What does a high rate of \"question prediction\" before the First-Class Constructor exam indicate?

I heard that the accuracy of the predicted questions this year is really high. What do you all think? @Fish in the desert @GrizzlyBear

This post was last edited by Grizzly Bear on 2015-10-10 at 10:56. Guessing questions has nothing to do with the overall pass rate; the first-level qualification exam admits candidates based on the number of applicants. This year, I didn’t do very well in any of the three compulsory courses. Especially in the economics section, the questions differ significantly from those predicted by many institutions. This is a bit like the law of 14. We estimate that in the future, one general course will alternate each year to be particularly difficult, so that it can be taken together with the specialized courses. As for the specialized courses, the situation in municipal administration this year has remained relatively stable. It’s common for the municipal authorities to pose difficulties; this year things are better, so there should be no reduction in scores. Everyone in the mechanical and electrical department has pushed it to a certain level, but no one has actually reached that level. Originally, I thought that fire safety would be a priority this year. Firstly, after the major fire safety exams in 2013, there were hardly any such exams in 2014. Secondly, fire accidents have been occurring frequently. Thirdly, this year marks the first year for the certification in fire safety, so it should have received more attention. However, fire safety wasn’t a major focus this year. This year, architecture has been the subject of a lot of criticism. But predicting architectural topics has always been the easiest. First, let’s compare the scopes: all 7 sub-projects under industrial engineering are mechanical and electrical; out of the 9 sub-projects in civil engineering, 5 are mechanical and electrical, while 4 are construction-related. So, in terms of the scope of the exams, the ratio between mechanical and electrical engineering and architecture is 12:4, which equals 3:1. This means that architecture is inherently much easier to handle compared to mechanical and electrical engineering. Moreover, among the 5 major questions related to architecture, there is one question on double-code/scheduling methods. In other words, even a beginner in architecture can get half of these questions right. This year, Luban, a leading firm in the architecture field, continued to provide accurate predictions, as did Global; Dali and Xueersen followed closely behind. Almost none of the major firms made significantly inaccurate predictions. So all the candidates were able to estimate quite accurately. At the **level, I don’t think** there is any intention to relax national oversight. On the contrary, in order to increase the number of national supervisors, it is now allowed for certain qualified first-class engineers and registered exploration, design, and construction engineers to register directly as national supervisors, thereby strengthening oversight over them. It is said that there are currently only 40,000 personnel in the national guard; expanding the force to 200,000 might be what is **desired**. Next, let’s return to the first-level construction qualification. Without delving into the theoretical aspects related to international standards, let’s take two examples: 1. When driving on the road, one needs to obtain a driver’s license. Project management is a matter of life and death; how can project managers be allowed to work without taking exams? 2. Everyone on Earth knows that one needs to obtain a medical license to practice medicine. But have you ever thought about this: when a doctor makes a surgical mistake, it can only kill one person at a time. Moreover, a doctor who causes the death of 2-3 people will definitely be prosecuted and never be allowed to operate again. But deaths at construction sites are by no means as simple as 1-3 people dying in each incident. I will discuss separately the requirements regarding the project manager’s experience and skills mentioned by the original poster. First of all, experience is a rather ambiguous thing; it can’t be said to be useless, nor can it be said to be useful. It also can’t be simply linked to age. It’s like a player who has played in the Chinese Super League for 10 years might not be as good as one who has played in La Liga for just 1 year. You could say that someone in the Chinese Super League has 10 years of experience; for example, Ma Mingyu, a former star player from the Jia-A league, but he couldn’t play a single match in the Serie A. Moving on to project engineering, could someone tell me roughly how much of what I asked people on site was correct? According to my estimate, if learning without any selection is done, the accuracy rate will be no more than 50% at the very least. Moreover, the experience gained from working on lower-level projects, if not summarized and refined through examinations, will be of little use for higher-level projects in the future. Next is the level. Level is the most important, but it’s difficult to reflect it in actual bidding/interviews. For example, they ask me: What is the overall industrial level of Trinidad and Tobago? It might be difficult for me to understand everything about this in a short time. But if I want to answer quickly, I can find out what that country’s annual production of crude steel is, its annual production of ethylene, its annual production of cement, and its annual production of fertilizers. In fact, we cannot understand a person’s entire knowledge; we can only understand it through indicators. The first-level construction engineer qualification is the best way to assess a person’s project management skills, while the chemical engineering qualification is the best way to evaluate a person’s ability in process system design. Just like the college entrance examination, the current system may not be perfect, but at least there is no alternative system available at the moment. So, in summary, the first-level constructor exam will continue to be held as usual. It’s not that the rules for the first-level construction engineer exam, or the types of questions, never change. But: you can’t change the rules; you can only adapt to them. Wish everyone success in the 2016 First-Class Constructor Registration Exam. It is hoped that the exam date for registered chemical engineers can be determined as soon as possible.

Take a trial exam this year, and continue next year! :)

I’ll decide whether to take the exam again after the results of the 15-year period are available. . Wish everyone success in the 2016 First-Class Constructor Registration Exam.

Let me share my opinion~ The phenomenon of predicting exam questions ahead of the First-Class Constructor exam, or in other words, the leaking of exam questions, has existed all along; it’s not something that happens only this year. One of my colleagues enrolled in a training course for cost engineers, and the instructor there remarked that project managers in China are very resourceful; as a result, the questions for the first-level construction engineer exam end up leaking every year. After working as a cost engineer for so many years, I’ve never seen things this chaotic. It’s of course said half-jokingly, but it’s not entirely without reason. Anyone who has been at the scene must have seen the tactics used by project managers. So, the issue of question leakage is not necessarily **a lack of emphasis on the exam, but rather something that is hard to prevent. Even if there were leaks of exam questions every year, wouldn’t the vast majority of people still fail? The pass rate speaks for itself. Then will the first-level construction qualification exam be canceled? I don’t think so. Well, some people think that special operation permits might be abolished, but I don’t think most people would think that. Why? Because special operations indeed carry significant safety risks. So, since the qualification exams for routine tasks are not being abolished, will the qualification exams for complex tasks that involve multiple types of special operations—such as construction projects—and their operators, that is, project managers, also be abolished? I think the key issue is whether the first-level construction qualification will eventually become a sort of permit that serves merely as a formality in the examination process, or whether the current selection system will be maintained to preserve the value of such certificates. Regarding this issue, I personally cannot see the intention behind the actions taken by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development at present. If the goal is to reduce the burden on enterprises, it would be sufficient to crack down on illegal affiliation practices and make minor adjustments to the professional practice system. In fact, measures to crack down on such unauthorized affiliations are already on the way. Strangely enough, many people online seem to be very opposed to this idea; I mentioned it in a QQ group last time, and I was bombarded with criticism. It has been about 10 years since the introduction of the architect examination; the latest figures seem to indicate that there are over 1 million architects now? The number of people should basically meet the requirements already. It is likely that the current selection system will be maintained. Generally speaking, with just a first-class construction engineer certificate, as the number of such certificates increases, their value will inevitably decline. It’s not reasonable to be able to earn money without doing anything at all, relying solely on a certificate; the trend I think is one where skills and competence count, where people are valued for their abilities. The original poster also mentioned that the current examination system is unable to identify those who truly possess project management skills. Brother Grizzly mentioned again that “exams are the best way to assess a person’s project management skills.” I personally support this view; the role of standardized tests is difficult to replace. The West **is now reflecting on its higher education systems; they believe that they have invested enormous amounts of money in education, yet the results are ambiguous and difficult to evaluate. The Economist published an article last year calling for the introduction of standardized tests for university graduates. The OECD is also implementing unified exams for graduates in engineering and economics to score universities based on those results. The article contains this sentence: Sceptics argue that university education is too complex to be measured in this way. Certainly, testing 22-year-olds is harder than testing 12-year-olds. Yet many disciplines contain a core of material that all graduates in that subject should know. As Brother Grizzly said, the examination system isn’t perfect, but at least there is no alternative system available at the moment. Finally, please allow me to add a personal request: I hope to pass my first-level constructor exam successfully this year~～