Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Off-subject(?): Indiana PE exam(s)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
The best resource, Scott, is titled Seismic Design of Buildings and Bridges by Alan Williams. You can obtain it from Engineering Press in Austin, TX, 800-800-1651. It is specifically written for the structural portions of the national structural and the western structural exams. ISBN 0-910554-99-4

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott E Maxwell [mailto:smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2000 11:12 AM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Off-subject(?): Indiana PE exam(s)
> 
> 
> Charles,
> 
> Could you (or some other California PE) tell a little more about the
> Special Seismic and Surveying exams?  I plan to apply for 
> reciprocity in
> CA sometime soon, and as I understand it I will have to take 
> those exams.
> I am curious as to what type of items are covered on the exams and the
> length of the exams.  The surveying exam is probably more or less
> self-explanitory, but what does the seismic exam entail?  Is 
> it general
> seismology issues or is it structural seismic design or 
> something else?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Scott
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> Scott E. Maxwell, SE, PE
> Structural Engineer
> 
> SmithGroup Inc.
> 500 Griswold Street, Suite 200
> Detroit, MI  48226
> 
> Telephone: (313) 442-8253                              Fax: 
> (313) 983-3636
> 
> Email for Business: smaxwell(--nospam--at)dt.smithgroup.com
> Email for Personal: smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------
> 
> 
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2000, Charles Greenlaw wrote:
> 
> >      Re: California SE Exam vs NCEES Struct I and II Exams 
> > 
> > At 11:40 AM 02/24/2000 -0500, you wrote:
> > > The Western
> > >Zone SE exam (16 hour) is different from the Structural I 
> and II (16
> > >hour) and I know that in CA you can't get reciprocity as 
> an SE unless
> > >you've taken the Western Zone SE exam, and also passed the 
> Civil PE and
> > >the Special Seismic and Special Surveying exams as well.  
> The Western
> > >Zone SE exam has been previously given in Washington, 
> Oregon, Idaho,
> > >California and Hawaii.
> > ...................................
> > 
> >         This is correct on both points. The "Western 
> States", or zone, SE
> > Exam is now back to being California-only, the way it 
> started out. The
> > others switched over to the NCEES Structural I and II 
> "national" exams. Who
> > may do what, as to structural work and use of the SE title, 
> varies from
> > state to state even though exams in common are used. 
> > 
> >         Why did the California SE Exam fall from favor? 
> > 
> >         I heard two members of the Nevada Board give their 
> reasons to the
> > Calif Board, and I read a Washington Board newsletter 
> article that announced
> > and explained the switch. The reasons were circumspectly 
> set forth: The
> > California SE exam did not serve their purposes as well as 
> the National SE I
> > and II exams, etc. My opinion is that the California SE 
> Exam had fallen into
> > a lengthy pattern of inept and unfair practices, in recent 
> years accompanied
> > by well-founded charges of gross error, cover-ups, 
> indifference in grading
> > to following instructions the examinees were bound by, 
> denial of credit for
> > correct alternative answers, and leaks of exam info by 
> problem writers.
> > 
> >         I related to the Calif Board at its Dec 1999 meeting my own
> > experience as a member of the by-invitation-only SEAOC 
> committee that wrote
> > and graded the 1981 Calif SE Exam. Another committee member 
> had written a
> > retaining wall on piles problem; my job was to prove out 
> the problem and
> > solution. I found three equally valid solutions, each very 
> different from
> > the others, according to which two (of three possible) 
> conditions of static
> > equilibrium were used to solve for pile forces. Local 
> sub-committee members
> > agreed the problem had to be revised. It was, by others 
> higher up, but not
> > in a way that cured any portion of the defect. The problem 
> writer then
> > graded everyone to his originally written problem statement 
> and favored
> > solution, and marked way down all other valid approaches. 
> My repeated
> > protests to the local chairman were not acted upon, and I 
> was not asked back
> > the following year. 
> > 
> >         Various minor revisions in the SE Exam procedure have been
> > instituted by the Calif Board since then, but the whole 
> activity is kept so
> > undercover, increasingly so in the last 5 years since a 
> vigorous lawsuit hit
> > them, that it is very easy for them to continue 
> disreputable practices and
> > very hard for outsiders to ferret out misconduct. The 
> wagons are tightly
> > circled.
> > 
> >         A friend who annually writes and grades problems 
> for the NCEES
> > Control Systems Engineering Exam tells me that valid 
> solutions that the
> > graders had not forseen are cheerfully given all the credit 
> that expected
> > solutions are, and that pride in fairness and integrity is 
> uppermost.
> > Perhaps such an image helped attract the other "Western 
> States" to the NCEES
> > Struct I and II Exams.
> > 
> > Charles O. Greenlaw SE   Sacramento CA
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>