Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for licensure as a professional engineer. Petitioner took the licensure examination in October, 1992, and received an overall score of 68.10. The minimum passing score for the exam was 70. The examination used by the Department is a nationally recognized test administered and graded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). The scoring plan utilized by NCEES in this case provided, in pertinent part, that the score of 4 would be given where the applicant's response showed more than rudimentary knowledge but was insufficient to demonstrate competence. Petitioner received the score of 4 on problem #120 and felt his answer should have received a higher grade. To receive a score of 6 on problem #120, Petitioner's solution would have shown minimum competence by indicating the required volume of solids taken as the required volume of fill with all other analysis and computations being correct. According to the scoring plan, only "modest" errors in cost analysis or volume analysis computations are permitted to receive a grade of 6. Petitioner admitted that his calculation of volume on problem #120 was incorrect, but felt that since the error was only 10-15 percent, such error was reasonable given that he had correctly analyzed the majority of the problem. Petitioner's calculations for problem #120 were approximately 5900 cubic yards from the correct answer. Since Petitioner's volume calculations were incorrect, no credit was given for the cost analysis. Petitioner's error was not a "modest" miscalculation as set forth by the scoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the professional engineer examination administered in October, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 19th day of August, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2652 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraph a) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph b) is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraph c) is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph d) is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Ali Khalilahmadi 12755 S.W. 60 Lane Miami, Florida 33183 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact By Application executed July 1, 1992, Petitioner requested licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement. The application showed that Petitioner has been licensed or registered as a professional engineer for 25 years, so this is not an issue. The sole issue in the case is whether Petitioner has 30 years' continuous professional experience as a professional engineer. The application shows continues employment from June, 1960, through "present." In fact, the last job listed on the application ended on December 31, 1992. Respondent has already given Petitioner full credit for continuous professional experience from June, 1960, through April, 1962; and January, 1965, through February, 1987. The periods for which Petitioner received 50% credit are April, 1962, through January, 1965; and October, 1988, through December, 1992. For one period, Petitioner received no credit: March, 1987, through October, 1988. The time for which the Board has already given Petitioner credit totals 329 months. Petitioner requires credit for another 31 months in order to qualify for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. Petitioner received half credit for his work from May, 1989, through December, 1992, for SuperAmerica. He received half credit because his application disclosed that he merely supervised construction of convenience stores during these 44 months. However, only 40% of Petitioner's time was spent supervising construction. The remaining 60% was spent doing design and design coordination. This latter work is entitled to full credit because it involved relatively complex engineering work in connection with the design and layout of underground fuel storage tanks, monitoring systems, and recovery systems. By dividing Petitioner's work during the above-described 44-month period between the construction-supervision work and the design work, Petitioner worked 17.5 months on construction supervision and 26.5 months on design. Reducing the construction-supervision work by half, Petitioner is entitled to a total of 35.25 months of credit for the SuperAmerica work. Rounded down to 35 months, this gives Petitioner an additional 13 months than what the Board gave him, for a new total of 342 months. The remaining two periods for which Petitioner received only half credit involve 41 months when he taught civil engineering from April, 1962, through January, 1965, and October, 1988, through May, 1989. He received half credit because the nature of the material taught did not warrant full credit. However, during these periods, Petitioner spent about half of his time doing outside consulting work on various engineering jobs. The nature of the work was of a complexity comparable to that typically performed by a professional engineer in the course of his or her employment. The credit should be adjusted for the above-described 41-month period. Half of this time was spent on teaching, for which half credit is appropriate; thus, Petitioner earns 10.25 months for this work. The other half is entitled to full credit, so Petitioner earns 20.5 months for this work. The resulting total of 30.75 months, which is rounded off to 31 months, is 11 months more than the credit given him by the Board. The extra 11 months give Petitioner 353 months. Petitioner did not contend at the hearing that he was entitled to any credit for the period from October, 1988, through May, 1989. During this time, he was employed as a real estate broker and appraiser. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner lacks the requisite 360 months of professional experience. Even if the recommended adjustments had resulted in a recalculation of 360 months, there has been a clear break in professional employment from March, 1987, through October, 1988, during which time Petitioner's employment as a real estate broker and appraiser had nothing to do with professional engineering.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. ENTERED on May 7, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on May 7, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayo Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 George G. Briggs 26171 Hickory Blvd. Bonita Springs, FL 33923 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for the certified electrical contractor's examination to the Respondent in January, 1983. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the standards of licensure for electrical contractors, pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 21GG, Florida Administrative Code, and with administering and enforcing the licensure and practice standards of electrical contractors in the State of Florida. The application filed by the Petitioner indicated that he had been employed as a Journeyman electrician with Mozart Electric, Inc., of Chicago, Illinois, since October, 1978. The application on its face showed no further experience in the electrical contracting trade possessed by the Petitioner, except as a Journeyman electrician for that company. The Petitioner was born in Berlin, Germany, in 1934. In 1950, when he was 16 years old, he became an apprentice electrician, working and learning the trade with a view toward becoming a Journeyman and ultimately a Master electrician. He was licensed in Berlin as a Journeyman electrician on September 12, 1953. He worked in that capacity in Germany until 1955, when he immigrated to the United States. In 1955, he settled in Chicago and was licensed as a Journeyman electrician and joined the Electrical Worker's Union Local 134 in Chicago in that classification. From 1957 to 1958, the Petitioner served as a "Master electrician" in the United States Army. The Petitioner has chosen to maintain his union membership so he was thus precluded from being employed in a job classification with the title of "contractor". Since the mid-1950's, however, the Petitioner has been in charge of and in a supervisory position on electrical contracting jobs. For instance, with Mozart Electric, his present employer since 1978, the Petitioner has typically supervised a crew of eight men in performing the electrical contracting portion of large commercial construction jobs. In that capacity, the Petitioner works in an unsupervised fashion and "lays out" the job, estimates the scope and cost of the work, solely supervises the men on the job, makes shop drawings, and solely inspects the finished job. The Petitioner, although he does not do the bidding himself, often does the estimating upon which bids are predicated. In addition, the Petitioner's activities and duties with Mozart Electric, Inc. include making corrections to blueprints, conferring with architects to work out necessary changes, promulgating time schedules, hiring and laying off electricians, and coordinating the electrical construction work with other trades on a given job. In this, or a similar capacity, he has worked with four electrical contracting companies since coming to the United States. Thus, he spent 17 years with Klorek Electric as a Journeyman, then foreman, then superintendent. The Petitioner spent two years with Gibson Electric Company as a foreman; four years with Midland Electric Company as a superintendent; and five years with his present employer, Mozart Electric, Inc. in performance of the above sort of duties. It has therefore been established that the Petitioner has worked for a substantial portion of the last 28 years in a capacity other than as merely a Journeyman electrical worker an a job site, but rather has typically worked in a supervisory capacity for most of those 28 years. Indeed, for most jobs performed during that time, the Petitioner was superintendent of the job and was solely responsible directly to the president of his company for the quantity and quality of work performed by his men, whom he supervised unassisted by anyone else.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the application of Hans Rossignol to be permitted to take the examination for certified electrical contractors should be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Hans Rossignol c/o Mozart Electric, Inc. 2427 North Claybourne Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60614 Susan Tully, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Florida Electrical Construction Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer and/or waiver of Part I of the engineering licensing examination.
Findings Of Fact From 1969 through 1974, Petitioner attended the Lipetsk Branch of the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys. In 1974, Petitioner graduated from the Lipetsk Polytechnical Institute (Institute) in Russia, with a degree in industrial and civil engineering. The degree in civil engineering earned by Petitioner is equivalent to a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering in the United States. Upon graduation from the Institute, Petitioner commenced her professional employment as an engineer on August 30, 1974, at the LIPTSKGRAZHDANPROEKT Design Institute. In January 1976, Petitioner was employed as a professional engineer at the State Design Institute DNEPRPROEKKTSTALKONSTRUKSIYA (DNEPR), where she was continuously employed until leaving the Soviet Union in December 1993. There are no specific licensing or registration requirements in Russia with respect to engineers. Therefore, after earning a degree in industrial and civil engineering, Petitioner could work as an engineer in Russia without taking any professional examination. However, in 1979, Petitioner took an examination in Russia that allowed her to sign her own drawings and calculations. During Petitioner's tenure at the DNEPR, she achieved the status of Senior Engineer in 1986; was promoted to the position of Category II Engineer for Steel Structures in 1988; was promoted to the post of Category I Engineer for Steel Structures in 1990; and was elevated to the position of Leading Engineer in 1991. To achieve the status of Category II Engineer for Steel Structures and Category I Engineer for Steel Structures at DNEPR, Petitioner had to take an examination in 1988 and in 1990, respectively. The promotion to each of these positions was predicated upon Petitioner's passing these examinations and demonstrating expertise in the areas of economics, chemistry, mathematics, physics, building materials, corrosion prevention, resistance of materials, and construction mechanics. As a result of passing the examinations in 1988 and 1990, Petitioner was not only promoted, but also received salary increases. Petitioner believes that the two examinations she took in Russia in 1988 and in 1990, while working at the DNEPR were substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination. However, no evidence was presented to support this claim. The Fundamentals Examination is one component of the engineering licensing examination, and is designed to assess whether an individual is qualified to practice in this state as an engineer intern. This examination is usually taken either in the applicant's last year in engineering school or shortly after graduation. With regard to format, the Fundamentals Examination is an eight-hour examination and consists of 120 multiple-choice questions. The Principles and Practice Examination is the second part of the engineering licensing examination and is taken after successful completion of the Fundamentals Examination. Oscar E. Olsen, a structural engineer and owner of O.E. Olsen and Associates, a structural engineering firm, is currently Petitioner's employer. Mr. Olsen, who is generally familiar with the Fundamentals Examination, testified that the list of subjects covered on the two examinations taken by Petitioner in 1988 and 1990, coincide with the subject matter on the Fundamentals Examination. Mr. Olsen further testified that it appeared to him that the two examinations taken by Petitioner were comparable to the Fundamental Examinations required in Florida. Notwithstanding his testimony that the exams taken by Petitioner are substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination, Mr. Olsen admitted that he has never seen or reviewed the examinations taken by Petitioner while she was in Russia. It is impossible to render a reasonable opinion as to whether the two examinations taken by Petitioner in Russia are substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination, where the only information provided with regard to the former is a list of subject areas covered. Such a list gives no indication of the depth and specific content of the subject matter on the examinations; the difficulty of the examinations; the passing scores; the number and format of the questions; and the length of the examinations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, the Board of Professional Engineers, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for waiver of Part I, the Fundamentals Examination, and for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray Silverstein, Esquire Powell, Carney, Hayes, and Silverstein One Plaza, Suite 1210 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-1689 Edwin A. Bayo Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be awarded additional credit for his answer to question number 290, and thereby be given a passing grade on the Professional Engineer examination administered on October 25, 1996, in Orlando.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers (Board) was the state agency responsible for the examination and licensing of professional engineers in Florida. With the cooperation and assistance of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), the Board conducts periodic examinations to test the qualifications of candidates for certification as professional engineers in this state. Such an examination was conducted in Orlando, Florida on October 25, 1996. Petitioner was a candidate at that examination. A minimum score for passing was 70. Petitioner received an overall score of 69. One of the questions posed to the candidates at that examination was question number 290, dealing with the design of a control system, which required the candidate to determine values for two parameters in such a fashion that the closed loop specifications stated as, "with K =20 the unit step response be a damped oscillation with a 10% overshoot and with a damped natural frequency of 15 rad/s" were met. In the answer to this question, the engineer has to arrive at parameters to give the desired step response within the stated percentages. According to Dr. Antonio Arroyo, an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Florida and an expert in electrical engineering, this subject matter is taught in a standard undergraduate controls course which is required in engineering schools nation-wide. The question in issue is a classic controls problem. The candidate is to reduce the diagram displayed in the examination question and give a closed loop description. Given that, the solution proceeds by taking the percentage of error and using it to back- track and arrive at the requested parameters, step by step. The examination is an open book examination. Because of the many formulae used in engineering, the candidate is permitted to use printed resources to assist in the solving of the problems. This formula involved in this problem is standard. Only the parameters cited in the test problem are different. In his answer to the question Petitioner cited to the page in his reference material where the solution is to be found, and he used the appropriate formula. In doing so, he could take the numbers presented in the problem and apply them to the standard problem solution contained in the reference book he had with him. It is a "plug and chug" situation wherein the candidate inserts the problem numbers into the given formula and makes the calculations. In order to take advantage of this opportunity, however, the candidate must decide how to use the information given. In this case, the problem involved a damped frequency of 15 hz and the candidate was required to calculate an undamped frequency. The Petitioner did not show that calculation in his solution, and it appears to Dr. Arroyo he missed the fact of the difference between the two frequencies. In Petitioner's solution, he listed what he saw as the data given, and though at no place did the problem show "Omega d", Petitioner put down "Omega d" but used "Omega n". In the expert opinion of Dr. Arroyo, an engineer should, at least, check his calculations. Examiners will give credit to a candidate if the candidate shows the appropriate knowledge of the concepts involved in the problem. In the instant case, Petitioner's answer to question 290 far exceeded the allowable 10% overshoot. His answer for "a" was 0.895, whereas the correct answer was 1.099. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference was .110, Petitioner’s overshoot was .204. His answer for "b" was 11.25, whereas the correct answer was 17.3. Whereas the allowable ten percent difference here was 1.73, Petitioner’s overshoot was 6.05. To Dr. Arroyo, this shows a concept error rather than a calculation error In substance, Petitioner utilized the correct formulae, but used incorrect data, and the use of the wrong data is sufficient to indicate his ignorance of the appropriate concepts. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, who did not see the problem utilized in the examination and relied on information provided by Petitioner, concluded that Petitioner’s margin of error was within the 10% limitation. Here, notwithstanding the opinion to the contrary of Dr. Garrett, Petitioner's solution missed the authorized overshoot by a significant amount, far more than the allowable 10%. He should have known something was wrong when this happened and should have looked to see what he did wrong. In the opinion of Dr. Arroyo, the Petitioner did not adequately evaluate the problem consistent with acceptable engineering standards since the final product of his calculations did not meet the specifications of the problem. This is the purpose behind the professional certification process, and Petitioner should have recognized that his answer did not meet the required specifications. Petitioner received a score of six out of a possible ten for his solution to question 290. Dr. Arroyo is satisfied that the scoring plan of the NCEES for this problem is fair and he supports it. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Garrett, a professional engineer and long-time professor of electrical engineering at the University of South Florida, disagrees. In his evaluation of the problem and the grading process used here, Dr. Garrett notes that problem 290 consisted of five parts, for each of which two points could be awarded. Petitioner correctly answered the first three parts and received a grade of six points. He missed part four, and part five was to use the results of parts three and four, with the proper equations, to determine the two answers required. Since Petitioner used the proper equations to figure his answer to part five, even though he did not get a correct answer to part four, which resulted in his numeric answer to part five being incorrect, Dr. Garrett is of the opinion that he should have received an additional two points for applying the proper formula in part five. Review of the scoring plan developed for this problem indicates that Petitioner met all the qualifications for award of six points, but he did not recognize the relationship of damped as opposed to undamped. He used incorrect data to arrive at "a" and "b" in that he did not identify the relationship between natural frequency and damped frequency. This is a basic problem of control systems which an undergraduate should be able to solve correctly. It is basic electrical engineering knowledge and not beyond that expected of an electrical engineer with a bachelor's degree in the field. Had Petitioner utilized the formula he used with the proper data, he would have been awarded credit for a correct answer even if his calculations were incorrect. Here, however, while Petitioner utilized the correct formula, he applied it to incorrect data, and it is this use of incorrect data which makes an award of a higher score inappropriate. The professional engineers’ examination is designed to test the individual's familiarity with engineering concepts and his ability to cast the problem into those concepts to solve the problem. Petitioner contends that his understanding of the concepts involved was correct and, therefore, even though he used the wrong figures, he should received credit for a correct answer or, at most, only 2 rather than 4 points should have been deducted. Though Petitioner utilized the correct formula for his solution to question 290, he applied the wrong values in the use of the formula. This indicates a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, and even though Petitioner used the proper formula, that formula came from the book he was permitted to use for the examination. He cannot be given full credit for copying the formula from the book. Had he used the correct values in his solution to the problem, he would have been given appropriate credit even if his calculations were wrong. After being notified of his unsuccessful exam results, Petitioner requested that his answer to question number 290 be resubmitted to NCEES for re-scoring, and this was done. By memorandum in response, dated July 10, 1997, the NCEES scorer concluded: The error in using undamped natural frequency for damped natural frequency in the examinee's solution is a major error. Whether the examinee did not recognize the function was in fact the undamped natural frequency, as given in the problem statement, or whether it was an oversight, it is still a major error since the outcome is significantly affected. The scorer, whose knowledge of the identity of the candidate was limited to a number only, recommended a score of "six" for Petitioner answer to this problem. There was no change from the initial scoring.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner additional credit for his answer to question number 290 on the principles and practice portion of the electrical engineering examination administered for the Board of Professional Engineers on October 25 and 26, 1996. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bahman Behzadi Post Office Box 290931 Tampa, Florida 33687 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his admission to the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida on August 30, 1982, Petitioner Evans attended a three-year full-time Mechanical Engineering Diploma Program at the College of Arts, Science and Technology in Kingston, Jamaica. Upon completion of the program, Petitioner was awarded the College Mechanical Engineering Diploma. The diploma from the College of Arts, Science and Technology was conferred in an educational system based upon the English System of Education. The diploma was not a university degree, such as a Bachelor of Science. It is more akin to a certificate from a specialized training program. Such diplomas are often called Associate Degrees when they are issued by junior colleges in the United States. 750 credit hours were transferred from the College of Arts, Science and Technology and were applied to the lower level requirements for the Mechanical Engineering Program when Petitioner was enrolled at the University of South Florida. As with all transfers from other schools of higher education, Petitioner was not given credit for those courses in the grade point average (GPA) he was required to achieve at the university. Throughout his enrollment at the university prior to the actual award of his Bachelor of Science (BS) degree, Petitioner Evans was in the Mechanical Engineering Program. During the thirteen terms the Petitioner attended the university before he was awarded his BS degree, he repeated the following engineering department courses: EGN 3313 STATICS (3 times); EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2 (2 times); ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I (3 times) and EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO (4 times). Petitioner ultimately achieved a "A" in EGN 3313 STATICS; a "C" in EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2, as well as ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I. His final grade in the coursework for EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO was a "B". At all times while Petitioner was in attendance at the university, the Mechanical Engineering Department required students to have a GPA of 2.2 or better in a specific schedule of coursework before a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (BSME) degree would be awarded by the faculty of the Department. The curriculum for the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida was accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) based upon the program requirement that a degree in mechanical engineering would be conferred only on students with a 2.2 or better GPA. The fall term of August 24, 1987 - December 12, 1987, was designated as Petitioner's final term of his senior year as an undergraduate seeking a BSME degree. Although the means used by the Mechanical Engineering faculty to calculate a GPA during this particular time period was unavailable, there is no dispute that the faculty applied its policy and determined that a BSME could not be awarded to Petitioner because he did not meet the academic standard of 2.2 or better GPA in the scheduled courses. Due to the averaging required to arrive at a GPA, Petitioner's repetition of so many courses lowered his overall GPA even though he successfully completed each course on his final attempt. When Petitioner was personally informed of the faculty's decision by his assigned faculty adviser, he questioned whether he could retake some of the courses to bring his GPA status up to the level demanded by the faculty. This idea was discouraged by his adviser because Petitioner would have to repeat a large number of courses over a lengthy period of time. The averaging techniques used to compute a GPA makes such an endeavor very time consuming with small results for the effort spent. Based upon the advice he received, Petitioner acquiesced in the faculty's decision to award him a B.S. in Engineering-Option in General and accepted the degree. At the close of his undergraduate academic pursuits, Petitioner had an overall GPA of 2.082 and a GPA in departmental course work of 1.79. This departmental GPA was calculated by eliminating 3 "Fs" from his transcript, per the university's forgiveness policy. All other course repeats lowered his overall GPA and his departmental GPA. In spite of the overall GPA and departmental GPA determination, Petitioner did take and successfully passed every course within the curriculum of the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida. The B.S. degree awarded to Petitioner is an alternate degree within the university. It is designed for students who have either completed a specialized program but were unable to meet a faculty's higher GPA standard or for those students who never designated a specialty within the engineering school, but met general university degree requirements. This program has never been accredited by ABET. ABET relied upon the faculty's representation that students who received BSME degrees would obtain a 2.2 or better GPA in the program before the degree was awarded when accreditation was granted by the board. It is unknown as to whether the program would have been approved if a lower success standard had been set for the students. On July 9, 1990, Petitioner's application for the Fundamentals Examination was received by the Department. The application was rejected on September 24, 1990, because the Department determined Petitioner did not meet the statutory and rule provisions governing admissions to the examination. From August 27,, 1984 - December 11, 1987, Petitioner was in the final year of an approved engineering curriculum in a university approved by the Board. He successfully completed the courses in the curriculum, but his GPA in the program was lowered by his numerous repetitions of the same courses before successful completion occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the examination administered by the Department for the Board be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Pages 1-2: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement Issue I-Page 3: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #11. Paragraph two. Accepted. See HO #7. Paragraph three. Accepted. See HO #3. Paragraph four. Accepted. See HO #8. Paragraph five. Accepted. See HO #4, #10, #11 and #12. Paragraph six. Accepted. Paragraph seven. Accepted. See HO #15. Paragraph eight. Accepted. See HO #12. Paragraph nine. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Rejected. Cumulative. Issue II-Page 7: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #13. Issue III-Page 8:Paragraph one. Accepted. Paragraph two. Rejected. Cumulative. Paragraph three. Accepted. Paragraph four. Rejected. Mixed Question of Law and Fact. Witness Incompetent to determine. Paragraph five. Rejected. Cumulative. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. Accepted. See HO #8 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Insufficient facts presented. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. COPIES FURNISHED: Weldon Earl Brennan, Esquire SHEAR NEWMAN HAHN & ROSENKRANZ, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Executive Director Jack McRay, General Counsel Florida Board of Professional Department of Professional Engineers Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to four problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 30, 1998, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 30, 1998, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in civil engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 45 on the Examination. For the civil engineering specialization, a raw score of 45 converts to a score of 67. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 26, 1999) that his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to Natalie Lowe of the Board, who forwarded it to the NCEES. Appended to Petitioner's letter to Ms. Lowe were two pages of "scratch paper" on which Petitioner had written during his post-examination review on March 19, 1999. On the first page were written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 120 and 125. On the second page were the following written comments he had made regarding the scoring of Problems 220 and 222: 220 a, b, & c 2 parts b & c correct. Min. mark I should get[:] At least 5 instead of 2 and maybe 7. There is an error. 222 ok The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 222 resulted in his receiving a raw score of 43 (or a converted score of 65, 5 points less than he needed to pass the Examination). The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on May 12, 1999. The Board subsequently referred the matter to the Division to conduct an administrative hearing. At the administrative hearing that was held pursuant to the Board's referral, Petitioner challenged the grading of his solutions to Problems 120, 125, and 220 of the Examination, and indicated that he had "no dispute concerning the grading of [his solution to Problem] 222," notwithstanding that he had requested, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, that his solution to Problem 222 be rescored. Petitioner explained that he had made this request as a result of inadvertence and that he had actually intended to seek rescoring of his solution to Problem 220, not Problem 222. Problems 120, 125, and 222 were worth ten raw points each. Problem 120 contained four subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received four raw points for his solution to Problem 120. Rescoring did not result in any change to this score. Petitioner solved two subparts of Problem 120 correctly (subparts (a) and (b)). The solutions to the other two subparts of Problem 120 (subparts (c) and (d)), however, were incorrect inasmuch as Petitioner had neglected, in making the lateral force calculations and drawing the diagrams required by these subparts, to include the force attributable to the movement of the groundwater referred to in the problem. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Problem 125 contained three subparts (or requirements). Petitioner initially received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125. Upon rescoring, no change was made this raw score. Petitioner correctly solved only one of the three subparts of Problem 125 (subpart (c)). In his solution to subpart (a) of Problem 125, Petitioner did not provide, as required by this subpart, the quantities of water, cement, and aggregate necessary for the project described in the problem. Petitioner's solution to subpart (b) did not describe one of the acceptable slump increasing methods that the candidates were required describe in their solution to this subpart. Accordingly, giving Petitioner a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 125 was consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 220. He did not request, in his March 26, 1999, letter to Ms. Lowe, a rescoring of his solution to this problem, and, as a result, his solution was not rescored. At the administrative hearing, Petitioner testified on his own behalf regarding the scoring of this solution and, during his testimony, contended that the score he received was too low; however, neither a copy of the problem, nor a copy of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, was offered into evidence. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to support a finding that the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 220 was undeservedly low in light of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. Petitioner initially received a raw score of eight for his solution to Problem 220. Rescoring resulted in this score being reduced two points to a six. Petitioner did not present any evidence supporting the position (which he advances in his Proposed Recommended Order) that he should have received a higher score for his solution to this problem, and, consequently, Respondent's expert, in his testimony at hearing, did not address the matter. While there were exhibits offered (by Respondent) and received into evidence relating to the scoring of Petitioner's solution to Problem 222, it is not apparent from a review of these exhibits that such scoring deviated from the requirements of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem (which was received into evidence as part of Respondent's Exhibit 12).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 30, 1998, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's academic record meets the academic requirements that are prerequisites to taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for approval to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. The Petitioner studied engineering at the Tongji University in the People's Republic of China from 1991 to 1995. He majored in Building Engineering and was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Engineering on July 10, 1995. Beginning in September of 1995, the Petitioner studied engineering at the graduate level at Tongji University. His graduate studies lasted until April of 1998, at which time he was awarded the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Structural Engineering. During the course of his graduate studies at Tongji University from September of 1995 until April of 1998, the Petitioner completed a total of 38 semester credit hours. Those semester credit hours included the following courses with their indicated semester credit hours: Applied Statistics 2 credit hours Numerical Analysis 3 credit hours The courses titled Applied Statistics and Numerical Analysis are both higher mathematics courses. In the fall of 2000, the Petitioner began further graduate studies in engineering at Auburn University. He studied at Auburn University through the spring of 2002. The courses taken by the Petitioner at Auburn University included the following, with the indicated number of semester credit hours: Advanced Structural Analysis 3 credit hours Advanced Stress Analysis 3 credit hours Structural Dynamics I 3 credit hours Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics 3 credit hours The course titled Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics is a higher mathematics class. The other three Auburn courses listed immediately above, if not pure mathematics courses, are certainly courses which involve the application of advanced principles of mathematics. To successfully complete such courses, a person would have to be well-grounded in higher mathematics. In the fall of 2002, the Petitioner transferred to the University of Florida where he continued his graduate studies in engineering. On December 20, 2003, the University of Florida awarded the Petitioner the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Civil Engineering. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 20.007 the Petitioner submitted his educational credentials to an educational evaluator approved by the Board. The evaluator selected by the Petitioner was Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. (Silny). Following its evaluation of the Petitioner's educational credentials, Silny prepared a Report of Evaluation of Educational Credentials (Silny Report) dated June 15, 2005. The Silny Report reached the conclusion that the Petitioner's undergraduate education at Tongji University was not the equivalent of a degree in engineering earned from a program approved by ABET. Silny was of the view that the Petitioner's undergraduate course of study at Tongji University was not equivalent because his curriculum was deficient five semester credit hours in higher mathematics and basic sciences and was deficient one semester credit hour in humanities and social sciences.1 The conclusions reached in the Silny Report were based on an evaluation of the Petitioner's undergraduate course work at Tongji University from 1991 to 1995. The Silny Report did not take into consideration any of the courses taken by the Petitioner during his graduate studies at Tongji University from 1995 to 1998, during his graduate studies at Auburn University from 2000 to 2002, or during his graduate studies at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2003. During his undergraduate engineering studies at Tongji University, the Petitioner completed 36 semester hour credits of course work in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences. Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University represent less study than semester credit hours completed at an accredited engineering school in a university in the United States of America. Specifically, Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University are the equivalent of only 75 percent of semester credit hours earned in accredited engineering programs in the United States of America. Accordingly, when Silny evaluated the Petitioner's undergraduate education credentials, Silny multiplied the 36 semester credit hours the Petitioner had completed at Tongji University in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences by a factor of 0.75, and concluded that those 36 semester credit hours were equivalent to only 27 semester credit hours at an accredited engineering program in the United States of America.2 Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 includes the following requirements regarding applicants with degrees from foreign institutions: Applicants having degrees from foreign institutions shall be required to document “substantial equivalency” to the 2002 ABET Accreditation Yearbook for Accreditation Cycle Ended September 30, 2002 engineering criteria. This document is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to document “substantial equivalency” to an ABET accredited engineering program, the applicant must demonstrate: 32 college credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences. The hours of mathematics must be beyond algebra and trigonometry and must emphasize mathematical concepts and principles rather than computation. Courses in probability and statistics, differential calculus, integral calculus, and differential equations are required. Additional courses may include linear algebra, numerical analysis, and advanced calculus. As for the hours in basic sciences, courses in general chemistry and calculus-based general physics are required, with at least a two semester (or equivalent) sequence of study in either area. Additional basic sciences courses may include life sciences (biology), earth sciences (geology), and advanced chemistry or physics. Computer skills and/or programming courses cannot be used to satisfy mathematics or basic science requirements. 16 college credit hours in humanities and social sciences. Examples of traditional courses in this area are philosophy, religion, history, literature, fine arts, sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economics, and no more than 6 credit hours of languages other than English or other than the applicant’s native language. Courses in technology and human affairs, history of technology, professional ethics and social responsibility are also acceptable. Courses such as accounting, industrial management, finance, personnel administration, engineering economics and military training are not acceptable. Courses which instill cultural values are acceptable, while routine exercises of personal craft are not. 48 college credit hours of engineering science and engineering design. Courses in this area have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. Examples of traditional engineering science courses are mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical and electronic circuits, materials science, transport phenomena, and computer science (other than computer programming skills). Courses in engineering design stress the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. In order to promote breadth, at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area is required. In addition, evidence of attainment of appropriate laboratory experience, competency in English, and understanding of the ethical, social, economic and safety considerations of engineering practice must be presented. As for competency in English, transcripts of course work completed, course content syllabi, testimonials from employers, college level advanced placement tests, Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores of at least 550 in the paper- based version, or 213 in the computer-based version, will be accepted as satisfactory evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, and is eligible to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 29, 1999, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2000.
