Changes in SE Testing 8

[JedClampett]

I don't think this has been mentioned on this forum yet, but NCEES is intending that the SE go to 21 hours (from 16) and $1400 (from $1000). See

https://www.structuremag.org/?p=21592.

Luckily, my testing days are over. But I need to have replacements for me when I leave. And believe me, someday I'll leave.
Is our profession testing and pricing ourselves out of business?

 

[driftLimiter]

I feel like if I am paying 1000$ to go take a test, the 1400$ doesn't feel prohibitive. Both of them are a big chunk of change for a young engineer, and nearly meaningless to a big engineering firm. But that is coming from someone who wants to take the test already. And being on a computer, doesn't mean really anything to me. Are the questions going to be easier or harder? Probably not.

However, the time requirement and the test having an additional day associated with it does seem like it would tend to drag some extra costs out of test takes and their families/employers.

For someone who doesn't know yet and are considering alternatives, I think NCEES is making a mistake.

I will say that, when I first heard that the test was going to take 2 days and cost a grand, in the back of my head I thought Ill never take that there is plenty of opportunities without it (this is true btw).
This would be worse if it was 1400 and 3 days so I get that point that maybe more people will be scared.

I agree with the thesis of the article, these changes will incur less people entering our field. Also compounded by the fact that other engineering fields, and even construction engineers make a decently higher salary in most areas. Why pay for my EIT, pay for PE test, pay with my time to gain necessary experience, then pay for SE exam, only to take significant amounts of liability, for relatively low salary compared to other fields of engineering which don't even use licensure?

 

[el_ingeniero]

As someone in the process of hopefully getting their last test done (Lateral) , this is extra motivation to finish. These changes, at least temporarily will make the exam substantially harder and the already abysmal pass rates even worse. Among the items making it worse:

1. Scrolling through a PDF is never going to be as efficient as browsing a physical book. Since this is a timed exam that is woefully calibrated for time as is, it makes the test that much harder.

2. You aren't able to bring additional resources. I'm pretty sure I passed Vertical because I was able to knock off like 2-3 morning questions by just referencing the SERM and following the steps. Even if I could have figured those questions out it probably saved me valuable time from looking up formulas in codes.

3. A 5 1/2 Hour exam is a marathon. You end up pretty burnt out after the first half of each exam.

4. This change makes it impossible to try to get this done in one cycle. As someone who's had several personal life issues caused by the long amount of time I've had to dedicate to study this will certainly put more strain in people lives as it could extend this from being a 6 month ordeal to years.

Not only that, the people daring enough to take the new test once it goes into effect in 2024 will get to be guinea pigs for the NCEES format since they have these BS "pretest" questions, and have the privilege of paying $1400 for beta-testing the CBT exam.

I definitely think the people pushing this are completely out of touch and will continue burning people out of our profession.

 

[phamENG]

Everyone talks about how we need more Structural engineers, but then complains we don't make enough money. There's a mismatch here with econ 101. While we certainly need a pipeline of fresh engineers to train, we don't need to open the flood gates. I'm starting to get clients that celebrate when they hear my backlog is only 3 months. Apparently it's one of the shorter ones in town. I can name almost any price for the work being offered. It's great, if a little exhausting.

Meanwhile, lawyers in my region have seen a 25% effective pay cut over the last 20 years.

I think we have less of a workforce problem and more of a management/ business problem. A lot of firms are still taking in too much at prices that are too low.

I need to look into the test change. What are they doing with the extra time?

 

[KootK]

According to the article, their motivation, and what they are doing with the extra time, is increasing the exam's reliability rating. If the meaning of that isn't immediately apparent to you, welcome to the club. I had to google it and, apparently, it's just how consistent results are across exam administration instances, editions of the exam, etc.

So, for those slogging through a 3rd -- and potentially 4th -- day of examination, take heart that the extra effort and expense is serving an important statistical purpose.

I do see a business opportunity in this however. I could get a van and travel around to the test sites to peddle my merch.

 

[skeletron]

I first heard this on a podcast interview, and it was difficult to decipher the "why" immediately. The "pretest" questions, or whatever NCEES is calling them, is...I don't know how to say it...kind of a ridiculous strategy. I think a testing organization needs to get their test in order before dealing it out. Maybe I'm not understanding the concept though...

The SE for me would be a means to get a secondary designation in one of three designations where I live/practice above the 49th. A few years ago, I was fairly convinced it was a reasonable means to an end and had *some* intent to take it. With the change in testing...I think I'm resigned to being content as a plain old engineer and work in the surrounding areas. I don't see the pay off.

 

[SJBombero]

I think the stated motivation behind the change is a straw man that is being used to make the test more lucrative. NCEES is a business to whom local professional engineering boards outsource their certification process. I see CBT as a huge winfall in reducing the overhead of the testing process with no upside for the applicants. I think the majority of the value of these tests was the actual preparation process of studying the codes and marking the relevant locations in each of the code books. That experience remains and you have a tangible tool at the end of it that you can use in your test and practice. The CBT eliminates all that since you can't bring any of those books into the test with you, assuming that the SE CBT will be run similar to the PE version.

 

[CrabbyT]

Just told my friend about this. He said "sounds like lumber grading to me."

 

[canwesteng]

It is kind of interesting... the states have the most stringent testing for structural engineers/engineers in general but have all the most notable structural failures in the developed world.

 

[phamENG]

canwesteng, I think you mean we have the most notable failures in the developed world. It's far from limited to our infrastructure and building stock.

 

[KootK]

Consistency within the exam structure is important, so I'm okay with that. And it's been 10 or so years since the last overhaul so I suppose that there's little basis for complaint there even though it feels like just yesterday to me.

What I'd most like an SE exam to do is to correlate well with the level of skill possessed by the examinee. In that respect, I much prefer the IStructE examination process that has you solve actual, holistic problems, sketch some plans and details, prepare a design brief etc. In many respects, I think that this is actually the most stringent structural engineering exam in the world. And the most meaningful even if it's internal reliability is not up to par with a three day multiple choice exam (which I'm sure it's not).

 

[JLNJ]

The article says the pass rate is currently "below 40 per cent" which begs the question, "What should the pass rate be?" When I took the SEII the pass rate was in the high teens - like 18%.

I don't know what to make of this. Not all structural engineering is equal. Most times, if you have a decent load path, don't grossly underestimate member sizes, and put together a good set of construction docs there are no issues. It doesn't take a Master's degree and a 21-hour-battle-tested SE for most things. I know several Master's-degree-with-SE folks who can't put a decent drawing package together to save their life. And having advanced degrees and testing doesn't protect against hubris and neglect (I'm looking at you, Figg Engineering and those Clowns who worked on the Hard Rock hotel). On the other hand, I know people with "just" a construction technology degree who are fine engineers.

 

[MotorCity]

So not being familiar with the CBT format, I assume this means there is no hand written portion like the old version where you had to solve problems with paper and pencil which were then individually hand graded. If thats the case and its all multiple choice, does that mean that one could simply pass by lucky guessing? Is there some measure to prevent this from happening? At least with a hand written portion, you can't fake your way through the exam.

 

[JedClampett]

I feel like if I am paying 1000$ to go take a test, the 1400$ doesn't feel prohibitive.

It's not the first time, but how about if you need to take the test multiple times? Of if your employer only reimburses you when you pass?
It kind of seems like a gouge to me. It's CBT, so it's basically free to administer and grade. I know there's other costs, but c'mon.

 

[KootK]

Is there some measure to prevent this from happening?

Just the lumber grading aspect of it. No doubt, if one were willing to take the test 400 times, their odds of slipping through with a lot of guesswork would skyrocket.

 

[phamENG]

It's worth it if it gives you a pay bump. Even an extra $500/year will show it to be a worthwhile investment. If you're just doing it to do it and have some 'business card bling'...then it's a bit steep.

I have no actual knowledge of how frequently this happens, but it seems to me that outside of the rare case of an engineer who already has a family with several kids by the time he/she sits for the exam, this isn't that much. It's not like taking these tests is a surprise. If people spend 6-12 months studying for it, I imagine they can find a way to save a couple hundred bucks a month. Yeah, it may mean going out a little less (more time to study, anyone?) or putting off buying a nice new car (so you settle for the Elantra instead of the C-Class), but that's life.

If, even as a lowly EI/EIT, you lack the disposable income to pay for this test with just a little forethought and planning, you probably need to find an employer who will pay more than minimum wage.

For those cases where somebody gets into the game late and their career progress is out of step with the rest of their life progress, or somebody has medical or other unavoidable expenses, it seems there should be a way of handling these. Either through NCEES itself or state boards providing fee waivers/deferments.

 

[DrZoidberWoop]

The SE exam is getting ridiculous. It's going to stratify the structural engineering community by isolating generalists from specialists. For example, my colleagues and superiors are highly specialized steel connection/fabrication engineers. To predicate our ability to practice our specialty, in a given state, on an exam that is 80% irrelevant to our skillset is 100% bullshit. It's got to be regulatory capture and a money scam at this point. Taking the SE exam in your mid 30's or 40's (with a family) is not in the same league of difficulty as the PE exam in your mid 20's.

 

[bones206]

No matter how stochastically reliable the exam is, all it really proves is that you can pass an exam. That says more about studying habits, time management, etc. than practical engineering acumen. That's why doctors have residency and fellowships to prove themselves and receive structured, hands on, rigorous training (oh, and a meaningful pay bump at the end). Structural engineering should veer towards the medicine model and away from reliance on exams.

 

[Aesur]

This to me feels like another attempt (maybe without realizing it) by non-engineers to screw up our profession just like they (PHD's who don't actually practice) do with the codes. If they really cared about the profession IMO they would have a test that is about detailing, load paths, or even figuring out basic loading on a structure. I personally see no point in the SE exam as I have seen great engineers fail it and horrible engineers pass it; I feel it doesn't test what engineers often have a hard time with and is just a money grab. On top of all that, there are many states that still don't require it, so why waste the money and time. On the flip side this could be a great exercise for increasing fees (due to lack of availability) as there will be less and less engineers coming into the field and if more states started requiring the SE I could see many engineers leaving the industry if they weren't grandfathered in.

 

[MotorCity]

Unfortunately, NCEES is a monopoly. The states 100% solely rely on NCEES to test for professional licensure. The problem is that even if a handful of states wanted to go rogue, abandon NCEES, and come up with its own requirements, you'd have the state lawmakers scratching their heads on how to license professionals without a testing requirement. Is a minimum experience requirement and no test enough to license professionals?....I dunno, probably not. These new NCEES requirement smells like a complete money grab (i.e. a 40% increase in test cost, more tests, more opportunities for re-tests, etc)