October 3, 2019

PRES. RODRIGO ROA DUTERTE

Office of the President
Republic of the Philippines

Re: Petition for the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of Examiners for Civil
Engineers to Re-evaluate and Expand the List of Allowed Calculator Models for the November
2019 Civil Engineering Board Exam

BACKGROUND

The Professional Regulation Commission Board for Civil Engineers, herein addressed as "the Board,"
released on October 1, 2019 an updated list of allowed calculator models for the November 2019 Civil
Engineering Board Examination, or simply "board exam."

The approved models are as listed:

● Canon F718S ● Casio fx-82EX
● Canon F718SA ● Casio fx-350EX
● Canon F718SG ● Sharp EL531-XH
● Canon F718SGA ● Sharp EL509-X

This move was done following the ban on the models Casio fx-991ES and fx-991ES PLUS due to their
alleged "programmable features," while still allowing at least 400 other non-programmable calculators,
with reference to PRC Memorandum Circular No. 2008-19.

POINTS OF CONTENTION

We, the examinees of the November 2019 Board Exam, express great disappointment in this decision
of the Board. Not only had the announcement come unprecedented with only a month left before the
scheduled testing date, it also had no mention of any rationale or motivation for limiting the allowed
calculators down to a very short list of eight (8).

We thus raise the following points for immediate consideration of the Board:

1) The board exam may not have been adapted for the use of the newly specified models.

This ruling compels examinees to perform more manual operations in order to solve a single exam
problem (e.g. solving a system of equations would have to be done by hand where in earlier allowed
models, they could be solved simultaneously requiring only one calculator function), therefore putting
an emphasis on mastery of routine algebraic procedures over concept and principles used in the practice
of the profession.

At present, our greatest concern is the amount of time needed to solve test items that were
originally designed with the computing power of previously allowed models in mind. Opting for a
more tedious approach only heightens the risk of error propagation given the amount of intermediate
manual steps that would be required using the newly specified equipment. Such risk does not fit well
with the current format of the board exam which only credits the final answer of the examinees, and not
the process used.

Moreover, we believe that the opposite approach should be taken especially in the age of rapidly shifting
trends in the function and significance of technology. In recent years, the use of such tools and
computational methods have become prevalent in engineering, allowing engineers to perform complex
analyses efficiently and more accurately than before. It would also be a great leap of logic to claim that
using more advanced tools would undermine the skills and training requisite for the profession, for even
the most powerful of computing machines are rendered useless without proper knowledge of their uses
and capabilities.

Because of this, we find that testing a student’s mastery of these concepts with a much simpler tool is
simply wrong. In fact, to reduce the tools at the disposal of the examinees is not only a step backwards
from progress, but it is also not reflective of what is being utilized in the industry and the academe
today.

At the time of writing, the Board has yet to give its assurance that the examination is also to be adjusted
for the specified equipment. Until then, we anticipate that the method of evaluation in the board exam
would greatly mismatch the content and skill knowledge measured in the given test items.

Furthermore, PRC has allowed the usage of more advanced calculators for other engineering licensure
examinations this year. We do not see a valid reason why only CE Board Examinees were given the
very limited options.

2) Accessibility to the specified models seems to not have been secured beforehand.

We find that putting this act into effect with barely a month left before the board exam is unfair and
insensitive. The specified models are hard to come by due to a lack of demand prior to the
announcement, creating a logistical problem for the examinees as we scramble to find selling units. It
is not far-fetched to expect a shortage in supply of the allowed calculators—as many have already
expressed difficulty in acquiring said units as retailers went out of stock and without assurances that
they would be available within the month.

We then decry that to require all examinees to purchase new calculator units—from a very narrow
selection at that—this late into preparation is on the verge of abuse of discretion.

It should also be taken into consideration that not all examinees have the capacity to immediately
buy a new calculator in such short notice. Many have already prepared to either use their current non-
programmable calculators or borrow from older batches. There is reason to believe that the logistics
and repercussions of this decision of the Board were not studied properly.

3) There is no guarantee that it will properly counteract cheating in the board exam.

Given the possibility that a reason for the decision is to prevent cheating incidents that have occurred
in previous Civil Engineering board exams, we believe that a drastic change in the allowed calculators
is not the best solution. Cheating shall be prevented through better screening and monitoring before and
during the exam, especially with several testimonies from previous board examinees that rules
(regarding attire, prohibited calculators, and communication during the exam) were not strictly
implemented by proctors.

While calculators are very useful tools to engineers, we believe it is the critical thinking skills of
the individuals that actually solve problems. We find the decision of the Board to be
counterproductive and that it does not aptly reflect how far technology and engineering has come. There
is more potential in how the board exam can be implemented in how it can present us with real world
scenarios that engineers today face. By limiting computing power, we examinees are effectively forced
to use older or traditional methods that do not encourage critical thought and multiple perspectives in
problem solving. In this ever changing industry, it is our hope for our examiners to have more freedom
in creatively formulating problems that would produce engineers equipped for the twenty-first century.

SUGGESTED POINTS OF ACTION

We believe that there are more viable solutions that will be beneficial for both the Board
Examiners and examinees.

We implore the Board to (1) release a statement or an updated circular explaining the rationale and
motivations for their decision, (2) to re-evaluate and expand the list of allowed calculator models—
particularly reinstating the much used Casio fx-570ES and fx-570ES PLUS in the list of allowed
models, and (3) to employ a more effective screening and monitoring system for examinees to instill
integrity and discipline.