-
1
- #1
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
SE Exam New format April 2024 23
- Thread starter Sam1993
- Start date
BulbTheBuilder
Structural
Now I am going to play the devil's advocate for a minute.
I don't want to believe NCEES is at fault for the poor performance we are currently seeing. I think of SE exams as a high standard exam which requires an individual to have not just basic knowledge but a solidified one. Most people in my circle that took the exams are people who took the FE, right then took the PE (with less working experience), and tried taking a stab at the SE. Now, this doesn't reflect the knowledge and skills of other examinees but can I assume that's the scenario? That we have inadequately experienced and prepared candidates taking the exams?
I believe the SE exam is the monster on its own and people who attempt it ought to have a better understanding of the code and design than the average engineer. The SE exam is intended for newbies without of college or EITs better still PEs trying to figure out how to do "basic engineering".
That being said, the CBT format is also tough on people who aren't "computer savvy" trying to navigate the references but that aside the onus isn't entirely on NCEES.
I don't want to believe NCEES is at fault for the poor performance we are currently seeing. I think of SE exams as a high standard exam which requires an individual to have not just basic knowledge but a solidified one. Most people in my circle that took the exams are people who took the FE, right then took the PE (with less working experience), and tried taking a stab at the SE. Now, this doesn't reflect the knowledge and skills of other examinees but can I assume that's the scenario? That we have inadequately experienced and prepared candidates taking the exams?
I believe the SE exam is the monster on its own and people who attempt it ought to have a better understanding of the code and design than the average engineer. The SE exam is intended for newbies without of college or EITs better still PEs trying to figure out how to do "basic engineering".
That being said, the CBT format is also tough on people who aren't "computer savvy" trying to navigate the references but that aside the onus isn't entirely on NCEES.
SteamedHams
Structural
Bulb, I agree that the SE should be a very hard exam, but I've been reading that the main issues are related to how the CBT has been implemented and not really about the content. I took the FE as CBT and, if I recall correctly, they only give you one screen and a little dry erase board for your workings. From what I have read, it's the same deal with the PE and SE. I have also read complaints that the digital codes used are pretty slow and are not bookmarked well. I think a basic setup with one monitor and no references works fine if you are just testing the basics, but the SE is not about the basics and requires a solid understanding. When I'm in a crunch and need to solve problems quickly at work, I have access to my bookmarked codes, calcs from past projects, books, etc. I had access to those items when I took the SE in October 2023.
plausibly_civil
Civil/Environmental
SteamedHams said:
Looks like I was mistaken, and these are the results that I had been shown. Sorry for the misinformation all. I'm very interested to see how CBT affects these results, especially lateral forces bridges. Just looking through the last few BRPELS newsletters the pass rates have been abysmal for the most recent exams.
As somebody who took the PE exam on CBT, I can say for sure that a lot of the difficulty of the exam now is just navigating the pdf viewer and trying to find a spot to write on the desk they give you. It wasn't a huge deal on the PE exam but I can see waiting 3-5 seconds for each page to load and having to stretch over my keyboard to jot down numbers with a dry erase marker really adding up on the SE.
-
2
- #24
BulbTheBuilder
Structural
SteamedHams, I agree with you on the navigating the PDF and using one screen. No doubt, that's a big issue that needs to be addressed one way of the other. How NCEES resolves it is up to them as I can't recommend anything other than having a second screen. I haven't taken SE exams, so I say this with utmost ignorance. Isn't calibrated to factor in using digital references?
This, I agree. The former before the quote, I disagree. Where I come from, we have an additional exam which is an oral exam where you answer or describe engineering concepts to a committee. I feel that's a better way to test engineers rather than relying solely on CBT.PMR06 said:
-
3
- #26
I wrote and passed the CBT lateral and vertical breadth exams several weeks ago. Since the exam format was new I decided to 'wing it' without putting in much studying effort, just worked on practice problems leading up to the exam, and got lucky. I had previously written the CBT California seismic and surveying exams so the test center format wasn't completely foreign.
Some comments that come to mind:
- the consensus from examinees seems to be that the breadth exams were fair and the depth exams were not.
- You can flag questions and review a list of them at the end for follow-up. I suggest using it as part of the test writing strategy.
- I skipped all questions that required extensive code reading to solve (due to my unfamiliarity, eg AASHTO) and came back to them at the end. I was able to get through all questions with about 15 min to spare for checking some of the ones I flagged for follow up.
- the PDF codes were annoying. There is a 1sec lag between page flips so you cant quickly skim to find what you want. They had varying degrees of bookmarks and I found myself writing down pg numbers to flip back to things. You can only have one pdf open at a time. Luckily they revert back to the page you were on when switching between codes.
- the erasable markers were annoying. Mine kept on running dry, each time wasting valuable minutes waiting for the proctor. There also isn't much space in the cubicle for writing.
- I think the effort put into tabbing / creating flow charts, etc is still good preparation even though you cant bring it with you.
- Time is the biggest factor in the exam, which is unfortunate because that doesn't mimic real practice. I wish they would add a couple hours so there is time for checking. Since its closed book, I don't really see the harm in allowing more time.
-JA (working on [link calcs.app]Calcs.app[/url])
Some comments that come to mind:
- the consensus from examinees seems to be that the breadth exams were fair and the depth exams were not.
- You can flag questions and review a list of them at the end for follow-up. I suggest using it as part of the test writing strategy.
- I skipped all questions that required extensive code reading to solve (due to my unfamiliarity, eg AASHTO) and came back to them at the end. I was able to get through all questions with about 15 min to spare for checking some of the ones I flagged for follow up.
- the PDF codes were annoying. There is a 1sec lag between page flips so you cant quickly skim to find what you want. They had varying degrees of bookmarks and I found myself writing down pg numbers to flip back to things. You can only have one pdf open at a time. Luckily they revert back to the page you were on when switching between codes.
- the erasable markers were annoying. Mine kept on running dry, each time wasting valuable minutes waiting for the proctor. There also isn't much space in the cubicle for writing.
- I think the effort put into tabbing / creating flow charts, etc is still good preparation even though you cant bring it with you.
- Time is the biggest factor in the exam, which is unfortunate because that doesn't mimic real practice. I wish they would add a couple hours so there is time for checking. Since its closed book, I don't really see the harm in allowing more time.
-JA (working on [link calcs.app]Calcs.app[/url])
-
1
- #27
canwesteng
Structural
I do think we'd get more meaningful pass fail info from NCEES if they could split pass fail into say professionals with 8+ years of experience and everyone else. I do think the pass rate for people who recently took the PE and found it challenging should be next to 0%, I know people who've taken and they passed first time and those are people should have it.
BulbTheBuilder
Structural
Congratulations @ggcdn! and thank you for sharing your experience !
@canwesteng, I think that's a great idea. We'd have a data like "20% passed the vertical with 60% of the 20% being say +6year working experience".
@canwesteng, I think that's a great idea. We'd have a data like "20% passed the vertical with 60% of the 20% being say +6year working experience".
This right here is what I am trying to emphasis here. Doesn't mean I don't acknowledge NCEES poor CBT system.
I passed the old SE I & II exam many years ago, and I think this new format is BS. I couldn't imagine taking the test this way.
Having interviewed (for a job) at NCEES (way back when).....I'd have to say though: I'm not the least bit surprised at it. That place came across as a mess.
Having interviewed (for a job) at NCEES (way back when).....I'd have to say though: I'm not the least bit surprised at it. That place came across as a mess.
SteamedHams
Structural
Wondering if the Reddit post that Mike is referencing is correct. It's almost mid-July and I haven't seen a thread about SE depth results. I thought they were supposed to be released in June.
Has anyone who took the Depth recently been kept in the loop?
Has anyone who took the Depth recently been kept in the loop?
After the exam I got a NCEES summary sheet saying the results would be released in 10-13 weeks. This is week 12 so we are still within this window. The SE exam meeting was June 7-8 according to the NCEES newsletter so I'm not sure what the hold up is. For pen and paper tests the results typically came out 2 weeks after this meeting. At this point it's anyone's guess when results will come out, and I've stopped checking. The SE exam discord will probably meltdown once results are released so I'll know for sure then lol.
strucbells
Structural
Jeez..I got my results on 6/13/23 last year for the old format of the SE exam (exam date 4/14/23) and that felt like an eternity.
Wasn't the new format supposed to make grading faster and easier?? :O
Wasn't the new format supposed to make grading faster and easier?? :O
I can't speak to the CBT of the SE exam but I took it for the PE a year back and while not ideal, I was able to manage with the resources but it was very frustrating. Some codes had every potential book mark (Ie 12.1, 12.2, ect), while other codes only had tabs for the main chapters which can be quite long. I was also stunned to see that there were a few variables that the PDF reader was not able to read. One case that I recall was in the NDS where the equation for Fce (apart of 3.7-1) had the Le variable missing entirely. You could just see a blank where it should've been and could still complete the problem if you're familiar enough with the code but I'm sure that was not the only occurrence of a missing variable
Yes I can confirm the resources are a pain. There are no bookmarks at all for the AISC 360. A handful of other codes were just the main chapters. There was no page number box, no arrows to move the pages, just a scoll bar. Overall I managed and feel decent about it (hopeful the results are this week it's been 3 months already...), but I feel for the people that didn't experience the PE CBT version, or who had studied for paper and pencil and didn't pass and now have to take the CBT version.
-
4
- #36
Computer should NEVER be a material and adverse impact on licensure test taking. Never.
If the test is best administered via computer, so be it. But test takers should have the option to take a paper based test with all of the professional references in hardcopy if they choose, even if they are limited to one test date at one national location. To do otherwise is a major disservice to the profession, based solely on the administrator's preference for test procedure.
If the test is best administered via computer, so be it. But test takers should have the option to take a paper based test with all of the professional references in hardcopy if they choose, even if they are limited to one test date at one national location. To do otherwise is a major disservice to the profession, based solely on the administrator's preference for test procedure.
-
1
- #37
Man, I feel bad for anybody taking this new test. Last year I briefly considered studying and taking it. That is, until I saw the new CBT format and the general confusion around it. I can understand NCEES wanting the test to be computer based considering it must make it easier/faster to grade (well, maybe not??), but to disallow physical reference material makes no sense to me. And the singular computer monitor (if I understand that correctly) is just plain cruel.
My current office setup is 3 large monitors on a really big desk. I'll often have a few PDFs open on the monitors plus 3 or 4 physical codes and references on the desk/floor. If I had to give up 2 monitors and physical reference material, my business would immediately suffer. This would say nothing about my ability as an engineer, of course. It would just be way slower and more frustrating to do anything. I might as well start walking to site visits while we're at it!
The test should attempt to replicate a reasonable work environment, otherwise a large part of the test taking effort goes towards working with their idiotic setup. This effort would be better spent actually learning engineering!
My current office setup is 3 large monitors on a really big desk. I'll often have a few PDFs open on the monitors plus 3 or 4 physical codes and references on the desk/floor. If I had to give up 2 monitors and physical reference material, my business would immediately suffer. This would say nothing about my ability as an engineer, of course. It would just be way slower and more frustrating to do anything. I might as well start walking to site visits while we're at it!
The test should attempt to replicate a reasonable work environment, otherwise a large part of the test taking effort goes towards working with their idiotic setup. This effort would be better spent actually learning engineering!
BulbTheBuilder
Structural
Now that's bad. This isn't a good look for NCEES
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question