Decoupling & De-costing: FPE Change is Coming

I want to challenge you with a question.

I’m going to suppose you’re a reasonably competent, experienced, practicing fire protection professional. (You’re reading this blog, after all!)

Some of you are also licensed Fire Protection Engineers.

If I asked you to first write a balanced combustion chemical equation for heptane (C₇H₁₆) in the presence of oxygen, and then find the Heat of Formation per molecule of heptane, could you do it with only knowing the values of Heat of Formation for water vapor, oxygen, heptane and carbon dioxide?

No ChatGPT, no Google – just the answer to this?

Or, are you like me, in that not only is it a stretch for me to be capable of doing this, but I have never come close to doing anything of this sort in a variety of Fire Protection Engineering roles that I’ve taken in my career?

NUANCE IN THE EXAM
That question – specifically – is fair game for the Fire Protection P.E. Exam.

Chemical equation balancing and heat of formation are both in the Fire Protection P.E. Exam specifications, as is many other nuanced applications.

Fire Protection Engineering covers a very wide breadth of content. It’s far more than sprinkler protection.

One of the most misunderstood parts of being a Fire Protection Engineer is the assumption that an FPE is an expert in sprinkler systems. They could be, but they very well could not be. At most, the Fire Protection P.E. Exam is 20% sprinkler system-related.

The P.E. Exam covers Special Hazards, Fire Alarm, Smoke Control, Explosion Protection, Passive Building Systems, Egress, Human Behavior, and some fundamentals on using information and data.

Historically, the Fire Protection P.E. Exam covers far more than just fire suppression. Many might argue that much of the knowledge that is tested is not regularly used in industry practice by Fire Protection Engineers.

Historically, while many things are not relevant to a practicing Fire Protection Engineer, the test has been nuanced and forces the examinee to consider and be at least minimally competent in some basics of all these facets of Fire Protection Engineering.

Historically, that’s been OK. Even if it’s not real world, it has served its role in trying to delineate competency for Fire Protection Engineering. 
 
But now, in 2024, we have two converging themes that are going to change the future of Fire Protection Engineering licensure. Some changes will be good, some may not.
 
DECOUPLING THE EXPERIENCE TO SIT FOR AN EXAM
Some states have “decoupled” the requirement for experience in order to sit for a P.E. Exam. Meaning that instead of waiting and gaining four years (or two years in some states, such as California), some states will allow an engineering graduate to take the exam at any time, but not earn the license until they’ve later reached the required amount of experience.

Texas, for example, moved to this in 2016 to accommodate different career paths and encourage licensure. (https://pels.texas.gov/decoupling.html)
 
FLEXIBILITY
I see this as a two-edged sword.

On the one hand, offering flexibility in when the exam is taken can encourage more attempts at the exam and more licensed Fire Protection Engineers.

If I’ve heard anything over the last decade, it’s that we need more good people invested in fire protection and licensed as FPEs. There continues to be a massive demand for FPEs.

Allowing someone to take an exam before having kids or marriage, while they’re fresh out of school and still in ‘study-mode’, or during more convenient times of their life does well to benefit the examinee.
 
ACADEMIC VS. REAL-WORLD
On the other hand, this puts a lot of pressure on the test writers to get the subject matter correct.
If we’re testing on topics that do not relate to the industry, then this ‘decoupling’ is pushing the new-grad into a massive advantage.

Going back to our chemical equation question.

Let’s assume the new graduate student, Person A, doesn’t know the answer.

Let’s look at a practicing, experienced, and competent experienced professional. Let’s call them Person B, who has never come across this in the fire protection industry and hasn’t studied or taken a major test in two decades.

Who does this question benefit?

It’s Person A – and by a wide margin. They’re still fresh out of school. They’re used to exams. They’re used to studying long hours (hopefully). They remember how to take tests. They know test-taking strategy; they’ve just done it for years!

Suppose the test prioritizes more theory or academic subjects. In that case, the green new graduate has a significant advantage in passing the test – even over people with many years of experience.

I’ve been told multiple times from people with little to no relevant experience that they’ve already passed the PE Exam. What does that say? That the person is highly intellectual? They’re driven and self-motivated, and smart? That the exam can’t differentiate between relevant experience and someone who studies for the exam?

I don’t know the answer to those questions, but they’re worth asking.

To be clear – there is nothing morally or ethically wrong with anyone taking the PE Exam whenever they are eligible. Go get that thing! It’s a tremendous benefit in recognition and sets people up for a whole new career trajectory.
What I question are the particulars of the exam itself. Its role is changing, and it probably needs to adapt and be a better indicator of industry knowledge than academic knowledge.

The experienced professional should have a natural advantage if the test reflects real-world practice. Passing the PE Exam in Fire Protection should feel much more familiar and comfortable to an experienced person than a new grad.

This is going to be a challenge for the volunteer test writers. It’s a tall task, and there has long been a complaint about the exam (that it’s too academic).

If you feel called to that effort, contact SFPE and get involved! They’re always looking for help in test writing or exam specifications.

Also note that they don’t allow crossover between the real writers and the outsiders who teach on it (us). The exam's subject matter is an important and relevant debate today.
 
HISTORICALLY HIGH BARRIER TO ENTRY
On an unrelated trajectory, Fire Protection as a discipline has gained increasing visibility in the design and construction environment today. To prepare for the Fire Protection P.E. Exam 15 years ago, SFPE’s handbook and online course were the only options for prep material. Today, SFPE’s online course continues, we have content and a book, the School of PE has a course, and others like PPI have also expressed interest in serving this space.

With the older written book, an examinee needed to purchase SFPE’s Handbook ($500-$900), NFPA’s Handbooks ($300+), and nearly a dozen codes and standards (which could easily run $500+).

Now, with the online exam, any relevant material is provided as part of the exam itself.

Fifteen years ago, no one had to purchase an online course or optional handbook, but the cost of just the required reference materials could easily have run $1,500 or more, and the cost of a course on top could have easily added another $1,500.

Fifteen years ago, there was a massive financial barrier to entry.

Required reference materials alone could commonly cost $1,500 or more in the older written-exam format.

​It was extremely burdensome to invest the time (three months or more) and the cost (regularly $3,000+) to take the Fire Protection P.E. Exam.

Don’t forget – with having to wait a few years to take the exam – there was more at stake than time and money. There’s a major pressure of passing the exam when your employer, family, and colleagues all know how much attention and effort you’ve put in.

In other words, it was an extremely high-stakes test.
 
TODAY'S LOWER BARRIER TO ENTRY
For one, the cost of codes and standards is pennies on the dollar. NFPA Link only costs $10 a month and gives access to all these codes and standards. The NCEES Handbook is free, and there are low-cost options like the NCEES practice exam (~$45) and our book ($250). Some courses and their materials can still run $2,000 or more, but the financial barrier to entry is a fraction of what it used to be.

For example, if your employer is already on MeyerFire University, it’s only $130/year to add yourself as a user and get all the PE Prep. While that sounds like a shameless plug, I don’t mean it that way. I am sure you’ve seen enough about the University already. Concerning the cost - I’ve thought for years that access to this kind of information needs to be available and more accessible to the industry beyond only the PE examinees. It needs to be out there.

So what easily ran $3,000 just 15 years ago could look a lot more like $500 or less today.
 
WHAT COULD THIS MEAN?
In some states, decoupling has altered the experience requirement for sitting for the exam.

Breaking down the tradition of insane costs just to adequately prepare for the exam is going to lessen the barrier to entry in a healthy way. Reducing the costs also lessens the impact of not passing the exam on any one try.
 
1. LESS AT STAKE
One possible benefit of decoupling and democratizing cost is that far, far less is at stake for one person taking the exam.
So you’re a year out of school, take the exam, and don’t pass. Who cares? You can retake it next year, and there’s no shame or hole in your bank account.

There’s less angst, less pressure, and less money at stake. That’s a good thing.
 
2. MORE FPEs?
Could removing the financial burden mean that more people try the exam?

What about a licensed engineer in another discipline? If they don’t realistically need to spend $3k to take the exam anymore, do they try it when they would not before?

On average, if more people take the exam and give it the attention it deserves, we’ll get more licensed FPEs.

That’s possibly a very good thing for the industry.

In a way, if an organization's goal is to create more Fire Protection Engineers in the world, then reducing the burden to get licensure (reducing cost) could perhaps be one important way to encourage that. Not make the exam easier, but make it less expensive.

SCARCITY VS. ADVOCACY
Now, before we think of this from a scarcity mindset, and that more FPEs will mean more competition and less value for each existing FPE – I would challenge you with this: What is our biggest detraction from being more involved and doing better fire protection work in our industry?

It’s our shortage of skilled, caring professionals.

We can’t advocate for more involvement or be more involved without more highly skilled, caring professionals. They don’t have to be FPEs, but if more of them are – great.

Advocacy for caring about and advocating for fire protection is half of our battle. If we have more FPEs in the world, that advocacy becomes easier.
 
4. COMPETENCY
With decoupling, we’ve removed some experience component.

Is the test measuring a person’s ability to study and take an exam?

Is it a measure of intelligence?

Is it a measure of competency in fire protection technical understanding?

Is it a measure of what a competent, educated, discerning engineer should be?

Is it protecting the care, concern, and craft of ethical and sound engineering judgment? Or is it playing into further apathy that’s already present outside of the fire protection industry?

I don’t know the answer to any of these. But with decoupling, these questions come into play and become relevant in a completely new way.
 
5. MORE ONUS ON ABET-ACCREDITED ENGINEERING DEGREE
Let’s say the exam parameters don’t change. That it stays fairly embedded in foundational engineering testing and leans a bit more academic than real-world practice.

Suppose the exam itself shifts from the gate-keeping role of what it means to be a competent professional and rather is (pessimistically) a measure of academic achievement. What does that mean for the ABET-Accredited Engineering Degree that is required in order to take the exam?

My gut says that the importance of the PE Exam decreases, and the importance of the engineering degree increases. If the PE is less of a barrier, then the engineering degree becomes the significant effort and more of the ‘gatekeeper’ of the profession.
 
6. KEEPING WHAT IS GREAT
What sets the fire protection industry apart from others (looking at you, MEP) is our shared sense of responsibility.

I find that many people are more loyal to a cause and to doing good in the world than they are to their own employer.

We have a common sense of purpose, and I think that drives a lot of passion and care for the community that is our group of fire protection professionals.

That’s a real thing.

I don’t think that changes in licensure will affect the industry much, especially since so few people who practice in the industry are FPEs to begin with.

But I do think that potentially lowering the barrier to entry (financial, time investment, or burden of failure) means we need to be on the lookout for ways to continue to embrace, encourage, and build-up newcomers to the industry.

We care about it. People before us and people before them have cared about it. My hope is that the industry's major growth means that we grow the community and do not drift out of the passionate niche mindset that so many of us carry.
 
YOUR TAKE
Lots of food for thought today.

What’s your take?