CA Specific Refile Fee

[jijir83]

Am I reading this right?! The fee for taking Seismic and Survey in a second round is $125+$150+$150=$425 plus whatever Prometric will charge?

 

[ptatohed]

Am I reading this right?! The fee for taking Seismic and Survey in a second round is $125+$150+$150=$425 plus whatever Prometric will charge?

Link?

 

[ptatohed]

Here?  http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/applicants/refile_ce.pdf

Yup. $275 for one state exam or $425 for both. 

 

[jijir83]

FML! Somehow 1K for that and courses, I could swallow. 1500 though... Hmmmmmmm.

Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

 

[ptatohed]

FML! Somehow 1K for that and courses, I could swallow. 1500 though... Hmmmmmmm.

Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

If it makes you feel any better, back in my day it was $275 for all three exams.   

 

[jijir83]

Yeah. Feeling awesome just about now. Not! :/

At least I get a paid day off for each exam. I'll have to pretend it's exam money.

Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

 

[CAPLS]

FML! Somehow 1K for that and courses, I could swallow. 1500 though... Hmmmmmmm.

Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

What, you don't have a problem paying all that money for seminars that are taught by instructors that don't have any real idea on what content to expect on the exam, other than what they saw when they sat for them, while knowing that because of your education and work experience actually practicing under competent licensees you really shouldn't need the seminars other than how to prepare for the exam...and you have a problem paying for the exam fees?

 

[jijir83]

On ‎5‎/‎29‎/‎2016 at 8:56 AM, jijir83 said: FML! Somehow 1K for that and courses, I could swallow. 1500 though... Hmmmmmmm. Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

What, you don't have a problem paying all that money for seminars that are taught by instructors that don't have any real idea on what content to expect on the exam, other than what they saw when they sat for them, while knowing that because of your education and work experience actually practicing under competent licensees you really shouldn't need the seminars other than how to prepare for the exam...and you have a problem paying for the exam fees?

Yes. And what's your point other than thinking that you're making me think that my upset is invalid?

1. I didn't go to school in CA. Survey and seismic on the east coast is not a requirement of our education even with a masters.

2. I don't practice survey and seismic, let alone vertical structure seismic and equipment/method/legal survey. Asking me how many nails a piece of plywood needs or which order to turn knobs to level a survey equipment has nothing to do with me being an engineer, let alone a geotechnical engineer.

3. Those two tests are BS and money generating for the state. But SDI be it. No matter how people like to think that they cover fundamentals of those topics, they do not. There isn't enough fundamental coverage that someone could day that they'll skip focusing on one or two things yet still pass unlike the 8hr PE. Y'all may have been mad smart and I'm the dumb one but my tests loaded with complete nonsense geared towards people working with seismic codes or operating survey equipment everyday.

So yes, I have no problem paying someone to teach me whatever technique they may have accumulated over the years if it is to help me pass. And yes, I have a problem with the exam fee when it's 500$ to file the first time or the 10th time. Maybe you have a better idea than I do on what the board is using that money towards when they already have all of your stuff from the previous round. To me, that is no well invested money whereas taking seminars is.

So again, your point is? [emoji53]

Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

 

[kevo_55]

I'd like to point out that the money you "sink" into passing the exam will be more than made up for the additional cash that you will earn when you are finally a PE. 

Just think of this as an investment.

Just my  :2cents: .

 

[Maji]

Yes. And what's your point other than thinking that you're making me think that my upset is invalid?

1. I didn't go to school in CA. Survey and seismic on the east coast is not a requirement of our education even with a masters.

2. I don't practice survey and seismic, let alone vertical structure seismic and equipment/method/legal survey. Asking me how many nails a piece of plywood needs or which order to turn knobs to level a survey equipment has nothing to do with me being an engineer, let alone a geotechnical engineer.

3. Those two tests are BS and money generating for the state. But SDI be it. No matter how people like to think that they cover fundamentals of those topics, they do not. There isn't enough fundamental coverage that someone could day that they'll skip focusing on one or two things yet still pass unlike the 8hr PE. Y'all may have been mad smart and I'm the dumb one but my tests loaded with complete nonsense geared towards people working with seismic codes or operating survey equipment everyday.

So yes, I have no problem paying someone to teach me whatever technique they may have accumulated over the years if it is to help me pass. And yes, I have a problem with the exam fee when it's 500$ to file the first time or the 10th time. Maybe you have a better idea than I do on what the board is using that money towards when they already have all of your stuff from the previous round. To me, that is no well invested money whereas taking seminars is.

So again, your point is?

Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

I understand your grief and can sympathize with you. I moved to CA recently and am trying to prepare for these two subjects. I have taken and passed the PE over 18 years ago, so it is not an easy matter for me. I have worked in transportation early in my career, so I can remember some fragments of vertical and horizontal curves, contours etc. The last surveying class I took in school was back in 1989-90, literally many decades ago. I need some form of tutoring to help me remember and prepare for the exams. 

As for seismic, there are some items that are still useful to me. At least learning to look up the code is an useful skill, however perhaps not useful to many Civil Engineers who will practice in areas like transportation or hydraulics. Again, I need some hand holding there. 

I can see the merits of taking these courses and getting help to pass the exams. I just wish there was a National Licensing Authority for engineers and it covered all 50 States and the territories. That would have made engineers very mobile and reduced paperwork/licensing fees. Engineers working for the federal govt. don't need license in every state, so that should be a clue.

I am sorry, but I felt that the reply posted by CAPLS sounded too "full of it...". 

Good luck on your exams.

 

[CAPLS]

Yes. And what's your point other than thinking that you're making me think that my upset is invalid?

1. I didn't go to school in CA. Survey and seismic on the east coast is not a requirement of our education even with a masters.

2. I don't practice survey and seismic, let alone vertical structure seismic and equipment/method/legal survey. Asking me how many nails a piece of plywood needs or which order to turn knobs to level a survey equipment has nothing to do with me being an engineer, let alone a geotechnical engineer.

3. Those two tests are BS and money generating for the state. But SDI be it. No matter how people like to think that they cover fundamentals of those topics, they do not. There isn't enough fundamental coverage that someone could day that they'll skip focusing on one or two things yet still pass unlike the 8hr PE. Y'all may have been mad smart and I'm the dumb one but my tests loaded with complete nonsense geared towards people working with seismic codes or operating survey equipment everyday.

So yes, I have no problem paying someone to teach me whatever technique they may have accumulated over the years if it is to help me pass. And yes, I have a problem with the exam fee when it's 500$ to file the first time or the 10th time. Maybe you have a better idea than I do on what the board is using that money towards when they already have all of your stuff from the previous round. To me, that is no well invested money whereas taking seminars is.

So again, your point is?

Sent from my SURTAB-722-3G-HD-1S using Tapatalk

Well, I guess I had several points when I posted that response.  I see quite a lot of civil engineering candidates spend a great deal of money on seminars that promise results under the mistaken belief that these instructors have some sort of inside knowledge or expertise on passing the exam(s).  There are always complaints after each exam administration on this forum that the actual exam didn't match what was being taught on what was in the practice books.  Well, what do you think?  These instructors do not have any legitimate reason for actually knowing the content.  I tend to believe that most candidates are much more competent than they may believe they are and if they have truly self-evaluated their knowledge/experience before applying for licensure and focus on the test plan specifications they would most likely be successful without the seminars.  I also believe that there are those instructors that have very good intentions and wish to pass on their engineering expertise to help others.

Most of the schools in CA don't offer a surveying class and the ones that do, only offer it as a discretionary elective.  You will not be tested on "...which order to turn knobs to level a survey equipment...", however the laws grant the civil engineer with the authority to perform topographic surveys and construction staking in CA so it is important that candidates demonstrate minimal competency in understanding the applications associated with your legal authority.  The requirement is not about you, it's about protecting the public from you. This requirement is a byproduct of a prior generation of civil engineers and if today's engineers don't believe they need it, then as a group, they should introduce legislation to repeal that requirement.

Seismic, however is very important in many other locations across the U.S. and is not strictly limited to just CA.  And there are many, many structural engineers across the country that would love for civil engineers to not be tested on seismic principles with the hopes that by eliminating that requirement from licensure, only structural engineers can perform services related to structural calculations on any type of building, bridge, or other pertinent structure.  Be careful what you wish for.

As for the money concerns that you expressed, the exam fee of $150 (each exam) is intended to cover the cost to develop each exam, no more, no less.  The Board does not reap any financial benefits or profit from those fees.  Matter of fact, revenue from exam fees has slightly decreased in the time since this fee structure went into place several years ago and the number of candidates paying fees and not showing up for their exam(s) have dramatically decreased.  And even though the total number of people taking exams each time is lower, the number of people passing each exam and becoming licensed has actually maintained similar numbers as before the fees changed.  I believe this is due to candidates focusing more on preparation and successful passing than prior years. 

I would encourage you to ask yourself...are you learning anything new from the seminar that you didn't already know?  Or are you just building the confidence level in your own abilities based on what you have already accomplished at this point in your career?  If it is the latter, then you may have applied at the right time and the money could be well spent elsewhere.  If it is the former, then I would encourage you to ask yourself...why did I think I was ready to apply?  You are applying to become licensed, not to simply take an exam.  There is a big difference there.

Good luck as I hope you are successful.

 

[CAPLS]

I understand your grief and can sympathize with you. I moved to CA recently and am trying to prepare for these two subjects. I have taken and passed the PE over 18 years ago, so it is not an easy matter for me. I have worked in transportation early in my career, so I can remember some fragments of vertical and horizontal curves, contours etc. The last surveying class I took in school was back in 1989-90, literally many decades ago. I need some form of tutoring to help me remember and prepare for the exams. 

As for seismic, there are some items that are still useful to me. At least learning to look up the code is an useful skill, however perhaps not useful to many Civil Engineers who will practice in areas like transportation or hydraulics. Again, I need some hand holding there. 

I can see the merits of taking these courses and getting help to pass the exams. I just wish there was a National Licensing Authority for engineers and it covered all 50 States and the territories. That would have made engineers very mobile and reduced paperwork/licensing fees. Engineers working for the federal govt. don't need license in every state, so that should be a clue.

I am sorry, but I felt that the reply posted by CAPLS sounded too "full of it...". 

Good luck on your exams.

I did not intend to sound like "I was full of it" or come across in that manner.  But I did have some points that are pertinent.

 

[Maji]

I did not intend to sound like "I was full of it" or come across in that manner.  But I did have some points that are pertinent.

CAPLS,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to JIJIR. I see your point now. I think getting help to understand a topic and to pass an exam is basic to most of us students, and sometimes we got to pay for it. Again, I would prefer a national board and not state specific boards with their own laws and bylaws etc. The engineers employed by the federal govt. don't have to get licensed in every state they work in but why do other engineers have to? Is it because the others are less competent or because the feds have deeper pockets in case something goes wrong? I think the answer has to do with politics, namely states rights and such, which I don't want to discuss here. 

I agree with you that the higher fees force the applicants to prepare better. However, a license usually means better pay, and that should be a great motivation for everyone to work harder, at least it is for me. 

Thank you for participating and explaining your point.

 

[ptatohed]

Well, I guess I had several points when I posted that response.  I see quite a lot of civil engineering candidates spend a great deal of money on seminars that promise results under the mistaken belief that these instructors have some sort of inside knowledge or expertise on passing the exam(s).  There are always complaints after each exam administration on this forum that the actual exam didn't match what was being taught on what was in the practice books.  Well, what do you think?  These instructors do not have any legitimate reason for actually knowing the content.  I tend to believe that most candidates are much more competent than they may believe they are and if they have truly self-evaluated their knowledge/experience before applying for licensure and focus on the test plan specifications they would most likely be successful without the seminars.  I also believe that there are those instructors that have very good intentions and wish to pass on their engineering expertise to help others.

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]I was a self-studier and, while I do pride myself in that a little, I don't think there is any shame at all in taking a review class.  The best review classes usually end up having a higher pass rate.  So they are an effective tool.  I don't think review classes should be disparaged.       [/COLOR]

Seismic, however is very important in many other locations across the U.S. and is not strictly limited to just CA.  And there are many, many structural engineers across the country that would love for civil engineers to not be tested on seismic principles with the hopes that by eliminating that requirement from licensure, only structural engineers can perform services related to structural calculations on any type of building, bridge, or other pertinent structure.  Be careful what you wish for.

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]Mmmmm.... I don't know about this one sir.  I seriously doubt that any Civil is any more ready to perform real-life structural calcs simply because they passed a Seismic Principles Exam.  I know I am not.  [/COLOR]

I would encourage you to ask yourself...are you learning anything new from the seminar that you didn't already know?  Or are you just building the confidence level in your own abilities based on what you have already accomplished at this point in your career?  If it is the latter, then you may have applied at the right time and the money could be well spent elsewhere.  If it is the former, then I would encourage you to ask yourself...why did I think I was ready to apply?  You are applying to become licensed, not to simply take an exam.  There is a big difference there.

[COLOR= rgb(0, 0, 255)]Again, I don't think it is fair to tell someone that they are wrong for opting to take a review course.  If someone learns something new from a review course, they were not ready to apply/take the exam?  That's a bit unfair Ric.  I guarantee that if you and I took a good Survey Review Course, we'd both learn something we didn't already know.  [/COLOR]

 

[jijir83]

Well, I guess I had several points when I posted that response. 

Said points, or any point, would have been helpful stated prior to camouflaging an insult as a non/rhetorical question. And let's not tip-toe around it. That's what it was. Remember that this is read conversation, few of us know each other personally and we cannot read/listen to others' expressions/tone of voice other than what we are imagining in our heads. Most of the time I just ignore comments like that but I felt that yours commanded a response. That's why I came out with a question and I meant it. I really needed to know what the rational for this comment even was. Now, that I know, I'll put this to rest and acknowledge that the belated points have validity, whether or not I agree with them. 

As to whether or not I'm ready to take the exam, to practice or be an engineer in CA after 10 years of engineering design and geotechnical experience, I think is misleading. I wonder if those people who have had to take those two tests 3-5 times, eventually got lucky, or are truly now ready to practice in this great state or they simply learned to take the test efficiently enough to make it. The majority of those exams is learning to beat the clock. It has nothing to do with the content itself. The rest seems to be luck as to whether you've used the code or equipment. Sorry... but I stand by it. If someone can pull my test, those were the cards I was handed on my test. Hey! Again... that's what it is and I just have to jam more content in my brain so I can answer the lopsided amount of non-fundamental questions just as well. I've said it all over this board at some point and to anyone who would listen... There's nothing hard about those tests that I couldn't have done in the half dozen of math competitions I've done and some I've won. The challenge is the time. If anything, not that there aren't tons of engineers with PEs, the national PE exam is a far superior assessment of an engineer's ability. I had no problem passing that in part because I didn't have to learn to take the test and just had to refresh on topics.

I have no problem with the state imposing whatever exam they want. I'm still peeved at the refile fee, which is how this topic started 3 months ago as a way to decompress and get a chuckle from/with others who have been in my shoes. In addition, I've obviously done something wrong after putting in over 300 hours of studying for these tests. So, really, I'm not about to repeat my colleagues' mistake risking to take this exam a second time doing exactly what I did before when I can try something new. At some point, going at it alone is more expensive than taking a course. Whether that teaches me new techniques for the exam, disciplines my studying, exposes me to different problem questions.... it's all an investment I'd rather make. If the board is losing money on the fee that they collect, they should consider an audit and the way they approach their refile. For that amount and they're still not making a profit, something has to be wrong.

But thanks for the well wishes. I'm sure I'm better off with the seminars than without. And yes, $1500 still stings but it's cheaper than me taking my chances over and over and paying the board money each time like some people I know have done. Insanity... you know what they say.

 

[CAPLS]

I was a self-studier and, while I do pride myself in that a little, I don't think there is any shame at all in taking a review class.  The best review classes usually end up having a higher pass rate.  So they are an effective tool.  I don't think review classes should be disparaged.

I was a self-studier too and I agree that review classes have their place and are an effective tool.  I believe the key word there is "review".  When the classes are being offered or taken for the point of rounding out the subject matter in the vein of following the test plan specifications so candidates are prepared for what content will be included, I totally agree.

Mmmmm.... I don't know about this one sir.  I seriously doubt that any Civil is any more ready to perform real-life structural calcs simply because they passed a Seismic Principles Exam.  I know I am not. 

My point is that seismic principles are not limited to CA or the west coast and in response to the other poster stating she was from the east coast presumably intending to say that it was not necessary out there.  This subject matter is beginning to creep into the national examinations due to the recognition by many professional groups and boards that meeting certain seismic criteria is much more widespread than previously thought.  The fact that you recognize your limitations is a huge step above what many think.

Again, I don't think it is fair to tell someone that they are wrong for opting to take a review course.  If someone learns something new from a review course, they were not ready to apply/take the exam?  That's a bit unfair Ric.  I guarantee that if you and I took a good Survey Review Course, we'd both learn something we didn't already know. 

I looked back at my posts and don't believe I said it was wrong for anyone to take a review course.  What I am attempting to say (and maybe not in the best way) is that the point of all of this is to become licensed.  A person applies to become licensed, not to take an exam.  The person applying believes, and many times rightly so, that they are ready to be licensed which means that they believe their education and experience has brought them to that point.  And in some cases, some may not be there yet but believe that by spending any amount of money on review courses this will magically make them competent.  I didn't say knowledgeable, because as you say, if you and I (or anyone else) attended review course, we would learn something new.  I don't disagree with that.  But that doesn't make me competent in it.  I can learn how to do a certain type of calculation for a certain purpose, AND go through it enough times, that I can do it pretty fast...fast enough for the exam...if it is on the exam.  However, just like you stated and jijir83 stated, just being able to do that doesn't mean you are ready to do it in the real world.  Becoming licensed is more than that.  It means you are competent to apply that knowledge to protect the public.  And that is what all candidates eventually obtain, but not by learning how to pass an exam.

Thanks ptatohed

 

[Road Guy]

& Just remember, you can be a PE and still be a dumbass! We have all met them before!