Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Notice to Candidates of the SE Exam

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
FWIW, from what I understand, the decision was not really driven by
complaining engineers from other states (if that was the case, then the
three required CA SE references would likely have been eliminated), but
rather from the aspect of the cost of producing and grading an exam that
ONLY California used (i.e. no one to share the cost with).

And what is wrong with taking the exam in parts?  I thought the idea was
to test knowledge, not fail as many as possible.  After all, does the
building official/peer reviewer make you redo your ENTIRE design if there
are some "deficient" areas?  Nope...you redo the "bad" parts.  So, why
should someone have to re-sit through a whole 16 hour exam just because
they may have messed up a couple specific areas?  Maybe it is because that
is how it has been done for XX years (a nice contractor line).  I guess I
don't understand.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Wed, 12 May 2004, Bill Allen wrote:

> Aswin -
>
> Pass in parts? Are you kidding me? Now anybody can pass it!
>
> Isn't that why there are so many architects?
>
> :o)
>
> I guess I'm no longer sympathetic for those having to study multiple codes,
> some of which may or may not become an Applicable Building Code.
>
> Next you're gonna tell me it's a multiple choice test.
>
> And...you're not going to bait me regarding complaining engineers from other
> states.
>
> T. William (Bill) Allen, S.E. (CA #2607)
> ALLEN DESIGNS (http://www.AllenDesigns.com)
> San Juan Capistrano, CA
>
> :-----Original Message-----
> :From: Aswin Rangaswamy [mailto:aswinpe(--nospam--at)hotmail.com]
> :Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 2:07 PM
> :To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> :Subject: Re: Notice to Candidates of the SE Exam
> :
> :Hi Bill:
> :
> :Good idea and very practical (exam being less specific to codes) but I
> :guess
> :it is very tough to implement.  One of the main reasons this (NCEES SEII
> :and
> :CASE) came into effect was due to the constant complaining from engineers
> :from other states - they could not pass the old CA SE exam and wanted to
> :make it easier for comity.  It is supposed to have gone to the state
> :legislature - the state now want to make outsourcing (oops! I said the "O"
> :word) to other states easier.
> :
> :Even though this format is highly complex to CA engineers, it helps in a
> :way - the exam (16hrs) can now be passed in parts :)
> :
> :Probably the complexity and use of IBC in a CA board exam could be used as
> :a
> :valid defense to change the next big one to IBC instead of the NFPA.
> :
> :Aswin Rangaswamy, P.E.
> :Cypress, CA
> :
>
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********