SE April 2022 Exam Results Thread

[scott218]

Here’s my theory on scoring although it only applies to buildings. Each AM correct answer is worth 1 point for a total of 40 points in the AM. In the afternoon there are a total of 40 available points also. 10 points for an A, 5 for an IR, an 0 for a UA.
You need a total of 70% to pass or a 56 out of 80.
I took the vertical 3 times before I passed and am on my 4th lateral attempt so I’ve followed these threads for quite some time and I have yet to see anyone with a 56 or above receive their scores.
Those of you that had 30/40 in the AM and a A,A,IR,U got a 55. So you were one point away.
just a Theory but I have yet to be disproven

So with 30/40 on AM and IR-A-IR-IR on PM I was at 55 I which is also 1 point away... To add to this, my understanding is that you also need a certain minimum score on both sections. The minimum cut off in the afternoon could be at 28 (70% of 40) and the IR could be a range from 3-7. You wouldn't be able to achieve 28 if you receive a single UA unless you received all A on the other questions.

 

[JNS]

That's awesome that you passed vertical, but this is a little frustrating for me. I felt like I had a firm understanding of all PM problems especially the steel question. I completed every piece of it with 100% confidence except for (2) parts that I was about 80% confident on... I received IR on Steel, Concrete, and Masonry. I was "above the average examinee" in steel and concrete in AM as well adding more insult to injury. Just want to get another data point out there. Maybe doing more math hurt me. No idea though...

The problem with the hand-written format is that you are at the mercy of the grader. Grading is not easy, and it's hard to achieve consistency ( I was a TA in grad school and had to grade a lot). You may have graders passing some people and failing others with similar answers. My personal opinion is that there is no reason I should have passed based on that PM vert problem alone, but I'll take it. Now I can focus just on lateral, which I felt very good going out of the exam... And I honestly didn't even study for it that much, just like a month. Seems like I might be a handful of questions short on AM (I guessed a lot fo the bridge questions) and just need to get luckier on the PM.

Hopefully you are able to pass on the next try. I think a good strategy is to just put the code sections first then try to do the Math. I've heard that they care a lot more about the code sections than most people think.

 

[bassist]

I am 100% sure that this exam has a lot of flaws to test one's competency. The difficulty of the question is not the problem, but grading is. I got U on the subject area where I scored 100% correct in the morning. I also do not believe how they can put U on the question I was sure of in the afternoon. The afternoon part is very subjective and I am just gonna point my fingers at the graders this time. I know for a fact that I knew that question inside out where I got U. I might have been ok with IR but U just seems impossible for a question I knew.

 

[abragg]

I am 100% sure that this exam has a lot of flaws to test one's competency. The difficulty of the question is not the problem, but grading is. I got U on the subject area where I scored 100% correct in the morning. I also do not believe how they can put U on the question I was sure of in the afternoon. The afternoon part is very subjective and I am just gonna point my fingers at the graders this time. I know for a fact that I knew that question inside out where I got U. I might have been ok with IR but U just seems impossible for a question I knew.

The afternoon is graded with a rubric. So the graders are looking that you either make a specific action or that you acknowledge an action. For instance: if you are asked to determine if a W-beam is acceptable for the provided loads, you check the moment capacity and the shear capacity. If you don't also check deflection you get a deduction. In real life you wouldn't check deflection for those loads provided based on the length of the beam, right? But on the test you have to acknowledge that is something that should be considered. So you could go through and check it or you could write, "based on the loads provided, the section of the beam, and the unbraced length of the beam, it is assumed that deflection will not control the design." If you did this you don't lose points. In your everyday engineering it isn't a big deal you didn't write it down. But on the test you need to do that so they can confirm you are keeping it in mind and that you know all he concepts. They knock you a point on part 2 for not checking deflections, then a knock on part 3 for not using the correct phi factor, then on part 4 you recall the wrong value for Fcr when checking your steel manual, and you go from a A to an IR, or worse. All little things that individually are not a huge deal, and you may have even ended conservatively, but for grading they don't care.

There are countless people checking the test across the country. The afternoon isn't subjective. There are specific things they are looking for. If you don't hit it then they knock you. If it was subjective then the test wouldn't be so widely accepted. Is there some subjectivity? Sure, but my understanding after talking to someone with direct knowledge of grading, it is extremely ridged. And accidental miss-calcs are not a big deal. The test is not about how much you know, but how well you can apply the code correctly.

 

[bassist]

Thanks for your input. But I know how the grading is done and this is not my first time taking the test, and I am fully aware of what to expect after I write an answer. But maybe I made too many mistakes and did not present the answers that they were looking for. It would have been nice to look at my graded paper and see what mistakes did I do. But unfortunately, that is not possible and I have to keep guessing what went wrong. Just putting "unacceptable" in the diagnostic is super unhelpful and is definitely not a diagnostic report. But in any case, I am gonna do it, if not today then tomorrow.

 

[Bard]

The problem with the hand-written format is that you are at the mercy of the grader. Grading is not easy, and it's hard to achieve consistency ( I was a TA in grad school and had to grade a lot). You may have graders passing some people and failing others with similar answers. My personal opinion is that there is no reason I should have passed based on that PM vert problem alone, but I'll take it. Now I can focus just on lateral, which I felt very good going out of the exam... And I honestly didn't even study for it that much, just like a month. Seems like I might be a handful of questions short on AM (I guessed a lot fo the bridge questions) and just need to get luckier on the PM.

Hopefully you are able to pass on the next try. I think a good strategy is to just put the code sections first then try to do the Math. I've heard that they care a lot more about the code sections than most people think.

I wonder how they're going to do CBT for this exam in the future. Maybe they'll remove the essay answers in the future and just offer harder "depth" problems. Or maybe they'll keep the essay problems but you'll have to type the entire answer out using something similar to Microsoft Word equation text...

 

[bassist]

I think they might just make the afternoon multiple choice. I don't think essay typing would make any sense.

 

[bigirishman]

I think they might just make the afternoon multiple choice. I don't think essay typing would make any sense.

I've wondered if this was the path they'd take. My guess is if they go completely multiple choice they would get some objection from WA and CA, who may want to bring their brutal state tests if NCEES compromises too much. Same goes for when people suggest they make the test easier. If the pass rate gets too high I'd expect WA and CA will no longer accept it. Problem with this test in general is IL thinks it's a competence test and CA thinks it's a mastery test. Both can't be right...

 

[bassist]

CA already has a state test specifically for seismic. Adding another seismic test just for structural would be an overkill. I mean how many tests are we supposed to take in CA - 8 hr PE, 2.5 hr survey, 2.5 hr seismic, then 16 hr SE and/or CA state test just for seismic?

 

[JNS]

Whether multiple choice or not, all I know is I have to try to get this knocked out ASAP before the switch to CBT. Do not want to be around for when they start implementing that, no way will all the issues be worked out by then. Most likely than not the exam will not be calibrated correctly then more people will fail than usual. I definitely do not want to be NCEES's guinea pig.

 

[JNS]

Thanks for your input. But I know how the grading is done and this is not my first time taking the test, and I am fully aware of what to expect after I write an answer. But maybe I made too many mistakes and did not present the answers that they were looking for. It would have been nice to look at my graded paper and see what mistakes did I do. But unfortunately, that is not possible and I have to keep guessing what went wrong. Just putting "unacceptable" in the diagnostic is super unhelpful and is definitely not a diagnostic report. But in any case, I am gonna do it, if not today then tomorrow.

Agree here. The diagnostic report is a joke. In the AM there is no differentiation between Building and bridge problems so it's a guess to determine even what area you should study more. Just breaking it out by material is not enough, because at least half the concrete and steel problems are bridge related as well as some of the foundation and loading problems.

Personally I know that I probably have to review bridges, but having an idea also in what to focus for buildings would help.

 

[bigirishman]

CA already has a state test specifically for seismic. Adding another seismic test just for structural would be an overkill. I mean how many tests are we supposed to take in CA - 8 hr PE, 2.5 hr survey, 2.5 hr seismic, then 16 hr SE and/or CA state test just for seismic?

That was how it was prior to the 16hr SE change. 8hr SE1/PE, 8hr SE2, plus the state SE3. Goal with the 16hr SE was to eliminate those SE3 exams in WA and CA. There were years in WA with 0% pass rates for the SE3 too, brutal exams.

 

[Bard]

That was how it was prior to the 16hr SE change. 8hr SE1/PE, 8hr SE2, plus the state SE3. Goal with the 16hr SE was to eliminate those SE3 exams in WA and CA. There were years in WA with 0% pass rates for the SE3 too, brutal exams.

I've heard stories of those bygone ages. I thought they were merely legends -- old tales that were told to us as children to frighten us.

 

[_tslewis]

CA, passed lateral at first attempt with AEI, buy failed vertical again at third attempt, surprised I passed lateral but ill take it.

for vertical I got 28/40 in AM and for PM a U A IR IR.

AEI are fantastic for helping me pass, one more to go.

 

[Nathan45]

Just to add another data point:

Took both first time April 2022 (Buildings/Illinois). Passed Vertical. Lateral went 27/40 A-A-IR-UA

Coming out of the exam I though I bombed vertical and passed lateral. I though this because I thought I would get an UA on the Vert steel problem, I had no clue how to do it and just wrote code sections. On the lateral it was the opposite. I completed every problem. I messed up the 3rd problem, which cost me 5-10 minutes of re-do. That last lateral masonry problem I don't have a clue what I got wrong since I managed to complete it. Maybe I did not cite enough code sections? Looking at other posts it seems that was the problem most people flunked on.

Given this it might be better just to write code sections if you have no clue how to actually do the problem. Honestly I have no idea how I got a pass on that steel problem.

If a solution does not reference any code sections would it be marked as incorrect? or vice versa if a solution references the correct code sections but shows no work/ calculations would this be marked as correct as the test taker would be demonstrating that they know the applicable codes sections?

 

[AK_engr]

Results were just posted today. I took the SE Vertical Buildings and finally passed! This was my 4th-5th attempt, but I definitely studied the most this time around. Now just need to the the SE Lateral Buildings out of the way.

I hope everyone else also has good news.

 

[Nathan45]

Results were just posted today. I took the SE Vertical Buildings and finally passed! This was my 4th-5th attempt, but I definitely studied the most this time around. Now just need to the the SE Lateral Buildings out of the way.

I hope everyone else also has good news.

Congrats, what do you think made the difference this time around? Did you change anything in particular?

 

[bmall]

Whether multiple choice or not, all I know is I have to try to get this knocked out ASAP before the switch to CBT. Do not want to be around for when they start implementing that, no way will all the issues be worked out by then. Most likely than not the exam will not be calibrated correctly then more people will fail than usual. I definitely do not want to be NCEES's guinea pig.

NCEES released an update in their podcast how the future CBT version of the exam will go…. Sounds like you will have to pass four sections in the future (they are breaking out the morning session from afternoon session as different stand alone modules) and each one will be 5 or 5.5 hrs. Nothing will be essay, but the old essay problems will be open input computer problems like select where the rebar goes or input how thick the retaining walls are, etc.

 

[thedaywa1ker]

NCEES released an update in their podcast how the future CBT version of the exam will go…. Sounds like you will have to pass four sections in the future (they are breaking out the morning session from afternoon session as different stand alone modules) and each one will be 5 or 5.5 hrs. Nothing will be essay, but the old essay problems will be open input computer problems like select where the rebar goes or input how thick the retaining walls are, etc.

Thanks for this. Great info. Here is the link for anyone else curious, I'm listening to it now...SE discussion starts at 8:52

15:40 is where they talk about changes to the exam for CBT

Sounds like they're going to use 'drag and drop' for detailing - you can place and dimension rebar, or sketch where protected zones would be. I honestly might have preferred that, rather than trying to make my chicken scratch legible. Lol.

Multiple choice is going to 55 questions, afternoon going to 5 'scenarios'. Ouch.

https://ncees.org/podcast-jason-gamble/

 

[bmall]

Thanks for this. Great info. Here is the link for anyone else curious, I'm listening to it now...SE discussion starts at 8:52

https://ncees.org/podcast-jason-gamble/

I want to know what happens at the transition? If you passed vertical already, do you get acceptance on 2/4 modules or will you have to start over??