Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
Re: Bust'm or not?[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
- Subject: Re: Bust'm or not?
- From: "Dennis S. Wish" <wish(--nospam--at)cyberg8t.com>
- Date: Tue, 09 Jan 1996 10:36:57 -0800
Dennis McCroskey wrote: > > >Dear Dennis: > > > >I vote not to bust them. > > > >Civil engineers practicing structural are the joke of the century. Poor > >guys can do (by law) about everything that a SE can do, yet are not allowed > >to compete fairly with SE. > > I have experienced that they do compete by charging less. > > > > >A person how obtains his SE license should market in the areas which he > >could not have when he was a PE. e.g. Hospitals, bridges, schools etc. If > >he is marketing a Type V residential project, he should not be offended by > >a PE who is also marketing in the same area. > > > >I am currently a PE and will obtain my SE next year. I know my SE will not > >make me a better engineer than I am. Also, the only reason I want to be an > >SE is because I like to design high-rise structures. > > > >My recommendation, change title of a PE practicing structural, to > >"Structural Engineer" and change the title of current SE to "Special > >Structural Engineer". That way we can prevent other PE not practicing > >structural from doing structural inspections. We saw a lot of that after > >Northridge. Now, that is dangerous, and they should be busted. > > > >Shafat > > > > > > If there is any changing to be done, keep the SE as it is. Develop 2 CE > types. One that does not do any structural work and the other (let's say a > CES) that is a civil who has passed a structural test and can practice > structural design. > > >---------- > >From: Dennis McCroskey[SMTP:dennismc(--nospam--at)mcn.org] > >Sent: Sunday, January 07, 1996 1:28 AM > >To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org > >Subject: Re: Bust'm or not? > > > >2 weeks ago I introduced the question about "Bust'm or not? So far 4 > >responses have been received which have unanimously mplied they should be > >busted. I vote to bust'm also. The complaint forms are in my office and > >will be forwared to the state this week. > > > >My only difficulty is that both are friends. One is a former employee that > >I trained, got his CE and now works in the area. The other is someone who > >I > >use as a consulting civil engineer occasionally and has been a friend for > >18 > >years. > > > > > >Dennis McCroskey > >SE&A Dennis, I have started to respond to this message and my machine crashed. I lost some really good responses - so I'll wing it again. If the engineer who is advertising is unqualified to practice the work that he is contacted about, then I agree with you *bust-em*. But if it is a question of symantics - think again. The problem may not be the result of the engineer rather than a *bad law* that has not provided for what the actual community needs. Since the CE is not advertising that he is an SE (if the condition is the heading of the phonebook directory only) then the assumption is that the engineer should not be advertising that he is performing *structural engineering* type work. Although we know this to be a conflict in the licensing terminology - the next logical step would be to restrict the CE from using the term *structural engineering* in the scope of his work since this *implies* an SE license. If the restriction applies then any CE designing structure is or should be illegal. I think you can see where this leads. When I (and probably most) completed my courses in college (and we did have the choice of courses to take) I chose building structures as my specialty. When I (and probably most) took the CE exam - I answered the questions related to building structure and avoided the area I did not feel competitent in - land civil. In between school and the exam, I worked for practical experience in the field of structures to qualify for the work criteria of the CE exam and had other SE & CE's sign my qualifications. We are qualified to practice *structural engineering* - to a degree. But this degree of practice allows many of us to work without having to go the next step. To sacrifice for the SE exam and never practice on Essential facilites or high rise buildings defeats the need to take the exam. The culmination of knowledge for the SE does not come from the exam, but rather the experience that leads up to the exam. The level of experience depends upon the type of structure you regularly design. If an SE passed his exams solely based upon book knowledge and review courses and has never practiced on essential facilities or (more the case) high rise structures - I would be as much afraid to hire him based upon an SE designation that I would a CE. The brain surgeon and Protologist are both MD's. I certainly wouldn't chose the Proctologist to remove a brain tumor. Yet both are listed in the phone book under Doctors and each is listed in sub-catagories under Doctors. This allows the public to understand what that person specializes in. Why is this any different with Structural Engineers. Back to the original question - is the engineer falsly advertising or simply trying to correctly identify an area of practice that has not applicable catagory under the listings in the phonebook? And is (or should) the phonebook document that is used to determine qualifications by law? Or is the phonebooks intention only to catagorized businesses so the caller can *find* what suits their needs? The final determiniation is for the caller to ascertain the qualifications of the engineer to meet their needs. For example, what if the caller wants an engineer qualified to practice structural engineering on a the repair of a home. When the building official tells him he needs to hire a structural engineer - this official does not stop and explain that he can use a Civil qualified to practice structural engineering, but rather that he needs to find a SE - which is wrong. Finally (I know I'm running this into the ground) - Shafat mentioned what I had also suggested days ago - reclassify the SE license not the CE. The proposed changes to the CE designation by BORPEL will not clear up the confusion where it needs clarification - with the client. It will only allow the state to identify infractions of the law by allowing the state to determine who is qualified and who is not - after the damage is done. Enough - my nerves are fried on this issue. I'll keep my thoughts to myself if I am truly in the minority. Dennis Wish
- RE: Bust'm or not?
- From: Dennis McCroskey
- RE: Bust'm or not?
- Prev by Subject: RE: Bust'm or not?
- Next by Subject: Re: Bust'm or not?
- Previous by thread: RE: Bust'm or not?
- Next by thread: Re: Bust'm or not?