Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: Error in Phone Book - Structural Engineers

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
>From Dennis McCroskey: 
 
> If you want to continue to talk the talk, take the dam exam and prove to  
> yourself and the rest of us that you are worthy of the title.  Anything  
> short of this is just verbal retoric justifying your inability to go the 
> distance. 
 
Dennis, do you really think a Professional Engineer should take extra exams  
just to prove themselves?  If a licensed Civil Engineer is permitted by law to 
perform structural analysis and design on a variety of structures, why should 
they go to the trouble to take an exam that is not legally required to perform 
their work?  (By the way, I passed the exam and am a registered SE.) 
 
Per Jeff Smith: 
 
> However, having an SE eliminates the need to clarify your authority and  
> it may provide additional perceived qualifications by prospective clients. 
 
This seems to be the primary justification to take the SE exam for most 
engineers performing structural work in California.   
 
Per Bill Allen: 
 
> Doesn't this thread make it more obvious that the language in the B&P code  
> administered by BORPELS doesn't really serve any of us?  The language gives  
> very little exclusivity to licensed structural engineers...The language also  
> doesn't allow professional engineers, degreed in Civil Engineering,  
> experienced in structural engineering to profess their area of expertise  
> properly.  
 
I agree - the problem here is that the title act makes it very hard for a 
Civil Engineer to convey to John Q. Public that they are licensed and capable 
of performing structural analysis and design. 
 
Per Satinder P. Singh: 
 
> Hope the debate can focus on accepting a more clear definition of the 
> title Structural Engineer for the practicing engineers as well as the 
> general public.  Somebody had recently pointed out that many in the 
> public believe that a registered engineer is the one who fills some 
> forms and gets registered with the state. 
 
I agree here too - BORPELS should come up with a better term for titled 
Structural Engineers for clarity to the lay person - unless their intent is 
actually to curtail the ability of Civil Engineers to practice any form of 
structural engineering.  I don't think that "Licensed Structural Engineer" is 
any clearer from the public's viewpoint.  (Something more along the lines of 
"Structural Engineer with Honors".) 
 
Where does California State Law define the limits of what a Structural vs 
Civil Engineer can design anyway?  I know some local codes define this, but is 
there anything in the State law or does the State only control the use of the 
title?