From: Charles Greenlaw <cgreenlaw(--nospam--at)speedlink.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 22:18:46 -0700
As David Hall noted, Mr Hirsch was not totally correct. But he is
substantially correct as to the California SE regulations, which are unique
among the 50 states, and pertain to the SE exam used only in California,
which has nothing to do with the NCEES Structural I and II exams used in the
other states that test in Structural. (This thread began about the latter.)
The PE in civil engineering in California is indeed the license to practice
structural engineering in this state. The SE is only a "title" one can use,
and it has only an incidental, limited practice privilege tied to it, by
virtue of state laws regarding design of public schools and hospitals.
Yet there is a huge mystique and air of elitism among California SE's, and
it has persisted at least since 1931, when the SE title was first regulated
by the state. In recent times there have become some doubtful situations
affecting the luster of this group, somewhat in the way the grandchildren of
Joseph P. Kennedy have not fully maintained that family's earlier public image.
Within the last three weeks, the staff of the state legislature's joint
sunset committee recommended in a report that a deadline of Dec 31, 2002 be
put on California's use of any SE Exam not primarily based on national exam
sources. The staff points to improved reciprocity with other states as an
advantage of such a change.
The current qualifying rules for the Calif SE title may be seen in Exam Info
and in the Board Rules at the board's website, http://www.dca.ca.gov/pels
Statutes and rules of this sort are always political, in that they are
responsive to the interests of recognized groups. Sometimes the fairness is
open to question, as happens in politics.
Charles O. Greenlaw SE Sacramento CA
At 11:48 PM 04/06/2000 EDT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 4/5/00 5:22:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, EphHirsch(--nospam--at)aol.com
><< he 3 years experience required in California after the CE/PE must be
> accrued, I believe, while working for or under the direct supervision of a
> California SE.
> E. G. Hirsch, SE
>I think this is an incorrect statement! And it is unfair. It is legal for a
>P.E. to practice structural engineering and if he wants to take the exam
>there should not be an impediment for him not to take it. Even if he is not
>under the direct supervision of a California S.E. Nobody should be making
>this sort of statement because there are a lot of P.E. out there who might
>think that this is a fact when it is not!