NASATimp - Engineer Boards
Jump to content
Engineer Boards
PPI ​ ​ ​

NASATimp

Members
  • Content Count

    44
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About NASATimp

  • Rank
    PhD, PE (Passed Apr 2019!)

Previous Fields

  • Engineering Field
    Aerospace
  • License
    PE
  • Calculator
    Casio
  • Discipline
    Mechanical

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Does anyone know whether the license number that ought to go on (for example) a stamp is the full 10-digit number, for example "62010XXXXX" (where the "62010" is common to all PEs in Michigan and other professional licenses seem to have their own five-digit prefix), or just the last part, "XXXXX", for us recent registrations 68XXX in sequence?
  2. "(as the correct ABCD answers are equal = 10 each)" Wait, is that true? It's always exactly 10 of each? If I'd known that, definitely would've changed by "guessing" strategy at the end, too. Oh well, passed anyway.
  3. Oh, I see. So at this point, you aren't at any disadvantage since your references are already processed.
  4. It seems to be literally everybody licensed in the recent batch.
  5. Mine also expires 10/31/2019 (in fact, punching in random numbers around mine, all of the recently-issued licenses do). Annoying. At least Michigan is one of the cheapest states to renew in!
  6. Got my number! I'm official! :-) (Is the 10-digit ID number the "real" number, or just the last 5? In other words, what goes on the stamp?)
  7. A number of the very top schools (where a good proportion of the students are heading to PhD programs or research positions, rather than "engineering" per se) have been abandoning it recently because they think it's too restrictive. I believe Caltech followed Stanford's lead the next year in abandoning accreditation for EE and also ChemE.
  8. Glad that's not necessary anymore; I definitely don't have that.
  9. Wow! How did the old rules differ, just out of curiosity? The current revision looks easier, at least in the sense that they seem to require less onerous verification of work experience.
  10. Wow! Yes, that would make a big difference. You were on the ball. I had electronic copies of my transcripts ready to submit, but I didn't have the reference form ready to go because I didn't want to tell any of my co-workers I'd taken the test if I didn't pass (which given my lax approach to prep was a definite possibility). :-) So I got it signed that afternoon and emailed it in. There is a "Checklist" function on the Michigan site your co-worker can check out if he's curious. The link is on the first screen you get to after logging in. The "time sink" here must be going through all the transcript and reference emails, because I see those are the only two items on mine left, although they were submitted at the same time as everything else. (P.S. I submitted three separate transcripts so I apologize to everyone behind me in line! Glad you got in ahead.)
  11. FWIW on the "8 years of experience" thing, that's also how Michigan frames it... so it's not just the crazy West Coast: "Provide documentation of at least 8 years of professional experience in engineering work acceptable to the board of professional engineers, including not more than 5 years of education pursuant to MCL 339.2004(2)(a)"
  12. Wow, really? When did you submit your materials? I sent mine in the evening scores were released and still haven't heard back...
  13. Looks like it was a very good year to be taking (and especially re-taking!) HVAC, as opposed to the other PE Mechanical sub-categories...
  14. Oh well-played!! That is ultra-level. I hope that wasn't an accident. :-)
×
×
  • Create New...