Thoughts on the November 2007 Civil Engineering Board Exams

Statistically improbable?

It sounds reasonable enough in itself. However, given the related factors, arguments can be raised against this reasoning. For one, there are various claims on the ease of the exam. Then again, this is also contrary to the credibility of the exam. If the problems were very easy, it could raise question on the essence of regulating professionals.

The key word is regulate. I think passing the board exam is more than answering a good fraction of 90 questions. Isn't it supposed to be about qualification? Isn't it a further assurance that a civil engineering graduate is ready to be a vital part of the development of the contry?

Given the issues raised prior to this, I think there is no fault in the part of those who passed the exam. I still accept the reason "statistically improbable" assuming an actual statistical analysis was conducted. But where's the data that says the past examination's problems shouldn't yield such a passing rate?

The examinees are in no position to pay for something like this, nor does the country need "lucky licenses". There's a reasonable compromise here. i'm just not sure which is it. My fear is that there are two opposing sides with very opposed biases and that if no compromise is attained, the losing side is going to do something to taint the Civil Engineering Profession.