The Average Passing Score?

[Bean PE]

Actually Dexman, for those people that are still waiting on their results, the passing score can be used as a way for all October 2010 examinees to re-evaluate their confidence of passing this time. That way, if, for example, a candidate felt confident on 65% of the material on the exam, yet the average passing score reported was 52/80 for his/her discipline, then that candidate should probably start hitting the books again (or perhaps, invest their money on better studying material ASAP.)

No. Waste of time and effort. Relax until the results come in, then take action if necessary.

 

[paki]

Does anyone have results to share regarding the October Chemical PE?

 

[dukesherman]

Mechanical Thermal & Fluids - 46....Still Fail

 

[tuckinmybuddha]

http://www.ncees.org/Exams/Pages/Scoring.php

 

[VAPSU]

Civil should be 56/80 in order to pass. I remeber someone got 55/80 (long time ago) still fail.

I think the 70% of correct answers is the pass for Civil. The broken line in the bar graphs in my diagnostic for the passing candidates is always constant for any subject area. The subject areas where I was closest to the passing examinees were around 70% (in terms of the correct answers). I got 45/80 in water resources and failed.

Every exam scale differently...I remeber someone got 47/80 got "69" in MECHANICAL.

Not to mention the way I read the note at the bottom of the sample diagnostic report, it sounds to me like one person could get an 70% and pass while the next guy with a 70% might fail even though they took the same exams. The note that I'm referring to states "Performance in a knowledge area significantly below that of the average passing candidate contributed to your failing the exam." This means to me that even if you do a super dooper band up job on the entire test but bomb one subject area really badly compared to what NCEES determines a passing PE taking your exam should know, then you fail.

That note makes my failing last April seem a bit more clear now. According to my diagnostic report out of the 10 subjects I got 80% or above on all but two of them. The two I got a 24% and a 35% correct, so I couldn't for the life of me figure out how I failed the exam, but now that they're adding that note it makes it very clear. Seems very unfair to me.

 

[Shanster]

I don't comment ever, but I think this is worth noting that NCEES website said that:

"your exam results are determined by the number of items you answered correctly for the exam in its entirety. There are no minimum requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam. You are not penalized for incorrect answers. You may request that your exam answer sheet be manually verified. A fee is charged for this service."

http://ncees.org/Exams/Pages/Scoring.php

...just saying.

 

[Bean PE]

I don't comment ever, but I think this is worth noting that NCEES website said that:
"your exam results are determined by the number of items you answered correctly for the exam in its entirety. There are no minimum requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam. You are not penalized for incorrect answers. You may request that your exam answer sheet be manually verified. A fee is charged for this service."

http://ncees.org/Exams/Pages/Scoring.php

...just saying.

What part of that do you find noteworthy?

 

[Shanster]

I think it implies that because someone got a 70 and passed, and then someone got a 70 and failed because they got more questions wrong in a particular topic is not accurate.

"There are no min. requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam."

I find that noteworthy....

 

[MrAnderson41]

I think it implies that because someone got a 70 and passed, and then someone got a 70 and failed because they got more questions wrong in a particular topic is not accurate.
"There are no min. requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam."

I find that noteworthy....

I hadn't read that. I retract my previous statement. I think the note on the diagnostic report is misleading. I think the bottom line is that even with this new diagnostic report it's a futile effort to try and determine how they grade the exam and how they determine a passing score.

 

[teammike]

I think it implies that because someone got a 70 and passed, and then someone got a 70 and failed because they got more questions wrong in a particular topic is not accurate.
"There are no min. requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam."

I find that noteworthy....

They may have taken the same PE exam, but with a different depth section? only thing i could think of.

 

[Bean PE]

I think it implies that because someone got a 70 and passed, and then someone got a 70 and failed because they got more questions wrong in a particular topic is not accurate.
"There are no min. requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam."

I find that noteworthy....

What led you to believe that it was otherwise?

 

[Shanster]

I think it implies that because someone got a 70 and passed, and then someone got a 70 and failed because they got more questions wrong in a particular topic is not accurate.
"There are no min. requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam."

I find that noteworthy....

What led you to believe that it was otherwise?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I didn't think that it was otherwise... why don't you read this post from the beginning and note that others thought they failed because they received too low of a score on a particular topic.

 

[avd]

I don't comment ever, but I think this is worth noting that NCEES website said that:
"your exam results are determined by the number of items you answered correctly for the exam in its entirety. There are no minimum requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam. You are not penalized for incorrect answers. You may request that your exam answer sheet be manually verified. A fee is charged for this service."

http://ncees.org/Exams/Pages/Scoring.php

...just saying.

What part of that do you find noteworthy?

I'd venture that it completely contradicts VASPU's comments

 

[avd]

I think it implies that because someone got a 70 and passed, and then someone got a 70 and failed because they got more questions wrong in a particular topic is not accurate.
"There are no min. requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam."

I find that noteworthy....

What led you to believe that it was otherwise?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I didn't think that it was otherwise... why don't you read this post from the beginning and note that others thought they failed because they received too low of a score on a particular topic.

Not all questions are valid!

 

[Shanster]

I think it implies that because someone got a 70 and passed, and then someone got a 70 and failed because they got more questions wrong in a particular topic is not accurate.
"There are no min. requirements for particular sections or topics within an exam."

I find that noteworthy....

What led you to believe that it was otherwise?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I didn't think that it was otherwise... why don't you read this post from the beginning and note that others thought they failed because they received too low of a score on a particular topic.

Not all questions are valid!

Ha AVD...I know I know. The suspense has put me a bit on edge, plus looking at BEAN PE's blog in his signature and realizing half the snow in New England melted away last weekend has made me even that much more bitter.....

 

[butter_beer]

Hei Bance

i think if you had taken civil test

you would have pass with a 53 correct answers

i mean 62% pass civil

but only 43% pass struct I

its a learner bell curve?

I got 49 problems correctstill failed.

I got 53 correct and still FAILED (GA)

What part of the exam did you take?

Structural I in Georgia

 

[Iasonas]

There was a comment about taking this exam and aiming for 100% score. I have to disagree. Chances are that with the limited amount of time and the vast area of the subject, aiming for 100% is an impossibility. Yes aiming for above 70% or so is likely and rational. I believe that taking this exam one has to focus on getting what seems to be feasible for his/her strengths, and given any time left quickly make as educated decisions as possible on material that may be fuzzy to him/her. Claiming to try for 100% is unrealistic. And yes, having an idea how well you probably did may actually allow you to take appropriate action for the future. I made a huge mistake of not immediately plunging in the books again after I walked out. I estimated that I scored about 60% and that may have been a passing score. Had I known that a minimum of 70% is necessary I would have put much more time and started studying much earlier.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

Had I known that a minimum of 70% is necessary I would have put much more time and started studying much earlier.

 

[Dexman PE PMP]

^^^ +1

 

[chaocl]

good luck!