-
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
Who is taking the test is very very opaque, i.e. with that silly decoupling and potentially taking the exam directly from school (something I personally dislike greatly but nobody asked) the skills and experience of the test takers is a major question.
If a majority just passed the FE and decided to go at the SE 16 hour, they'd likely fail, IMHO. If that's 30% of the group, that would tank the pass rate.
Also, if you look at the older exams, particularly Civil, first time pass was the highest percentage, The folks who brought a shopping cart or trolley of text books were second, third, fourth, or fifth time attempts and those guys tended not to pass.
Just some data points, thematically speaking.
If a majority just passed the FE and decided to go at the SE 16 hour, they'd likely fail, IMHO. If that's 30% of the group, that would tank the pass rate.
Also, if you look at the older exams, particularly Civil, first time pass was the highest percentage, The folks who brought a shopping cart or trolley of text books were second, third, fourth, or fifth time attempts and those guys tended not to pass.
Just some data points, thematically speaking.
canwesteng
Structural
I'm in some of the study groups, and yeah there are certainly a decent chunk of these people who should not pass the exam, at least for what it's being used as now. There are surely also some oddball candidates who take it out of school. Hard to imagine it's 80% of test writers.
271828 said:
I agree it's a bit insane and unrealistic. I don't want to share details about where the rumor came from, but they are credible and I don't know why they'd make up something like that, considering their role with respect to NCEES and the exams. Hopefully they are wrong or over-simplifying what the change would actually entail. Either way it's just a rumor for now.
DrZoidberWoop
Structural
A lot of companies might start hiring young test-taking phenoms to be SE stampers, and engineers in name only.... I'm a steel specialist and I know I can't pass the SE exam, let alone find the time to study, afford to update my study materials, and then pay the exam fees.
HDStructural
Structural
I don't think a young test-taking phenom can pass the SE exam as it is so broad and really gets into the weeds on the codes, you can't pass it just by being a good test taker. And if some young engineer did pass the SE exam, they would not be an engineer in name only since passing the SE exam shows your wide understanding and knowledge of structural engineering. Sure they wouldn't have the years of experience of a senior engineer in their 50's or 60's but they should be reliable and competent.
-
1
- #67
While I aknowledge that the current CBT format is not good (too long, too expensive, etc), I do believe that our licensing requirements should be difficult. We are responsible for protecting the public. An engineer who doesn't know what they are doing is dangerous. Pass rates don't tell the whole story as many discussed in this thread. If a large portion of the test takers are engineers who practiced largely in one material (which I believe to be the case) it would be difficult for them to pass. You can't go in only knowing steel, or only knowing wood. You have to know concrete, steel, masonry, wood, light gauge, seismic, snow, wind, etc. Becoming intimately familiar with all of these when you didn't practice in these regularly is a monumental task. It is my opinion that if we were to license an engineer in structural, they should be intimately familiar with all of these topics.
I'm not sure what the best way is to determine if a candidate actually knows these items, but I think the 16 hour exam did an ok job at it while still representing a similar to real work life atmosphere. Being able to bring your own notes and code books into the exam to me is something that should remain in place, even with a CBT. By removing that, I think the CBT is a failure in regards to professional engineering licensing.
I'm not sure what the best way is to determine if a candidate actually knows these items, but I think the 16 hour exam did an ok job at it while still representing a similar to real work life atmosphere. Being able to bring your own notes and code books into the exam to me is something that should remain in place, even with a CBT. By removing that, I think the CBT is a failure in regards to professional engineering licensing.
David Deck Guy
Structural
HDStructural said:
So true. I tried to pass the SE exam thinking I could just study the test, the same way I did for the PE exam. Total disaster. It wasn't until working for a different firm where I got much better experience that I was able to pass the test.
Stenbrook said:
I've been saying this since the day I passed the SE exam. The SE exam needs to be 10x harder. Its way too easy. We are responsible for protecting the public, this is a life safety issue!
David Deck Guy
Structural
It was a gatekeeping joke.
Jokes aside though, I think more states should adopt the SE license. But some sort of PE Structural exam, easier than the SE, harder than the current PE, would be good for niche specialties. I spent a few years working in industrial in my early career where the only material we touched was steel. Having those engineers learn the fine details of wood and masonry seems like over regulation to me.
Jokes aside though, I think more states should adopt the SE license. But some sort of PE Structural exam, easier than the SE, harder than the current PE, would be good for niche specialties. I spent a few years working in industrial in my early career where the only material we touched was steel. Having those engineers learn the fine details of wood and masonry seems like over regulation to me.
DrZoidberWoop
Structural
The way the wind is blowing...... SE exam/licensure as the min requirement in all states is literally what the "Structural Engineering Licensure Coalition" lists as a goal... Middle fingers to them.
-
1
- #73
Subheading E on page 34 of that report titled "The Narrow Focus of Structural Engineering" is the thing that's a problem with the push to fully silo off Structural Engineering as a qualification. It basically just handwaves an assumption that structural engineering is now completely specialized from the rest of civil engineering and that we can take that as a given and that the specialization is due to needing to implement complicated codes for high risk, high complexity structures.
Additional regulation for certain types of structural engineering is fine. Having tall building lateral designed by a person with a specific qualification is probably reasonable. Ignoring that there's a whole swathe of structural engineering outside of tall buildings and long span bridges is silly though, which is what a bunch of this push seems to do. As you get more specialized you have less knowledge in generalized areas typically. A general structural engineer title assuming ten years of experience can't be focused on all of structural engineering. A ten year engineer isn't going to be an expert at tall buildings, bridges, stadiums, marine structures, industrial supports, cable structures, and all sorts of other random stuff. If you are going to silo off high criticality building systems, give it a more specific name and make it clear that this is what you're doing.
Also, civil and structural engineering generalists still exist, as do all sorts of weird crossover discipline work.
The large portion of the industry doing three story buildings, houses, additions, random industrial stuff, infrastructure work and all sorts of fun things are not generally the high profile people labelled as structural engineers and don't have a seat at the table for this kind of conversation, but civil engineer doesn't describe what they do in the modern understanding of it. So what the hell are they?
Additional regulation for certain types of structural engineering is fine. Having tall building lateral designed by a person with a specific qualification is probably reasonable. Ignoring that there's a whole swathe of structural engineering outside of tall buildings and long span bridges is silly though, which is what a bunch of this push seems to do. As you get more specialized you have less knowledge in generalized areas typically. A general structural engineer title assuming ten years of experience can't be focused on all of structural engineering. A ten year engineer isn't going to be an expert at tall buildings, bridges, stadiums, marine structures, industrial supports, cable structures, and all sorts of other random stuff. If you are going to silo off high criticality building systems, give it a more specific name and make it clear that this is what you're doing.
Also, civil and structural engineering generalists still exist, as do all sorts of weird crossover discipline work.
The large portion of the industry doing three story buildings, houses, additions, random industrial stuff, infrastructure work and all sorts of fun things are not generally the high profile people labelled as structural engineers and don't have a seat at the table for this kind of conversation, but civil engineer doesn't describe what they do in the modern understanding of it. So what the hell are they?
-
2
- #74
HDStructural
Structural
I think we all may have worked with some engineers where we wonder how the bridges or buildings they designed are still standing. I think the answer is partially in the safety factors and partially because the design loads have not occurred yet (design wind speeds or design snow loads etc..) which is another topic we have beaten to death. As an industry we want to protect the public from these types of engineers.
I've also heard senior engineers telling junior engineers who feel unqualified and in over their head that they should not worry because buildings are not falling down, basically don't worry if you make a mistake. This is another thing that we want to protect the public from, young engineers who are not being properly trained and mentored.
I am not sure what the best way is to protect the public from this.
I think the SE requirement for risk category III or IV structures seems like a reasonable requirement which is already done in some states. I don't see why it should be required for all buildings though.
Have there ever been qualifications for a steel detailer showing their competence in connection design? Or things similar to this where they work in a niche market and can prove that they are qualified for that specific thing?
I've also heard senior engineers telling junior engineers who feel unqualified and in over their head that they should not worry because buildings are not falling down, basically don't worry if you make a mistake. This is another thing that we want to protect the public from, young engineers who are not being properly trained and mentored.
I am not sure what the best way is to protect the public from this.
I think the SE requirement for risk category III or IV structures seems like a reasonable requirement which is already done in some states. I don't see why it should be required for all buildings though.
Have there ever been qualifications for a steel detailer showing their competence in connection design? Or things similar to this where they work in a niche market and can prove that they are qualified for that specific thing?
-
1
- #75
I agree.....but I have to question those pass rates. Why are they so much lower than other disciplines? Either one of two things are going on: the colleges are turning out lousy engineers in our discipline, or there is a issue with the test. I don't buy the former, I think it is the latter. It makes zero sense to me that the first time pass rates for Electrical & Mechanical (for example) are all in the 60-70% range, and for structural they are in the teens (for some parts of the test). Houston, we have a problem here....and it ain't the engineers.
Another question: what was wrong with some of the old school tests anyway? (And I say that as someone who has passed the SE I & II exam.) Back in the 70's & 80's, the PE exam for civil/structural was something like 4 problems in the morning and 4 in the afternoon. You picked the two you wanted to answer and showed your work. In other words: you picked where you were competent (just like in real life practice).
What was the outcome of this? Were there rampant failures because of guys who got off the hook by "easy" tests? Not according to what I have seen (over a 25+ year career). Most failures I have seen are from issues with construction or a code unanticipated situation. A good example of the latter were some of the failures from some Earthquakes they had in California in the early 70's & late 80's. They didn't have to change the practicing engineer.....they had to change the code.
So in summary, I think the system is broken....and it starts with NCEES. (And a lot of people willing to go along with whatever they do.)
That firm should not be written into State Codes. Period. That's number one.
Number two: insurance ought to look into becoming an alternate path gatekeeper to engineering licensure. They're the ones insuring it; they should be able to properly assess the breakeven point for competency in the assets and engineers they insure. Perfect solution? Perhaps not, but it gets the pot stirring as this thing needs to boil again.
Licensure in the aggregate is a racket. It serves a legitimate purpose, but it blankets indiscriminately and inefficiently. It regulates what it shouldn't and has an inefficient process for regulating what it should. Time to open it up and overhaul it.
Number two: insurance ought to look into becoming an alternate path gatekeeper to engineering licensure. They're the ones insuring it; they should be able to properly assess the breakeven point for competency in the assets and engineers they insure. Perfect solution? Perhaps not, but it gets the pot stirring as this thing needs to boil again.
Licensure in the aggregate is a racket. It serves a legitimate purpose, but it blankets indiscriminately and inefficiently. It regulates what it shouldn't and has an inefficient process for regulating what it should. Time to open it up and overhaul it.
I'm not planning on sitting for the test for another year or so but I think it's very likely that the result of the low test scores could be a result of the prep companies not adapting for the CBT format well enough. While they can't replace experiences, I have to imagine the majority of engineers who take the test sign up for these classes and could have an impact on the pass rate. Potentially they can improve their approach after a few rounds of the test and we start to see a 1st pass rate in the 25-35 range at least.
Test prep is technically a cheat. The purpose of the test is to demonstrate competency via application of knowledge and requisite efficiency in a block of time.
If 70% of surgeons can excise the object and stitch the patient back up inside the allotted hands of the clock, then that becomes the measure of competence in that skill. Some surgeons may be methodically slow but extremely competent. Some may be lightning fast and mostly competent. Thus, based on the test, many are accurately judged, some are deemed acceptable despite being so, and some are the turtles that the timekeepers gave up on but who are stellar from an insurable risk standpoint. It's commerce, and time in so many regards has a premium.
The test format is arguably not how engineering is done in the workaday world. Each has his own methods and filing system for references and codes and use thereof. If the test were a correspondence course with open access to resources, time and format would be immaterial. The only question remaining in such a case would be, "who did the work?"
For a test of professional candidates to yield pass rates below 1:4 should be a sign of something amiss. Sorry, it just is so. The nation's engineering colleges and professional firms that train and sponsor these candidates cannot possibly be producing and employing engineers with competencies in the umpteen percentile. Theoretically, perhaps, but impossibly so in all reality. A trusty engineering licensure gatekeeper should be furious about such poor outcomes. Point its finger at colleges if need be, and let the chips fall where they may, but froth should be the order of the day. Instead, eh.
If 70% of surgeons can excise the object and stitch the patient back up inside the allotted hands of the clock, then that becomes the measure of competence in that skill. Some surgeons may be methodically slow but extremely competent. Some may be lightning fast and mostly competent. Thus, based on the test, many are accurately judged, some are deemed acceptable despite being so, and some are the turtles that the timekeepers gave up on but who are stellar from an insurable risk standpoint. It's commerce, and time in so many regards has a premium.
The test format is arguably not how engineering is done in the workaday world. Each has his own methods and filing system for references and codes and use thereof. If the test were a correspondence course with open access to resources, time and format would be immaterial. The only question remaining in such a case would be, "who did the work?"
For a test of professional candidates to yield pass rates below 1:4 should be a sign of something amiss. Sorry, it just is so. The nation's engineering colleges and professional firms that train and sponsor these candidates cannot possibly be producing and employing engineers with competencies in the umpteen percentile. Theoretically, perhaps, but impossibly so in all reality. A trusty engineering licensure gatekeeper should be furious about such poor outcomes. Point its finger at colleges if need be, and let the chips fall where they may, but froth should be the order of the day. Instead, eh.
WARose said:
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.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question