CSWP exam

So you want us to help you cheat? :-)
KM

I get it online training offers a CSWP preparation course. Might be what you are looking for.

Doing a google search of this newsgroup will give you some good advice. One thread that came to my mind was this one: The models in the CSWP aren't all that hard, and don't require any knowledge outside of basic training classes. As I remember it it was more of a speed and comfort-with-the-software thing.
VAR's tend to run bootcamps - maybe someone who has gone through one can comment on its usefulness

Sorry, we have to sign a non-disclosure about the content. Just make sure you know all areas of the software. The training manuals used by the VARs for SW classes are probably your best resource.

thanks for the link. Ed's comments are enlightening!

Here are a couple links to past conversations. I also copied my discussion right after taking the test.
WT
Newsgroups: comp.cad.solidworks From: "Wayne Tiffany" -Find messages by this author Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 13:33:21 -0600 Local: Sat, Jan 24 2004 1:33 pm Subject: Re: Certified SolidWorks Professional
I was one of the very few that passed the test at SWW2004 and would offer some tips. If interested, read on.
1. Go through the "What's new" in 2004 - I rudely found out the test was 2004, not 2003. Even if you don't use it yet, study up on the changes - the written test killed me.
2. Make sure you know how to do all the basics, even if you don't normally use them. This would include lofts, revolves, sweeps, ellipses, in-context mates & features, reference geometry, symmetry, linking, patterns, min/max/center, external references, configs, custom properties, etc, etc, etc.
3. Think about your special area - free form, sheetmetal, top-down design. Really know how to use all the features available - study up on what's available for tools & features in that area.
4. Drawings: Multisheet, section views, detail views, all types of views, BOM, customizing the title block, inserting geometric tolerancing, standard tolerances, all kinds of dims, datums, etc, etc, etc.
5. Most of all - read everything. (Did you get this far in this email?) Take the time to understand the design intent, read the scoring criteria carefully, do the work, go back and review the scoring criteria to make sure you covered what's required. I can't emphasize this point enough.
All in all, I felt it was a good, fair test. Long day (8-5:30 - ran out only for coffee) but a good solid check of most of the basics, not just a "gimmee." The skills portion is "open book" in that you can use the help section, but if you have to look up much, you will run out of time. Most importantly, read.
WT

Wayne, thanks for the useful info. I hope I'll pass the test, because the idea that a computer will score my test is a little bit frightening.

The computer scoring method is nice because it is so fast. When I took the CSWP test, the proctor graded each test while we waited. In just a few minutes, we had our scores.
I will say that I doubt the computer scoring is perfect. On my test, the computer scoring indicated that my models failed to provide certain functionality although that functionality was definitely present. In fact, the details that were scored as wrong were relatively simple tasks, not the complex ones. Therefore, my confidence level on the incorrect details was extermely high. I suspect that some of my methods did not match the pre-defined methods the computer was searching for. Therefore, I submitted a request for these details to be checked manually, but I never received a response.
Fortunately, I did pass the test so this was really an academic question. I have always been curious about the accuracy of the scoring system. Independent verification of the results would have been nice.

One piece of useful information might be to try to take the scoring criteria as literally as possible, even if it seems a bit silly or not the best way to do it. Since it is a computer that grades the model, if you give it what it is looking for, the results should be predictable. You may feel that you have to "dumb down" your models somewhat. There aren't any truly difficult modeling problems on the test, the main difficulty is understanding the criteria.
Matt

That is an interesting comment. Back when I took it the scoring was manual. The proctor mentioned that the methods I used were quite unconventional (to him) but that they worked.

I got 400/400 from the Hands on part... 64/100 from the question. I tought that the questions were not related on how well you use SW as more like how well have you red the manual...
anyhow it was still a good measurement of SW skills IMHO.

here, at my VAR in Israel the test costs 200 US$+ 16.5% VAT (not cheap!). at that high price one could expect that the SolidWorks guys or the VAR guys (for whoever of them is scoring the exam), could at least bother and employ someone who will score the test manually and in an intelligent way. but what can a frustrated examinee expect?! :-(

I had a similar experience with the multiple choice questions. The relevance of some questions seemed quite minimal. I remember getting wrong things like changes in the name of certain functions from release to release. I suspect many of us don't have every name committed to memory although we can use the functions quite effectively.

I have taken and proctored the the exam, so I would like to share what I know (very little) and what I have observed. The written portion of the test is the "hardest" part. It's not so much that the questions are overly difficult, it's more a case of users not taking enough time with this portion of the test. The way the testing interface works, it's very easy to blast through and finish the (multiple choice) written portion in less than an hour. DON'T. Take your time, review each question thoroughly, and most important, review the answers before deciding on which one to choose. Even if you don't know the answer, giving it enough thought will allow you to make a better educated guess.
The basic skills and even the advanced modeling aren't as difficult as the written portion. The most important thing is to follow the instructions as they appear in the handout. You might think you have a better way to model the examples given, and maybe you do, but the automatic grading software is looking for specific things and will deduct points if it finds otherwise. The handout will tell you what the grading software is looking for, exercise your model as it says and you can find errors before you submit the model. If the handout asks you to "repair" something, don't simply remodel the part. You'll get whacked for that too.
Pick an advanced topic that you are familiar with. If you design a lot of sheet metal parts, do the sheet metal portion. Likewise, the top down assembly or advanced modeling. If you start to struggle early, you might consider bailing and moving to a different topic - you have that option. Be careful, no matter how well you do on the written and the basic skills portion, if you don't finish the advanced topic you probably will not pass the test.
The grading software has been shown to be overwhelmingly more accurate than human grading, and provides results in a matter of minutes vs. days or weeks. You get to find out if you passed before you leave the building (in most cases).
Look over the certification documents on the SolidWorks website, and try out the samples before you go for your test.
Suggestions, comments, and other notes are welcome.
Richard

OK that's a very good attitude you have there Richard. But tell me this why do we get no response to requests for improvements to the SW forum? There have been a few suggestions made there - FAQ, new user and wish list sections to name but a few- and although these must be read by people at SW no one replies to them. No under consideration or not at this time or.... - nothing. Is this an avoidance strategy? What is the problem SW has with interacting with people on the official forum? Correct me if I am wrong but there seems to be an attitude at SW that forum visitors and esp. newbies are an inconvenience. On the one hand SW are happy to engage and exploit individual goodwill to do beta testing on the cheap and on the other any one with individual ideas gets ignored or channelled into nice cosy managed little groups. Any comment?