A young engineer’s perspective on how computer-based testing can impact the engineering profession.
Change is scary, and so is the PE Structural Exam. Will changing the PE Structural Exam be a nightmare? Moving the exam from a paper and pencil format to a computer-based testing (CBT) approach has caused quite a stir in the profession; however, it might not be as bad as has been hyperbolized. These changes will have a direct impact on the engineering profession, especially on young engineers like me. While there are concerns and room for improvement, these modifications could serve as a way to improve the examination process and provide a more achievable path towards S. E. licensure.
The new exam will be administered in four parts instead of two, and the overall duration will be increased from 16 to 21 hours. The current breadth and depth sections will be broken into their own tests, and each part will be graded individually. Although it will increase the total testing time, the individual sitting time will decrease from 8 hours each to 5 hours for the breadth sections and 5.5 hours for the depth sections. While some may prefer to “rip the bandage off,” breaking the exam into smaller pieces should help reduce the burnout currently felt in the afternoon portion of an eight-hour exam. While the exam as a whole is getting longer, the individual tests will be made shorter and more manageable. The exam material is not getting easier, nor should it. Only the testing environment is. If the examination process can determine if someone has the knowledge and skills needed to be a structural engineer, then it’s doing its job.
Change is always scary, but engineers adapt; they solve problems; they overcome difficulty to achieve goals. They’ll do the same when it comes to licensure examinations.
This split into four separate sessions will also benefit test takers in how it is graded. Whereas in the current format a bad performance in the afternoon can negate a good morning, now each test will stand on its own. Subdividing the test provides additional safety fuses and will help to avoid full retakes.
Trying to get four days off from work will cause added challenges. While the breadth section of the new exam will be offered throughout the year and provide for more flexibility, employers should recognize the value in taking such a specialized exam – one that will force their employees to be better engineers with broader knowledge bases and deeper understandings of the codes and calculations that make up their work. Four days is an inconvenience, but it is only temporary. Hopefully as the exam becomes more established and the question banks increase, the depth section will also be available throughout the year. Even further down the line, it would be beneficial to both building and bridge engineers to separate the exam based on horizontal or vertical concentration.
One of the best parts of the transition will be the increased availability of testing locations. This change will make it easier to get to the exam site and could eliminate the need for multi-day trips involving travel and hotels. Having all the reference materials and codes on the computer will eliminate the need to lug heavy suitcases filled with books and the possibility of inadvertently forgetting a reference. These changes will make the exam process easier and help reduce stress on exam day.
While the prohibition on outside reference materials will make it easier to get to the exam site, it could create a hardship for test takers in the exam room. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) has made it clear that eliminating outside materials will make for a more secure test by preventing examinees from copying down questions and divulging them to others. While the goal is commendable, it’s a radical departure from how the exam has existed and how engineers operate on a day-to-day basis. Homemade quick reference manuals are ubiquitous in the profession. I’ve never met a principal that didn’t have a weathered, coffee-stained packet of papers that covered everything from concrete cover requirements to steel limit states in a concise, easily accessible format. If the concern has to do with examinees leaving with sensitive test information, there could be a way to both maintain security and provide test takers with the opportunity to bring in outside reference material. Examinees could bring in a disposable packet of quick references and be required to leave it at the test center for disposal when they check out. Alternatively, examinees could upload a PDF reference ahead of time for use during the exam. There are options that could work. NCEES could and should make these changes. A closed-book test in an open-book world denies the reality of the profession.
Structural engineers are not alone – other professions face similar hurdles to licensure. Architects must pass the Architect Registration Examination (ARE) which is a CBT exam consisting of six tests totaling 21 hours. The cost is nearly identical. The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) recently noted that from 2011 to 2020, the number of licensed architects increased by 17%, compared to a 6% growth of the U.S. population. Much like architects, it’s unlikely that the change in the PE Structural Exam will cause masses of students to switch majors and hordes of young engineers to change professions. If someone is determined to pursue licensure, they will.
I may be an optimist, but I don’t think that the arguments foretelling great harm to the profession are based in fact. Change is always scary, but engineers adapt; they solve problems; they overcome difficulty to achieve goals. They’ll do the same when it comes to licensure examinations. I’ve talked to a good number of young engineers and engineering students through the Structural Engineers Association of Massachusetts (SEAMASS), the NCSEA Summit, and career fairs: they are some of the most determined people I’ve met. They’re hungry for a challenge and ready for the profession. Changing the exam format is not going to hold them back.■