SE Exam New format April 2024 23

[Sam1993]

Hi guys,
Anyone here sit for the SE exam with the new format?
please tell us about your experience, it will be helpful for SE takers
Thank you

 

[WARose]

Part of the answer might be that BS programs allow fewer electives now than in years past, so BS grads have had very little structural coursework.

30 years ago, when I finished my BS, I had taken structural analysis, reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, wood, matrix structural analysis, Steel I, and Steel II.

I'm familiar with the curriculum at a local university. Their students can take four total structural engineering classes -- just over half what I took. The current students have to get an MS to get a little more than I had in undergrad. I think that's probably typical nowadays.

I guess that is possible....but when I was going through the SE I & II, I had a BS & MS (under the "old" system), and I had a hard time passing the SE I. In fact, the pass rates then are comparable to what they are now. So I don't know that I buy the education theory.

If they gave me a closed book reference test, I'd probably fail it too. (And I have been a SE for 15 years.) It is the equivalent of taking Tiger Woods out to a gold course and telling him: if you don't make this hole-in-one, you aren't really a golfer.

 

[271828]

Right. Current curricula might be a small part of it, but I'd bet the test is the explanation.

When I took the old Strl I and Strl II in the early 2000s, the Strl II was a crapshoot. They would ask seismic questions that required that you had used that exact seismic force resisting system. There were too many SFRSs to be ready for all of them. There wasn't enough time to figure out an unfamiliar SFRS during the test. I didn't see any way to study for it.

The first time I tried the Strl II, I failed miserably as did two other guys from our office. The pass rate was 15%. We took it again the following semester. They asked about a system I had used in the last couple of years, so I passed fairly easily. I don't know what the pass rate was.

From that, the name of the game seemed to be "take the Strl II until they give you something in your wheelhouse." LOL

Also, the stories about the computer based exam are very discouraging. There was an article in STRUCTURE magazine recently about this. The bottom line was "Screw you guys. There's no plan to make it any better."

 

[AZPete]

Closed book works for pilots in emergency situation testing: do you have the essentials committed to memory and can you instantly recall them under some stress.

Engineering is a paced application of knowledge interwoven with creativity. Many examples only barely mimic real life situtions, but fundamentals apply, and making judgment calls in order to apply fundamentals and codes can sometimes be a little grey. But, fundamentals are testable.

Thus, a test that consistently has pass rates in the 70th percentile is a decent test of the level of qualification in question. A test with rates consistently in the teens is arguably not testing appropriately. It would be tantamount to putting marginally trained pilots into a nighttime spin and seeing if they can pull out successfully. Not a good outcome in most cases. So, to test those students, one has to train then up. The question then becomes "are you ready for this test?". You ought to be able to check for readiness.

If you were a sponsor for a test candidate, and you pay for the exam cost and the paid labor hours for sitting the exam, would you sponsor 100 test takers knowing that 15 may succeed? Ha! Not. So, you would screen yout candidates and only sponsor those who cleared a check hurdle that predicts exams success.

SO, what is that check? And, why is the gatekeeper not offering or enforcing it?

 

[WARose]

When I took the old Strl I and Strl II in the early 2000s, the Strl II was a crapshoot. They would ask seismic questions that required that you had used that exact seismic force resisting system. There were too many SFRSs to be ready for all of them. There wasn't enough time to figure out an unfamiliar SFRS during the test. I didn't see any way to study for it.

The first time I tried the Strl II, I failed miserably as did two other guys from our office. The pass rate was 15%. We took it again the following semester. They asked about a system I had used in the last couple of years, so I passed fairly easily. I don't know what the pass rate was.

From that, the name of the game seemed to be "take the Strl II until they give you something in your wheelhouse." LOL

I remember that! The funny thing about that was (around that time): the gears switched on that. (IIRC around 2002-2004.) All the sudden the SE I & II pass rates switched. I.e. prior to that point, the SE I had high pass rate and the SE II had a low one. But that switched right around the time (unfortunately for me) that I started taking it. I've got a lot of that data on a old computer of mine.

I actually went (something like) 4 years after passing the SE I before I tried the SE II. (The state I live in was qualifying engineers (as PEs) at the time based on passing the SE I.) It took a zillion attempts on the SE I for me.....the SE II? Got it the first time (IIRC).

 

[lexpatrie]

If they gave me a closed book reference test, I'd probably fail it too. (And I have been a SE for 15 years.) It is the equivalent of taking Tiger Woods out to a gold course and telling him: if you don't make this hole-in-one, you aren't really a golfer.

No. Stop being ridiculous and get a real analogy that isn't some fifth dentist silliness. It's not even a closed reference test. Go get some accuracy and come back later.

Sheesh.

 

[TLHS]

For people discussing test format, I'm personally a much bigger fan of the IStructE style of exam. Get a bunch of options, pick the one you actually know things about because it's what your practice is based on, and then do a series of conceptual and design questions about that project. You can 100% target this type of exam for something more specific like seismic lateral if that's the goal. The problem being that, since its fairly free form you need reasonably qualified people to actually mark the thing.

The format is pretty good though. An experienced engineer can go in semi-cold with maybe some light practice on how to present scheme design and some practice for time. An inexperienced engineer can't study their way though on brute force calculation knowledge. You can pick a question, so it recognizes that experience is different. The solutions are semi-open ended, so you're free to solve the problem how you'd like. It's testing if you can apply engineering principles to a problem in a reasonable way.

Here's a couple of past papers for people who haven't looked at them before. They also publish the examiners reports for completed exams with explanations of what they had been looking for, what types of reasonable approaches people took, what typical problems people had and the pass rates for each question.

Feb 2023 Exam

https://www.istructe.org/resources/...red-membership-exam-february-2023-past-paper/

Feb 2023 Examiner's Report

https://www.istructe.org/resources/...red-membership-examiner-report-february-2023/

Feb 2023 Example Solution

https://www.istructe.org/resources/exam-preparation/critiqued-exam-answer-script-february-2023/

The pass rates are 30-40% but I can kind of respect this as a measure of being able to do engineering so that seems less ridiculous.

 

[WARose]

No. Stop being ridiculous and get a real analogy that isn't some fifth dentist silliness. It's not even a closed reference test.

It is closed as far as: I can't bring in any reference material.

I couldn't imagine sitting there and flipping through some (unmarked) pdf (or whatever) to find what I need.

 

[David Deck Guy]

I couldn't imagine sitting there and flipping through some (unmarked) pdf (or whatever) to find what I need.

These codes are written in such a legalese, I couldn't imagine referencing them in a timely fashion without my ungodly mess of notes, highlights, and tabs.

 

[Overstrength]

Getting back to the original question of this thread, are there any recent test takers who care to share their experience?

I'm planning to take it sometime next year.

 

[canwesteng]

The breadth was not very hard. Practice with one screen and digital codes. Be familiar with design aids. Not writing depth til April, but I've heard the time crunch on that one is very real.