Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Architects and Human Occupancy[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org'" <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: Architects and Human Occupancy
- From: Bill Allen <BAllenSE(--nospam--at)mail-gw3.pacbell.net>
- Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 10:24:56 -0700
If you are correct, then we would have to have traffic engineers, facility engineers, etc. which are are disciplines of civil engineering. It just so happens in California, there are special designations for two categories of civil engineers that have title authority. They are structural engineers and geotechnical engineers. For those not holding authority to use these two titles, all other civil engineers are just that - civil engineers. I do agree that one should promote themselves in their area of specialty and certainly structural engineering has several of them. Regards, Bill Allen -----Original Message----- From: Powers, Tony [SMTP:tpowers(--nospam--at)hdrinc.com] Sent: Monday, October 06, 1997 9:27 AM To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org Subject: Architects and Human Occupancy Bill Allen wrote: > Before this goes much further I want to put in my two cents worth. > First of all, I realize there are quite a few civil engineers capable > of doing a good job of structural engineering. Both the UBC and > BORPELS allow civil engineers to do structural engineering. However, I > think that if civil engineers want to use the title "structural > engineer" then they should take (and pass) the damn test!! Although I > have pointed out on my previous posts that I do not believe there is > enough financial reward to justify taking the exam, I am proud that I > took and passed an exam that most could not. Those who have not paid > that price should not be able to use the title and, if they have to > dance around the phrase "civil engineer doing structural engineering", > so be it. Tough. If you don't like it, take the damn test!! > Its not about whether or not "there are quite a few civil engineers capable of doing a good job of structural engineering". Nor is it a question of BORPELS or the UBC "allow(ing) civil engineers to do structural engineering". A CE license is THE requirement to do most structural engineering in CA, not to mention most of the rest of the country. I moved to CA from PA several years ago. In PA, by virtue of passing the CE exam and doing bridge design, I was referred to as a Structural Engineer because I was practicing Structural Engineering (PA does not have a SE license or title). When I moved to CA (after passing the seismic and surveying exams) I continued to practice structural engineering (bridge design), only now I'm not a Structural Engineer. I haven't changed. The work I do, am responsible for, and for which I stamp plans hasn't changed. The only thing that's different is that I've got to "do the dance" now. The problem isn't with CEs doing structural engineering, it's with BORPELS for creating a tilte that causes engineers doing a majority of the structural engineering in the state of CA to dance around calling themselves what they are. If its that important to pass the "damn" test, then BORPELS should make it a requirement for doing ALL structural engineering. If not, change the title to "Structural engineer specializing in hospitals, schools and buildings over 13 stories". Perhaps there should be other titles as well, such as "Strucutral engineer designing bridges or custom homes or damns..." I don't want some SE who's been designing single story, wood frame school buildings designing long span bridges any more than I want some bridge engineer designing hospitals. Whether you're an SE or not, you're requird to practice within your expertice. It's all Structural Engineering. It's all done by structural engineers. Either change the title to match the requirements, or change the requirements to match the title. Personally, I don't care which. Tony Powers P.S. I do plan to take the SE soon-- just because it's there and I haven't taken a good test in a couple of years, and maybe a few other completely intangible reasons.
- Prev by Subject: Architects and Human Occupancy
- Next by Subject: RE: Architects and Human Occupancy
- Previous by thread: Architects and Human Occupancy
- Next by thread: RE: Architects and Human Occupancy