The following article appears in the journal JOM, 47 (3) (1995), p. 63. JOM is a publication of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

Is "No-Choice" the Choice for Future Metallurgical PE Exams?

Ten of the 20 items are free-response items (essays); the other ten are objectively scored (multiple-choice questions). The candidate completes his or her choice of four out of the ten sections in both the essays and multiple-choice questions, resulting in a total of eight out of 20 sections completed. This "8/20" format has been—until recently—the one used for most of the PE examinations in other disciplines, as well.

In recent years, however, a movement has started within the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) advocating a change in this format. The NCEES, which is the organization responsible for producing and administering the Fundamentals of Engineering and PE examinations, has become concerned about perceived problems with the 8/20 and similar PE exam formats.

The primary concern is ensuring a fair examination—one that all candidates have an equal chance of passing. Under the current format, a candidate working four of ten essay sections and four of ten multiple-choice sections effectively has a choice of 44,100 different examinations. Since some of the items are bound to be easier to work than others, a candidate choosing the simplest eight items would have a better chance of passing than another candidate making different selections. The purpose of the PE exam is to assess a candidate's competence as an engineer rather than a test-taker and some feel that the 8/20 format tends to emphasize the latter. The NCEES has also noted that the licensing examinations given in other professions do not allow the candidates any choice in what questions to answer.

As a result, the NCEES is encouraging the development of limited-choice (8/12) and/or no-choice (8/8) PE examinations for various disciplines. A series of no-choice PE examinations in various subdisciplines of civil engineering is being prepared and a similar approach has been suggested in electrical engineering. Three civil engineering disciplines (environmental, control systems, and industrial) have already adopted the no-choice format; the manufacturing engineering PE exam is planning to adopt the 8/12 format.

The no-choice or limited-choice format has some advantages that may recommend its possible adoption by TMS for the metallurgical PE examination. Obviously, the lack of variability on the test means that all candidates would take an exam of equal difficulty; there would be no complaints about how extractive metallurgists got an easier test than physical metallurgists or manufacturing metallurgists, or vice-versa. The number of new items that the Professional Registration Committee of TMS would need to come up with for the test each year would decrease; this would allow a more thorough review of new items than is currently performed. Lastly, with the items on a limited- or no-choice exam being worked by all or most of the candidates, analysis of the results would be statistically more reliable. This is important because five of the 20 items on each exam are recycled from previous examinations, and the choice of recycled items is based, in large part, on a statistical analysis of how candidates performed when the item was previously offered.

However, there are two overriding objections to changing the format:

First, the practice of metallurgical engineering is so varied and diverse that no single eight-item examination can adequately cover it. Metallurgical engineers have a huge diversity of educational backgrounds and professional practices and finding eight items on which everyone would have a chance of successfully working is nearly impossible. The only means by which this could be done would likely involve "dumbing down" the exam to an extremely basic level, which would essentially ruin the exam as the measure of engineering competence that it is supposed to represent.

Second, the subdiscipline examinations that the NCEES uses for civil engineering are unworkable for TMS. As previously mentioned, the NCEES has responded to the problem of diverse candidate background and experience in civil engineering by developing five no-choice examinations in the subdisciplines of field transportation, environmental, structural, geotechnical, and hydraulics/water resources. With several thousand candidates taking the civil engineering PE exam at a time, finding the resources to manage such a process is a major concern. However, the number of candidates taking the metallurgical engineering PE exam per year is much smaller—less than 100. Subdividing our field of engineering would produce exams used by so few candidates that the NCEES would likely have second thoughts about producing them.

These objections to the limited- and no-choice examination formats are not restricted to TMS. The Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, the Society of Manufacturing Engineers, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers have stated their oppositions to the revised formats, and concerns have been raised as to whether no-choice examinations are consistent with the statutes concerning professional registration of engineers in some states.

The TMS Professional Registration Committee voted overwhelmingly at the 1994 Annual Meeting to retain the 8/20 format for the Metallurgical PE Examination. However, the continuing movement within the NCEES toward limited- and no-choice examinations means that this issue may come up again in the future. As a result, we continue to keep a close eye on related developments and have started looking at contingency plans.

For more information on the Metallurgical Engineering PE Exam, contact Vicki Koebnick at TMS, 184 Thorn Hill Road, Warrendale, Pennsylvania 15086; (724) 776-9000, ext. 226; fax (724) 776-3770; e-mail koebnick@tms.org.