TehMightyEngineer

Veteran
  • Content count

    522
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About TehMightyEngineer

  • Rank
    Vice President
  • Birthday 03/24/1986

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Structural
  • License
    PE
  • Calculator
    Casio
  • Discipline
    Structural

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Bangor, ME

Recent Profile Visitors

1,009 profile views
  1. Super illogical but since when has that stopped people from causing legal trouble. Only took me a little bit to dig up one of these: HOUSTON, STANLEY M., III Unlicensed Citation 5096-U Final: December 30, 2001 Action: Order of Abatement, $500 Fine Investigation revealed that Stanley M. Houston III violated section 6787(h) of the Business and Professions Code. The records of the Board show that Stanley M. Houston III is not licensed by the Board as a Professional Engineer. Investigation revealed that Houston used the initials "P.E.," An abbreviation of a restricted titled, on his business cards. Houston was ordered to cease and desist violating the law and to pay an administrative fine to the Board in the amount of $500.00. Also, this article from ASCE: http://www.asce.org/question-of-ethics-articles/nov-2007/ They give you a cease and desist order, a fine, and then refer your case to the attorneys general office which can bring further charges against you if it was egregious.
  2. While I know what you mean sayed keep in mind that your state board attorney is likely only considering your state and perhaps the surrounding states. However, other states may not consider this kosher. For example, if you hand out a business card that makes it's way to a business based in IL then they could come back to you saying you misrepresented your licenses and offered to practice structural engineering without a license in IL. Extreme and unreasonable I know, and I doubt this will happen, but I use it to point out that your boards attorney is only looking out for the states interest and not your own. It also doesn't protect against someone trying to sue you if they hired you and then tried to say you misled them or something. But, of course, anyone can sue for anything. Overall I agree with OHBridgeGuy; I wouldn't put SE on my name until I at least had passed the SE or was grandfathered in to having an SE.
  3. Most engineers consider it inappropriate to put "SE" at the end of your name unless you're licensed in some state that required the 16-hour SE exam for "something". Either a title restriction or separate SE license. I personally think that a state that gives a roster designation of "structural" and having passed the 16-hour SE is sufficient to use the post-nominal letters SE, but it's really not that expensive to get a license in a random state like IL or CA that licenses SE separately.
  4. I'd contact the Texas board directly, I don't know if anyone on here can give you the most accurate advice.
  5. More expensive, you need the CA PE first, and I believe you still have to take the CA specific seismic exam. It may also be that you need references from other CA SEs but I'm not sure on this one. In short, I quickly concluded that you should only get a CA SE if you actually need one. Being on the East coast this is definitely not a license I'll need in the near future.
  6. Nothing about how they handle the records makes sense.
  7. After the records update debacle I would 100% agree with the sentiment that NCEES is not "super helpful". My advice is avoid paying NCEES money wherever possible. I did not have to interview with IL. They had no issue with me taking my SE exam in Maine. Their only beef was my documented experience. I didn't meet the education requirements so went in under the 8 years experience alternative. However, my last 2 years have been under my own stamp and they seemed to not understand that this was something an engineer can do with just a PE license. However, after frigging with their forms getting all the dots on the "i"s and all the crosses on the "t"s, and sending a strongly worded letter stating that I had 8+ years of engineering experience and to show me where in their rules it said that I needed more than the typical 4 years working under a licensed PE, I got a SE license a week or so later. Just an FYI, if you haven't updated your NCEES record after they updated their system then you're in for about 20 headaches. For further details read this:
  8. Well, that might cause some delays for any state you apply to. The biggest issue most have with IL (beyond IL's lengthy time to respond to anything) is their structural experience requirements. If you took a number of structural courses in getting your MSc and PhD then you should be fine. So, I'd take a look at IL as well as the others and see what you feel you can get the easiest. I'd also email the various state boards you're looking at with questions about your background and how it affects licensure before making a final decision. While IL took a while to get back to me they at least were reasonably helpful with my questions. For reference, I had to resubmit my application twice to IL and was dealing with the NCEES records fiasco when I applied. It took me about 2.5 months start to finish to get licensed in IL. Most of that delay was waiting for NCEES to get the records straightened out. Only about 1 month was IL farting around with my application.
  9. I went with IL as while it can definitely take a while to get approved it's a cheap SE license to maintain. However, if getting "SE" behind your name quickly was more important then I agree that one of the Western states starting with N is probably best.
  10. Sounds like you and Chris had the same issues.
  11. Unfortunately not at this time. We're currently working on breaking up the course better for bridges and buildings and vertical and lateral so that people can tailor it to their exams. For right now we only have the combined vertical and lateral. It's still a great value but I fully admit that it's not ideally setup for someone who just needs one last section of the course. That said, we do have some people who take the course just for 1/2 of it and many vertical topics are still useful to review.
  12. Ugh, I have no idea what direction to go with the review course this Fall. The past two exams have thrown a number of curve balls but at the same time the passing rate is the same and it appears that most people dealt with the curve balls well enough. I guess I'll keep things the same but highly stress how to deal with these curve balls most effectively and to expect them. Much appreciated for the info. One half of it, I've been teaching it since PPI started it in 2015. Essentially I've never stopped studying for the SE exam. Hearing success stories like LadyEnginerd the best. PPI had a bit of a rocky start with how they had the original SE review course laid out but we made a ton of improvements. This year we had an almost entirely positive response to the course in our feedback. PPI really does care a lot about the quality of their courses.
  13. Chris, this is interesting as you passed vertical and your lateral afternoon looked great. How did you feel about the lateral morning? Are you surprised with your score?
  14. Curse words, that's what you say. The highest all "acceptable" score I've been told was 23/40 and Acceptable, Acceptable, Acceptable (bridges). You're the only building all "acceptable" I've seen. Probably just 6 or so more morning questions and you would have had it. Definitely keep it up, you totally got this.
  15. Much appreciated, glad we helped. Give yourself plenty of credit too, you worked hard for this. Damn, looks like your morning was the issue for sure but you're fairly close. Might have just been a few minor errors or unlucky guesses slipped in enough to knock your score down. Something tells me you just need one more shot at it and you'll have it knocked out of the park. Plus now you can focus your studies on that day.