skc005

Members
  • Content count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About skc005

  • Rank
    Intern

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Civil
  • License
    EIT
  • Calculator
    TI
  • Discipline
    Civil

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    San Diego, CA
  1. Thanks for the input. If that's the case, if they deem reference 1 is appropriate for 29 months but deem that the experience from other references don't qualify, will they still approve my application?
  2. Hi there, I passed the 8 hour this past April, and the CA board has made a one time exemption to allow new applicants to submit their applications for October to the re-file deadline of July 10th. Great news for me, cause I thought I'd have to wait until next April to take the Seismic and Surveying exams. Anyhow, I'm filling out the reference forms and I want to make sure I'm understanding what the instructions are referring to as "engagements" and "date overlaps". I have worked for one company for the last 2.5 years. As I understand it, an "engagement" is simply my company. So for all four of my references, they will be listed as "engagement 1" since it's my present company. Additionally, there is instruction to "explain overlaps in dates". If I understand correctly, this only applies to engagements that overlap in dates, i.e you were somehow working for two companies at once? As far as filling out the "from and to" for qualifying experience, those dates can overlap with my other references, correct? Right now, I have listed: - Ref 1: 1/5/15 to 6/30/17 - 29 months - Ref 2: 1/5/15 to 6/30/17 - 29 months - Ref 3: 10/5/16 to 6/30/17 - 8 months - Ref 4: 12/5/15 to 6/30/17 - 18 months Is this the appropriate way to fill this out? Thanks.
  3. So excited right now!
  4. As far as I understand, the deadline to apply for licensure and subsequently the 2 CA exams was May 1st to be able to take them in October. So it looks like you'll have to wait until the next filing period to take it next April.
  5. Yup, I felt similarly about some of the breadth questions particularly the conceptual ones. I definitely overcomplicated/overthought a few "gimmies" and I already know I answered those incorrectly. And I have a feeling that those will come back and bite me since I didn't feel particularly confident on the structural depth. Gonna be borderline on the cut off if I pass, and if I don't I'll be particularly upset knowing I missed out on those gimmies.
  6. Haha yup, but unfortunately I knew I'd struggle with conceptual questions in the morning and those gimmies that I know the answer for certain now, I know I didn't answer on the exam. But yeah, I'm feeling pretty confident as well on what I need to do to be better prepared if I have to take it in October.
  7. This would be me, and I'm still beating myself right now on 3-4 gimmies I know I absolutely butchered. And with the nature of how I did on the structural depth, I think those 4 or so questions will definitely cost me.
  8. I completely agree with this view of the process. The debates and issues that arise with decoupling the requirements is the marginalization of the test itself. I'm of the mindset that the national test is merely a step and not an accurate assessment of one's professional experience. Does this make the test seem like the FE, part 2 and has no real meaning to it? Yeah, I would agree with that. Unless it's possible to come up with a test that more accurately represents the "practice" portion of the exam, I think most people would agree that the test as it is now isn't any kind of representation of real world experience. I'm taking the test in CA without having applied for licensure. I certainly won't feel like a PE just having passed some test that I study specifically for, and will forget 90% of the stuff after I pass. And that's okay, since passing doesn't automatically make you a PE. Now is the board's examination of one's professional experience enough to deem someone appropriate for licensure? That could be a bit trickier since they're basing it largely off recommendations of PE's with no real way to test or tell how accurate those recommendations and job experiences might be. The problem is, it just doesn't seem possible to be able to come up with any kind of standardized test that you could test for engineering practice.
  9. I am taking it without having applied for licensure here in CA after they recently changed the rules last December. And honestly, as I've studied for it for the last 3 months and depending on how I do, I'd recommend to future graduates to take the national exam as soon as possible. I've been working for 2 years so I would have reached the experience requirement anyway, but I would be feeling a lot better about the exam, particularly the depth portion (structural) if I could've taken it it right after college.
  10. I feel about 90% confident on the breadth and roughly 70% on the depth. I still get nervous when I analyzing structural member design prompts which is a large portion of the test. I feel confident that I'll be able to find the relevant code sections to answer, but I tend to overthink or get overwhelmed by various checks, exceptions, and requirements for choosing the correct equation.
  11. I too am taking Civil/Structural. I took the NCEES practice test and scored 55/80... I scored 36 on the breadth, missing some of the qualitative but absolutely need to get a better understanding on structures. I too misread some questions and wasted some time (looking at you, moment distribution problem). I feel pretty good that the CERM will guide me to breezing through the breadth, but the structural depth will be tough. I haven't worked in structural engineering, but I have a B.S in structural. I feel pretty good about using ASCE and AISC, and while I haven't ever studied timber, at least the process for wood and the layout of NDS is pretty easy to follow. However, I absolutely hate how the ACI codes are laid out. I think I've gotten a decent grasp of all the codes to be able to answer all the "look up in the code" questions, and most basic structural analysis and mechanics of materials questions are easier for me, but I still struggle with the design analysis problems.
  12. Hmmm, I'm working through the 5th edition of the Six Minute Solutions book so perhaps that's why there's a discrepancy. This edition has 20 questions under what they call a "breadth" section, but quite a few of them refer you to a specific code, which I thought wouldn't be in the breadth. Any how, yeah I've heard that these questions are considerably harder and aren't indicative of the actual exam questions, but I agree that these questions are better for preparing you for the content of the exam rather than replicating an exam style question. They should really drop the "six minute" part from the title.
  13. I've been going through the Six Minute Problems for structural and just wrapped up the breadth portion. From my impression of what the breadth and depth sections should be like, those 20 breadth problems seemed much more code-involved and more like what would be represented of depth problems on the actual exam. Thoughts?
  14. Thanks for the response. This was the feeling I got that prompted me to ask this question as I reviewed the CERM and practice problems, that a lot of it looked just like homework or exam problems for a specific class. I do understand that the practical experience portion is essential for licensure, and I certainly don't intend on applying until I've actually worked in a more technical role (can't take the Seismic and Surveying tests in CA until I apply anyway), but I figured that since the 8 hour no longer requires practical experience per-say, that I could study up for it just like any other exam in school and at least get one step out of the way.