SE Exam Specification and Passing Criteria 5

[chorner26]

I recently took the Gravity SE exam and received 3 acceptableness and 1 not acceptable on the afternoon portion of the exam.

It gave me an acceptable in Concrete which I barley drew pictures and diagrams for. (Ran out of time)

It gave me unacceptable on Steel which I completely smoked. However I referenced AISC 13th Edition (Black Book), not AISC 14th Ed (Red book)

Does anybody know if that reference really would make a difference? Or is the results just erroneous and they didn't want to pass me.

Do you need to get acceptable in all categories?

I did barley studied anyways.

Best regards,

Craig Horner, PE

 

[WARose]

I don't know that much about the new exam (I passed the "old" SE I & II; I've heard there are some similarities).....but I can tell you right now: bringing in a code that is not on the list of NCEES references for that exam is a sure fire way to fail it. You have to do it by the code they call out (or hope you get lucky in terms of: it hasn't changed from code to code).

 

[Rabbit12]

Why would use an old code?

If I'm the reviewer I might think this person can't even bring the right code book to this test why would they use the correct code in practice?

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Chorner: I've posted my thoughts on the "cut score" for the SE exam before, but here's my conclusion. Based on scores people have reported after failing the SE exam I've developed the following:

• You need approximately 28-30 on the morning from what I can tell.
• If you have a good morning score then you likely need two "acceptable" and two "improvement required" scores for buildings, or two "acceptable" (one of these being the 2 hour problem) and an "improvement required" for bridges.
• If you have a less than 30 morning score then you likely need three "acceptable" and one "improvement required" for buildings, or two "acceptable" (one of these being the 2 hour problem) and an "improvement required" for bridges.
• As best I can tell, if you get an unacceptable on any of the afternoon problems then you will not pass. Perhaps if you have a near perfect morning score then you may pass but this would be hard to determine based on the limited information I have.
• It has been confirmed that not completing a problem but listing out steps or rough calculations can get you an “acceptable” score for an afternoon problem.

I can all but guarantee that if the reviewers can identify that you're using the incorrect version of the referenced specification then your question will be marked unacceptable. Depending on your morning score that unacceptable likely was what resulted in you not receiving "acceptable" for the exam. Regardless, if you can pass this exam with "barely studying" then color me impressed.

Professional Engineer (ME, NH, MA) Structural Engineer (IL)
American Concrete Industries

https://www.facebook.com/AmericanConcrete/

 

[MrHershey]

Bold move showing up with the wrong code. I'd have failed you too. The correct codes to reference are plastered all over the NCEES website and most study materials. Choosing the right reference should be the easiest part of the exam, they give you the answer up front.

 

[Rabbit12]

Saved money by not buying the right code but now get's to take the exam again. Not a wise financial decision. Guess you'll get to smoke the steel question next time too.

 

[RPMG]

If the testers used a trick question to weed out the code used, they have lost perspective. The only thing that changed was bolt shear strength. Was the question about connection design?

And let's not use this forum to put others down and make ourselves feel more powerful. That would be shallow, and suggest that we, as engineers, have social issues.

 

[Rabbit12]

RPMG,

I find it ridiculous that you'd go into this exam with the incorrect code (especially one as important as steel design). Sure this time that particular code may have only changed slightly. However, that might not always be the case. If you aren't willing to get a current code for this test, it's not a stretch to imagine that in practice that individual may design with outdated codes. That's generally a bad idea and IMO accepting results from someone using the wrong code would give the impression that's acceptable.

A few years ago I took both SE gravity and lateral back to back. I passed the gravity but failed the lateral. So the following spring I signed up for the lateral. Between those two tests they changed all the code versions. I didn't take a shortcut, I borrowed what I could and invested my own money on the rest and upgraded all my codes.

 

[sandman21]

You did not fail because of the incorrect code,you got something else wrong on the steel question.

 

[271828]

Graders might be given a list of what warrants an "unacceptable." This list might include "using the wrong standard."

Also, even if the grader has discretion, consider that grading an exam is difficult and time consuming. Don't give a grader an easy out by citing the wrong Specification. A tired or tardy grader might see "13th edition" and stop right there and write "unacceptable" and move on.

 

[RWW0002]

Years ago when I took the SE, I did not quote chapter and verse on the afternoon section unless required, nor did I specify which code version I was using. This may not be poor practice, but I was more worried about demonstrating the ability to think through the problems and document a logical thought process and solution method than quoting where to find specific code provisions. I guess they could ask a question about something that has specifically changed, as RPMG alludes to above, and figure out which version you are using, but otherwise I do not think they would know or care as long as the problems are worked logically. I would just put.."per AISC" and roll on with the necessary equation, Table reference, etc..

 

[Lomarandil]

I'm with Sandman. I can't imagine them having an automatic rejection for using an older version of the code. (Or I got really lucky with my cobbled-together collection).

[I'm really surprised at the number of responses criticizing the OP for using a 13th edition code... you're all telling me that you immediately dump your editions of ACI, AASHTO and AISC every time a new version comes out? Oh, and update all your spreadsheets immediately too, right?]

I think that either the steel question wasn't as straightforward as you thought -- the SE does that quite often.

Or most likely there's an error in the results reporting, and you actually were given the unacceptable for the concrete problem.

----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.

 

[WARose]

[blue](Lomarandil)[/blue]

I'm with Sandman. I can't imagine them having an automatic rejection for using an older version of the code. (Or I got really lucky with my cobbled-together collection).

[I'm really surprised at the number of responses criticizing the OP for using a 13th edition code... you're all telling me that you immediately dump your editions of ACI, AASHTO and AISC every time a new version comes out? Oh, and update all your spreadsheets immediately too, right?]

I don't think anyone is criticizing him for using an old code......what we are criticizing him for is showing up with a code not on NCEES's list for a exam.

If you are looking for a defender of NCEES......you won't find it here. (They just got finished losing the record I've had with them for years. Just about everytime I've dealt with them, the whole thing screamed: incompetence/disorganization.) But they set the rules. And if you bring a code that is not on the design standards list (on their web site; IIRC, they also state the code to use in the problem statement)......you are asking for trouble.

Yes, if it's the multiple choice portion of the exam you could luck out that what you are being asked hasn't changed from code to code.......but why risk it if you are going to all the trouble of trying to pass it?

And for the record, I don't think the wrong code gets you completely nuked for the essay/written part. From what I've heard, they also grade you on procedure (i.e. the right one) as well.

 

[Lomarandil]

Ok, you're right... I overreacted there.

Certainly, the ideal would be to show up with every reference NCEES lists, correct edition and all.

But I think for many engineers (myself included), that's a pretty expensive proposition. I think I owned the correct versions of ACI and ASCE 7. I was one edition behind on AISC, IBC, PCI, NDS and AASHTO (either mine or my company's). And in large part, that was only because I'd personally shelled out a lot of cash (maybe $1k) in advance of the PE exam. Rather than doing so again, I went through the update notes page-by-page and marked up the old versions with changes.

I lucked into TMS at a library a few states over, but I had to scour my network to borrow copies of AISC Seismic and AISI.

Granted, I'm in an industry where there may not be as much pressure to keep current on codes as others.. maybe it's not as much a burden as I think.

----
The name is a long story -- just call me Lo.

 

[Rabbit12]

I'd make sure I had the most current IBC, steel (including seismic), concrete, masonry, and wood design codes. Cold-formed, AASHTO (for building guys), and the PCI handbook are way less critical.

You certainly don't have to personally buy each and every standard. I took what I could from my employer, borrowed a few from colleagues, and bought a couple. If you don't have a network of fellow engineers get involved with your local ASCE chapter or SE chapter, meet some fellow engineers; I'm confident you'd have no problem borrowing any code you need.


I had less than $400 personally invested in codes. The SE exam is not an exam to cut corners on, IMO.

 

[EDub24]

Unless there was a change between editions it shouldn’t have mattered which code you used. When I took the exam a couple years ago I didn’t reference any code sections so unless there was a change that was obvious there’s no way to determine which code you used. In my college years I remember the one exam I bombed bigtime was the one I felt really good coming out of. Maybe that was the case here with you? I also think that an unacceptable is a surefire way to fail regardless of the other scores...

 

[chorner26]

Thanks for the input guys.
From what i can tell The Mighty Engineer is probably right.
I'm thinking 25 out of 40 right in the morning and 3/4 right in the afternoon.
I recently purchased the red book(14th) and there is very little difference between the two. Thus,
I was close and did not pass. Yes, I smoked the steel problem as I used to work for a fabricator designing steel connections and elements daily.
I did not do well on the bridge questions. (Didn't study them). Recently bought the Bridge book by David Connor. It's a pretty good book. The problems are pretty easy.
I personally own all of the books as I own my own practice.

Best Regards