See the line I made bold from your response...No offense, but you don't sound like a person who has sat for a PE, SE, FE, etc. and/or are commenting on the ability of an engineer when it's not clear you are actively a practicing engineer. What engineer does not have to study for these exams? What engineer has the scholastic knowledge necessary to pass these exams IN the given time constraints without study and practice? Not many...These exams, while I believe are necessary, have very little to do with the day to day design and responsibilities of most engineers as civil engineering is very broad! You simply sound ignorant. Point blank.
And you are correct in that the application is to obtain licensure...That's what it should be for...not to be able to sit for an exam. My ability to sit at a computer chair should have nothing to do with the application. That is why a lot of states have decoupled the application for PE licensure from registering for the PE exam. It's a more efficient process and promotes licensure of engineers.
You sound agitated and probably hear a lot of complaints. Maybe you and CA board should sit back and reflect on why so many engineers have questions about the process. Address the inefficiency in the system and I'm sure this particular thread would serve very little purpose.
No offense taken and I welcome your feedback. I have sat for professional level examinations and do have a license. I have over 37 years employed in the engineering and surveying industry. While I will certainly acknowledge there is always room for improvement to processes by licensing boards, there should be equal acknowledgement that professional level applicants also contribute their fair share to the inefficiency in the process.
I'm also somewhat familiar with the idea of states "decoupling from the exams" as you would say it, including some unique insight to that process among the various boards. It doesn't promote "licensure of engineers". Rather it promotes more flexible operational arrangements to facilitate the examination portion of the requirements of licensure based on the recognition that not every individual desiring to obtain a license reaches that goal in the same manner. In that regard, those licensing boards or "states" as you referred to them are already "sit(ting) back and reflect(ing) on the inefficiencies of the "system". So, in that respect...they are listening. California included.
In regards to your statement about making the California state exams a true year round continuous test, it can't get any "truer" than what it will be after April 1. Whether the state exams are taken prior to submitting the application to the California Board or afterwards (as it is now) has absolutely no relevance to being a "true year round continuous test". Apples and oranges.
If you understood California requirements more clearly, you would see that the requirements for licensure in this state is 2 years less than most of the other states. And if you pay attention to the statistics that the California Board publishes on a regular basis, California licensing candidates historically and very consistently have a pass rate on the national PE-Civil exams that is 10-15%
lower than the national average. This is based on decades of information. Essentially speaking, California has been "decoupled" for many years and everyone can see the results! The California state exams are designed for an audience that is based upon the minimum requirements for licensure. If the "qualified" candidates are consistently and historically scoring below the national average, why would the California Board change the process to allow anyone, including those that are not even close to meeting the licensure requirements, to sit for those exams? That would not be in the best interest of the licensure candidates that truly are ready to be licensed based on their actual real world experience and that would not be in the best interest of the public. You know the public...the people that are the REAL reason for licensing and the board to exist in the first place.
Lastly, and because you originally mentioned that the process was not very efficient for the people located out of the state of California, you should probably recognize that the California Board took it upon themselves to change the process to allow their state specific exams to be taken anywhere in the country specifically to assist those out of state candidates...beginning in 2012! Two years prior to the FE/FS exams being offered as "true year round continuous tests" and two more years before any of the national PE/PS exams became "true year round continuous tests". And this action was solely the Board's without any pressure from government in an effort to assist the many that choose to apply in California because they don't actually qualify in their own state.
Just saying you may want to do a little research on any of the engineering/surveying licensing boards in this country to see what strides they have made prior to making comments such as that.
