Jump to content
Engineer Boards
​ ​
 photo CHPE_AnimatedWebBanner_650x1202_zps5704d467.gif


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About engineeringforfun

  • Rank
    Project Engineer
  • Birthday 08/01/1991

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
  • License
    Working on it!
  • Calculator
  • Discipline

Recent Profile Visitors

382 profile views
  1. engineeringforfun

    CA seismic and topo -June results

    Agreed, definitely a good discussion. Thanks for engaging 😁
  2. engineeringforfun

    CA seismic and topo -June results

    I agree with all of your points. It's more of a general discussion and "constructive" criticism. We all have to go through it though so it is what it is.
  3. engineeringforfun

    CA seismic and topo -June results

    CAPLS, I appreciate the response. I didn't know about the first part, and I agree that I have an issue with the Legislature then. I suppose I disagree with how the board is carrying out the requirements then as far as the way the test is developed. You mentioned that "The Board's expectations are that you have sufficient enough knowledge and actual work experience to adequately demonstrate competency in actually practicing those tasks for the public." This isn't remotely reasonable based on how both consulting and municipality work is conducted in this day and age. I work as a consultant for a mid-size engineering firm on water and wastewater planning and design projects as a civil/environmental engineer (EIT obviously). There is no way that my work would allow me to gain the skills/experience needed to pass the seismic exam. Taking a class and spending 70-hours learning the material let me do that on the first try. Part 2 of that is that there is no way I would ever (theoretically) stamp a document having to do with seismic codes/calculations as it is not my area of competency and it would be unethical to do so. While I do some surveying work in the sense of topographic maps, things like vertical and horizontal curves aren't within my area of expertise. Surveying work is subbed out to PLS' and they provide us with topo maps. And if we're doing cut/fill, it's done in CAD. Like I mentioned before, the questions themselves aren't difficult, it's a time issue. There is no-one asking you to do cut/fill calculations in 2.5 minutes. This is where my biggest gripe is with the way the test is administered. I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion from your quote: "I can guarantee you that if you actually have/had the actual work experience in these tasks, you would virtually find the questions easy to answer and not as time-consuming as you may think. In many ways, its not up to the Board to "grow a crop" of new licensed individuals. It is for the individual to prove/demonstrate to the Board that you possess an adequate amount of competency to practice." Competency should never be judged by time. "Faster isn't smarter". It never has been. "You would already understand that horizontal and vertical control layout is a concept/task inherent in every one of the test plan areas listed. And not a separate category. And therefore could likely appear in some percentage of questions in each of the areas listed." Nitpicking which category I chose is just deflecting away from the fact that the diagnostic report is a lazy tool implemented by the Board. Based on the reactions to my post, others share my view.
  4. engineeringforfun

    CA seismic and topo -June results

    I don't think it's entirely fair to say that it's not the licensing board's responsibility to help us understand how to do better. The reason I say that is due to the fact that the California licensing board is the one that makes us take 2 additional exams to become licensed, as opposed to rest of the states that just require the national exam. If the licensing board is adding requirements on top of what it takes to be licensed as a professional engineer in the rest of the country, it's their duty to give us a better perspective on what it is that we need to know for those additional requirements. The problem with the diagnostic report is it just tells you how you did in a broad category. Let's say for example I was deficient in construction surveys. Maybe I got 100% on horizontal and vertical control layout, but 0% on a number of other categories; the diagnostic report doesn't tell me which areas I'm lacking competency in. Additionally, in your second link, it talks about a score range and says not provided to candidates. Why isn't it provided? What is wrong with us knowing how far off we are from where we need to be? All it does is make the whole process less transparent and leaves candidates guessing as to what they did wrong. Sure the score ranges change with each exam and cut score, but if I got 0 of 17 in a certain area, that tells me how far off I am rather than if I got say 10/17. It's a reference point to understand how to better yourself. If we don't know what our mistakes are, how can we ever learn from them? Just want to say I'm not taking a shot at you or the Board CAPLS, I'm just arguing that the way the system is currently implemented make it unnecessarily more difficult to pass the exam than it needs to be. When I took the surveying exam, I felt that none of the questions were difficult, but I ran out of time because I had a number of "long" problems. Which is fine; I will work on solving them faster and pass, but it's artificial difficulty. Because someone is a fast test-taker, does not make them a "competent", "professional" or "good" engineer.
  5. engineeringforfun

    Survey practice problems recommendations

    I'm in the same boat as both of you. I'm using Reza's workbook this go-around. It seems to be the most well developed from what I've seen and I've gotten a lot of recommendations to use it from co-workers. Also, the study plan is updated in his workbook.
  6. engineeringforfun

    CA Surveying Exam Prep Course

    I did CPESR the first time and failed. As Rihame mentioned, the CBTs are good, but the book and lectures are poor. For the re-test i purchased the workbook from Reza and am just doing that. He has a course too that I've heard is good. https://www.surveyingreview.com/ The workbook is really comprehensive and I think if I had it the first time I likely would have passed.
  7. engineeringforfun

    Scheduling CA Exams

    There was an issue in that applicants had gotten their ATTs but the ID numbers weren't in Prometric's system yet as far as I know. It was resolved Friday afternoon/evening as I was able to register for both tests
  8. engineeringforfun

    Scheduling CA Exams

    Yep. Just got mine for Surveying as well. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. engineeringforfun

    Scheduling CA Exams

    So I didn't get a notice and the new quarter has kicked off. I tried signing up without the notice but my ID number didn't work.
  10. All tests from August get results back mid-September. So as far as scheduling for August, it's just when it's convenient for you.
  11. You would need to take the tests in August, get the results mid-September, and reapply before October to be eligible to test in Q4.
  12. engineeringforfun

    Scheduling CA Exams

    @CAPLS Were Quarter 3 authorizations to test supposed to go out yet? We're 1 week out from the quarter starting and I haven't heard a peep as far as being able to actually schedule my exam. I did get the notice that I was approved so when should i be expecting to schedule something?
  13. engineeringforfun

    CA seismic and topo -June results

  14. engineeringforfun

    CA Surveying, Seismic Results from May

    This was in another thread below.
  15. I think what CAPLS is saying is that as long as the form is submitted/received by the board before June 30th, you're eligible for Quarter 3 testing (July through September)