November 2009 issue
|
|
Computer Analysis Uncovers ‘Irregularities’
In Three Exams
BY GEORGE LEE
The PEGG
If you’re looking for a sure-fire way to succeed on your Fundamentals of Engineering examination, try studying hard — because cheating on the FE is definitely not a reasonable option. It’s unprofessional and ethically wrong to cheat, of course, and it doesn’t work, cautions Milt Petruk, P.Eng., Staff Consultant, Examinations.
“As a routine process, the NCEES runs a computer analysis on all pairs of candidates to see if there is any evidence of collusion,” says Dr. Petruk. “The message here is that this is not done randomly. It is not a spot-check. It is done for every candidate on every examination, so if you’re thinking of cheating, you need to know that it’s a stupid thing to do. The NCEES checks everyone.”
Three APEGGA candidates who wrote the exams on April 19 learned the hard way. An analysis of their results revealed, in the parlance of the NCEES, “significant data to suggest that there were irregularities in the candidates’ examinations.” After investigating the irregularities, NCEES invalidated the candidates’ results.
The NCEES is the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying. It develops, scores and administers the examinations used for engineering and surveying licensure throughout the United States.
Although the exams are American, APEGGA has been proctoring Fundamentals of Engineering examinations on Alberta soil for six years. Initially, the FE exams were written by APEGGA members seeking licensure in U.S. states, where the exam is a basic requirement for registration.
More than two years ago, the role of the FE in Alberta was expanded. The APEGGA Board of Examiners began giving applicants who were required to write confirmatory examinations the option of writing the FE examinations.
The FE is a great filter, Dr. Petruk says. If your education does not conform to the standard set by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board, and you didn’t study for the FE, you probably won’t pass. The exam consists of two four-hour sessions. The first session covers breadth and includes topics typically included in years one and two of a Canadian engineering program. The second session covers depth typically included in years three and four of engineering.
While most engineering candidates would never consider cheating, for some, the temptation is significant. The odds of getting away with it, however, are infinitesimally small.
A computer program developed by an Alberta company and licensed to NCEES compares every possible pairing of exam writers. Papers with the same answers wrong are singled out for further analysis. For example, one candidate might answer a number of questions incorrectly and show calculations for each incorrect answer in his or her question book. If another candidate seated nearby has the identical wrong answers to the same questions but didn’t show calculations, suspicions are raised that answers may have been copied.
At the request of NCEES, APEGGA interviewed five of the six candidates who came up in the analysis. After reviewing the results of the interviews, NCEES determined that in three of the cases, the examination results did not represent a valid measure of the candidate’s competence as sampled by the examination. Their scores were classified as indeterminate and no examination results were released. In the other three cases, the examination results were activated and released.
Dr. Petruk says this type of incident is no way for a potential APEGGA member to build a reputation and start a career. “Ethically, what does this say about a person? It is not in keeping with our Code
of Ethics and it reflects badly on all engineers,” he said.
According to the EGGP Act, one of the requirements for registration is that the candidate be “of good character.” This type of incident could certainly raise a question about whether the candidate is “of good character.”
The incident could also have similar
repercussions if an individual seeks licensure with another Canadian association or with a U.S. state board.