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

Re: Dead line 6/19/05 SECB warning

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Yep, I will have to travel to CA to take the exams.  This is a "dual-sided
sword" issue...on the one hand it is a pain in the butt (not to mention
expensive) to have to travel out there to take a couple of exams that by
and large are kind of a waste of time from my opinion (I have been more
than tested on the seismic provisions in the UBC from the 8 hour Struct
III test in WA and the surveying portion seems like a stupid "political"
hurdle)...but on the other hand, it does give me an excuse to travel to
California, during which time I might stop in to visit with some folks
that I know.

I am not too stressed about the exams.  Frankly, filling out the paperwork
is more stressful/painful.  (And yes, Paul, I should have done an NCEES
record MUCH sooner...can you say "procrastination"...that and for a long
time I did think I would need to be doing much in the way of licenses
other than my local one plus a few for either "ego" [i.e. more letters
after the name is kind of cool] and to take care of exams while I am on
the "younger" side, so to speak...<grin>).  Personally, I think that it is
stupid that I must fill out for all intents and purposes the same paper
for some new state when I already have THREE states that have supposedly
verified that I have met the requirements (which is by and large the same
for all states EXCEPT California, which actually has more lenient
requirements for the PE license).  I don't mind the fees...I understand
that each state wants it money, but come on...why does each state have to
re-verify my experience after at least 2 to 3 states already have.  If the
state of California (and other states) wanted to save money (as BORPELS
seems to be hurting), then why not set a standard that if someone is
licensed in some minimum number of states that they fill out the basic
contact information and have verfication of the other licenses sent in and
pay the fee (of course) and be done with it.

OK, rant mode off.

Regards,

Scott
Adrian, MI


On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, David Topete wrote:

> Scott,
>
> The supple-mental exams needed for CA licensure isn't
> all too bad...
> The seismic exam is just testing your knowledge of
> basic code items, but also force distribution due to
> rigidities.
> The surveying portion, however, was basic geometry and
> trigonometry.  I would suggest reviewing the surveying
> portion of Lindbergh's CE Review Manual because it
> should have the basic equations for guessing the
> distance away because of the earth's curvature and fun
> stuff like that...  It's really basic.  And, it's not
> too bad at all.
> I think the worst part is that you'll probably be one
> of the older participants in the exam room, assuming
> you'll have to fly out to sunny CA for a day.  :-D
>
> Good luck (whenever you'll need it...)
> David Topete, SE
> in sunny SF, CA
> --- Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > Bill,
> >
> > Believe me, I have had MORE than enough fun taking
> > exams for my various
> > licenses.  I have now taken the NCEES Civil exam (8
> > hours of fun...what I
> > origianlly took to get my Michigan PE license), the
> > NCEES Struct I & II
> > exam (the 16 hours of fun that I took to get my SE
> > license in Illinois), and
> > the Washington Stuct III exam (another 8 hours of
> > fun to get my SE license
> > in Washington...the Washington PE license came by
> > direct reciprosity from
> > Michigan).  That does not include the original 8
> > hours of fun from taking
> > the EIT/FE exam.  And now I get an additional 5
> > hours of fun by taking the
> > seismic and surverying (huh?!?...and WHY do I need
> > to take a surveying
> > exam...I have not done/used any surveying
> > information in my carrer to
> > darte and doubt that I will in the future) exams in
> > California.  So, I am
> > more than ready to do without some fun!!  ;-)
> >
> > I will note that the above semi-serious tirage about
> > the exams is why I am
> > in general support the idea of the Structural
> > Certification idea.  It has
> > the possibility to become a "precursor" to a
> > psuedo-national structural
> > license (we will never have a true national
> > license).
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Scott
> > Adrian, MI
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 bcainse(--nospam--at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Scott-
> > > But you'll miss out on all the fun!   :<)
> > >
> > > Bill Cain, S.E.
> > > Berkeley CA
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
> > > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> > > Sent: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 14:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
> > > Subject: RE: Dead line 6/19/05 SECB warning
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > At least once I get state #4 (California PE), I
> > will be done with exams (my WA SE gets me
> > > out of having to do an exam for the CA
> > SE...yippeeee)...at least other
> > > than take-home ethics/licensing law exams.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Scott
> > > Adrian, MI
> > >
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* *******
> > ******* ***
> > *   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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ******
> > ********
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Discover Yahoo!
> Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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 
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********