CA state exam application status for April 2018

Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum

Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I received an email saying I was technically approved back on 1/5/18 and still have not received ATT.  Just for a data point my last name starts with R, perhaps they are going in alphabetical order?

 
I received an email saying I was technically approved back on 1/5/18 and still have not received ATT.  Just for a data point my last name starts with R, perhaps they are going in alphabetical order?
My last name starts with S so I don't think it's that. Not sure what the process is.

 
I received an email saying I was technically approved back on 1/5/18 and still have not received ATT.  Just for a data point my last name starts with R, perhaps they are going in alphabetical order?
Have you checked your spam folder? The emails can sometimes get stuck there.

 
omg!! after reading the previous post I went ahead and checked my spam folder...

and I found two ATT emails, seismic and surveying. 

phew, good thing I checked! 

Thanks @leggo PE

 
omg!! after reading the previous post I went ahead and checked my spam folder...

and I found two ATT emails, seismic and surveying. 

phew, good thing I checked! 

Thanks @leggo PE
No problem! I remember it happening to me, and a few others I know, in the past. Add the BPELSG email address that sent the invites to your address book, and it won't happen again!

 
So I haven't even received the technically approved application email, do you think that's it? I won't be able to take the tests in the next quarter? 

 
So I haven't even received the technically approved application email, do you think that's it? I won't be able to take the tests in the next quarter? 
When they approve you they'll let you know what quarter you're eligible for. It's possible you'll still get approved for this quarter. From what I understand, you can get approved and register anytime between April 1st and June 30th as long as the test is taken within those dates. But i'd look to @CAPLS for confirmation of this.

 
Yes, check your spam folders. My Authorization to test was in there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 
Thank you all.

After contacting the board multiple times, even though they tell you not to. 
I got an email today saying that I am technically approved. 

Just waiting for the information from the testing center.

 

 
CA licensing process is not very efficient especially for people out of state. They should decouple the state specific exams from licensing application and make it a true year round continuous test. It would make this process ten times smoother and allow people to study without the added stress of getting an application approved.  

 
CA licensing process is not very efficient especially for people out of state. They should decouple the state specific exams from licensing application and make it a true year round continuous test. It would make this process ten times smoother and allow people to study without the added stress of getting an application approved.  
The purpose of the application is to obtain licensure.  If the candidate truly has the work experience and knowledge necessary to sufficiently "offer and perform their professional services" to and for the public, studying for an exam would not be necessary...or at a minimum, not as much an emphasis as it's made out to be...and truly understood how the laws describe what is/is not (insert discipline here) engineering rather than ONLY rely upon what their mentors or peers think, then the application process would be vastly different.

 
The purpose of the application is to obtain licensure.  If the candidate truly has the work experience and knowledge necessary to sufficiently "offer and perform their professional services" to and for the public, studying for an exam would not be necessary...or at a minimum, not as much an emphasis as it's made out to be...and truly understood how the laws describe what is/is not (insert discipline here) engineering rather than ONLY rely upon what their mentors or peers think, then the application process would be vastly different.
See the line I made bold from your response...No offense, but you don't sound like a person who has sat for a PE, SE, FE, etc. and/or are commenting on the ability of an engineer when it's not clear you are actively a practicing engineer. What engineer does not have to study for these exams? What engineer has the scholastic knowledge necessary to pass these exams IN the given time constraints without study and practice? Not many...These exams, while I believe are necessary, have very little to do with the day to day design and responsibilities of most engineers as civil engineering is very broad! You simply sound ignorant. Point blank.

And you are correct in that the application is to obtain licensure...That's what it should be for...not to be able to sit for an exam. My ability to sit at a computer chair should have nothing to do with the application. That is why a lot of states have decoupled the application for PE licensure from registering for the PE exam. It's a more efficient process and promotes licensure of engineers.  

You sound agitated and probably hear a lot of complaints. Maybe you and CA board should sit back and reflect on why so many engineers have questions about the process. Address the inefficiency in the system and I'm sure this particular thread would serve very little purpose. 

 
See the line I made bold from your response...No offense, but you don't sound like a person who has sat for a PE, SE, FE, etc. and/or are commenting on the ability of an engineer when it's not clear you are actively a practicing engineer. What engineer does not have to study for these exams? What engineer has the scholastic knowledge necessary to pass these exams IN the given time constraints without study and practice? Not many...These exams, while I believe are necessary, have very little to do with the day to day design and responsibilities of most engineers as civil engineering is very broad! You simply sound ignorant. Point blank.

And you are correct in that the application is to obtain licensure...That's what it should be for...not to be able to sit for an exam. My ability to sit at a computer chair should have nothing to do with the application. That is why a lot of states have decoupled the application for PE licensure from registering for the PE exam. It's a more efficient process and promotes licensure of engineers.  

You sound agitated and probably hear a lot of complaints. Maybe you and CA board should sit back and reflect on why so many engineers have questions about the process. Address the inefficiency in the system and I'm sure this particular thread would serve very little purpose. 
No offense taken and I welcome your feedback.  I have sat for professional level examinations and do have a license.  I have over 37 years employed in the engineering and surveying industry.  While I will certainly acknowledge there is always room for improvement to processes by licensing boards, there should be equal acknowledgement that professional level applicants also contribute their fair share to the inefficiency in the process.

I'm also somewhat familiar with the idea of states "decoupling from the exams" as you would say it, including some unique insight to that process among the various boards.  It doesn't promote "licensure of engineers".  Rather it promotes more flexible operational arrangements to facilitate the examination portion of the requirements of licensure based on the recognition that not every individual desiring to obtain a license reaches that goal in the same manner.  In that regard, those licensing boards or "states" as you referred to them are already "sit(ting) back and reflect(ing) on the inefficiencies of the "system".  So, in that respect...they are listening.  California included.

In regards to your statement about making the California state exams a true year round continuous test, it can't get any "truer" than what it will be after April 1.  Whether the state exams are taken prior to submitting the application to the California Board or afterwards (as it is now) has absolutely no relevance to being a "true year round continuous test".  Apples and oranges.

If you understood California requirements more clearly, you would see that the requirements for licensure in this state is 2 years less than most of the other states.  And if you pay attention to the statistics that the California Board publishes on a regular basis, California licensing candidates historically and very consistently have a pass rate on the national PE-Civil exams that is 10-15% lower than the national average.  This is based on decades of information.  Essentially speaking, California has been "decoupled" for many years and everyone can see the results!  The California state exams are designed for an audience that is based upon the minimum requirements for licensure.  If the "qualified" candidates are consistently and historically scoring below the national average, why would the California Board change the process to allow anyone, including those that are not even close to meeting the licensure requirements, to sit for those exams?  That would not be in the best interest of the licensure candidates that truly are ready to be licensed based on their actual real world experience and that would not be in the best interest of the public.  You know the public...the people that are the REAL reason for licensing and the board to exist in the first place. 

Lastly, and because you originally mentioned that the process was not very efficient for the people located out of the state of California, you should probably recognize that the California Board took it upon themselves to change the process to allow their state specific exams to be taken anywhere in the country specifically to assist those out of state candidates...beginning in 2012!  Two years prior to the FE/FS exams being offered as "true year round continuous tests" and two more years before any of the national PE/PS exams became "true year round continuous tests".  And this action was solely the Board's without any pressure from government in an effort to assist the many that choose to apply in California because they don't actually qualify in their own state.

Just saying you may want to do a little research on any of the engineering/surveying licensing boards in this country to see what strides they have made prior to making comments such as that.

 
My application has been approved by the board and  I'm currently enrolled to take the seismic and surveying during May 2018 and June 2018 (within the next 2-3 months). 

But a question just dawn on me. Once the board approves your application, does it also mean everything else is also a go? Like the fingerprinting, take-home exam, etc? 

@CAPLS

 
My application has been approved by the board and  I'm currently enrolled to take the seismic and surveying during May 2018 and June 2018 (within the next 2-3 months). 

But a question just dawn on me. Once the board approves your application, does it also mean everything else is also a go? Like the fingerprinting, take-home exam, etc? 

@CAPLS
Generally speaking, yes.  However, there are always a few each time that fail to submit the take home exam or provide fingerprints.

 
No offense taken and I welcome your feedback.  I have sat for professional level examinations and do have a license.  I have over 37 years employed in the engineering and surveying industry.  While I will certainly acknowledge there is always room for improvement to processes by licensing boards, there should be equal acknowledgement that professional level applicants also contribute their fair share to the inefficiency in the process.

I'm also somewhat familiar with the idea of states "decoupling from the exams" as you would say it, including some unique insight to that process among the various boards.  It doesn't promote "licensure of engineers".  Rather it promotes more flexible operational arrangements to facilitate the examination portion of the requirements of licensure based on the recognition that not every individual desiring to obtain a license reaches that goal in the same manner.  In that regard, those licensing boards or "states" as you referred to them are already "sit(ting) back and reflect(ing) on the inefficiencies of the "system".  So, in that respect...they are listening.  California included.

In regards to your statement about making the California state exams a true year round continuous test, it can't get any "truer" than what it will be after April 1.  Whether the state exams are taken prior to submitting the application to the California Board or afterwards (as it is now) has absolutely no relevance to being a "true year round continuous test".  Apples and oranges.

If you understood California requirements more clearly, you would see that the requirements for licensure in this state is 2 years less than most of the other states.  And if you pay attention to the statistics that the California Board publishes on a regular basis, California licensing candidates historically and very consistently have a pass rate on the national PE-Civil exams that is 10-15% lower than the national average.  This is based on decades of information.  Essentially speaking, California has been "decoupled" for many years and everyone can see the results!  The California state exams are designed for an audience that is based upon the minimum requirements for licensure.  If the "qualified" candidates are consistently and historically scoring below the national average, why would the California Board change the process to allow anyone, including those that are not even close to meeting the licensure requirements, to sit for those exams?  That would not be in the best interest of the licensure candidates that truly are ready to be licensed based on their actual real world experience and that would not be in the best interest of the public.  You know the public...the people that are the REAL reason for licensing and the board to exist in the first place. 

Lastly, and because you originally mentioned that the process was not very efficient for the people located out of the state of California, you should probably recognize that the California Board took it upon themselves to change the process to allow their state specific exams to be taken anywhere in the country specifically to assist those out of state candidates...beginning in 2012!  Two years prior to the FE/FS exams being offered as "true year round continuous tests" and two more years before any of the national PE/PS exams became "true year round continuous tests".  And this action was solely the Board's without any pressure from government in an effort to assist the many that choose to apply in California because they don't actually qualify in their own state.

Just saying you may want to do a little research on any of the engineering/surveying licensing boards in this country to see what strides they have made prior to making comments such as that.
:wacko:  you try too hard and completely made up a non-existent argument lmao. My quirk is with the state specific exams and you went off on a useless tangent about PE exam pass rates, etc. What does a pass rate have to do with decoupling the state specific exams? Nothing gray beard. Correlation is not causation. Maybe is CA board hired "qualified" employees they would have an efficient application process. 

 
:wacko:  you try too hard and completely made up a non-existent argument lmao. My quirk is with the state specific exams and you went off on a useless tangent about PE exam pass rates, etc. What does a pass rate have to do with decoupling the state specific exams? Nothing gray beard. Correlation is not causation. Maybe is CA board hired "qualified" employees they would have an efficient application process. 
You obviously failed to either really read my response or are unable to fully comprehend the context. Anytime you want to have this debate and discussion openly in front of peers, I’m willing to continue this. Until then, I wish you the best on your journey to gain a license and learn how to respectfully and professionally understand your need for personal growth.  

 
You obviously failed to either really read my response or are unable to fully comprehend the context. Anytime you want to have this debate and discussion openly in front of peers, I’m willing to continue this. Until then, I wish you the best on your journey to gain a license and learn how to respectfully and professionally understand your need for personal growth.  
Oh man, this is too funny!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

Latest posts

Back
Top