SE Interview Aptitude Exercise / Test 2

[RFreund]

Has anyone had to take an exam when interviewing with a structural engineering company?
I'm trying to put together a short exam, something pretty basic for entry level / junior engineers. The idea is to get a baseline of someone's experience and how fast/slow they complete the "exercise". I'm wondering if anyone has a test like this or has taken one? What did it include?

My thoughts are:

Given:
A square Roof plan 2 eq. spaced columns and one steel beam line. Show wood joists framing perpendicular to the beam.
A square Floor plan with a column in the middle. Show no floor on one side of the beam.
Roof / Floor live and deads
Allowable bearing capacity
Size a joist, beam, column and footing.
This checks the ability to size wood and steel but more importantly if they can follow a load path. Maybe ask the person to draw shear and moment diagrams.
The catch is that there is a point load on the floor beam and it is unbraced on one side.

Unfortunately this is not an all inclusive test but I think the idea is to try and see if the person understands load paths/take downs more so than material code specifics.

I'd be interested to hear any comments, thanks in advance!





EIT

http://www.HowToEngineer.com

 

[Agent666]

I'd just concentrate on the load path and bending moment and Shear force diagrams. In my experience if someone can visualise those on the spot in an interview, they will be capable of doing actual design with no worries.

The other thing which is important in my opinion is to give them a real structure and get them to real off possible structural schemes or configuration and possible design issues, things to consider, etc. Ask questions along the way and challenge their ideas and see if they can defend/explain their choices. This in my mind demonstrates the ability to think beyond just designing an individual component, let's face it almost all engineers can do the design of an element, but it's the other higher level stuff more junior engineers just don't get exposed to that's more valuable in the long term.

 

[GregLocock]

I'd be intrigued as whether entry level (fresh out of uni) engineers could even understand the question. Is that level of detail common in American universities?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[Trenno]

Have a look at some of the questions presented within this online exam for inspiration.

I agree with Agent666 - make them draw BMD's for a simple portal frame. Give them an industrial steel shed or house, then ask them where/how they would brace it. Ask them how post-tensioning works? Most young engineers can follow a code, so don't bother going down that path.

Or... give them a question so far out of their league / time allowed, but examine their reaction and subsequent thought processes. For example, I heard a story about a graduate interview at one of the world's largest & influential banking companies. Their office overlooked the Sydney Harbour Bridge. The interview started with, "How much would it cost to run that bridge each year?"

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

At my old work we had evaluations on ability to use structural modeling software (Staad in this case) at 3 and 6 months after being hired and compared it to someone fluent in using the software.

Never had an exam at an interview but I would fully support it. Vague questions about my aptitude suck, I'd much rather demonstrate my skill. In this end I usually bring a portfolio of projects I worked on and use them as discussion points.

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[MotorCity]

While I understand the intent of the test, I personally would be put off by such a request. I have not heard of this approach, but I have heard of engineers being asked to demonstrate their use of analysis programs as part of a 2nd or 3rd interview. I suspect that an entry level engineer may find it intimidating.

That being said, I do think that you as the employer are entitled to have some understanding as to where the engineer's strengths and weaknesses lie. Having sat on both sides of the interviewing table, I think that if you ask directed and specific questions about projects they have worked on or materials they have worked with, it usually becomes quickly apparent whether or not they can speak intelligently on a subject matter (such as using correct terms, reference to code requirements, load path......).

 

[Ron]

Be careful with giving interview exams. With a prevalence of "equal opportunity employment" laws around, you have to be sure that anyone who holds the existing job in your company must be able to pass any interview exam you give!

Being able to pass an exam at an interview, while laudable, does not guarantee a competent employee....it guarantees someone who is capable of taking an exam! Some people are just not good at taking exams, but can perform quite will in a daily environment. Yes, being able to take and pass an "on the spot" exam shows that one can "think on their feet" and have presence of mind in front of clients and others........all good qualities to have for a prospective employee. Such might help spot a "star", but wouldn't necessarily pick out the better, long term employee.

Conversely, we need to strive for quality in our business and technical competence is foremost in that process. Being able to visualize and describe a load path or doing a free body diagram would certainly be necessities and a prospective employee should be able to give it a good shot, even with a few minor glitches!

I also agree with GregLocock....would they even understand the question. Yes, our academic system in the US for engineering school attempts to get to that level of detail, but that depends on the school they attended and the professors they had. It is not universal that a new grad would understand the how the individual component analyses would fit into a whole building system application.

As an example, when I was teaching structural analysis, I devoted a full lecture to describing that the same member section can be called a purlin, a beam, a girder or even a column....just depending on where it sits and its orientation in the building system. I have interviewed prospective employees who were never exposed to such in their academic process, so it varies.

 

[RFreund]

All great points, thank you for your insight!
I have similar feelings as the rest of you. I'm not so sure I would have "passed" the test I just described straight out of college and I went through (what I would consider) I pretty intensive structural curriculum (not saying I was a very good student though...). And for sure I would have been intimidated. For me the most important thing is trying to find someone who is passionate/interested about engineering and who really wants to keep learning, no matter their age or experience. I think the test has been brought up due to a couple recent events (I'll stop their). I don't even want to call it a test because there would be no pass/fail but just used as some sort of gauge or KPI.

Thanks again!

EIT

http://www.HowToEngineer.com

 

[TehMightyEngineer]

Well, maybe the point of the test shouldn't be to "pass" but rather use it as a level playing field to compare applicants?

Professional and Structural Engineer (ME, NH)
American Concrete Industries

http://www.americanconcrete.com

 

[XR250]

Honestly, I would just give them some statics problems to solve. This is probably the most important class you ever took and I see many veteran engineers who appear to have never mastered it.

 

[KootK]

I have been tested once. And, while I disdain the practice, I'll concede that it was a cleverly designed test. It had some statics (echo XR250) and a bunch of other practical things:

- cold weather concreting practices
- fundamentals of moment connection detailing.
- intelligent brace layout.
- awareness that there's such a thing as earthquakes.

It was an exam intended to be taken by engineers at all experience levels with EIT's being expected to do poorly. Although, rockstar EIT's would often do surprisingly well. If you're interested and have a burner email address, I can share a copy.



I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

 

[jike]

I agree with Mighty Engineer. Hopefully, your initial screening will weed out the ones who do not know the basics. The test then should expose the different potential for the various candidates. I would suggest tailoring the test to the applicants initial responsibilities and perhaps some future work. For example: type of design work: residential, commercial, institutional, industrial or types of materials used: wood, steel, concrete, precast, post tensioned, etc. You might even throw in some questions about codes, loads, costs, software, ethics, etc. In any event, the test should reflect the specific business of the company: design, estimating, detailing, construction administration, etc.

 

[Lomarandil]

One firm where I interviewed had candidates (2nd or 3rd round) sit down with each of the PM types. These PMs each had a binder with some photos of projects they'd worked on in the last few years. They'd talk about the project a little, some of the challenges they faced, then would ask a question or two related to the project. (E.g. if you had to brace this system against movement in this direction, how would you go about designing a deadman?).

I thought that was a pretty clever idea to see how well engineers could analyze a real world situation on their feet, and to tell applicants about the company's work in an interesting manner.

 

[allgoodnamestaken]

I think you should be careful asking for knowledge typically gained through work experience of entry level applicants, unless your idea of entry level is at the end of their EIT period. I think you should be testing for general aptitude, basic techniques, and general fit with your office. For example with the example in OPs example, out of school I could do most of it (except maybe design the footing - I'd need my notes/books to do that as its not something I did often at school), but because most of experience is academic asking for tactics you pick up from working on projects and being mentored by other engineers may be asking a bit much.

 

[Leftwow]

As a young engineer myself, we never had a timber design class and would be clueless as to how to choose a wood beam.

 

[Leftwow]

I'd rather hire an eit that takes the time to actually think about what he's doing. I think that would be my test, too many fill their mouth's with complete crap.

 

[mike20793]

My firm requires a Masters degree in structural or civil with structural emphasis for any entry level engineer. That seems to do a good job weeding out the weaker EITs without the need for a test. The principals ask questions regarding projects and what ifs, but nothing formal or written. It's more to gauge whether they can understand drawings, can do basic design, and more importantly, understand the load path for gravity and lateral loads through the building. A good example question they asked me was "What are the ramifications of adding architectural precast to this spandrel beam when the building was originally designed for stucco cladding?" It's a quick answer and demonstrates knowledge of load path without confusing the interviewee with details.

 

[JStephen]

If you're testing people straight out of school, make sure you're testing them on what they learn in school, not on what you know based on 20 years of work experience. There can be a large, perhaps complete, gap between those two levels.
Be aware that if the answers to your questions might vary depending on the specific industry, area of the country, or countries in the world, then your testing may be less than useful. If you expect the applicants to have particular tables from the building codes memorized, or have the various design formulas and stress equations memorized, or be familiar with specific years and editions of the codes, or have a knowledge of the relative costs of all the alternatives that might be considered, you may be asking a bit much.
Make sure you're not measuring somebody on speed of results when they are concentrating on thoroughness and neatness of documentation, or vice versa.
If you're evaluating hand work when that work is normally done by computer, or vice versa, you may get less than useful results from a test.
If you're looking for somebody that is thoroughly familiar with exactly what you're doing right now, and can get to work without any supervision, your approach would be different than from general hiring.
If you're looking for top-notch engineers, be prepared to pay for top-notch engineers. It'd be kind of pointless to generate a test that only the best could pass if you're not going to pay enough to hire them.

 

[Leftwow]

Looking at me straight in the eyes and saying "I don't know". <---- immediate hire

 

[Archie264]

+1 on Ron's comments regarding the legality of it. Apparently the relevant case in the US is Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). I know nothing regarding the topic, I'm simply lifting it from an article by James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal. I'll try to paste excerpts from the article in a following post, if I can.