Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Architects and Human Occupancy

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
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.

Bill Allen
-----Original Message-----
From:	Powers, Tony [SMTP:tpowers(--nospam--at)]
Sent:	Monday, October 06, 1997 9:27 AM
To:	seaoc(--nospam--at)
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.