Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!![Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org'" <seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org>
- Subject: RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
- From: "Bill Allen, S.E." <ballense(--nospam--at)pacbell.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 07:20:20 -0800
I can't believe we are back on the SE vs. CE issue. Dennis, the SE exam is about more than just schools, hospitals and high rise buildings. In fact, I don't recall any questions on the exam that distinguishes between the CA version of the UBC and the "regular" UBC. The exam requires an additional three years of experience and passing the exam demonstrates that the examinee is more than a casual user of the structural provisions of the code. I know you don't like tests, but you should at least order some of the past exams to review the material. Once you have reviewed the exams, and then compared the SE exam with the structural problems on the CE exam, you will readily conclude that, in general, the examinee passing the SE exam has demonstrated more expertise in structural engineering that he/she did taking the CE exam. If you were really interested in public safety, which I do not believe is your motivation on this issue, you would support the adoption of the California Building Code (at least for seismic zone 4) for all structures excluding single family residences. I believe your real motivation is that you want to be able to call yourself "structural engineer" without paying the price. As you are aware, the CBC is more than just requiring a SE stamp. There are mandated tests and inspections which drastically improve the quality control of the structural system. Short of this solution, the two tier approach would be the only other palatable solution. Regards, Bill Allen -----Original Message----- From: Dennis S. Wish [SMTP:wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 10:38 PM To: Seaoc@Seaoc. Org Cc: Hassan Zarenejad; Williston Warren IV; Pat Buskovich; SEAOC; Don Gilbert Subject: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!! I received my copies of the March 1998 Plan Review. First off I'd like to congratulate SEAOC on producing a very good looking and informative newsletter. I do have strong opinions on two of the articles and warn the reader that this post is long. "SEAOC SUPPORTS BORPELS POSITION ON SE EXAM" I support an exam that more rigidly addresses the provisions of Chapter 16 of the UBC and comparable national codes. I don't feel that an engineer practicing in Missouri, for example, needs to have any less knowledge of lateral force distribution than an engineer in California. I believe that no area of this country is free from the effects of seismic or wind. Therefore, it is important, in the very least, to have an understanding of the forces which govern. A national exam will allow an engineer reciprocity in other states as well as unify compliance for those who wish to move where the work is. I believe that BORPELS and NCEES need to combine efforts, utilizing the strengths of each, to unify the exam process. It's no surprise to most that I am an advocate for two-tiered structural engineering licensing. In this respect, I am seriously concerned about the tone of the last paragraph of this article. It states: "As SEAOC continues to look at the registration/licensing of structural engineers in California and the nation (in cooperation with the National Council of Structural Engineers Associations), the findings of this Subcommittee may help point us in a direction which we may wish to consider. The report points out that most states are now using the NCEES Structural II Examination as the first licensing examination an applicant takes. The BORPELS Subcommittee found this examination is not specifically developed for use as a "mastery examination." A 'masters' level would be for licensed engineers wishing to pursue registration or title authority to distinguish a level of competency substantially above entry level licensing. The report further points out that in fact, "The California Structural examination is defined by its use as a "mastery examination" for purposes of the structural engineering title." Viewing the practice of structural engineering in terms of two levels of competency may provide us with fertile ground for further discussions on the licensing/registration for structural engineers." I object to the term "Entry level" exam. An exam should NOT be given that would allow the use of any title nor grant any authority to any person who has not proven an acceptable level of competency in the field of practice. Entry level implies room for error and the need to be supervised, novice and beginner - certainly not the picture of an engineer competent to practice under sole proprietorship. With respect to those titled SE, the only difference in testing should be in the additional special knowledge (code compliance) required of the practice on essential facilities and structures above 160 feet (or heights as designated by governing codes). The implications in this article originate from the assumption that the existing CE exam is adequate for engineers who have not specified a field of expertise. The purpose of a two-tiered system is not simply to leave the public in jeopardy of the bottom-feeders who decide to cross lines of competency in order to profit from natural disaster. Nor should it simply elevate the mastery and clarity of the SE title to set it farther apart from those equally qualified to practice "structural engineering". The real purpose of a two-tiered title should be to limit the applicant who wishes to practice structural engineering and test those skills necessary to prove competency in this field. Let the Civils who wish to devote their practice to land have full use of the CE title, if only for the sake and clarity needed for the general public to understand the difference in titles. This fosters protection and eliminates confusion by non-professionals. Before we solve the problem of what title to designate on a two-tiered system, those decision and policy makers must understand that the change in examination procedure must start at the very basic level for the simple, but most important reason - the protection of the public. Therefore, I would request that the members of the Professional Activities Committee re-define their goals to our membership in clearer and more definitive rhetoric. I also suggest that the membership not allow a position to be taken by SEAOC without debate as to what the members actual expect of the agreement between BORPELS and NCEES.
- RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
- From: Dennis S. Wish
- RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
- Prev by Subject: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
- Next by Subject: RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
- Previous by thread: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
- Next by thread: RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!