NCEES Pass Rates

[ROBIAMEIT]

Deep Thoughts . . . .

i DONT agree witht he "high performers/low performers" explanation of the pass rates. OBVIUOSLY biased and written by some smart a$$ who passed it the first time (yeh i know your kind . . right out of school . . . pass the test but STILL dont have a clue abou twhat youre doing on the job).

i have taken the exam FOUR TIMES and am oh so close . . . . and i have come to the conclusion that the PE exam is A VERY ACCADEMIC exam . . . the closer you are to graduation the better you do.

REPEAT TAKERS KEEP ON KEEPIN ON!!!!

 

[MA_PE]

i DONT agree witht he "high performers/low performers" explanation of the pass rates. OBVIUOSLY biased and written by some smart a$$ who passed it the first time (yeh i know your kind . . right out of school . . . pass the test but STILL dont have a clue abou twhat youre doing on the job).

I suspect that it's impossible for you not take this exaplanantion personally. However, the fact remains that people who are familiar enough with the material and know how to breakdown the problems and obtain an answer faster (high performers) will have more success with the examionation than people who erquire more time to sort out the problem, identify the correct methodology, and then get an answer (lower performers). The test is as much an exercise in speed as it is in knowledge, otherwise there would be no time limitation. This in no way implies that people who don't pass are less "competent" per se but it does suggest that they aren't as quick to the correct solutions, which is the bar by which the exam is judged.

It is a difficult thing to improve efficiency as well as knowledge for the next test. Therefore, people who aren't successful on the first couple of tries, by definition, will need to work harder on succesive tries to pass. This is also evidenced by the ongoing trend among the state boards limiting the number of retries without demonstrating additional experience.

Each time the test is administered there are a certian amount of first timers, who again by definition, are more likely to be successsful whereas retesters typically will need to improve some as aspect responsible for thier previous unsuccesful attempt(s). This results in higher pass rates for first timers as compared to repeat testers.

Retesters certainly can and often do pass. The published pass rates are what they are.

i have come to the conclusion that the PE exam is A VERY ACCADEMIC exam . . . the closer you are to graduation the better you do.

I'll accept that for the FE, but in the case of the STR1 exam, I'm not aware of scholastic curriculum that will prepare you better than hands-on experience dealing with the design codes. I can't speak for other disciplines. Also you typically need 3 (with graduate degrees) to 5 ( with a BS) years experience before you can apply for the PE. I suspect that 5, or even 3 years out there's not a lot more retention of college classes than if you're 10+ years out. Of course, by then the codes have been updated, too.

My 0.02. Hang in there and best of luck on the next try.

 

[Brianne]

I think the first-time civil pass rate is making me feel a little more confident. I felt really good right after the test, though my confidence has faded a bit as I wait and wait and wait for the results. I definitely think I could be in that 64% passing.

I wonder what percentage each time are first-timers and what percent are repeaters.

Of course, I'm pretty sure I'll be repeating the surveying portion of the test, if not the seismic.

 

[IlPadrino]

Deep Thoughts . . . .
i DONT agree witht he "high performers/low performers" explanation of the pass rates. OBVIUOSLY biased and written by some smart a$$ who passed it the first time (yeh i know your kind . . right out of school . . . pass the test but STILL dont have a clue abou twhat youre doing on the job).

i have taken the exam FOUR TIMES and am oh so close . . . . and i have come to the conclusion that the PE exam is A VERY ACCADEMIC exam . . . the closer you are to graduation the better you do.

REPEAT TAKERS KEEP ON KEEPIN ON!!!!

By definition, those that pass are "high performers" and those that fail are "low performers" - I don't see how anyone can argue that. The problem is that passing doesn't equate with "better" in the engineering sense. We all know a person or two who are quick to run a calculation but don't have enough engineering sense to understand how to apply the concept.

I don't think it's fair to call the Principles and Practice exam "academic" considering it certainly requires sufficient engineering sense to apply the concepts. Sure,

So... you don't like the examination format (FE, required experience, then PE)... how would you change it?

 

[Capt Worley PE]

. . . the closer you are to graduation the better you do.

I passed the first time and I've been out of school almsot 20 years.

 

[EngRanger]

. . . the closer you are to graduation the better you do.

I don't agree 100%. I think there's a sweet spot where the experience and knowledge gained is offset by the loss of little-used stuff and the natural slow-down of the grey matter.

Several years back I used to administer a pre-employment test, Wonderlic (I think). It was a quickie, twelve minute test. The interesting thing is that the scoring instructions added points to compensate for older ages.

I took the PE approx. fifteen years out of school and passed. It would have been easier if I had taken it a few years earlier.

 

[ROBIAMEIT]

"I suspect that it's impossible for you not take this exaplanantion personally. However, the fact remains that people who are familiar enough with the material and know how to breakdown the problems and obtain an answer faster (high performers) will have more success with the examionation than people who erquire more time to sort out the problem, identify the correct methodology, and then get an answer (lower performers)."

NOT LOGICAL!!

Here you are infering that simply because you can take a "test" and establish a passing grade you are a "high performer" and because you take more time to sort out a problem that equates to "low performance".

I DO take your explanation personally. . . i AM NOT A LOW PERFORMER. i simply am not a "test taker". In every aspect of my life i have done well . . . my interpersonal skills are excellent, my clients love me and i can focus and get a job done well and on time within a budget. as far as sitting in a room for 8 hours crunching numbers and playing games with trick problems . . . . not so good. MOST of the problems i had to do had NOTHING with what i do day to day year to year. in fact even the problems i DID know how to do were NOT TYPICAL of the work i do everyday. WHO IN THE WORLD sizes a storm drain in some god forsaken units NOT typically used?!! We use CFS to size a strom drain . . . . not cubic inches or megallons per decade!!

Last time i took the GEO section in the PM there was a series of questions on a subject i could not find EVEN MENTIONED in any one of the three Geotech reference books i had along . . . . . How can you expect someone to answer a topic that not anyone of 3 technical publishers felt important enough to include in their text????

inasfar as being an academic exam . . YES i recognize the low percentage of long time ago graduates who pass the exam the first time . . . . but I DO KNOW that alot of the questions on the test are based on college course study and NOT practical experience. i have been doing this for 20 yrs and i STILL have yet to see a correlation between any on the job experience and the content of the exam.

Bitter . . . yes.

Beaten . . .NO WAY.

I'LLL BEEE BACKKKK!!!!!

 

[snickerd3]

inasfar as being an academic exam . . YES i recognize the low percentage of long time ago graduates who pass the exam the first time . . . . but I DO KNOW that alot of the questions on the test are based on college course study and NOT practical experience. i have been doing this for 20 yrs and i STILL have yet to see a correlation between any on the job experience and the content of the exam.

that probably depends on the test...I took the ChE PE test oct 2006 and there were quite a few questions that required knowledge from experience, book smarts wouldn't have helped.

 

[kevo_55]

Robiameit,

I think what IlPadrino was saying was that low preformers can mean people who either don't understand the material, simply are not test takers, or can't pass for any other reason.

These PE exams are tough and show no remorse, but they should be. They are the gatekeepers to a professional title which is trusted to protect the general public.

Many people on this board (myself included) have failed these exams. You are not alone.

But at the same time, the quicker you can kick the bitter habit the easier time you'll have to pass next time.

 

[C-Dog]

Last time i took the GEO section in the PM there was a series of questions on a subject i could not find EVEN MENTIONED in any one of the three Geotech reference books i had along . . . . . How can you expect someone to answer a topic that not anyone of 3 technical publishers felt important enough to include in their text????.

In the real world, you will be asked about subjects that is not contained in those 3 technical publications. Next time bring in references that will cover those questions.

inasfar as being an academic exam . . YES i recognize the low percentage of long time ago graduates who pass the exam the first time . . . . but I DO KNOW that alot of the questions on the test are based on college course study and NOT practical experience. i have been doing this for 20 yrs and i STILL have yet to see a correlation between any on the job experience and the content of the exam

No way was this an academic exam for metallurgy. While there were some questions (~5) that dealt with some important accedemic fundamentals, the majority of them were based solely on real world engineering problems. One question was very similar to a problem I had at work the week before.

 

[IlPadrino]

"I suspect that it's impossible for you not take this exaplanantion personally. However, the fact remains that people who are familiar enough with the material and know how to breakdown the problems and obtain an answer faster (high performers) will have more success with the examionation than people who erquire more time to sort out the problem, identify the correct methodology, and then get an answer (lower performers)."
NOT LOGICAL!!

Here you are infering that simply because you can take a "test" and establish a passing grade you are a "high performer" and because you take more time to sort out a problem that equates to "low performance".

I DO take your explanation personally. . . i AM NOT A LOW PERFORMER. i simply am not a "test taker". In every aspect of my life i have done well .

.

.

.

Bitter . . . yes.

Beaten . . .NO WAY.

I'LLL BEEE BACKKKK!!!!!

I rewrote my response a few times because I wanted to make sure I had the right friendly and non-judgmental tone... I hope I got it right, but if not, I apologize.

I think you've created your own definition of "high performer" and based on that I trust you are, indeed, a "high" performer. My definition of "high performance" is quite simple: for the given task, did you produce the required results (output) in an efficient manner (input)? For the PE exam, the output is score and the input is study preparation (and maybe time spent at the exam). Those that score well are "high performers" (we'll never really know who they are unless they're from TX). Those that pass (even if just barely) with little study effort are "high performers".

I doubt anyone here will judge you as a person (or an engineer!) poorly because you failed the PE exam. But don't expect anyone to label you a "high performer" based on your exam results. And, really, why get caught up in labels anyway? The only one that matters is "PE" and I'm certain anyone (even including poor performers based on *your* definition) can pass the PE with the right approach and attitude. Some of us required perseverance, others studied incredible hours, and others are just natural test takers who excel (in exam scores) without much preparation.

It's great to see you keeping at it. Good luck!

 

[Sschell]

I agree that test taking is an ability in itself. Luckily, I am a very good test taker. frequently, on multiple choice tests I can pick the right answer without reading the question (believe it or don't... it scares me sometimes). This has allowed me to correctly answer test questions when I had no knowlege of the subject.

But I know that preparation and and obtaining a through understanding of a subject will benefit both the good test taker and the bad test taker.

I would not be a PE if I had not studied.

 

[StructuralPoke]

Man! Why are the pass rates for civil always so low?

Us Structurals have got it worse! 46% first timers and I was fortunately one of the 26% of the repeaters. I'm still unsure why bridges are not in the civil test or have separate Building Structural and Bridge Structural exams.

 

[jascia1919]

I am also doing bridge engineering. I do feel Str I is difficult for us. But after the exam, I feel learned a lot about other fields especially building design. It will definitely bring us more opportunities.

 

[cubuffs]

Is there a reason you took the structural exam instead of the Civil?

 

[ROBIAMEIT]

Thank you all for your responses and encouragement . . .

from what i have experienced in the "real world" and from taking the TEST i still believe there is a huge gap between the two . . . . experience and test material.

What else can a guy do but keep on keepin on!!!

 

[StructuralPoke]

Is there a reason you took the structural exam instead of the Civil?

For me, Structural is what I do. I graduated an Architectural Engineer and have been doing Structural work since then (buildings). Buildings are all I've ever done. I know nothing about transportation, wastewater, or anything else that doesn't have to do with buildings. I didn't even have classes over those topics. After I failed the SE1 the first time, I thought about taking the Civil-Structural because I heard it was easier, but, to me, it didn't seem ethical to take an exam over an area I don't plan to practice. I have friends that have done this -- I just personally don't agree with their decision...

(oh -- and when I looked at the Architectural Engineering PE exam, only 25% of that exam is over structures. The other 75% would have been as foreign to me as transportation, etc.)

 

[USF Engineer]

I am in the same boat as StructuralPoke, almost to the T, except for I just took the Struct1 for the first time in October. I already have begun studying for the April exam!

I agree 100% in that it doesn't seem ethical to take the Civil-Structural when structural is all I have ever practiced and probably will ever practice. Believe me when I say I struggled with the thought of taking the Civil. It seems like the lesser of two evils. But I just can't do it. But this is just my opinion!

I also agree with the point that we should have a choice on either buildings or bridges like the structural II. Like I mentioned earlier, I have only designed buildings and have zero experience with bridges.

Another point, I have worked in the consulting/design field for more than 10 years now and found the Structural 1 exam to be highly unpractical. The problems on the exam were something one would never encounter on a day to day basis. I have no problem with the exams being difficult, I just wish they were more practical, more "real world". The exam is geared towards very obscure code provisions and unpractical problems.

Personally, coming out of the exam I felt fairly confident that I may had passed. But when I recieved my letter it appears I wasn't even close. Let's just have a couple of real world problems in there. Come on!

Oh well, there's always next time!

 

[StructuralPoke]

^^^ Good luck with all of the new codes. I was really worried about having to learn all new codes. Actually I was probably more scared about having to TAB all new codes!

I also agree that the exam seems to be "do you know about that one sentence in chapter 11 that only comes int effect if that one equation in chapter 3 comes up greater than 3?" And that just seems unfair somehow. I know that that is actually something that we need to know and therefore it actually is a valid question, but damn -- lets calculate some beam sizes or lap lengths!

Don't get too down about having to take it again. My boss told me "you want to jump the hurdle, now you know what it looks like".

 

[jascia1919]

I took SEI and II because I am looking forward to getting SE license.