Waiting

[kevo_55]

^^ Welcome to the SE world Ble. :sharkattack:

 

[shymit]

I took the exam in Cincinnati. There were three of us with the other two guys from buildings side. I found both the AM and PM exams of SE-II pretty solid. SE-I was relatively easier.

NCEES told me that the exam results would be out in the week of June 20-27. I would think that the pass rates for SE-I would be the same while pass rates for SE-II would be lower. Overall, it would be interesting to see the pass percentage. Strange that the cut off for bridge exams would based on the cut off determined from Buildings exam.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

 

[bks]

I took both vertical and lateral (buildings) in GA. There were 20 of us on day 2, but I suspect there were more that just took the vertical portion.

In GA, the state board selected which exam (Civil w/ Structural Depth or Structural PE) you could take based on the experience you submitted... Are other states similar? Or do some let you decide? That seems like it would make a big difference on the number of Structural PE exam takers in each state.

 

[*Ananda*]

In Seattle WA there were probably 100 other SE exam takers this past April. I suspect that in states which have no laws requiring an SE, the number of people taking the SE approaches zero. As state laws require "SE" to do structural work, then the number of examinees increases.

Which leads to the pass rate issue. In WA, the pass rate for the SE III was kept around 10-20%. Now that the WA SE III is going away, the people who kept the 10-20% pass rate are concerned that NCEES will make the pass rate "too high".

Contolling demand for SE. If you read the SE Trade Association (NCSEA) magazine Structure, then you know about the efforts underway for some years now, which will take years to play out, to institute new laws to require SE for work that used to be allowable for a PE. As these laws are promoted by the SE Trade Association, the demand for SE increases. For example, WA state has relatively recent laws that require more work to be done by an SE.

Controlling supply of SE. By keeping pass rates as low as possible, limiting supply, the SE Trade Association members benefit from the basic laws of supply and demand.

Low pass rates are good for NCESS too since they ensure $1000 repeat test takers.

So, what incentive is there for pass rates to be high? Pass rates will probably be justified down to the lowest value that can be gotten away with - in the name of safety of course. Am I seeing reality or being too pessimistic?

 

[Amry69]

I took both vertical and lateral (buildings) in GA. There were 20 of us on day 2, but I suspect there were more that just took the vertical portion.
In GA, the state board selected which exam (Civil w/ Structural Depth or Structural PE) you could take based on the experience you submitted... Are other states similar? Or do some let you decide? That seems like it would make a big difference on the number of Structural PE exam takers in each state.

I've never heard of a state helping you decide which test to take.

 

[Amry69]

I took both vertical and lateral (buildings) in GA. There were 20 of us on day 2, but I suspect there were more that just took the vertical portion.
In GA, the state board selected which exam (Civil w/ Structural Depth or Structural PE) you could take based on the experience you submitted... Are other states similar? Or do some let you decide? That seems like it would make a big difference on the number of Structural PE exam takers in each state.

I've never heard of a state helping you decide which test to take.

Of course I'm old enough they let me take which ever test I want as long as the check clears.

 

[bks]

I took both vertical and lateral (buildings) in GA. There were 20 of us on day 2, but I suspect there were more that just took the vertical portion.
In GA, the state board selected which exam (Civil w/ Structural Depth or Structural PE) you could take based on the experience you submitted... Are other states similar? Or do some let you decide? That seems like it would make a big difference on the number of Structural PE exam takers in each state.

I've never heard of a state helping you decide which test to take.

Strange. Although an SE designation is not required to practice structural engineering in my state, there wasn't an option for me on which exam to take. Since my employer paid the exam fees, they were interested in the big price difference between the exams. They contacted the state board to see if it was possible to choose to take the cheaper exam (Civil w/ Structural Depth). The board said that based on my experience, I had to take the 2-day exam. I know there where people who took the Civil w/ Structural Depth exam at my test site. So, I am guessing that their experience was not all structural (maybe 2 years of general Civil + 2 years of structural). The state board may have given those that didn't have all structural experience a choice on which exam to take. As for me, there was no choice. From what I am hearing, other states give the applicant the choice. The applicant makes the decision based on what is required for where they want to practice. Am I understanding correctly? If this was the case for GA, the number taking the 2-day would have been much lower - maybe zero.

 

[Amry69]

I took both vertical and lateral (buildings) in GA. There were 20 of us on day 2, but I suspect there were more that just took the vertical portion.
In GA, the state board selected which exam (Civil w/ Structural Depth or Structural PE) you could take based on the experience you submitted... Are other states similar? Or do some let you decide? That seems like it would make a big difference on the number of Structural PE exam takers in each state.

I've never heard of a state helping you decide which test to take.

Strange. Although an SE designation is not required to practice structural engineering in my state, there wasn't an option for me on which exam to take. Since my employer paid the exam fees, they were interested in the big price difference between the exams. They contacted the state board to see if it was possible to choose to take the cheaper exam (Civil w/ Structural Depth). The board said that based on my experience, I had to take the 2-day exam. I know there where people who took the Civil w/ Structural Depth exam at my test site. So, I am guessing that their experience was not all structural (maybe 2 years of general Civil + 2 years of structural). The state board may have given those that didn't have all structural experience a choice on which exam to take. As for me, there was no choice. From what I am hearing, other states give the applicant the choice. The applicant makes the decision based on what is required for where they want to practice. Am I understanding correctly? If this was the case for GA, the number taking the 2-day would have been much lower - maybe zero.

Still sounds weird, especially in a state that doesn't have a statutory difference between SE and PE. A few of us took the test here in TX which also doesn't require a special SE test but some of us either want the option to work in other states or felt it was the right thing to do. I either case you're better off passing the 2 day SE. Get your MLSE designation from NCEES. It'll look great on your resume.

 

[RGCSQUARE]

Ok,, June 18th now............waiting Here, tic tiac, tic tac,

Odd thing, NCEES called only WA SEIII and Cali seismic PEs engineers for this weekend tests. I think the SE April tets was way too easy and they NCEES is trying to raise the pasing cut line by calling the SEIII and the Cali seismic PE to get on board and help to chop lots of head off.

 

[Amry69]

Ok,, June 18th now............waiting Here, tic tiac, tic tac,
Odd thing, NCEES called only WA SEIII and Cali seismic PEs engineers for this weekend tests. I think the SE April tets was way too easy and they NCEES is trying to raise the pasing cut line by calling the SEIII and the Cali seismic PE to get on board and help to chop lots of head off.

Way too easy? I'm screwed.

Also noticed their choice of volunteers. Must have had something go bust on the Lat test. I was kinda hoping they were going the other direction though; lower the bar. The people taking the test this weekend are taking it cold. Most of us who felt it was too 'easy' studied for months. I can't imagine they'd do any better than we did. Right?

 

[Ble_PE]

Ok,, June 18th now............waiting Here, tic tiac, tic tac,
Odd thing, NCEES called only WA SEIII and Cali seismic PEs engineers for this weekend tests. I think the SE April tets was way too easy and they NCEES is trying to raise the pasing cut line by calling the SEIII and the Cali seismic PE to get on board and help to chop lots of head off.

From what I read, they were also asking for volunteers from people who had passed the SE II exam as well, so it wasn't just the WA and CA SE III. See here.

 

[Mike in Gastonia]

Ok,, June 18th now............waiting Here, tic tiac, tic tac,
Odd thing, NCEES called only WA SEIII and Cali seismic PEs engineers for this weekend tests. I think the SE April tets was way too easy and they NCEES is trying to raise the pasing cut line by calling the SEIII and the Cali seismic PE to get on board and help to chop lots of head off.

Way too easy? I'm screwed.

Also noticed their choice of volunteers. Must have had something go bust on the Lat test. I was kinda hoping they were going the other direction though; lower the bar. The people taking the test this weekend are taking it cold. Most of us who felt it was too 'easy' studied for months. I can't imagine they'd do any better than we did. Right?

If you read how they score the exams on the ncees website (ncees scoring), this is normal procedure. New test, so they have to bring in people to help set the passing score. After that, they use some statistical process to set it. No reason to read conspiracy into it.

 

[RGCSQUARE]

Ok,, June 18th now............waiting Here, tic tiac, tic tac,
Odd thing, NCEES called only WA SEIII and Cali seismic PEs engineers for this weekend tests. I think the SE April tets was way too easy and they NCEES is trying to raise the pasing cut line by calling the SEIII and the Cali seismic PE to get on board and help to chop lots of head off.

Way too easy? I'm screwed.

Also noticed their choice of volunteers. Must have had something go bust on the Lat test. I was kinda hoping they were going the other direction though; lower the bar. The people taking the test this weekend are taking it cold. Most of us who felt it was too 'easy' studied for months. I can't imagine they'd do any better than we did. Right?

If you read how they score the exams on the ncees website (ncees scoring), this is normal procedure. New test, so they have to bring in people to help set the passing score. After that, they use some statistical process to set it. No reason to read conspiracy into it.

But what makes my mind spind the most is the fact that how come the NCEES didnt do the study earlier, maybe they are doing a second study to raise the passing score and chop off lots of candidates?

 

[Amry69]

Ok,, June 18th now............waiting Here, tic tiac, tic tac,
Odd thing, NCEES called only WA SEIII and Cali seismic PEs engineers for this weekend tests. I think the SE April tets was way too easy and they NCEES is trying to raise the pasing cut line by calling the SEIII and the Cali seismic PE to get on board and help to chop lots of head off.

Way too easy? I'm screwed.

Also noticed their choice of volunteers. Must have had something go bust on the Lat test. I was kinda hoping they were going the other direction though; lower the bar. The people taking the test this weekend are taking it cold. Most of us who felt it was too 'easy' studied for months. I can't imagine they'd do any better than we did. Right?

If you read how they score the exams on the ncees website (ncees scoring), this is normal procedure. New test, so they have to bring in people to help set the passing score. After that, they use some statistical process to set it. No reason to read conspiracy into it.

But what makes my mind spind the most is the fact that how come the NCEES didnt do the study earlier, maybe they are doing a second study to raise the passing score and chop off lots of candidates?

That's exactly what's blowing my mind. Surely they had people take the test before it was administered. Right? Besides, isn't the new test basically just a combination of the SE I and SE II that they have been administering for years?

 

[kevo_55]

^^ Not so.

It is a replacement for the SE 1 and SE 2 exams.

CA/WA has said many times over the years that the SE1 is not good enough for them so they made their own exams.

This new SE exam is supposed to be on the level of the SE2 and SE3.

 

[epitome1170]

^^ Not so.
It is a replacement for the SE 1 and SE 2 exams.

CA/WA has said many times over the years that the SE1 is not good enough for them so they made their own exams.

This new SE exam is supposed to be on the level of the SE2 and SE3.

That is exactly why I am of the opinion that there is no way they are going to change the passing rates so that more people pass. More than likely, they are looking to find a way to cut down the pass rate to be around the 30% mark for both exams. (Say 40% for the gravity portion... similar to the SE1 and 30% for the lateral... similar to the SE3).