CSWP Sample Test??

331 views
Skip to first unread message

Muggs

unread,
Jun 11, 2003, 11:29:25 AM6/11/03
to
Hello All,

Does anyone know where on the "new" SW website I can find the sample test
for the CSWP certification??
It's certainly not in the "Training and Certification" area, that I can
find.
Maybe I'll call my VAR.

TIA,
Muggs

Scott

unread,
Jun 11, 2003, 11:55:47 AM6/11/03
to
Go to that same page and there you can email certif...@solidworks.com
maybe they can send you the file

"Muggs" <Mu...@RJstudios.com> wrote in message
news:bc7hs...@enews3.newsguy.com...

Edward T Eaton

unread,
Jun 11, 2003, 2:45:21 PM6/11/03
to
Here is a copy of the original sample exam . We couldn't find it on SW web
site either when when we were prepping a couple of our guys last month.
http://www.ict-sz.com.cn/english/training&certification/Sample%20Test%202000
.pdf

Prototek engineering has a really nice practice exam that is different than
the original SW sample test. Unfortunately, When I tried to copy the
hyperlink it produces an error. A google search of the following text -
'CSWP.pdf solidworks' - will get you right to the pdf.


"Muggs" <Mu...@RJstudios.com> wrote in message
news:bc7hs...@enews3.newsguy.com...

Arlin Sandbulte

unread,
Jun 11, 2003, 3:02:02 PM6/11/03
to
Is that really representative of the real thing? Seemed pretty short
and easy to me (especially short). I was under the impression that the
certification test would be a lot longer...

--
Arlin Sandbulte
(remove '351' from email to reply)

Scott

unread,
Jun 11, 2003, 3:08:57 PM6/11/03
to
it is!!

that's a sample of what you might see on the test.


"Arlin Sandbulte" <arlinsan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.195138a9b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

Matthew A. Bush

unread,
Jun 11, 2003, 4:08:34 PM6/11/03
to
If I recall correctly the standard test is 50 true/false or multiple choice
questions & 100 questions for the tech support quiz. The real meat of the
test is in the comprehensive modeling. Basically you must pack 3 days worth
of work (in AutoCAD) in 8 hours. What took me 3 hours in SW2000 I can now do
in an hour or less with 2003.

Matt B.
CSWP


"Arlin Sandbulte" <arlinsan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.195138a9b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

EDWARD EATON

unread,
Jun 11, 2003, 10:25:10 PM6/11/03
to
The test is timed at 8 hrs. But keep in mind that it is not an 'expert'
exam - it exists just to gauge general competency across multiple
industries. There is a module at the end that you can specify your
'expertise', because (fairly, and to the great credit of SolidWorks for
respecting this) some folks are total SW experts yet don't do a lot of
sheetmetal, or top down design, or freeform shape generation. The
certification exists simply to let an employer know that the 'SW user' item
on your resume' isn't just padding - you have to be functional enough to
complete a respectable amount of work under a deadline.

You start with a multiple choice test of 50 questions which closely follow
the style of the practice exam - so closely, in fact, that six or seven of
the exact practice questions were in my exam! This part of the exam is
weighted at 20% of the total grade.

I think you will be disappointed by the questions - they are written by an
inside SW guy and bear the stamp of that mentality. For instance, look at
the question about a 'time-dependant feature' that is on the practice exam
(and I think it might have even been on the exam I took). Every competent
SW user I pose this question to makes the logical connection that any
feature that depends on another (applied features like fillets and chamfers,
sketches that rely on faces or planes to locate them, etc) is 'time
dependent', but your CSWP grade relies on the functionally useless knowledge
that, in SW, time-dependent only 'officially' refers to assembly features
like cuts, patterns, and in-context stuff. Forget that you can expertly use
these features all the time without knowing what they are called....you will
miss the question.

Instance #2, from the practice exam : Sure, the definition is that brown
inferencing lines indicates a reference is created and blue inferencing
lines do not. However, start a sketch and draw a line horizontal inferenced
to the origin. The only inference lines you will see is blue, but a
coincident relation to the origin is added nonetheless (not a transient
bug - been around for six or more releases). So how does an experienced
user answer this one, unless they actually memorized the SW corp.
definitions of what is 'supposed' to happen? They will surely know that
blue inferencing lines also make relations.

Instance #3: Another disappointing question from the practice exam (that I
think I also might have had on the real exam) is number 7, talking about
concentric mating: it asks if you can mate two cylindrical faces, two axes,
two circular edges, or ANY of the above.
Well, using smart mates or mate reference you have been able to use circular
edges for concentric mates for years (and a new feature in SW2003 allows you
to select them directly). An experienced user will also know that you can
use one axis and a cylindrical face and create a concentric mate, but not
two axes (because that would be coincident)
So how do you answer? Do you say 'any of the above' thinking correctly
that ANY combination of the above items will allow a correct concentric mate
(note to SW: just changing the word 'ANY' to 'ALL' would have eliminated the
ambiguity)? Do you demonstrate your expertise about all the different
mating options by boldly declaring' Yes, there are many ways to mate
circular edges on parts, just not through the mate dialog before SW2003!'.
Or do you bite your lip and take the 'cylindrical faces' answer because,
though demonstrating your lack of knowledge about the depth of the software,
its probably the only one known to the guy at SW corporate?

Though I get down on the test writer (sorry to whoever you are, but folks
are losing money in test fees), the thought pattern of the test writer is to
your advantage when taking the test. I cannot reveal any questions that I
might have been given that are not already public, but I will make one up
that demonstrates my point:

True or false: You can control the magnitude and direction of the tangency
for either end of a loft?

If you don't already know the answer, you can ask yourself 'would it be
useful to control the tangency?' If it would be something you would want to
do, than it stands to reason that the answer will be 'true' because there is
no way in hell that the test author, being a SW insider, is going to
highlight a limitation in the software. I chuckled at about a dozen
questions on the exam that could be answered correctly with this simple
logical crutch.
I wouldn't sweat your score on this section too much - anyone who's
legitimately skilled in the software can get about half, and that ought to
be enough. The practice exams put the fear of God into me about arcane
definitions, so I over-studied; if anyone wants to know what group boxes are
or the ludicrous nomenclature 'SW' used for what the rest of us users call
'named views', give me a call. Also, you should know, my tirade is not
'sour grapes' - I only missed two questions, one because I was unsure about
a feature in excel (kind of glad to know it now, though I seriously wonder
if it will ever come up), and another really stoopid (but deserved) error
because I was cocky and went through things too fast .

The rest of the test is what matters, and counts for the bulk of your grade:
it evaluates if you can drive the software. You don't have to know
everything. You even have access to the help menu if you need it. To be
honest, I thought it would be way tougher, but this isn't a weed-out course.
The test is designed to insure that you are competent enough to complete a
set amount of work in a set amount of time.

Case in point: I'm an industrial designer, Though I have done SW drawings,
my drawings were always created for my phase of jobs - making 'proof of
concept' prototypes, creating presentations, etc. At my current job, I am
actually forbidden to do drawings - we have other guys on staff who are
experts, so as an ethical company we have a policy to employ only the most
efficient resource for our customers (and when it comes to drawings, I step
back and let our rocket-speed experts take the helm). On a personal level,
I have never had the need to do any GDT, and honestly believe I had not seen
some of those symbols before in my life. So there I am, taking the CSWP,
and a phase of it involves creating a drawing with all sorts of 'alien
'symbols. The CSWP doesn't care if you know stuff or not - its testing
whether you are skilled enough in the software to complete certain
challenges in a set time. So, without knowingly having seen some of these
symbols before - ever- I figured it all out because I know enough about SW
to get around even when I don't know what I'm doing

One thing that you should be aware of is that the scoring criteria is made
available for you when you take the exam. If you budget your time
correctly, you can run through the entire checklist and score your own parts
to be sure they look like, and behave like, they are expected to. This was
a big help - I caught a couple of flubs, and even got in a bug report! To
be honest, I'm still a little pissed about the exam - my score said I missed
one five point item on the modeling/drawing section, but I have not idea
what it could have been because I ran through the scoring script and nailed
everything - and that irks me.

Another thing you should know is that the scoring has been automated. I was
in the last generation of manual scoring (a little under a year ago), so my
grade was probably higher because an intelligent human looked at my parts.
The scoring is now all done by macros. You don't have to wait a month to
see if you passed, but you have to model everything the exact way a
soul-less program expects or you will lose points. Two more of our guys at
Dimonte Group pass the CSWP recently, but their grades were suspiciously
lower than I would expect, knowing how competent they are - I have to
attribute this to the automated scoring, because they really, really know
their stuff. Bottom line, if you pass, it doesn't matter; however, if you
get close, ask for a review by something with a pulse (note: I believe that
it is the policy of SW to manually review 'really' close scores)

Conclusion:

If you know SolidWorks, and are good at getting stuff done in it, you will
do OK. Even with my head-scratching about making drawings, I walked out of
the test after five and a half hours, only missed three items (two multiple
choice and that mysterious 5 points in the modeling/drawing phase that still
irks me), got in two bug reports (heck, my VAR was there so it was
convenient), created alternative files demonstrating a flaw in the freeform
modeling question, and rebuilt data after a crash.

BTW - When I was walking, finished, out of the room where I took the CSWP,
I saw that another guy was still struggling with an early part of the test.
He's an independent SW contractor that I talked to before the exam began,
and I threw out his business card at my first opportunity because he'd
demonstrated that he didn't know jack. That is how I would recommend
looking at the CSWP. It does not make you a SW God - it just signifies that
you are functional.

Ed Eaton
CSWP (probably the only context you will see me sign my name like this on
this forum)

"Arlin Sandbulte" <arlinsan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.195138a9b...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...

Arlin Sandbulte

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 8:25:57 AM6/12/03
to
Thanks for the clarificaton Ed.

Muggs

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 10:13:24 AM6/12/03
to
Got it! In fact, I got both of them.
Thank you Ed.
Also thank you for the reliving your CSWP experience for us, (see below)
very enlightening.

Muggs


"Edward T Eaton" <ed'remove_this'17...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bc7tbs$gjira$1...@ID-139356.news.dfncis.de...

Todd

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 2:50:04 PM6/12/03
to
Ed...

Good description of CSWP, but only had one comment:

You mentioned that you have been able to add a concentric mate by
selecting two circular edges using smart mates for a long time now.

Not really true because it actually adds 2 mates, not just concentric.
Both concentric AND coincident.

Sorry, just nit-pickin'!

Todd

Edward T Eaton

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 10:17:49 PM6/12/03
to
I could have been more fair to the author of that question in a couple of
ways.
The first is as you say... (you ex-tech support guys are soooo nitpicky
:) - however, it is true that you get the concentric mate the test asks for
AND a bonus mate!)
The second point I could have been more fair on is that the question asks
what you 'should' use. This question just stuck in my craw because what you
should use depends a lot on the situation - and cylindrical faces are not
always the best route. On a test like this, I just feel that questions
should have unambiguous right and wrong answers - and that being more
knowledgeable about the depth of the software shouldn't be a liability.


"Todd" <ttr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:295b50ef.03061...@posting.google.com...

matt

unread,
Jun 12, 2003, 10:30:48 PM6/12/03
to
"Edward T Eaton" <ed'remove_this'17...@prodigy.net> wrote in news:bcbc81
$hahdc$1...@ID-139356.news.dfncis.de:

> I just feel that questions
> should have unambiguous right and wrong answers - and that being more
> knowledgeable about the depth of the software shouldn't be a liability.

Yeah, like the question that asks which type of dotted lines create mate
relations, the blue ones or the brown ones.

The answer is supposed to be the brown ones.

But... If both endpoints of a sketch line pick up the same inference
(blue dotted line), a coincident is created. If you start a line to the
right of the origin and finish it further to the right and use either the
click-drag or click-click method, you will get a coincident between the
line and the origin - the line turns black.

Muggs

unread,
Jun 13, 2003, 9:35:34 AM6/13/03
to
I remember years ago, maybe SW98, I used to make "gears" that were nothing
more than two circles (Bore & Outside Dia.) and extrude mid-plane to give me
the thickness of my "gear".
Then I would create a construction circle set to the Pitch Dia. + .005.
My thinking was that, now I have my "gear" with all the information, but a
very simple part, so when it came to making the gear train and housing (we
make prototypes for the toy industry) all I need to do is make an Assm. and
set the construction circles to Tangent and place my centers, done!
But SW98 would let me do that, so I wound up extruding a circle .001 and
using that "cylinder" to create tangency between the two "gears".
I don't know why I'm telling you all this, except that it used to piss me
off...

Call it therapy.

Muggs


"Edward T Eaton" <ed'remove_this'17...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:bcbc81$hahdc$1...@ID-139356.news.dfncis.de...

matt...@gmail.com

unread,
May 12, 2020, 10:45:34 PM5/12/20
to
Does anyone have any updated cswp practice exams? I’ve found this to be a good resource but can’t find any others really? https://sunglass.io/2019-cswp-exam-secrets-become-a-certified-solidworks-professional/
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages