Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
I'm not offended, but you and Dennis McCroskey are simply wrong - what
separates Civil and Structural engineers is Essential Facilities and nothing
more. However, I won't hold this against Dennis - I miss his involvement in
this list and hope he is well (no softball elbow).
There is no sense arguing here since I've had my say and can't argue with a
brick wall.;>)
I will promise every one this - I will take the exam in 1999. I'll do this
so that I can crusade with the same arguments just to get you guys to start
debating the issues not personal attacks.

Dennis Wish PE
La Quinta, California
wish(--nospam--at)cwia.com
ICQ# 6110557
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/6110557

"Silence is the virtue of fools."
Francis Bacon

|-----Original Message-----
|From: David Carpenter [mailto:dca(--nospam--at)mcn.org]
|Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 6:44 PM
|To: seaoc(--nospam--at)seaoc.org
|Subject: Re: SEAOC - Plan Review Comments - Outrage!!!
|
|
|Dennis,
|
|I have to agree with my good friend Dennis McCroskey, you should
|take the test.
|With  all due respect,  and while many of your colleagues would miss your
|correspondence, you could prepare for the SE test in the time you spend on
|sending e-mail.   I hope you are not offended, by the above
|suggestion, or by
|the following, but this test and the additional qualifications
|required to sit
|for the test, are what was intended to separate the civils from
|the structurals.
|
|Dennis S. Wish wrote:
|
|> Bill,
|> You obviously missed something in the translation when reading
|my comments
|> and adding your understanding of my motivation. I suggest you reread the
|> section again.
|> We need not waste the money to promote a National exam and
|tiered-licensing
|> if the public will not benefit from it. I doubt that most who
|know me would
|> accuse me of being self-serving in this issue. If you read the
|article as I
|> intended it, you would immediately see that I suggest raising
|the level of
|> the SE II exam so that it is Structural specific. I also clearly
|state that
|> no engineer seeking either the SE II or SE I title should be
|allowed to pass
|> an exam without proving competency in the area of that license.
|> The important point, which you missed, is that the exam must be
|redesigned
|> from the ground up. It must not allow the existing criteria to
|remain that
|> allows a Civil, who is undecided about his area of expertise, to
|cross the
|> line at the public's expense. Both exams must be revised so that the SE I
|> exam enhances the competency of the SE II exam, not simply rehash what
|> should have been part of the any SE II's basic competency skills.
|> It's not self-serving to identify a flaw in our licensing system
|which leads
|> to a restraint of trade by excluding an engineer from being able
|to clearly
|> advertise his skill to the public. If you feel that I am
|self-serving in . . .
|
|
|
|