Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Licensing Exams topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts certified hydrogeologist exam specs; public raises concerns about computer-based testing for complex engineering exams
Summary
The board approved new test specifications for the certified hydrogeologist exam effective October; public commenters and board staff discussed continuing issues with computer-based testing for complex exams such as structural engineering, and urged vendor and NCEES engagement.
The Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists voted April 3 to adopt updated test specifications for the certified hydrogeologist examination, with the new specifications to take effect in October 2025.
Larry Kerest, the board's examination manager, briefed members on the spring 2025 examination administration, listing dates: the state geology exam was administered March 4; ASBOG national exams took place in March; the state land-surveyor exam was scheduled for April 9; and the NCEES national one-day exams were set for April 15. Kerest told the board the new certified hydrogeologist test specifications were on page 29 of the meeting materials and sought board approval to adopt the specifications for the October cycle.
A motion to approve was made, seconded, and carried. The roll-call vote recorded all board members present voting in favor; the chair declared, "Motion carried." The board's action formalizes the content and structure of the hydrogeologist exam for the October 2025 administration.
Public comment at the meeting shifted the conversation to broader testing issues. Michael Parolini, representing the Structural Engineering Association of California and the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations, praised the goal of reliable pass-fail outcomes but criticized the transition of some complex structural exams to computer-based testing (CBT). Parolini said the structural engineering community "support[s] any pass rate ... provided that the passers of that exam are minimally competent engineers. That's the goal." He and other commenters argued that the CBT implementation for complex, multi-part engineering exams has produced an experience that sometimes measures a candidate's ability to navigate the testing interface rather than strictly measuring technical knowledge.
Board staff and members acknowledged the reports. Rick told the board that the board's staff and liaison continue to follow vendor and NCEES responses and that NCES (NCEES) and test vendors are working on improvements. Board staff noted that state candidates for some disciplines are more accustomed to CBT because many state and national engineering exams have already moved to computer formats. Staff also said they participate in zone and national communications with NCEES and that the board's staff would continue to monitor candidate feedback and vendor remediation efforts.
The board asked staff to keep reporting on exam administration issues and candidate concerns; staff said they would provide updates at upcoming zone meetings and the board's May meeting.
