Let's beat this thing like Engineers...

[pmg902]

Hey everybody, this is my first time participating on EB, although I've been sponging tips off here for the last few months. I just finished my seismic exam, completing the trifecta. Ill admit that I'm more than just a little nervous about the outcome (a betting man would not take me as a favorite to have my license before 2016 :-/

My goal here is to initiate a collaborative and constructive dialogue on how to Oceans 11 these pains in the rear end. Speaking for myself personally, I don't find the actual content of the Seis/Survey tests particularly challenging (if you practice the problems and/or have some pre-existing experience from school you can probably finagle your way through). I think that we must address the elephant in the room.

THESE EXAMS AREN'T MEANT TO STUMP YOU. THEY'RE MEANT TO DISTRACT YOU LONG ENOUGH SO THE CLOCK RUNS OUT.

This isn't a new concept, I've heard several people express concern over the time/problem (2 min 45 seconds, as opposed to the 6 minutes for the NCEES). Speaking from my own experience these are the most demanding exams I've ever had to take in my life (demanding, not challenging).

Over the weekend, while licking my wounds after taking the survey test Friday I came up with an idea on how one could effectively approach the Seis/Survey. I came up with a strategy around 5 am this morning which I put into effect on my seismic exam 6 hours later. I didn't get up and leave half an hour early, but I think I was successful in "not leaving any money on the table". Here was my strategy (which applies to both survey and seismic).

From t=0 to t=10 min

-read the entire test. Create a little legend on your scrap paper and categorize the questions in terms of difficulty/time to solve/how much involves topics you aren't solid on. I just labeled 1 as plug and chug, 2 was partial knowledge/lengthy calculations, and 3 was "I'm gonna have to learn this now....usually these were the little who wants to be a millionaire-type trivia questions.

From t=10 to t=X (I'll get into what X is in a minute)

-Meat and potatoes time, but now youRe armed with the knowledge of what lies ahead. Effortlessly dispatch the Type 1 problems, then work on the 2s. Any question that ends up tougher than you anticipated DON'T GET HELD UP ON. Just select your best guess and MARK the question (come back later if you have time, which I did using this strategy). That 10 minute investment in the beginning pays off 10 fold, and your dividend is lapping up all those easy questions you may have overlooked and been forced to guess on during the mad dash to fill in what's left.

This brings me to the definition of Time X. I've seen a lot of different opinions on when you should stop trying and start guessing....10 minutes, 5 minutes, 1 minute, etc. Personally I think the time you start guessing depends on how you're doing on the test. Let X be the number of questions you have remaining at any given time. As soon as your time remaining (in minutes) is equal to the number of questions you have remaining I start guessing, but this allows it to be less clumsy or random as the C method. In giving yourself a minute per problem you have the time to read each problem and possible solution. With a little luck, some may jump out at you, or you can eliminate ludacris options which make no sense. Whatever you can do to improve from 25% hit rate.

 

[ptatohed]

Thanks for the post pmg. Since you have good ideas, if you can, please help me make this thread (Post #1) as good (and current) as it can be: http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=25246

You are correct that the enemy of the CA Surv/Seis exams is time. But, with that said, it's really all equal in the end. The problems are a little more "principles-based" than the 8-hour NCEES 6-minute-long questions. And, a lower score is typically needed to pass the Surv/Seis exams (a ~50-55% score as opposed to a ~65-70% score). At the end of the day, the same percentage of examinees pass the state tests as pass the national test ( +/- 40%).

Your method of identifying the difficulty level (or time commitment required) of each exam problem is not a new concept and, in my opinion, is a requirement to good exam time management (for the CA and national PE exams). I would recommend a modification to your description of the t = 0 to 10 min period. When I took the exams (8-hr, CA-Surv, CA-Seis), I did not want to "waste a first pass". So, my approach was to initially go through the whole exam, as you suggest, but to work the 1's (easy) and go ahead and guess the 4's (impossible or just too time consuming), and mark down the 2's (medium) and 3's (hard but doable with enough time). So, after pass one, your 1s and 4s are done. Pass two you'll work your 2s. Pass three you'll work your 3s. And (this never happened to me because I always ran out of time but), if you finish the 2s and 3s and still have time left, you can start to attempt the 4s you initially guessed on.

 

[The Wizard]

Good first post. I used Potatohed's strategy more or less.

 

[pmg902]

Thanks for the post pmg. Since you have good ideas, if you can, please help me make this thread (Post #1) as good (and current) as it can be: http://engineerboards.com/index.php?showtopic=25246

You are correct that the enemy of the CA Surv/Seis exams is time. But, with that said, it's really all equal in the end. The problems are a little more "principles-based" than the 8-hour NCEES 6-minute-long questions. And, a lower score is typically needed to pass the Surv/Seis exams (a ~50-55% score as opposed to a ~65-70% score). At the end of the day, the same percentage of examinees pass the state tests as pass the national test ( +/- 40%).

Your method of identifying the difficulty level (or time commitment required) of each exam problem is not a new concept and, in my opinion, is a requirement to good exam time management (for the CA and national PE exams). I would recommend a modification to your description of the t = 0 to 10 min period. When I took the exams (8-hr, CA-Surv, CA-Seis), I did not want to "waste a first pass". So, my approach was to initially go through the whole exam, as you suggest, but to work the 1's (easy) and go ahead and guess the 4s (impossible or just too time consuming), and mark down the 2's (medium) and 3's (hard but doable with enough time). So, after pass one, your 1s and 4s are done. Pass two you'll work your 2s. Pass three you'll work your 3s. And (this never happened to me but), if you finish the 2s and 3s and still have time left, you can start to attempt the 4s you initially guessed on.

Yes! That's what I'm talking about, excellent collaboration. The ranking system used to categorize the problems and dictates your methodology govern your performance. Here's the overall strategy for what I'm calling "Seek-and-Destroy Method" aka "Divide and Conquer Method":

X + Y = 150 minutes
X = Time duration to confidently solve problems (better than 90% chance of answering these questions correctly, deterministic). X should be defined as I'd outlined in my initial post -- Start guessing as soon as the ratio of minutes remaining to problems left is 1:1.
Y = Time duration to best guess remaining questions before time runs out (Given you have 25% chance of answering correctly by guessing at random, I'd say a best guess approach would give you about a 37.5% chance at least). 

N_x + N_y = 55 questions
N_x = # of problems solved confidently.
N_y = # of problems best guessed.

Expected Score = 100% * (0.9 * N_x + 0.375 * N_y)/55
*Should be >= 55% for peace of mind sake.

Our goal is to maximize N_x. To do this we must take into account three major factors:
-Problem Type (Calculation or Trivia).
-Level of Comprehension on how to solve the problem (Fully understand, partially understand, no clue).
-Estimated solution time (less than, equal to or greater than the 2 min 45 second).

I agree with you, we should use a four-tier ranking system, 1 being the easiest and 4 being the hardest. I attached a table which summarizes how to break em down (without being so complicated as to take forever to do). I also agree with your idea to make the initial run work for you, so here's a revision:

t = -10 to t = 0
-This is the 10 minute "preliminary" period where you're instructed to go through Prometric's computer tutorial. It's fairly rudimentary and if you've already done it you can use this 10 minute period to prepare in other legal ways. 
1. On your scrap paper make a table with 55 rows and 2 columns. Column A is the question numbers (1 to 55) and Column B is your rank for that problem (you can't write on anything you brought with you other than the scrap paper, otherwise I'd just make it in excel and print it out to bring with). This allows you to start the exam prepared and not need to worry about being disorganized and lost (costs time) or waste time during the test trying to get organized.
2. Quickly run through whatever study materials and paying special focus to topics you know you never got to cover (I taught myself parapet loading in the 10 minutes prior, and it really helped on several problems). You never know what will end up helping you.

t = 0 to t = X:
During the bulk of the exam you'll be iteratively reading through the exam in "runs":
-Initial run - On your scrap paper table that you made before, record the rank for each problem. Solve all Type 1 problems, skip Type 2 and Type 3 problems for now and best-guess all Type 4 problems (give yourself 1 minute to read the question and all answers, eliminate any answers which don't make sense, and leave the problem solved using your best guess as the solution). 
-Secondary run - Solve all Type 2 problems.
-Tertiary run - Solve all Type 3 problems.
-Quaternary run - Check your answers for all Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 problems. Make sure your answers are consistent with your calculations on the scrap paper (this is easily done if you are neat on your scrap paper, sectioning off areas for individual problems using lines and marking  which number the calcs pertain to).
-If there's still time left (you're probably god) you can try to make an honest run at all the Type 4s that you guessed during your initial run.

t = X to t = 150 (end):
Best guess any remaining question. Use the same guessing strategy outlined in the initial run for Type 4 questions.

Making some reasonable assumptions based on my real/practice exams I put these estimates together:
Initial Run:            [t = 0 to t = 56 min]
Secondary Run:   [t = 56 to t = 133 min] <-- X = 133 min here, roughly
Time to Guess:    [t = 133 to t = 150 min]

Based on the test scopes, I'd say there are about 19 Type-1, 16 Type-2, 14 Type-3 and 6 Type-4 problems. In giving 1 minute for each problem to guess (as opposed to randomly) I'd say you increase your hit rate from 0.25 to 0.375. 
N_x = 19 + 15 = 34 questions solved confidently
N_y = 1 + 14 + 6 = 21 questions solved by best-guess

expected score = 100% * (0.9 * 34 + 0.375 * 21) / 55 = 70.0%
-Even if you use a BS reduction factor of 0.8 that still means you got a 56% and you're good.

Now let's look at what it would take to get a 55% (which is the peace-of-mind territory):

55% = 100% * (0.9 * N_x + 0.375 * (55 - N_x)) / 55    
---> Solve for N_x = 19, N_y = 36

 

[Liquefaction]

I would say you're making it waaaay more complicated than it needs to be.

Part of the problem is that to really judge a problem you need to do some quick reading and make a decision then if to do it or just move on. But by the time you go back to do it again you basically need to re-read it and you'll have forgotten almost anything about it.  The most important thing is just to finish, because there are often easy gimme's at the end, and go through and do what you can with certainty in a minute or less and then just go back over. So I agree with potatohead that you should really just do your best on the first pass and then go back.

Personally I found seismic wasn't that bad time-wise. I technically finished about 15 minutes "early" but that involved really just making quick guesses at a couple that I knew I wouldn't even have chance to get right anyways.

Surveying on the other hand... hot damn that is just a pure evil time-eating beast. Like you said they weren't even hard, I KNEW I could solve them if I just had more time to actually think through the basic trig or parabolic equations required, but they just threw so damn many of them at you that could easily require a lot of time. And surveying is really a field that's about being meticulous and careful, not having "cheap trig shortcuts" memorized to pull up at a moments notice to solve whatever shortcut problem they were looking for, and they really wanted a fair amount of those long calculation problems.

Perhaps one thing to do also do and save time is to come up with a list of abbreviations you feel comfortable assigning the problems that you can easily identify like:

#32 = 3 - AREA

#37 = 2 - VC {vertical curve}

#21 = 3 - HC {horizontal curve}

#22 = 3 - B/C {Bearings/coordinates}

That way you as you go back and do one VC problem you can just skip to the next VC problem while all the references and equations are at your fingertips. I know surveying scattered like ~3-6 VC and ~3-6 HC curve problems all throughout the exam which was kind of annoying and would have rather just solved them back to back.

 

[pmg902]

I would say you're making it waaaay more complicated than it needs to be.

Part of the problem is that to really judge a problem you need to do some quick reading and make a decision then if to do it or just move on. But by the time you go back to do it again you basically need to re-read it and you'll have forgotten almost anything about it.  The most important thing is just to finish, because there are often easy gimme's at the end, and go through and do what you can with certainty in a minute or less and then just go back over. So I agree with potatohead that you should really just do your best on the first pass and then go back.

Personally I found seismic wasn't that bad time-wise. I technically finished about 15 minutes "early" but that involved really just making quick guesses at a couple that I knew I wouldn't even have chance to get right anyways.

Surveying on the other hand... hot damn that is just a pure evil time-eating beast. Like you said they weren't even hard, I KNEW I could solve them if I just had more time to actually think through the basic trig or parabolic equations required, but they just threw so damn many of them at you that could easily require a lot of time. And surveying is really a field that's about being meticulous and careful, not having "cheap trig shortcuts" memorized to pull up at a moments notice to solve whatever shortcut problem they were looking for, and they really wanted a fair amount of those long calculation problems.

Perhaps one thing to do also do and save time is to come up with a list of abbreviations you feel comfortable assigning the problems that you can easily identify like:

#32 = 3 - AREA

#37 = 2 - VC {vertical curve}

#21 = 3 - HC {horizontal curve}

#22 = 3 - B/C {Bearings/coordinates}

That way you as you go back and do one VC problem you can just skip to the next VC problem while all the references and equations are at your fingertips. I know surveying scattered like ~3-6 VC and ~3-6 HC curve problems all throughout the exam which was kind of annoying and would have rather just solved them back to back.

Yeah, sorry. My goal wasn't to over-complicate it, I suppose I just got carried away...I figure some engineers would appreciate it, but to each his own. I also noticed that Seismic wasn't the same brand of ritualistic agony that was surveying, and that they put the gimmes at the end. 

Anyway, I like your last idea...lumping together all the problems of a similar nature. With surveying that's pretty easy, especially since 90% of the problems have a drawing to go with it...you can just see from looking at it whether it's a HC or VC problem. Anyone reading please post a question type that appears frequently in either Seis or Surveying. 

 

[ptatohed]

Yes! That's what I'm talking about, excellent collaboration. The ranking system used to categorize the problems and dictates your methodology govern your performance. Here's the overall strategy for what I'm calling "Seek-and-Destroy Method" aka "Divide and Conquer Method":

X + Y = 150 minutes
X = Time duration to confidently solve problems (better than 90% chance of answering these questions correctly, deterministic). X should be defined as I'd outlined in my initial post -- Start guessing as soon as the ratio of minutes remaining to problems left is 1:1.
Y = Time duration to best guess remaining questions before time runs out (Given you have 25% chance of answering correctly by guessing at random, I'd say a best guess approach would give you about a 37.5% chance at least). 

N_x + N_y = 55 questions
N_x = # of problems solved confidently.
N_y = # of problems best guessed.

Expected Score = 100% * (0.9 * N_x + 0.375 * N_y)/55
*Should be >= 55% for peace of mind sake.

Our goal is to maximize N_x. To do this we must take into account three major factors:
-Problem Type (Calculation or Trivia).
-Level of Comprehension on how to solve the problem (Fully understand, partially understand, no clue).
-Estimated solution time (less than, equal to or greater than the 2 min 45 second).

I agree with you, we should use a four-tier ranking system, 1 being the easiest and 4 being the hardest. I attached a table which summarizes how to break em down (without being so complicated as to take forever to do). I also agree with your idea to make the initial run work for you, so here's a revision:

t = -10 to t = 0
-This is the 10 minute "preliminary" period where you're instructed to go through Prometric's computer tutorial. It's fairly rudimentary and if you've already done it you can use this 10 minute period to prepare in other legal ways. 
1. On your scrap paper make a table with 55 rows and 2 columns. Column A is the question numbers (1 to 55) and Column B is your rank for that problem (you can't write on anything you brought with you other than the scrap paper, otherwise I'd just make it in excel and print it out to bring with). This allows you to start the exam prepared and not need to worry about being disorganized and lost (costs time) or waste time during the test trying to get organized.
2. Quickly run through whatever study materials and paying special focus to topics you know you never got to cover (I taught myself parapet loading in the 10 minutes prior, and it really helped on several problems). You never know what will end up helping you.

t = 0 to t = X:
During the bulk of the exam you'll be iteratively reading through the exam in "runs":
-Initial run - On your scrap paper table that you made before, record the rank for each problem. Solve all Type 1 problems, skip Type 2 and Type 3 problems for now and best-guess all Type 4 problems (give yourself 1 minute to read the question and all answers, eliminate any answers which don't make sense, and leave the problem solved using your best guess as the solution). 
-Secondary run - Solve all Type 2 problems.
-Tertiary run - Solve all Type 3 problems.
-Quaternary run - Check your answers for all Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3 problems. Make sure your answers are consistent with your calculations on the scrap paper (this is easily done if you are neat on your scrap paper, sectioning off areas for individual problems using lines and marking  which number the calcs pertain to).
-If there's still time left (you're probably god) you can try to make an honest run at all the Type 4s that you guessed during your initial run.

t = X to t = 150 (end):
Best guess any remaining question. Use the same guessing strategy outlined in the initial run for Type 4 questions.

Making some reasonable assumptions based on my real/practice exams I put these estimates together:
Initial Run:            [t = 0 to t = 56 min]
Secondary Run:   [t = 56 to t = 133 min] <-- X = 133 min here, roughly
Time to Guess:    [t = 133 to t = 150 min]

Based on the test scopes, I'd say there are about 19 Type-1, 16 Type-2, 14 Type-3 and 6 Type-4 problems. In giving 1 minute for each problem to guess (as opposed to randomly) I'd say you increase your hit rate from 0.25 to 0.375. 
N_x = 19 + 15 = 34 questions solved confidently
N_y = 1 + 14 + 6 = 21 questions solved by best-guess

expected score = 100% * (0.9 * 34 + 0.375 * 21) / 55 = 70.0%
-Even if you use a BS reduction factor of 0.8 that still means you got a 56% and you're good.

Now let's look at what it would take to get a 55% (which is the peace-of-mind territory):

55% = 100% * (0.9 * N_x + 0.375 * (55 - N_x)) / 55    
---> Solve for N_x = 19, N_y = 36

View attachment 7600

I like the way you are thinking but, really, I don't think it needs to be this complicated.  Just study hard (long hours and lots of practice solving problems) and work on your speed. 

 

[pmg902]

I like the way you are thinking but, really, I don't think it needs to be this complicated.  Just study hard (long hours and lots of practice solving problems) and work on your speed. 

I would say you're making it waaaay more complicated than it needs to be.

There's a reason I named this thread "Let's beat this thing like engineers". I'm not saying that in the test you're sitting there doing these little side calculations and metrics, but it's meant to present a reasonable baseline of expectation and minimum requirements of performance -- something that a LOT of people about on these boards brood over. Think of it like Chess, there's three parts of a Chess game -- the opening, the midgame and the endgame. Openings are standard issue and can be found in reference manuals/encyclopedias. While tremendous amounts of computational consideration are put into their derivation, your goal when playing is to recall your next move automatically and click the button on the clock as fast as humanly possible. In a similar regard, I am attempting to present people with a comprehensive and logical strategy for tackling these tests and not allow unrealistic time expectations/poor time management to prevent otherwise qualified engineers from becoming fully licensed professionals. Truth be told, there are a LOT of non-engineering factors in getting licensed in which approaching those tasks like an engineer can help to alleviate the ambiguity of the outcome.

Look at the applications. I know so many people who are more than qualified (education, EIT, years experience) to sit in the exam yet they continue to be rejected because of the language they use on their applications. This was my #1 fear when I sat down to complete my application, and I prepared accordingly. Most engineers trade tips like "Don't say inspection, say this" or "you need to say that you designed this thing or that thing". Engineers learn best by following examples. The PE act and Board rules are like your solved examples, and I used them religiously when constructing the language I used for my application.

Don't mistake me, I do appreciate your contributions and I want to keep the dialogue going but in my experience there's no such thing as over-thinking or over-complicating. The first step in solving any problem is admitting when there is one, and then clearly defining it. The second is to break the problem down into smaller parts and lay out a step-by-step efficient method of solution. To me, THAT is what it means to be an engineer.

 

[ptatohed]

There's a reason I named this thread "Let's beat this thing like engineers". I'm not saying that in the test you're sitting there doing these little side calculations and metrics, but it's meant to present a reasonable baseline of expectation and minimum requirements of performance -- something that a LOT of people about on these boards brood over. Think of it like Chess, there's three parts of a Chess game -- the opening, the midgame and the endgame. Openings are standard issue and can be found in reference manuals/encyclopedias. While tremendous amounts of computational consideration are put into their derivation, your goal when playing is to recall your next move automatically and click the button on the clock as fast as humanly possible. In a similar regard, I am attempting to present people with a comprehensive and logical strategy for tackling these tests and not allow unrealistic time expectations/poor time management to prevent otherwise qualified engineers from becoming fully licensed professionals. Truth be told, there are a LOT of non-engineering factors in getting licensed in which approaching those tasks like an engineer can help to alleviate the ambiguity of the outcome.

Look at the applications. I know so many people who are more than qualified (education, EIT, years experience) to sit in the exam yet they continue to be rejected because of the language they use on their applications. This was my #1 fear when I sat down to complete my application, and I prepared accordingly. Most engineers trade tips like "Don't say inspection, say this" or "you need to say that you designed this thing or that thing". Engineers learn best by following examples. The PE act and Board rules are like your solved examples, and I used them religiously when constructing the language I used for my application.

Don't mistake me, I do appreciate your contributions and I want to keep the dialogue going but in my experience there's no such thing as over-thinking or over-complicating. The first step in solving any problem is admitting when there is one, and then clearly defining it. The second is to break the problem down into smaller parts and lay out a step-by-step efficient method of solution. To me, THAT is what it means to be an engineer.

Again, I appreciate and respect your approach but, at the end of the day, passing these exams is comparable to losing weight.  If you really want to lose weight / be in shape (pass the exam), there really is no easy/magic solution.  The true and best way is to eat healthy and exercise (study and practice).  If you do so with diligence, you'll lose weight (pass the exams).   

 

[kevo_55]

So....... can you compare having an engineering brain fart moment to eating a cookie? 

 

[pmg902]

There's a reason I named this thread "Let's beat this thing like engineers". I'm not saying that in the test you're sitting there doing these little side calculations and metrics, but it's meant to present a reasonable baseline of expectation and minimum requirements of performance -- something that a LOT of people about on these boards brood over. Think of it like Chess, there's three parts of a Chess game -- the opening, the midgame and the endgame. Openings are standard issue and can be found in reference manuals/encyclopedias. While tremendous amounts of computational consideration are put into their derivation, your goal when playing is to recall your next move automatically and click the button on the clock as fast as humanly possible. In a similar regard, I am attempting to present people with a comprehensive and logical strategy for tackling these tests and not allow unrealistic time expectations/poor time management to prevent otherwise qualified engineers from becoming fully licensed professionals. Truth be told, there are a LOT of non-engineering factors in getting licensed in which approaching those tasks like an engineer can help to alleviate the ambiguity of the outcome.

Look at the applications. I know so many people who are more than qualified (education, EIT, years experience) to sit in the exam yet they continue to be rejected because of the language they use on their applications. This was my #1 fear when I sat down to complete my application, and I prepared accordingly. Most engineers trade tips like "Don't say inspection, say this" or "you need to say that you designed this thing or that thing". Engineers learn best by following examples. The PE act and Board rules are like your solved examples, and I used them religiously when constructing the language I used for my application.

Don't mistake me, I do appreciate your contributions and I want to keep the dialogue going but in my experience there's no such thing as over-thinking or over-complicating. The first step in solving any problem is admitting when there is one, and then clearly defining it. The second is to break the problem down into smaller parts and lay out a step-by-step efficient method of solution. To me, THAT is what it means to be an engineer.

Again, I appreciate and respect your approach but, at the end of the day, passing these exams is comparable to losing weight.  If you really want to lose weight / be in shape (pass the exam), there really is no easy/magic solution.  The true and best way is to eat healthy and exercise (study and practice).  If you do so with diligence, you'll lose weight (pass the exams).

Oh definitely. If you think you can get away with solving less than 300 problems before the test, use the method above and pass then you're more disillusioned than the guy who's iron gym he got for Christmas is collecting dust under his bed. Exhaustive studying prior to the exam is a prerequisite to your success, no matter how efficient you are at time management - let's just lay that out right now.

The point I'm trying to make here is that even if you did a thousand problems you can still get shafted if you go to battle without a battleplan. I myself took two sample exams back to back immediately before my Seismic and I still didn't finish with time to spare.

 

[pmg902]

So....... can you compare having an engineering brain fart moment to eating a cookie? 

D'oh!  V:

 

[ptatohed]

Oh definitely. If you think you can get away with solving less than 300 problems before the test, use the method above and pass then you're more disillusioned than the guy who's iron gym he got for Christmas is collecting dust under his bed. Exhaustive studying prior to the exam is a prerequisite to your success, no matter how efficient you are at time management - let's just lay that out right now.

The point I'm trying to make here is that even if you did a thousand problems you can still get shafted if you go to battle without a battleplan. I myself took two sample exams back to back immediately before my Seismic and I still didn't finish with time to spare.

On both my Surv and Seis exams I could not complete all of the problems.  I completed maybe high 30s/low 40s.  Also, "back in my day" there were 50 problems, not 55.  And I felt very prepared and I felt I had a very good time strategy.  As we said, these tests are brutal insofar as allotted time.    

 

[Ayerforce35]

I attempted the Trifecta in April.  Passed 8 hour and Surveying, failed Seismic.  I took surveying the first week, the 8 hour the next and left Seismic for the last week, but honestly by that point was burnt out.  Also in studying for all 3, I will admit that seismic got the short end of the stick.  I retook Seismic last week and felt much better coming out of there this time than in April, so fingers crossed. 

Anyway, the strategy I used was maybe a little simpler but worked (hopefully this time) for me.  After reading the question, if I did not immediately know how to solve it, I would flag the question AND mark an answer.  That way, if I ran out of time in the end, I would at least have a 25% chance at the correct answer.  I learned this the hard way on the surveying exam where I had under a minute to go back and mark answers on questions I had skipped but left blank as well.  In April I ended up with around 22 flagged questions on seismic after going through the test,  this time I was down to 10.  I had about 10 minutes to change those complete guesses to educated guesses. 

I have said it before, and I think most agree, your enemy on these tests is not the material, but the clock.  An hour added to the time would make these tests much easier.

 

[CA_Scott PE]

Regarding Seismic/Surveying specifically, you need to have a plan and stick to the plan.  The hardest part about the exams truly are the time constraints.  (You can find or calculate any answer if you were given ample time; the same holds true for just about everything though).

Most people have recommended some method of skimming through the exam first and then answering questions.  This really is the best approach, but develop a particular strategy that's suited to you.  For instance, you may want to assign difficulty levels and note the difficulty levels by flagging problems, on your scratch paper, etc. or you might quickly go through the test and answer the simple questions that you may not need to check your reference materials on, then tackle the harder questions in some other order.  Or you may be the person who wants to tackle the exam by topic, answering all questions relating to one subject or set of equations first, then moving onto the next.

The important part is to find a plan/strategy that works for you, and don't change part way through the exam.  It will trip you up.

Also, if you find a particular problem seems to be taking longer than it should or that you hoped, don't become the "all-knowing" engineer who can solve anything they put their hand to.  Drop it, move on, and (time permitting) come back later.

As has been mentioned before as well, when you do "move on" (regardless the reason), mark an answer so that if you run out of time before coming back, you've at least got a chance of still getting some points.  Use whatever method works best for you for this (eliminating obviously wrong answers, choosing the infamous "c" for every question you don't know, etc., or some combination).

Again, just be consistent.  If you have put in the time to study the material that should be on the exam and know your references, the rest is just repeating what you've done countless times already.

 

[azureblue83]

OK let's engineering the s out of the exam.

Here I seek to establish a binomial probability chart and plot that can be used to check the probability of you failing the test, base on the number of questions you guessed during the exam.

Let X = the number of questions you are sure that were answered correctly

Y = the number of questions you guessed (55-x)

Z =  the number of questions remaining that must be guessed correctly for passing (31-x or 28-x)

Thus, the probability of you failing the exam is a binomial distribution problem: you are randomly choosing answers Y times, each time with 1/4 probability of succeeding; and the probability of you passing the exam is the probability of you succeeding at least Z times out of Y trials.

Using Excel spreadsheet "BINOM.DIST(Z, Y, 0.25, TRUE)" function, which gives the probability of failing the exam, I generated the following result (see attached).

For example, if you know you answered 24/55 correctly on the exam, your probability of failing is between 8% (base on 50% passing grade) and 47.27% (base on 55% passing grade).

Hope this useless exercise help some of you out. Maybe a strategy can be deviced from this information. I don't know.

 

[ptatohed]

OK let's engineering the s out of the exam.

Here I seek to establish a binomial probability chart and plot that can be used to check the probability of you failing the test, base on the number of questions you guessed during the exam.

Let X = the number of questions you are sure that were answered correctly

Y = the number of questions you guessed (55-x)

Z =  the number of questions remaining that must be guessed correctly for passing (31-x or 28-x)

Thus, the probability of you failing the exam is a binomial distribution problem: you are randomly choosing answers Y times, each time with 1/4 probability of succeeding; and the probability of you passing the exam is the probability of you succeeding at least Z times out of Y trials.

Using Excel spreadsheet "BINOM.DIST(Z, Y, 0.25, TRUE)" function, which gives the probability of failing the exam, I generated the following result (see attached).

For example, if you know you answered 24/55 correctly on the exam, your probability of failing is between 8% (base on 50% passing grade) and 47.27% (base on 55% passing grade).

Hope this useless exercise help some of you out. Maybe a strategy can be deviced from this information. I don't know.

View attachment 7697

I like your thinking but I think this is unnecessarily complicated.  As I was taking the exam, I kept tally of all the problems I felt really good about.  And only the ones I felt really good about - not the ones I felt okay or even pretty good about.  That was to be conservative and to compensate for the ones that I felt good about but might have still been wrong.  I gave myself full credit for the ones I walked out of there feeling "really good" about and I gave myself 25% for the rest.  If I remember, I think I felt good about 28/50 (CA Survey, Oct '10).  So, I assumed I got a score of 28 + .25(50 - 28) = 33.5.  33.5 / 50 = 67%.  I passed.  I did the same thing for the CA Surv, CA Seis, and 8 hr. 

I remember when I passed the 8 hour, I felt very good about 27 am and 28 pm.  So, assumed my score was somewhere around 28 + .25(40 - 28) + 27 + .25(40 - 27) = 61.25.  61.25 / 80 = 76%

It makes the wait time for results a little easier when you can (theoretically) calc whether you passed or not ahead of time.   

 

[azureblue83]

I like your thinking but I think this is unnecessarily complicated.  As I was taking the exam, I kept tally of all the problems I felt really good about.  And only the ones I felt really good about - not the ones I felt okay or even pretty good about.  That was to be conservative and to compensate for the ones that I felt good about but might have still been wrong.  I gave myself full credit for the ones I walked out of there feeling "really good" about and I gave myself 25% for the rest.  If I remember, I think I felt good about 28/50 (CA Survey, Oct '10).  So, I assumed I got a score of 28 + .25(50 - 28) = 33.5.  33.5 / 50 = 67%.  I passed.  I did the same thing for the CA Surv, CA Seis, and 8 hr. 

I remember when I passed the 8 hour, I felt very good about 27 am and 28 pm.  So, assumed my score was somewhere around 28 + .25(40 - 28) + 27 + .25(40 - 27) = 61.25.  61.25 / 80 = 76%

It makes the wait time for results a little easier when you can (theoretically) calc whether you passed or not ahead of time.   

Hi. If you felt good about 28/55, base on my charts, your chance of passing is at least 99.96% (if 50% is passing grade) or 93.34% (if 55% is passing grade).

Congratulation.  

 

[ptatohed]

Hi. If you felt good about 28/55, base on my charts, your chance of passing is at least 99.96% (if 50% is passing grade) or 93.34% (if 55% is passing grade).

Congratulation.  

Thanks.  Yes, but like I said when I took it, there were only 50 problems so my "feel good" 28 was out of 50, not 55.