Study the FG and PG as two different exams built from one content list. The 2023 ASBOG task-analysis blueprints show hydrogeology rising from 13 percent on the FG to 22 percent on the PG, while mineralogy, petrology, and geochemistry falls from 12 percent to 5 percent, and engineering geology climbs from 12 to 18 percent. The task verbs also shift, from identify and interpret on the FG toward plan, conduct, and recommend on the PG. Weight your calendar by the blueprint for the specific exam you are registered for, and drill that exam's verb style.
One content list, two blueprints: FG and PG weight the eight domains differently
The FG and PG share eight domain names, but the 2023 ASBOG blueprints weight them differently: hydrogeology rises from 13 to 22 percent on the PG, engineering geology from 12 to 18 percent, and mineralogy falls to 5 percent.
On the FG, weight is spread across the classical core: general geology and geological investigations at 17 percent, geomorphology and surficial processes at 14 percent, hydrogeology at 13 percent, and mineralogy, sedimentology, and structure each at 11 to 12 percent, with mineral and energy resources at 9 percent. That distribution rewards broad coverage of identification, classification, and interpretation across every domain — the profile of a comprehensive fundamentals sweep rather than a practice-specialization test.
The PG concentrates on applied practice. Hydrogeology alone reaches 22 percent; engineering geology at 18 percent and mineral and energy resources at 16 percent follow, and general geology and investigations holds at 17 percent. Together those three applied domains account for 56 percent of the PG blueprint. Meanwhile mineralogy and sedimentology combined fall to 10 percent. A single study calendar cannot serve both exams; build one per exam and rebalance whenever the exam you are registered for changes.
| Domain | FG weight (2023 TAS) | PG weight (2023 TAS) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|
| General geology and geological investigations | 17% | 17% | Same |
| Mineralogy, petrology, geochemistry | 12% | 5% | Much lower on PG |
| Sedimentology, stratigraphy, paleontology | 11% | 5% | Lower on PG |
| Geomorphology and surficial processes | 14% | 8% | Lower on PG |
| Structure, tectonics, seismology | 12% | 9% | Slightly lower on PG |
| Hydrogeology | 13% | 22% | Much higher on PG |
| Engineering geology | 12% | 18% | Higher on PG |
| Mineral and energy resources | 9% | 16% | Higher on PG |
The verb shift: identify-and-interpret practice under-prepares PG tasks
The blueprints differ in task verbs as well as weights. FG tasks say identify, determine, interpret, and evaluate; PG tasks say plan, conduct, design, manage, and recommend — often framed around public health, safety, welfare, regulations, and QA/QC.
Compare two blueprint entries on hydrogeology. The FG asks you to define and characterize hydraulic properties of saturated and vadose zones and to evaluate water resources and aquifer yield. The PG asks you to plan and conduct hydrogeological and contaminant investigations, design monitoring and production wells, and manage, protect, or remediate groundwater resources. The second set demands that you also decide how an investigation is organized — site conceptual model first, then methods, then deliverables.
Practice in the matching verb style. For FG review, answering an identification question with a short justification from observable evidence trains the right judgment. For PG review, answering means stating an investigation plan, naming where regulations and QA/QC enter, and closing with a recommendation plus its limits. If you prepare only with identify-and-interpret drills, your PG answers will describe geology instead of telling a client or regulator what should be done next.
Hydrogeology at 22 percent: a worked PG scenario and a common wrong turn
Hydrogeology is the largest PG domain at 22 percent. A representative PG judgment is sequencing an investigation at a solvent-release site; the mistake to avoid is answering an investigation-planning question with a calculation alone.
Scenario: a PG-style item describes a solvent plume at a former dry cleaner and asks how you would proceed. A plausible mistake is to compute a Darcy velocity from an assumed gradient and stop there. That answers a characterization question, not a practice question — it never establishes what is unknown, what wells would resolve it, or what remediation decision the data must support.
The stronger response first states a site conceptual model: source, release mechanism, plume geometry in the saturated zone and vadose zone, and receptors. It then plans the investigation — monitoring well placement and screen intervals, aquifer testing to estimate hydraulic properties, and soil and water quality sampling for fate and transport — and closes by tying each data element to a remediation decision. Work the same scenario both ways to feel the difference between the two answer styles.
Engineering geology and hazards: from classifying a landslide to recommending what happens next
Engineering geology rises from 12 percent on the FG to 18 percent on the PG, and the PG entries ask for analysis and recommendations for engineering design, land use, and ground behavior — not hazard identification alone.
Scenario: an item shows a hillside home site above an old scarp, with slump lobes and seepage noted in the road cut. A plausible mistake is to classify the feature and stop — the answer names earthflow or slump and moves on. Classification matters, but the PG tasks in the blueprint go further: identify and map the hazards, then provide recommendations for engineering design and land use decisions.
A better response links the hazard to decisions: characterize the index and physical properties of the earth materials, address groundwater as a driver of slope behavior, lay out instrumentation and monitoring, and give recommendations with explicit conditions — for example, what site evidence would change the setback or drainage advice. It also flags what the investigation cannot yet resolve. Practicing that chain, not the label alone, is what this domain's PG weight is buying you.
Where to downshift: mineralogy and sedimentology shrink while resources grow on the PG
On the PG, mineralogy, petrology, and geochemistry fall to 5 percent and sedimentology, stratigraphy, and paleontology to 5 percent, while mineral and energy resources reach 16 percent — a rebalancing your calendar should follow.
Scenario: a candidate moving from the FG to the PG spends three more weeks perfecting mineral identification and igneous petrogenesis, then finds the calendar has squeezed out reserve assessment, reclamation, and closure planning — tasks that anchor the PG resources domain, including economic evaluation, quantity and quality calculations, and studies for abandonment and waste management at extraction operations. The allocation contradicts the blueprint the candidate is actually facing.
The fix is not to abandon the classical core — those notes carry over to general investigations and to interpreting rock and mineral alteration, which survives on both blueprints — but to cap the time. Keep one consolidated review sheet per shrunken domain, then redirect the freed weeks to resource evaluation and reclamation. For the FG, the priority reverses: the classical core is at its heaviest there, so protect that breadth.
A self-scored verb drill to check whether your answers match your exam
Convert textbook problems between styles. Take one topic per domain, write an FG-style task and a PG-style task on it, answer both in writing, and score each answer against a fixed rubric of observable criteria.
Pick topics with real decision content — a karst spring, a glacial deposit beneath a proposed foundation, an ore zone with widely spaced drill holes. For each, the FG-style task might read 'identify and interpret the landform and its age relationships,' while the PG-style task reads 'plan and conduct an investigation and state your recommendations for the client.' Write both answers fully, then score them cold the next day.
Expected observations: first PG-style drafts usually open with data instead of a plan and end without limits, and the drill makes that visible immediately. Also note which domains force you to invent the decision context — those are the domains where your applied practice is thinnest, and they are the natural home for your next practice blocks.
- FG answer: the identification is justified from observable evidence, and the interpretation names the process that produced it.
- PG answer: an investigation plan appears before any data discussion, with methods tied to the decision at stake.
- PG answer: regulations, QA/QC, or public-welfare considerations are mentioned where the topic genuinely triggers them.
- PG answer: the recommendation states its limits — what additional data would change the advice.
- Scoring: one point per criterion met; six of eight across four topic pairs is a reasonable learning milestone, not a passing prediction.
An adaptable preparation sequence and concrete readiness checks
Build the sequence around the blueprint for your exam: weigh each domain block by its percentage, drill the matching verb style, then finish with mixed timed sets. Check readiness with observable outputs, not feelings.
Readiness checks you can actually observe: you can restate your exam's domain weights from memory within a few points; you have produced a written, rubric-scored PG-style answer for every high-weight domain; your miss log shows identification and recommendation errors tracked separately; and your most recent mixed set was taken under timing pressure. Treat self-check scores as learning milestones for pacing your remaining weeks — they are not predictions of your result.
Administrative details — eligibility, registration, schedules, and state-specific steps such as preregistration in certain states — are set by each state member board, not by this guide. Confirm them through the ASBOG member board directory, and read the ASBOG Examinee Candidate Handbook for official scope and registration guidance before you commit to a timeline.
- Week 1: copy the blueprint for your exam, list the eight domains with their percentages, and audit your existing notes against them.
- Weeks 2 to 5: domain blocks sized by weight; on the PG, hydrogeology, engineering geology, and resources get the largest blocks.
- Week 6: run the verb drill across at least four domains, deliberately including one low-weight one.
- Weeks 7 to 8: mixed timed sets; log every miss by domain and by verb type — identification miss versus recommendation miss.
- Final week: condense your two weakest domains into one-page decision sheets and re-drill them.
References and further reading
Use these references to explore the concepts and check the latest information from the relevant organizations.