Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: CA PE with regards to WA PE

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Seth:

I agree completely and would say that just calling them "petty" is being
too nice.  But, it does not change the facts.  It is just something to
keep in mind when making your decision.  It may turn out to be a
non-factor in your decision, but then I personally would factor it in as
your never now where life will take you.

As to why to get the PE, you seem to have a good rationale for it.  I just
wanted you again provide a little bit of information from my own
experience for you.  And that is that getting more money immediately for
obtaining your PE license it typically an "urban myth".  It DOES certainly
allow you to have more growth potential in terms of general career
advancement and options, as well as pay.  The only really necessary reason
to get your PE in today's world (at least in my opinion) is if you will
have a need/desire to seal documents - either at someone else's company or
at a company that your start yourself.  Thus, in my view, there is no need
to "rush" to get your PE...getting it 6 months or a year earlier doesn't
really do much.  But, I certainly understand...I kind of couldn't wait to
get mine (so my ego does get in my way at times <grin>).

As to getting your SE, I agree.  Sometimes (like in the middle of a
perfectly nice Saturday afternoon about two weeks ago while sitting for
the 8 hour Struct III exam) I wonder why I am working on getting my SE in
Washington.  Ultimately, I figure it might be useful in the future if I
decide to move to the Seattle area (something that I keep telling myself
that I want to do someday).  But, then maybe I just like torturing myself
by taking long boring exams! <grin>

As to moving to CA...I suggest you stay in WA anyways.  Personally, I like
WA, especially the Seattle area.  While traffic can be a real pain
(considering there is only ONE major artery road...I-5), I personally like
the climate, the scenery, and the overall area.  If I did not like the
area that I live in so much, I would be in the Seattle area.

Regards,

Scott
Ypsilanti, MI


On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Seth W. Cutler wrote:

> Scott:
>
> It seems petty that those states would act in that manner.  I always
> thought the 4yrs/2yrs requirement of experience was pretty
> subjective.  Whose to say my one year of experience might be the equivalent
> of someone else's 2 yrs of experience.  Plus, I interned at a structural
> engineering company for two summers plus breaks prior to graduating.  I
> took my time at school and did 5yrs so I also took some graduate wood
> classes as an undergraduate.  Plus in WA I would have to work 4yrs before I
> could take my PE and then another 2yrs to sit for the SE.  So by the time I
> can sit for the SE I will have 6+ yrs of experience working for an SE.  To
> me, if 2 of the 4 yrs prior to sitting for the PE are spent working for an
> SE, it should meet the requirement.  But I'm sure that won't go very
> far.  WA seems to have a hard time deciding what they really want.  They
> used to allow the Struct. I test to take the place of the Civil PE test but
> they changed that about 2yrs ago.  I have mixed feelings about that one.
>
> Plus, I'm not sure what my real incentive is to have the SE.  I could
> design almost anything except schools and high rise buildings with just the
> PE.  I would probably do take the exam any ways but there is almost no
> incentive unless the company requires "highly suggests" it.  I wish
> insurance companies would start offering incentives to owners to have
> structural engineers on the design team but that doesn't seem to be
> happening either.
>
> In terms of the reason to get the PE, it wasn't necessarily for a raise
> because we don't do much work in CA.  Most of it is in WA, OR, or Alaska
> with the focus being WA.  I look at the PE as something of an
> accomplishment to add to my resume.  I currently have my EIT but I also
> only have an undergraduate degree.  If I do decide to go to a different
> company, this would allow a little more incentive for a company to look at
> me.  A lot of places ignored my experience after college because one of
> their qualifiers, just for an interview, was did you have a masters.  With
> a PE, they will probably be more likely to look past that.
>
> In terms of going to another state to practice, I like the possibility of
> going to CA though cost of living would deter me.  I've lived on both the
> East and West Coast growing up and would probably stick with the West
> Coast, especially the North West.  The mentality is different and it's a
> lot less crowded over hear.  :)
>
> Thank you for your comments.
>
> Seth
>
> At 12:18 AM 11/8/2003, you wrote:
> >Seth:
> >
> >To futher this point, take a look at this website:
> >
> >http://www.ncees.org/licensure/licensing_requirements/2003_survey_results/e_17.pdf
> >
> >(you may have to piece meal paste into your browser...the link ends in
> >".../e_17.pdf")
> >
> >The link is a PDF document containing responses from the various state
> >boards to a question from NCEES on a survey.  The question: If a comity
> >applicant took the PE exam in another jurisdiction before obtaining the
> >experience required in your jurisdiction, would your statutes require that
> >the applicant retake the PE exam, even if the applicant had the experience
> >required by your jurisdiction at teh time of comity application?  Most
> >states responded with a "no", but states responded with a "yes"
> >(Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin).  Thus, if you
> >think for even a moment that you might want your license in any of those
> >five states (or Guam), then getting your license in CA (i.e. before 4
> >years of experience) would mean that you would have to retake the PE exam
> >to get licensed in one of those states.
> >
> >Thus, I would advise waiting til you have your 4 years of experience.
> >Besides, from my experience getting your PE license does not really result
> >in much of a raise...but that could just be my local area's treatment of
> >structural engineers (can you say 'dirt').
> >
> >HTH,
> >
> >Scott
> >Ypsilanti, MI
> >
> >
> >On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Scott Maxwell wrote:
> >
> > > Seth,
> > >
> > > The one thing to be at least a little careful is that some state are REAL
> > > sticklers about getting the WHOLE 4 years before you take the PE exam.  I
> > > remeber someone telling about an instance where they got their license in
> > > Minnesota.  The state board let them take the exam with something like 3
> > > years 10 months.  They passed and got their PE license.  Some 10+ years
> > > later, this person needed to get their license by reciprocity in North
> > > Dakota (if I recall correctly), but ND said that this person had to
> > > re-take the PE exam because they did not have the FULL four years of
> > > experience when they took it the first time.
> > >
> > > So, if you run into a state licensing board that thinks along those lines,
> > > then taking the PE exam in CA could cause some problems if want
> > > reciprocity.  I would suspect that in most cases it would not be a problem
> > > once you did have your 4 years of experience, but I would likely play it
> > > safe.  While the PE exam is not too terribly difficult, I personally would
> > > rather not have to take it again.
> > >
> > > As to your question, I don't really know.  I would assume that you just go
> > > back and take the particular exam that you failed.  This would make sense
> > > as I doubt they will make me take the PE exam again along with the
> > > surveying and seismic exam when I apply.
> > >
> > > As to PE review courses, also look to your local NSPE chapters and SEAW.
> > > They might offer PE review courses.  I am pretty sure that SEAW offers
> > > review courses for the Struct exams for the SE license.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Scott
> > > Ypsilanti, MI
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Seth W. Cutler wrote:
> > >
> > > > That does bring up an interesting question.  I don't think you can
> > sit for
> > > > the CA structural without the 5 hr add'l exam.  Even if you do take the
> > > > Struct. II and Struct. III up here in WA I think you still have to
> > take the
> > > > surveying portion down in CA to get commity/reciprocity.  Maybe someone
> > > > else has that info.
> > > >
> > > > Now, on my original question, I was asking if you could pass the CA Civil
> > > > PE in parts.  Between the NCEES exam and the add'l tests.  I'm trying to
> > > > figure out my risk in going down to CA to take the exam and pass the
> > NCEES
> > > > exam but don't pass the surveying in particular.  Would I have to fly
> > back
> > > > to take just the serveying portion or all of it.  Or could I just
> > wait till
> > > > I was qualified in WA and submit my score from the NCEES exam I took
> > in CA.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, Tom and Jack for your insight so far.  I've been thinking
> > about
> > > > this on and off for a year now and I'm finally down to making a
> > decision in
> > > > the next month.
> > > >
> > > > If any of you have heard, does anyone besides ASCE offer review
> > courses for
> > > > Civil PE?  Preferably up here in WA.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks again,
> > > > Seth
> > > >
> > > > At 11:59 AM 11/7/2003, you wrote:
> > > > >Seth: If you can sit for the civil in WA next October, you can sit
> > for the
> > > > >CA civil this spring (if they still offer it twice a year). This way you
> > > > >can hit your boss up for a raise sooner.  I have both WA and CA
> > structural
> > > > >licenses.  Most of my work is out of state.  The CA license is accepted
> > > > >most places, the WA is not so recognized.  The main issue should be can
> > > > >you sit for the CA structural with a WA civil.
> > > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > > >From: <mailto:seth(--nospam--at)rlmorrisonengr.com>Seth W. Cutler
> > > > >To: <mailto:seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > > >Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:06 AM
> > > > >Subject: CA PE with regards to WA PE
> > > > >
> > > > >ok, after all this talk about the license exams I have a question.  I'm
> > > > >currently an EIT up here in WA and will qualify to sit up here for my PE
> > > > >next October.  I have been debating whether I should take the CA PE in
> > > > >April and then get comity or equiv. up here in WA.
> > > > >
> > > > >One issue that came up is to get the CA Civil PE license I would have to
> > > > >take the NCEES 8-hour Civil PE exam plus the addional 5 hrs for
> > > > >seismic/surveying.  In WA I would only need to take the NCEES 8-hour
> > Civil
> > > > >PE exam.
> > > > >
> > > > >Is the CA Civil PE license Pass/Fail including the
> > seismic/surveying?  Is
> > > > >it possilbe to pass the NCEES exam and not the following exams.  Could I
> > > > >then take the results from the NCEES exam and use that to get my WA
> > PE license?
> > > > >
> > > > >Just trying to look at all the angles.  One concern I have up here
> > is that
> > > > >they keep changing the exam requirments up here in WA and I'm
> > getting sick
> > > > >of the changes.  I'm also concerned they're going to change to the
> > IBC for
> > > > >code stuff instead of the UBC which would really annoy me.  Or if the CA
> > > > >one switches to NFPA.
> > > > >
> > > > >Thanks,
> > > > >Seth
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> >*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
> >*
> >*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers
> >*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To
> >*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
> >*
> >*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
> >*
> >*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you
> >*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted
> >*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web
> >*   site at: http://www.seaint.org
> >******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp
* 
*   This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers 
*   Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To 
*   subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to:
*
*   http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp
*
*   Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you 
*   send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted 
*   without your permission. Make sure you visit our web 
*   site at: http://www.seaint.org 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********