# CA Specific Seismic and Survey Exam



## AnnaPE (Apr 16, 2022)

Hi, 

I pass PE national in October 2021 and submitted application to California Board for taking the CA seismic and survey exam in December 2011. My application status still shows as Technical Review. Does anyone else got approval from CA board for taking seismic and survey so far ?

Thanks,


----------



## LAMEngineer (May 1, 2022)

Hi Anna,

I just passed and will be working through the CA application, though their BPELSG connect portal.
{{BoardName}}
Have you filled this out? ^

I have not finished the app yet, but It is my understanding that it needs to be filled out and submitted to schedule either exam.

Check out this other thread i found about the CA app process. I am sure there are other threads on this topic within the forum as well. 








CA PE Application w/ COVID


Is anyone experiencing any delays in their application processing? I got confirmation that my application was delivered, but a little over 2 weeks now and the check has not been cashed.




engineerboards.com


----------



## fdhslf (Jun 1, 2022)

submitted application on 2/5
status changed to "Technical Review" in early May. Still waiting...


----------



## NorCalEng (Jun 7, 2022)

what the heck! why are they so friggin slow!? at this rate, I won'tl be sitting for the exam until 2023... =*(


----------



## CAPLS (Jun 8, 2022)

NorCalEng said:


> what the heck! why are they so friggin slow!? at this rate, I won'tl be sitting for the exam until 2023... =*(


Because the Board is experiencing an abnormally huge volume of applications at this time. Hope you get word soon.


----------



## NorCalEng (Jun 9, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> Because the Board is experiencing an abnormally huge volume of applications at this time. Hope you get word soon.


thank you sir! i hope so as well. but this is hardly an "abnormally huge volume". seems like it is the norm. base on what I've been reading on this board and others, the wait is looong and have been this way for quite sometime, more so in CA. why not bring in more resources to help with the high volume. keep and hold (or better yet improve) the 60 day period turnaround as advertised rather than push out the date and make excuses. who is running this department - a chemical engineer? haha, i kid. or am i...? perhaps they need to bring in a business minded person or even an industrial engineer to improve the process. i am not going to rant on here and so I'll stop. but one would think that the connect system would improve the timeline some... =\


----------



## CAPLS (Jun 9, 2022)

NorCalEng said:


> thank you sir! i hope so as well. but this is hardly an "abnormally huge volume". seems like it is the norm. base on what I've been reading on this board and others, the wait is looong and have been this way for quite sometime, more so in CA. why not bring in more resources to help with the high volume. keep and hold (or better yet improve) the 60 day period turnaround as advertised rather than push out the date and make excuses. who is running this department - a chemical engineer? haha, i kid. or am i...? perhaps they need to bring in a business minded person or even an industrial engineer to improve the process. i am not going to rant on here and so I'll stop. but one would think that the connect system would improve the timeline some... =\


Your points are well taken (except for the chemical engineer part  ) The "60 day period" was entirely misunderstood. It was intended to just minimize inquiries for status pre-Connect system and not indicative of the review timeline. 

Problem occurred (new world problems) when a 30%-40% increase in paper applications was received just prior to the launch of Connect for civil engineer and land surveyor application types. This occurred when the Board was still experiencing a decrease in staffing due to pandemic leaves, etc. Then on top of that, the volume of applications received during the time between that Dec 21 launch and last month was unprecedented for the Board during that time frame.

Not making excuses and its not about Connect. Its still about the person aspect reviewing applications. Board is bringing more hands into the mix in an effort to reduce the volume and timeframes.


----------



## NorCalEng (Jun 10, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> Your points are well taken (except for the chemical engineer part  ) The "60 day period" was entirely misunderstood. It was intended to just minimize inquiries for status pre-Connect system and not indicative of the review timeline.
> 
> Problem occurred (new world problems) when a 30%-40% increase in paper applications was received just prior to the launch of Connect for civil engineer and land surveyor application types. This occurred when the Board was still experiencing a decrease in staffing due to pandemic leaves, etc. Then on top of that, the volume of applications received during the time between that Dec 21 launch and last month was unprecedented for the Board during that time frame.
> 
> Not making excuses and its not about Connect. Its still about the person aspect reviewing applications. Board is bringing more hands into the mix in an effort to reduce the volume and timeframes.


thanks for the information. good to hear that the board is considering additional resources to help with the high volume! i am going to take it that you have the inside scoop on the matter. more applications mean more $$ to bring in the needed support to meet the demand. i wish i could attend the june 23rd board meeting in santa rosa just to ask for updates because there is nothing on this topic listed on the agenda. hopefully someone brings it up in the public comment & open forum discussion. thanks again.


----------



## CAPLS (Jun 10, 2022)

Standing topic of Exams/Licensing


----------



## ELB_NJ22 (Jun 11, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> Your points are well taken (except for the chemical engineer part  ) The "60 day period" was entirely misunderstood. It was intended to just minimize inquiries for status pre-Connect system and not indicative of the review timeline.
> 
> Problem occurred (new world problems) when a 30%-40% increase in paper applications was received just prior to the launch of Connect for civil engineer and land surveyor application types. This occurred when the Board was still experiencing a decrease in staffing due to pandemic leaves, etc. Then on top of that, the volume of applications received during the time between that Dec 21 launch and last month was unprecedented for the Board during that time frame.
> 
> Not making excuses and its not about Connect. Its still about the person aspect reviewing applications. Board is bringing more hands into the mix in an effort to reduce the volume and timeframes.


I am totally sympathetic to the unpresented volume and delays due to the prefect storm due to covid staffing and the avalanche of paper applications ahead of the paperless deadline. I am licensed in over 30 states and have always found that the board staff is extremely professional, helpful and dedicated. I have no reason to believe that the CA board is any different and they are trying to clear the backlog as efficiently as possible.

The frustration from the applicant point of view, is we are in limbo for months awaiting approval to take the state specific exams. As you know most of us will study over 150 hours for each test and take review courses. While I have been studying for the tests since my application submission (March) with the hope of testing in the second ¼, those test dates appear to be fading.

To me the easy solution is to allow the state specific testing prior to the full review of the application. You already allow applicants to sit for the NSCE exam and take the state specific Laws and Rules exam prior to full review and if we pay the fees and do not get approved, you get to keep the money.


----------



## CAPLS (Jun 13, 2022)

Noted. The better approach from the Board's perspective is to simply become more effective at adapting to the review process while letting this "enthusiasm" naturally wane rather than your proposed solution.


----------



## ELB_NJ22 (Jun 14, 2022)

CAPLS said:


> Noted. The better approach from the Board's perspective is to simply become more effective at adapting to the review process while letting this "enthusiasm" naturally wane rather than your proposed solution.


So the board has decided to become more effective at adapting. Does that mean the APPLICANTS need to adapt our expectations and be comfortable with a longer process or that they are taking steps to improve the timeliness of the reviews. If the later, what steps are they taking and when should we see results?

I really do not see the downside of my suggestion and will attend the upcoming board meeting.


----------



## CAPLS (Jun 14, 2022)

ELB_NJ22 said:


> So the board has decided to become more effective at adapting. Does that mean the APPLICANTS need to adapt our expectations and be comfortable with a longer process or that they are taking steps to improve the timeliness of the reviews. If the later, what steps are they taking and when should we see results?
> 
> I really do not see the downside of my suggestion and will attend the upcoming board meeting.


Feel free to attend the meeting and provide public comment. That is why the board meets in this manner.


----------



## NorCalEng (Jun 14, 2022)

ELB_NJ22 said:


> So the board has decided to become more effective at adapting. Does that mean the APPLICANTS need to adapt our expectations and be comfortable with a longer process or that they are taking steps to improve the timeliness of the reviews. If the later, what steps are they taking and when should we see results?
> 
> I really do not see the downside of my suggestion and will attend the upcoming board meeting.


i second that idea! even if it is temporary until the review process can be significantly reduced. any plan of action and out of the box ideas sound good to me right now.


----------



## Civeng15 (Sep 27, 2022)

Hello all,

Just need some suggestions. A few days ago I submitted my application for the seismic/surveying exam and planning to take some review courses. It is better to just go ahead and sign up for the courses or wait until my application is approved?
Thanks


----------



## ELB_NJ22 (Sep 27, 2022)

That is a fine question. I applied March 14 and was approved to test July 7. With a 2nd 1/4 approval, I cannot test until 3rd 1/4. I started studying for surveying in May (bought the 5 month CSPER ). I am currently scheduled for an Oct 21 survey test, 3 weeks after my review course expires. I signed up for the Hiner Seismic review course, but have not started (it is based on hours reviewed not a time frame). As an actively practicing structural engineer, I am anticipating an easier time with the seismic. 

The question you must ask is how strong do you feel for the seismic and surveying? With my weak surveying I need about 100 hours of study and another 50 hours of sample test taking. For seismic I think I need less than 75 hours. Once you figure out how much time you need you can back off from your assumed test date. Since you applied toward the end of the 3rd 1/4 you MIGHT get approved in the 4th 1/4 and be allowed to test in the 1st 1/4 of 2023. However, based on what I have observed, that will be aggressive and you are more likely to be approved 1st 1/4 of 2023for testing in 2nd 1/4 of 2023.

Remember DO NOT schedule an exam in the last month of the 1/4 as you will not get your results until the next 1/4 and cannot schedule for the 1/4 you are in. 

I know I have not answered your question, but I hope I gave you some information, that will help you figure it out.

Ed.


----------



## C. Ryan (Sep 28, 2022)

Civeng15 said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Just need some suggestions. A few days ago I submitted my application for the seismic/surveying exam and planning to take some review courses. It is better to just go ahead and sign up for the courses or wait until my application is approved?
> Thanks


Part of the answer also depends on the review course you are going to use. Some of them have a limited duration, and you dont want to get into a situation where your subscription to the samples ends a month early.

I passed my tests in 2019 (so the review courses i took may or may not be useful), but I took Hiner's seismic review and Mansour's surveying review. Seismic was my definite week point and I spent several months studying for that one (probably over 200 hours of study time). You know your personal schedule, and can decide how long in real time it would take you to dedicate 100 hours for studying of the exam.

Good luck!!

Chris


----------



## ianjikar (Sep 28, 2022)

Hi,

I live in San Diego and I have the following books for Seismic:

Seismic Design Review (Hiner) -Used like New (no highlights or anything, just section labels.
Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE 7 - Full book in a binder
I have the booking book for surveying:

surveying-with-construction-applications-8th-edition-kavanagh-solutions-manual - Full book in a binder
Lemme know if anyone want to buy any of those books. 

Thanks
Ishan


----------



## Gen (Sep 30, 2022)

NorCalEng said:


> thank you sir! i hope so as well. but this is hardly an "abnormally huge volume". seems like it is the norm. base on what I've been reading on this board and others, the wait is looong and have been this way for quite sometime, more so in CA. why not bring in more resources to help with the high volume. keep and hold (or better yet improve) the 60 day period turnaround as advertised rather than push out the date and make excuses. who is running this department - a chemical engineer? haha, i kid. or am i...? perhaps they need to bring in a business minded person or even an industrial engineer to improve the process. i am not going to rant on here and so I'll stop. but one would think that the connect system would improve the timeline some... =\


wow, i am hurt :/


----------

