# PE Civil CA



## GoLucky (Oct 17, 2008)

The CA Board denied all my 3 years of experience stating that I am unqualified to appear for the PE Exam as my experince was mostly towards Traffic Engineering. They mentioned the new rule is effective Jan 1st of 2008 that Traffic engineering experince will not count at all for PE. This is an alert to all future PE's currently working in Traffic.


----------



## hrun (Oct 17, 2008)

DEEPTHI said:


> The CA Board denied all my 3 years of experience stating that I am unqualified to appear for the PE Exam as my experince was mostly towards Traffic Engineering. They mentioned the new rule is effective Jan 1st of 2008 that Traffic engineering experince will not count at all for PE. This is an alert to all future PE's currently working in Traffic.



How can they say traffic engineering will not count for the PE, it's engineering experience??


----------



## Vishal (Oct 17, 2008)

I think some reviewer has got it wrong... After all, there is traffic engineering section in Transportation PM section... It is impossible to not count the traffic engineering experience.


----------



## GoLucky (Oct 18, 2008)

As per the Board, Traffic Engineering experience is invalid. The Board even sent me the page of the act which defines the qualification for PE, in which there is no Traffic at all effective Jan 2008. Sad. but true!



DEEPTHI said:


> The CA Board denied all my 3 years of experience stating that I am unqualified to appear for the PE Exam as my experince was mostly towards Traffic Engineering. They mentioned the new rule is effective Jan 1st of 2008 that Traffic engineering experince will not count at all for PE. This is an alert to all future PE's currently working in Traffic.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 18, 2008)

It's not so clear to me...

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT

(Business and Professions Code §§ 6700 – 6799)

INCLUDES AMENDMENTS MADE DURING THE 2007 LEGISLATIVE SESSION

(Effective January 1, 2008, unless otherwise noted)

CHAPTER 7. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS



```
6731. Civil engineering defined
Civil engineering embraces the following studies or activities in connection with fixed works for irrigation, drainage, waterpower, water supply, flood control, inland waterways, harbors, municipal improvements, railroads, highways, tunnels, airports and airways, purification of water, sewerage, refuse disposal, foundations, grading, framed and homogeneous structures, buildings, or bridges:
(a) The economics of, the use and design of, materials of construction and the determination of their physical qualities.
(b) The supervision of the construction of engineering structures.
(c) The investigation of the laws, phenomena and forces of nature.
(d) Appraisals or valuations.
(e) The preparation or submission of designs, plans and specifications and engineering reports.
(f) Coordination of the work of professional, technical, or special consultants.
(g) Creation, preparation, or modification of electronic or computerized data in the performance of the activities described in subdivisions (a) through (f).
Civil engineering also includes city and regional planning insofar as any of the above features are concerned therein.
Civil engineers registered prior to January 1, 1982, shall be authorized to practice all land surveying as defined in Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8700) of Division 3.
[NOTE: The last registration number issued to a civil engineer registered before January 1, 1982 was 33,965.]
6731.1. Civil engineering; additional authority
Civil engineering also includes the practice or offer to practice, either in a public or private capacity, all of the following:
(a) Locates, relocates, establishes, reestablishes, or retraces the alignment or elevation for any of the fixed works embraced within the practice of civil engineering, as described in Section 6731.
(b) Determines the configuration or contour of the earth’s surface or the position of fixed objects above, on, or below the surface of earth by applying the principles of trigonometry or photogrammetry.
(c) Creates, prepares, or modifies electronic or computerized data in the performance of the activities described in subdivisions (a) and (b).
(d) Renders a statement regarding the accuracy of maps or measured survey data pursuant to subdivisions (a), (b), and (c).
```



```
6751. Qualifications
(a) The applicant for certification as an engineer-in-training shall comply with all of the following:
(1) Not have committed acts or crimes constituting grounds for denial of registration under Section 480.
(2) Successfully pass the first division of the examination. The applicant shall be eligible to sit for the first division of the examination after satisfactory completion of three years or more of college or university education in a board-approved engineering curriculum or after completion of three years or more of board-approved experience.
The board need not verify the applicant’s eligibility other than to require the applicant to sign a statement of eligibility on the application form.
(b) The applicant for registration as a professional engineer shall comply with all of the following:
(1) Not have committed acts or crimes constituting grounds for denial of registration under Section 480.
(2) Furnish evidence of six years or more of qualifying experience in engineering work satisfactory to the board evidencing that the applicant is competent to practice the character of engineering in the branch for which he or she is applying for registration, and successfully pass the second division of the examination.
(3) The applicant for the second division of the examination shall successfully pass the first division examination or shall be exempt therefrom.
```

So while Traffic Engineering isn't specifically called out in great detail, it would seem there's sufficient latitude to qualify Traffic Engineering experience if you're taking the Civil Engineering Transportation depth.

I'd ask the board for another review. Maybe it's just the way you documented your experience...


----------



## GoLucky (Oct 18, 2008)

Yes:

On Monday with the help of my Senior Civil I will redocument my experience and send it back to the Board. I will see if they will atleast qualify me for the April 2009 exam. The worst part is they denied all the 3 years of my experience. They did not give me even partial credit. Even more worse is that they sent me the letter 6 days before the exam after me spending 3 months studying.



IlPadrino said:


> It's not so clear to me...
> PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT
> 
> (Business and Professions Code §§ 6700 – 6799)
> ...


----------



## engineergurl (Oct 19, 2008)

I find this thread VERY interesting and important... please keep it updated!!! (or just pm me with how it all works out!) THANKS!


----------



## GoLucky (Oct 19, 2008)

I certainly will keep the forum updated with the happenings regarding this matter. Atleast it will benefit and caution all Traffic folks aspiring for a PE.



engineergurl said:


> I find this thread VERY interesting and important... please keep it updated!!! (or just pm me with how it all works out!) THANKS!


----------



## Vishal (Oct 19, 2008)

I still have reservations about this... There is no way on this earth that a Board starts denying Traffic Engineering experience.. it is a significant aspect of Transportation Depth section..

Now with CA Board.. they have a TE certification (Traffic Engineer), may be due to that they can be unforgiving.. but I seriously doubt that...

Going by this, what about those that practice roadway design exclusively... It does not cover Traffic/Planning which is tested in the depth portion...

Just revise your work experience description and make a strong case to the Board. You should be able to get in.

Good luck.


----------



## Dleg (Oct 21, 2008)

I hate this kind of stuff. I had similar problems getting my experience approved by my board (15 years, at the time, in varying engineering positions). I had to fight, re-word, and ultimately lobby to have the statute amended to just be able to take the exam. Which I then passed. But it shouldn't be this hard for a working engineer to get in the door.

This always smacks of protectionism and goes directly against the efforts of the national engineering societies in trying to recruit new members and encourage licensing. NSPE and ASCE ought to officially inquire with the state boards every time something like this comes up.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 22, 2008)

Dleg said:


> I hate this kind of stuff. I had similar problems getting my experience approved by my board (15 years, at the time, in varying engineering positions). I had to fight, re-word, and ultimately lobby to have the statute amended to just be able to take the exam. Which I then passed. But it shouldn't be this hard for a working engineer to get in the door.
> This always smacks of protectionism and goes directly against the efforts of the national engineering societies in trying to recruit new members and encourage licensing. NSPE and ASCE ought to officially inquire with the state boards every time something like this comes up.


Are you against the concept of Education, Experience, Examination as requirements? Getting the experience recognized has nothing to do with taking the exam except they make you do one before the other... so just because you passed doesn't "validate" them granting you the experience. Did you get the state (or territory!) law changed after all?

Any time you have a subjective condition, there are bound to be cases that require difficult judgment. But that doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## GoLucky (Oct 22, 2008)

Hey:

When was this, I mean which year? Could be please elaborate?



Dleg said:


> I hate this kind of stuff. I had similar problems getting my experience approved by my board (15 years, at the time, in varying engineering positions). I had to fight, re-word, and ultimately lobby to have the statute amended to just be able to take the exam. Which I then passed. But it shouldn't be this hard for a working engineer to get in the door.
> This always smacks of protectionism and goes directly against the efforts of the national engineering societies in trying to recruit new members and encourage licensing. NSPE and ASCE ought to officially inquire with the state boards every time something like this comes up.


----------



## GoLucky (Oct 22, 2008)

DEEPTHI said:


> Hey:
> When was this, I mean which year? Could be please elaborate?


----------



## Dleg (Oct 22, 2008)

IlPadrino said:


> Are you against the concept of Education, Experience, Examination as requirements? Getting the experience recognized has nothing to do with taking the exam except they make you do one before the other... so just because you passed doesn't "validate" them granting you the experience. Did you get the state (or territory!) law changed after all?
> Any time you have a subjective condition, there are bound to be cases that require difficult judgment. But that doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.


None of that - the wording of our local law was something to the effect that "lawful experience" was restricted to experience working in the same field you were applying for (e.g., civil), which had to be the same as your degree, and your supervision engineer had to be a licensed engineer in that same field. So in other words, a person could not "switch" fields (my example, ME degree working as a civil/enviro), and could not claim any experience at all unless it had been under the supervision of a PE in that same field (so or a new field like enviro, one was totally out of luck because there were no enviro PEs out here - I was the first). (Or, if you worked in an exempt industry like the oil field, you could claim absolutely none of your experience, no matter how technical or rigidly supervised or related to the work you do now)

And on top of all that, the Board used their discretion capriciously - they let many people become licensed who did not meet those requirements, yet for some of us, held us to the letter of the law to seemingly block us (I was actually very close to filing a lawsuit, with a witness ready to step forward saying this very tactic had been openly discussed by Board members outside official meetings).

The change in the law came after I brought my proposed lawsuit to the attorney general, and then that office worked with the legislature to clarify the law and make it more consistent with the NCEES model code, which allows for more discretion in terms of allowable experience, including allowing for cross-discipline licensing. This finally occurred in 2005. I first went to the AG in 2001.

The amended law is still more strict than the NCEES model law, so I do not believe that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater, as you say, or that we no longer believe in education, experience, and examination.


----------



## IlPadrino (Oct 23, 2008)

Dleg said:


> None of that - the wording of our local law was something to the effect that "lawful experience" was restricted to experience working in the same field you were applying for (e.g., civil), which had to be the same as .
> 
> .
> 
> ...


Quite the success story! Congrats on having the persistence to make your work pay off, especially for others! I didn't mean to imply you believed the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater... I didn't know if you supported the education, experience, examination model - though I'd have guessed you did.


----------



## martin.li (Jun 15, 2011)

Hi, I am applying for the PE CIVIL CA October 2011 and I am facing similar problems. Can someone share or layout a sample?


----------

