-
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
I think NCEES may have posted pass rates....although they say in the intro "The following results represent the pass rates for the October 2023 paper-and-pencil administration."....in the data, they give the "last updated" as July 2024. And there are no repeat takers data available. So it is anyone's guess.
plausibly_civil
Civil/Environmental
It looks like those are the new pass rates. I took this snip in June 2024 so that I wouldn't have to dig to compare pass rates when the new ones came out. 55% pass rate dropping to 14% for buildings is crazy.
The worst (since 2011) vertical buildings pass rate was 26% for first-time takers and worst lateral buildings was 25% for first-time takers according to this website Link
The worst (since 2011) vertical buildings pass rate was 26% for first-time takers and worst lateral buildings was 25% for first-time takers according to this website Link
SteamedHams
Structural
Whoa...buildings depth examinees must not be happy.
14% would appear to be actionable. Either the exam prep is worthless or the test itself is inducing failure due to test mechanics.
Engineering certification for the degree granting institutions yielding such failure rates should be challenged.
Engineering certification for the degree granting institutions yielding such failure rates should be challenged.
I wouldn't count on too much action. When I passed the old SE I. IIRC, the pass rate for repeat takers was 8% [that number isn't a typo]. And they didn't do much about it either.
But yeah, I agree. But the problem is: NCEES has a monopoly on this. And monopolies can get pretty ugly.
HDStructural
Structural
Grading each part separately probably makes the test harder to pass. In the past, we probably got more leniency on the depth section if we did extra good on the breadth part. No help from that anymore.
Lomarandil
Structural
HD, I'd be surprised if the depth graders (previously) had any access to the multiple choice breadth results.
canwesteng
Structural
I think HD just means it's easier to have an overall score of acceptable if you did well on the breadth, not that the graders went easy on you. Of course if any one part was unacceptable you'd still fail
HDStructural
Structural
Yes canwesteng, that is what I meant.
[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.structuremag.org/article/what-in-the-world-is-going-on-with-the-new-computer-based-structural-exam/[/url]
I think this is to be expected as a response from NCEES, but I don't know anyone in a single person that wants to take the new test. There's multiple people in our group that have the desire to attempt, time and energy to do study currently, but new format is so off putting.
Obviously the dramatic change in passing rate is a function of the testing format, not a change in the knowledge of engineers who have in most cases been practicing under others or with a PE for years. The article sort of reads like they're in the business of optimizing their expenses and processes for themselves, rather than creating something that's a similar experience to previous tests or representative of practice. And probably low scores feed into the narrative that they're making sure everyone is "qualified" to deflect from the drop is also poor test calibration and Pearson's CBT format isn't suited to this. NCEES must have identified this and had its own issues because it was the last test to switch to CBT behind the schedule of everything else.
I think this is to be expected as a response from NCEES, but I don't know anyone in a single person that wants to take the new test. There's multiple people in our group that have the desire to attempt, time and energy to do study currently, but new format is so off putting.
Obviously the dramatic change in passing rate is a function of the testing format, not a change in the knowledge of engineers who have in most cases been practicing under others or with a PE for years. The article sort of reads like they're in the business of optimizing their expenses and processes for themselves, rather than creating something that's a similar experience to previous tests or representative of practice. And probably low scores feed into the narrative that they're making sure everyone is "qualified" to deflect from the drop is also poor test calibration and Pearson's CBT format isn't suited to this. NCEES must have identified this and had its own issues because it was the last test to switch to CBT behind the schedule of everything else.
-
3
- #53
A standardized test, the pc format being the ultimate, should net passing results consistently in excess of the paper and pencil exams historically. There are fewer ways to depart from glideslope in a structured exam than in an unstructured one.
Thus, two factors come into play that would explain fallen test scores: poor test format and degraded candidate quality. That's it. Either the test sucks or the candidate does.
Candidate quality is systemic and therefore unlikely as a material contributing factor. That leaves the test format.
This has the hallmarks of a racket. Are the nation's boards limited to only one service provider for vetting PEs? Is there only one software provider for testing? If either is the case, then it is a racket...or it is shaping up to be a de facto captured industry.
Thus, two factors come into play that would explain fallen test scores: poor test format and degraded candidate quality. That's it. Either the test sucks or the candidate does.
Candidate quality is systemic and therefore unlikely as a material contributing factor. That leaves the test format.
This has the hallmarks of a racket. Are the nation's boards limited to only one service provider for vetting PEs? Is there only one software provider for testing? If either is the case, then it is a racket...or it is shaping up to be a de facto captured industry.
Am I reading the NCEES website correct... 1,400 dollars in testing fees for an SE assuming you pass all test on the first round. 2,100 dollars if you end up retaking two sections. PE is 400 dollars. *Just to be facetious. Do SE earn 3 times more than a PE or is that ratio just hold for fees?
What the time limit to pass all four sections of the SE? I think it was 5 years.
What the time limit to pass all four sections of the SE? I think it was 5 years.
SteamedHams
Structural
GC, I think the fees for CBT are pretty nuts. I do believe that most companies that I have come across reimburse the first attempt for any licensing exam. Given the pass rates of the SE even before the CBT switch, a lot of people wound up shelling out the fees themselves since they did not pass on the first go.
I heard a rumor that NCEES intends to remove structural as a discipline for the regular PE exam such that the SE exam will be the only exam that is structural-specific. Money grab or trying to tighten up the industry?
It may not be true and I can think of basic reasons why it sounds good on paper, but at a minimum if that happened it seems to me like it would send quite a message about engineers doing structural work without an SE. The number of PE's that'd be in trouble if their chosen state(s) make the SE mandatory would be staggering.
Even if the SE was the only structural license offered by NCEES, perhaps not all jurisdictions will go for requiring it for everything structural, like the way it is now, but regardless I smell some excellent job security and superlative fees for licensed SE's in the future. Makes me anxious that I need to bite the bullet and do it... Sigh.
It may not be true and I can think of basic reasons why it sounds good on paper, but at a minimum if that happened it seems to me like it would send quite a message about engineers doing structural work without an SE. The number of PE's that'd be in trouble if their chosen state(s) make the SE mandatory would be staggering.
Even if the SE was the only structural license offered by NCEES, perhaps not all jurisdictions will go for requiring it for everything structural, like the way it is now, but regardless I smell some excellent job security and superlative fees for licensed SE's in the future. Makes me anxious that I need to bite the bullet and do it... Sigh.
canwesteng
Structural
A lot of states simply wouldn't accept that. NCCES has no control over licensing. The exams are also not currently set up to be able to be passed by someone with 4 years experience, so NCEES would defacto be saying you need 10 years to be a PE for structural.
Are there companies that have their names written into State Codes such that the Code mandates their use by subscribers?
Engineers have to go to a legislatively named company and make payment in order to progress in licensure. How is this ethical?
Said another way, how is it that licensure is not open-source, so that an engineer may take any legislatively specified route to licensure that has empirically non-proprietary methods of grading and demonstrating competency?
Alternate Universe:
"Want to get licensed as an engineer? Fine, for the test portion, go to any Board Licensed Reviewer or State College and pass their Engineering Practice Exam."
Every state has its engineering college, so it should be able to produce a competent engineer. It also has a college campus, so it is possible to sit for an exam periodically. Its engineering department should know where it stands nationally for rigorous comparison in cases of comity.
Thus, any entity could engage in producing a test and vetting process in accordance with legislation for any state, and no single entity would be a monopoly gatekeeper to licensure. That last fact alone would allow and encourage competency and efficiency such that preferred paths would arise in which engineers seek one vs another route and have more reliably successful outcomes.
As well, no company name would then be written into State Code as a state designated monopoly. Anyone could petition the state boards to become an authorized reviewer in that state, and so long as they meet equitable standards, why not?
Engineers have to go to a legislatively named company and make payment in order to progress in licensure. How is this ethical?
Said another way, how is it that licensure is not open-source, so that an engineer may take any legislatively specified route to licensure that has empirically non-proprietary methods of grading and demonstrating competency?
Alternate Universe:
"Want to get licensed as an engineer? Fine, for the test portion, go to any Board Licensed Reviewer or State College and pass their Engineering Practice Exam."
Every state has its engineering college, so it should be able to produce a competent engineer. It also has a college campus, so it is possible to sit for an exam periodically. Its engineering department should know where it stands nationally for rigorous comparison in cases of comity.
Thus, any entity could engage in producing a test and vetting process in accordance with legislation for any state, and no single entity would be a monopoly gatekeeper to licensure. That last fact alone would allow and encourage competency and efficiency such that preferred paths would arise in which engineers seek one vs another route and have more reliably successful outcomes.
As well, no company name would then be written into State Code as a state designated monopoly. Anyone could petition the state boards to become an authorized reviewer in that state, and so long as they meet equitable standards, why not?
AZPete said:
There are several states that require you to submit an NCEES record for a comity (reciprocity) application. You are no longer allowed to collect exam scores, transcripts, references, other license info, etc on your own. You have to use the NCEES record system, and pay them their fee of course.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question