Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Continuing Professional Development

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

Charles Greenlaw wrote:

> I would respond as follows to the matters expressed below in this way:

[...]

> As for the rest of the profession, it depends on the organization or PE
> branch in question. California licenses PE's by branch, not generically, and
> the privileges are not equally distributed. In recent times, Fire Protection

[...]

> On the other hand, private-firm consulting civil, electrical, and mechanical
> engineers have had the Board champion their every wish; government employed
> engineers much less so. A decades-old feud over public works design turf
> between these factions has escalated into state supreme court-decided
> lawsuits and a bitterly contested ballot initiative set for the June 1998
> statewide election.  Non-licensed consultants to high-tech research,

This one I'd heard of, and it's a tough issue, no doubt.  As an engineer who works
in government, I'm well aware of the Pavlovian effect of the term "privatization"
on the voting public and its consequent appeal to politicians, as well as the
bloated fees some (please notice, y'all, before you flame me that I said SOME)
private firms earn, essentially for having state engineers supply the firm with
finished design work which the private firm stamps and then demands payment for.
OTOH, as I understand it, if the initiative passes, it would essentially reduce
the engineering profession to competitive bidding on all state projects,
eliminating QBS entirely.  It's a tough nut to crack, with abuses that need
correction on both sides.[...]

> Hence my supposition of legislative disdain for the Calif Board.
>
> As for the merits of mandatory continuing professional development, it does
> appear that there's no small pretense in it: the regulators pretend they've
> done something good, and the professionals pretend that something good is
> happening to them. Maybe they're both right and maybe neither is.  Myself, I
> think what H.L. Menken said 77 years ago may well apply to the mandatory
> part of continuing education: as a solution to a problem, it's one of those
> solutions that is "neat, plausible, and wrong."

Thank you for a most interesting and informative post.

BTW, here's one of *my* favorites from H.L. Mencken:  "No one ever lost a dime
underestimating the good taste of the American public."  :-D

Nigel