SE Exam New format April 2024 34

[Sam1993]

Hi guys,
Anyone here sit for the SE exam with the new format?
please tell us about your experience, it will be helpful for SE takers
Thank you

 

[RPGs]

Yeah the PE is a cakewalk now that it is structural only, no breadth. I don't think memorizing page numbers is ever advisable, try and remember clauses or chapters. You can always search for those

For sure--lesson learned. At the time it seemed to work VERY well for developing raw speed (the name of the game). I still knew where to find things and didn't suffer hugely during the exam, but it was quite a shock to find out I wouldn't have the option of using page numbers AT ALL in their software. I'd (wrongly) assumed that even the most basic pdf software could navigate by page number.

Out of curiosity what was the actual PDF viewer software like? Obviously they're not going to have Bluebeam loaded up. It sounds like some janky homebrew viewer only POS with maybe the ability to select bookmarks, if applicable. I get pissed when I have to use Acrobat, can't imagine being in a time crunch having to struggle with a viewer that you probably have to click a +/- button to zoom in and out

Based on how many test takers have been blind-sided, I think you'd have to pull of a Mission Impossible type heist to get an actual screenshot or demonstration of the user experience from which test takers could prepare for. I would say your description of "janky homebrew viewer only POS" is accurate. If I recall correctly, I was clicking a task bar icon to zoom and, in a single monitor environment, was forced to hilariously minimize or even close the reference window to see the problem again. If you wanted to zoom in on a given image in the problem statement, I think you had to close out of the reference entirely? Regardless, even though I was just taking the PE (let alone the SE) and acting under the premise that we're taking a standardized test in a controlled setting using specific software, it was detrimental and tremendously removed from an environment in which I am able to demonstrate my ability to perform my chosen profession.

Any idea what the driver is towards computer-based testing? Is it just logistics of grading??

It sure seems like money and logistics (still money). I had a fun chat with a few of the test takers in the waiting room at the Pearson Test Center, asking about what tests everyone was taking. Some were nursing or medical technicians. The few with calculators were accountants or engineers. Between the various tests that I asked about, the disparity in test-taking time, procedures, and allowed breaks were very different--some tests were 4 hours at most, some people had to give their phones up for the entire time that they were there (placed in a sealed bag), whereas I was allowed to access my phone and snacks/water from my locker on my primary break. Clearly, Pearson has figured out how to make it all work and I think it boils down to NCEES streamlining to fit 100% in Pearson's S.O.P: cramming as many people into a camera-monitored room with proctors standing by and NO PARTIAL CREDIT.

 

[Eng16080]

I've wanted to reply to threads like this for a long time and . . .

Thank you for sharing. This is one of the best posts I've read on this site.

 

[enginerding]

This is crazy information! Especially the letter from SEAOI. As an Illinois SE who passed the SE-I and SE-II my first attempt, back in 2007, it was a completely different experience. The SEAOI course did a phenomenal job at preparing me for the exam (along with the 10-15 hours weekly studying/practicing for the several month long course) and they have a great track record as well. It says a lot that SEAOI wrote that letter because they do such a good job with the course and probably still had horrendous results based on these pass rates!

I took the California exams for surveying and seismic for their PE-Civil (delayed months due to COVID), and both of those used CBT. I bought a package to prep for surveying because I knew nothing about it and have zero intention to do it even if it is allowed in CA; they included instruction and provided CBT example tests with hundreds of questions to shuffle and I took the tests dozens of times in preparation. That was still open book and I could take a file box with references. Nothing out there seems to be remotely able to prepare one for this test like I was able to prepare for those tests. What a failure by NCEES as well as other preparation organizations to provide a practice experience and even a halfway-decent test experience. I sure hope NCEES is willing to work to improve their preparation material as well as their system. It should test competence in structural engineering, not working with crappy tools in a crappy environment. Who works with one monitor [that small] on anything, even if you have a half-dozen books and codes open/flagged/annotated on your desk?

That said, I have also been appalled at the lack of competence coming out of school as well. I had an employee with a BS and MS in civil/structural engineering from an ivy league school who spent 3 hours trying to provide a shear and moment diagram for a simple beam with one simple span and a short cantilever past one support, before coming to me and confessing he had no idea how to do this. How do you get 2 degrees in civil/structural engineering and not know how to do a simple shear and moment diagram? I understand detailed code knowledge could only come through much experience, and, as was noted above in the thread, many organizations have specializations that make such broad experience difficult to come by at one firm, but a complete failure to understand the basics is crazy. Structural engineering builds on this knowledge; it seems you should not be able to pass a steel design course if you can't figure a simple statically determinate structure.

I would be very interested to see if NCEES would be willing to do a breakdown, suggested above, of the years of experience. It is my understanding that you no longer have to wait your 4 years (or 3 after MS) before taking this. I wonder if some small portion of this atrocious pass rate is due to inexperienced and ill-educated test takers.

 

[humanengr]

I'm a registered professional engineer - took my tests, passed and registered.
Does anyone believe these exams are an adequate method for qualifying professional engineers?
I have known registered engineers (PE and SE) who lacked a basic understanding of the engineering principles
and literally could not design basic structural components.
In my opinion the "system", not just engineering but other professions as well, is built around massive quantities of testing
to benefit that industry and due to a lack of creativity on how to actually train and qualify engineers.
Furthermore, and this is an important point, there are unqualified "engineers" who pass through the reference screening because
either fear of giving co-workers poor references, or the board(s) disregards critical notes on the references that should
disqualify applicants.
There has got to be a better way.

 

[Harbringer80]

I have known registered engineers (PE and SE) who lacked a basic understanding of the engineering principles
and literally could not design basic structural components.

PE yeah, SE no way. I've known SE's without good engineering judgement but ZERO that don't know how to design basic components, let alone systems.

 

[Rabbit12]

PE yeah, SE no way. I've known SE's without good engineering judgement but ZERO that don't know how to design basic components, let alone systems.

I know of an SE that couldn't design himself out of a wet paper bag. He got grandfathered with an SE when Alaska started requiring SE's to design all of the oil and gas infrastructure roughly 7-8 years ago. Not sure if he could use his Alaska SE to get reciprocity in a state like Washington but he's a registered SE in Alaska.

 

[Harbringer80]

I know of an SE that couldn't design himself out of a wet paper bag. He got grandfathered with an SE when Alaska started requiring SE's to design all of the oil and gas infrastructure roughly 7-8 years ago. Not sure if he could use his Alaska SE to get reciprocity in a state like Washington but he's a registered SE in Alaska.

I guess I should have clarified, any SE that's actually sat for the exams.

 

[RipPECity]

Not to re-open this thread...but I officially passed all 4 of the CBT exams for the SE! Can confirm everything in the letter, and did absolutely feel like it was a test of literally how fast can I solve problems rather than in depth thinking about difficult problems. Regardless, happy to be done.

 

[Sam1993]

SE PASS RATES RELEASED JAN 2025

 

[canwesteng]

Oof... hope they ease up on the vertical depth for April

 

[fel3]

I'm a registered professional engineer - took my tests, passed and registered.
Does anyone believe these exams are an adequate method for qualifying professional engineers?
I have known registered engineers (PE and SE) who lacked a basic understanding of the engineering principles
and literally could not design basic structural components.
In my opinion the "system", not just engineering but other professions as well, is built around massive quantities of testing
to benefit that industry and due to a lack of creativity on how to actually train and qualify engineers.
Furthermore, and this is an important point, there are unqualified "engineers" who pass through the reference screening because
either fear of giving co-workers poor references, or the board(s) disregards critical notes on the references that should
disqualify applicants.
There has got to be a better way.

Over the years, I have filled out professional reference forms for about two dozen PE applicants for a civil engineering license. Most of the applicants I felt were ready to sit for the exam, but two guys were not. I emphatically stated this fact in their reference forms and gave reasons why. Unfortunately, both guys were allowed to sit for the exam, so why did I even bother pointing out why they were unqualified? I suspect that the state would rather have the test fee in hand than screen out unqualified applicants.

Both guys failed the test the first time. One guy passed the test the second time, but IMHO he still wasn't qualified to be a licensed engineer and he may never be (backing up your comments). The second guy ended up moving to a different state, where he eventually passed the test (I don't know how many failures in between). I liked both guys as individuals, but neither should be a licensed engineer.

 

[RWW0002]

For what its worth, NCEES is in the process of conducting the Professional Activities and Knowledge Study (PAKS) survey. I have not ever participated and am unsure what kind of feedback they are after and/or if testing format is covered. Just thought I would post for other licensed interested parties.

NCEES PE Structural Engineering Survey 2025

The PAKS survey is the first and most important step in the development process for the STR Engineering Principles and Practice PE exam. The PAKS occur every 6 to 8 years to ensure that the exams are relevant to current practice in the profession.

ncees.org