There were not, however, any questions on the exam which weren't mentioned on the NCEES paperwork.... so I would guess they won't surprise you with anything. However don't bank on a certain area carrying you because NCEES says it will be a certain %age, it may be no where near that.

I don't understand what you mean about NCEES paperwork. Do you mean the diagnostic? Because I thought you passed the exam, in which case you wouldn't get a diagnostic generally. Unless they send this in some states like Texas or something.

If you actually got a diagnostic which said you got a certain percentage in an area which you feel wasn't even on the test then either -

1. That is a SERIOUS problem which needs to be addressed by NCEES. They are lying to you, and to other examinees who depend on this diagnostic to study.

or

2. They interpet the subject matter "section" of a question differently than you do. which is what I posted about five posts back. I go with this explanation, and I would defer to the panel of experts who actually prepare the exam.

 

[Flyer_PE]

^I thought he was disputing the specs for the exam. In which case, he didn't receive a diagnostic.

If I'm correct in that, he is disputing the specification based on his experience taking the exam.

From the exam specification:

• The exam is developed with questions that will require a variety of approaches and methodologies, including design, analysis, and application. Some questions may require knowledge of engineering economics.• The knowledge areas specified as examples of kinds of knowledge are not exclusive or exhaustive categories.

I think you're likely correct that NCEES classifies some of the problems differently than somebody taking the test would. After all, the NCEES people get to look at the test with no stress and have a lot longer to think about each problem than the 6-minute average of somebody taking test.