LEONARD A. SMALLY, )
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-6055
Respondent. )
A hearing was held in this case in Sarasota, Florida on March 10, 1989 before Arnold H. Pollock, Hearing Officer. The issue for consideration was whether Petitioner was properly graded and awarded the proper score on three problems on the April 15, 1988 Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination.
For Petitioner: Leonard A. Smally, pro se
For Respondent: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire
On November 2, 1988, Petitioner, Leonard A. Smally, requested an administrative hearing to contest the scores he received on three questions contained in the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination administered on April 15, 1988. By letter dated December 5, 1988, the file was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for appointment of a Hearing Officer, and on December 16, 1988, the undersigned, to whom the file had been assigned, set the matter for hearing on January 25, 1989. Pursuant to Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, the matter was postponed to March 10, 1989 at which time it was held as scheduled.
At the hearing, Petitioner testified in his own behalf and presented the testimony of Lawrence D. Lippert, a licensed registered engineer. Respondent presented no testimony but introduced Respondent's Exhibits A through C, the
test questions in issue, the solution pamphlet for each, and the scoring plan for each, respectively.
No transcript was provided and neither party submitted Proposed Findings of Fact.
Petitioner sat for the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination on April 15, 1988. He received a failing grade with an original score of 41 raw points. Since that time, he has been awarded an additional 3 raw points and has a score of 44 raw points. A passing grade is 48 raw points and is, therefore, 4 raw points from passage.
Petitioner contests the score given him on three of the problems on the examination. They are problems 120, 122, and 421. He did not have the test booklet he used at the examination available to him at the hearing. Though he recognizes that the grader who assessed his scores was not allowed to look at his test booklet during the scoring process, many of his calculations for problems 120 and 122 were made in it.
Problem 120 requires the examinee to compute 6 stations and the coordinates of the 6 points of the two involved curves on a railroad spur line. Petitioner computed the six points to what he considers an acceptable tolerance and had also started to compute the coordinates as required by Requirement (b). His solution page for Requirement (a) of this problem reflects only the six points, of which 5 are marked incorrectly, and bears the grader comment, "show computations." The second page, relating to Requirement (b), on which the first
3 calculations are marked as incorrect, reflects only cursory calculations and bears the grader comment, "Incomplete."
Petitioner was awarded a score of "4" for his solution to problem 120. According to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline, the guideline relating to "4", "BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED", reads:
Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so.
The scorer's remarks concerning Petitioner's solution state:
A solution which fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of horizontal curve geometry as a result of logic errors, math errors, and failure to complete several parts.
According to Petitioner, he used the Civil Engineering Reference Manual in his calculations. He also contends that Requirement (a) is far more important to the problem than is Requirement (b). Once the former is achieved, it is easy to achieve the latter. Admittedly, Petitioner did not complete Requirement (b) and, therefore, does not expect credit for it. However, he
contends that having completed Requirement (a) correctly, he should have been awarded more than 40% credit.
Petitioner also contends that the use of the term, "Not To Scale" in the test problem was deliberately deceptive which was not necessary to test engineers at this level of achievement.
In this case, Petitioner contends the lack of availability of the examination test booklet in which he did many of his calculations hinders him in demonstrating the correctness of his solution. These computations, he contends, would show his computations in Requirement (a) were "close enough" to be graded correctly and without these computations, the scorer would not know if he did them or merely copied the answers. He would not, also, have any way of knowing if Petitioner has knowledge of horizontal curve geometry.
Mr. Lippert, a licensed registered engineer testifying on behalf of Petitioner, believed that the answers to the problems to be more important than the computations. In a practical application he may be correct. However, in the instant case Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a Professional Engineer and was being examined on his qualifications for that status. In such a situation, it is not at all unreasonable to expect the candidate to demonstrate his method of arriving at his solution to demonstrate his understanding of the concept sufficiently to indicate his answer was neither copied nor a fluke. Since the candidate is seeking a higher degree of recognition, a requirement that he demonstrate a higher degree of professional skill is not unreasonable.
Under the fact situation demonstrated here, the award of a "4" as a grade for Petitioner's solution to this problem is appropriate.
In Problem 122, the candidate was required to use and show equations for his calculations of (a), the average maximum and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, for the total complex in issue; (b), the theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge; and (c), depth and velocity of flow for the estimated maximum flow rate. The candidate was instructed to conclude, if possible, that the sewer is not overloaded. The problem deals with a troublesome wastewater disposal system for a retirement community of 490 units with a population of 1,475.
Here, Petitioner was awarded an a score of "8" and feels he should have received more. As to (a), Petitioner cited in his answer the reference manual he was using, a manual used by many engineers and one accepted in the profession, yet the grader apparently felt that the use of only the title was insufficient. He wanted the author's name, publisher, date of publication, and other salient information. Petitioner felt this was unnecessary in light of the well known status of the book.
In (b), the problem calls for 10" UCP pipe. All pipe, depending upon the material from which constructed, has a different diameter. Petitioner's solution was marked at least partially incorrect because he assumed the interior diameter of the pipe as .83' when the problem stated the interior diameter was 10". Petitioner contends that even with that unnecessary calculation based on an incorrect assumption, his solution of 2.295 feet/second velocity was sufficiently close to the grader's solution of 2.35 feet/second to be marked correct.
Similarly, Petitioner contends his velocity in (c) was within a "tolerable" margin and that his conclusions is "OK". While the grader considered his method in this section as "OK", he marked the calculation almost entirely wrong. This may be related to the formula used by Petitioner in (b) which, he admits, is wrong. He contends he must have brought the wrong number over from his calculations which he accomplished in his test booklet. This booklet is not now available, but, in any case, would not have been seen by the scorer.
Petitioner also claims that the gallons per capita per day figure of
100 is the standard "everyone uses" to calculate problems involving sewage. Here, because he was taking an examination, he used a figure of 112.5 gallons per day, a compromise between 100 and 125, which he took from the reference manual without citing page number from which taken. Consequently, he contends the grader's comment that his figure is too high is in error but even if it was too high, he ran the calculations correctly and should be given full credit. It is his position that in a case like this, error on this high side, which would give greater capacity, is better than being short. Being correct would be even better, and Petitioner's solutions was not correct.
In the scoring plan outline for this problem, an "8" is described as: QUALIFIED; All categories satisfied,
errors attributable to misread tables or
calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking, Results reasonable though not correct.
and a "9" is described as:
QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied, correct solutions but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc.
The scorer's comments were:
CQ. Fundamentals are correct. Solutions are basically correct and complete but contain math, unit, or tolerance errors making answers unacceptable; or the record is different, or in combination.
Here, Petitioner contends that his ultimate solution, only .05 feet/second off in velocity is so close that the error is insignificant. It is close but the difference between an "8" and a "9" lies in the correctness of the ultimate solutions. "Close" is not "correct" and Petitioner's errors are not attributable to misread equations or devices but to his own improper assumptions. Because his calculations were done in a test booklet which is not now available it cannot be determined where the error originates which caused
(c) to be marked as it was. Under the circumstances shown here, the score of "8" awarded is not inappropriate.
Problem 421 calls for the candidate to find the required volume in cubic feet of on site storage so that post development flows on the parcel of
land in question do not exceed the pre-development flows to the existing stream for the 25 year frequency rainfall.
Petitioner determined the pre and post development numbers correctly but did the retention area in the old fashioned way resulting in his solution equating to 1/2 of the correct solution. The grader indicated that Petitioner's "procedures [sic] [were] in error here." Petitioner has a one page solution to the problem and got credit for his answer of "4.22" to the first stage of the problem as well as his answer to the second part. He admits, however, that his third step was wrong and that threw the problem answer off. He contends, however, that he was undergraded when awarded a "4" and while he admits to not deserving a "6", feels he should have received a "5". Grades for this problem were awarded on a 2-4-6-8-10 point scale. A "5" was not an authorized score.
The scoring plan for this problem describes a "4" as:
BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED; Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so.
A grade of "6" is described as:
MINIMALLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied at a minimally adequate level.
Here the scorer indicated:
Pre and post calculation OK. An attempt at detention calculation made but no significant progress toward conclusion. Fails to demonstrate knowledge necessary to calculate detention as existing.
Detention calculations fail to demonstrate knowledge of hydrograph [sic] nature of storage calculations. Only one data point obtained.
The comments of the grader on the Petitioner's answer sheet clearly indicate that the answer given was incorrect and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge of the procedures in issue. Since there is no provision made to award any grade between "4" and "6", and since Petitioner's answer clearly, and by his own admission, does not qualify for a "6", the awarded score of "4" is appropriate.
Based on the above, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the scores given him on the problems in issue were incorrect, unsupported, or inappropriate.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, regulates the practice of engineering services in the State of Florida and includes within the requirements for licensure, the passing of an examination.
Petitioner contends that the grades awarded him on questions 120, 122, and 421 of the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination given in April, 1988, were incorrect and should have been higher. Though his testimony can, to some degree, arguably be said to dispute the criticism of the examiners, there is a clear difference of opinion between Petitioner and the graders as to the quality of his solutions.
Petitioner has the burden of proof to show that the grades given him on the answers in issue were improper and should have been higher. He has failed to do this. Absent a showing of error or arbitrariness and capriciousness on the part of the graders, their characterization of his responses should prevail. Petitioner has failed to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the grades he received on the examination were in error or in any way arbitrary or capricious. To the contrary, wherever Petitioner's response was marked as in error, there was a clear reason given therefor.
Petitioner has not only failed to show error in the determination of his grade, he also has failed to demonstrate that the examination was improperly administered or that his examination was graded differently than were the examinations of other candidates. To the contrary, his work was scored pursuant to the Standard Scoring Plan Outline of the National Council of Engineering Examiners.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore:
RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 120, 122, and 421, respectively, of the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination administered to him on April 15, 1988.
RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida.
ARNOLD H. POLLOCK
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1989.
Leonard A. Smally
H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional
Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional
