Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Survey, final result (Corrected)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
One thing to ad to Acie's post: Some of us did not graduate from a
University and not because of the lack of an appropriate education. I
changed schools many times in order to seek out the courses that I thought
was relevant to the work I wanted to perform. I took most of my course in
engineering at Loyola Marymount University - a good school for Civil, but a
poor choice if you want to study structures. From there I transferred to Cal
State Northridge to take Timber, Concrete and Steel courses. I did this
because the instructors were practicing engineers who could teach me the
practical side of my profession (I was over 30). I moved to the desert at 43
without completing residency requirements at one school to obtain my
diploma. Prior to that I studied Architecture for 3.5 years at U of I Circle
Campus, and a 1.5 at DePaul and Loyola in Chicago for business courses. All
tolled - over six years full time in college.
My point is that I was more interested in the courses I was taking than
simply completing a checklist of graduation requirements. Loyola Marymount
had some great instructors in the basics (Dr. Franklin Fischers Advanced
Mechanics of Materials was a great course) as was the Soil Engineering
department under Dr. Don Anderson. Cal State had practicing members of SEAOC
teach concrete, timber and Steel as I felt it should be taught. Had I been
closer to Cal Poly Pomona - I would probably have gone out of my way to take
Breyers course in Wood.
Don't judge a person by where or if he received his diploma - this is no
indication of his educational skills. Base it upon how he performs in the
real world with the knowledge he obtained through the combination of work
and education.
When you deal in gray area's there is no stead fast rules and the majority
of life exists in the gray areas.

Dennis Wish PE

-----Original Message-----
From: Chance, Acie P. [mailto:acie_chance(--nospam--at)]
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 8:12 AM
To: 'seaoc(--nospam--at)'
Subject: RE: Survey, final result (Corrected)


I do not think you are correct in your assumptions of CEs. I did not get my
SE for 8 to 10 years after collage as it was not required. Should I have
been restricted to design only sewers for this time. I could design a sewer
but I sure would not make any money at it. My guess is that 70% or more of
the engineering work is in one or two story residential or commercial
buildings. Six months after graduation I was designing this type of building
with minimal checking by the owner. When I got my CE license I checked and
signed work for others who had not taken the CE test yet. The University I
attend did not have a BS in Structural Engineering only Civil Engineering.
We all took the same classes. We all took strength of materials and static
along with the basic material design classes. Do not get to high and mighty
about your SE it is only a title not a license to practice.

Acie Chance

CE first then SE

> ----------
> From: 	Bill Allen, S.E.[SMTP:billallen(--nospam--at)]
> Sent: 	Wednesday, April 29, 1998 5:36 PM
> To: 	seaoc(--nospam--at)
> Subject: 	Re: Survey, final result (Corrected)
> Even though we were joking, I believe you deserve a better (and more
> complete) answer than my previous response. My concern is not with
> professionals with your education and experience. IMO, you would be well
> qualified to practice here in CA. Something that you may not know is that,
> in CA, Architects and Civil Engineers are also allowed to stamp and sign
> structural drawings. Architects here generally have about a semester and a
> half of structural engineering courses (I don't know how detailed the
> curriculum gets) and Civil Engineers can (or did, I think it may be
> changing
> to 4 years) get a PE two years out of school. Many CEs here in the US get
> a
> BSCE degree which means a lot of their engineering courses are not
> structural. Further, a lot of Civils don't do structural engineering on a
> regular basis; just maybe when the economy gets slow and there are no
> subdivisions to design.
> My solution if in charge (scary thought, huh?) would be a simple one.
> Assuming that the general background of those holding a CA SE is
> satisfactory (they generally have to work 3 years for a licensed SE and
> take
> a 16 hr structural exam after passing the CE), my focus would be on the
> "others" who are allowed to practice structural engineering. These
> "others"
> are Architects and Civil Engineers. I would require all Architects and
> Civil
> Engineers who wanted to practice or advertise an expertise in structural
> engineering to take a simple, one problem exam. This exam would be a two
> story, "L" shaped building. The materials can be anything (wood walls and
> wood diaphragms, masonry walls and wood diaphragms, steel frames with
> metal
> deck and concrete fill or reinforced concrete frames/shear walls with a
> concrete slab). The requirements would be to:
> 1. Develop the base shear stating all assumptions
> 2. Perform a vertical distribution of the base shear.
> 3. Determine the stresses in the diaphragms
> 4. Prepare a preliminary/schematic design of the diaphragms
> 5. Determine the forces on the lateral force resisting elements
> 6. Prepare a preliminary/schematic design of the lateral force resisting
> elements
> 7. Design the connections such that there is a continuous load path from
> roof to foundation.
> Only a calculator would be acceptable and the forces in moment frames (if
> used) could be estimated using any logical method ("assuming a point of
> inflection at the midheight of the columns, the moments in the columns
> would
> be..."). Sketches, explanations, etc. would count a great deal (maybe more
> than the calculations) and partial credit would be liberal (I hate that
> word).
> Another element I would propose is mandatory E&O insurance (just like the
> requirements to register a car here). The goal of this requirement is to
> mitigate competition with "moonlighters" who have no overhead costs and,
> in
> a weak economy, drive down engineering fees to a dangerously low level.
> For
> all of the moonlighters reading this, don't get upset. I have no problem
> with what you do on your own time, just charge the same as you would if
> you
> had to pay for an office.
> Regards,
> Bill Allen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Nichols <cejn(--nospam--at)>
> To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
> Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 4:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Survey, final result (Corrected)
> >Dear Bill,
> >
> >I have a Bachelor of Engineering with Honours and a University Medal,  I
> am
> >almost completed a PhD in Masonry, in dynamics  at Newcastle University
> >under Adrain Page,
> >I have won awards for repairs to St Andrews Church from the Institution
> of
> >Engineers for seismic retrofit to the Church.
> >
> >I canna practice under your  BORPELS rules.
> >
> >How much more restricitve do you wanna get
> >
> >LOL
> >
> >John Nichols
> >
> >(this is a leg pull off as my 3 yr old daughter would say)
> >
> >
> >
> >At 13:13 29/04/98 -0700, you wrote:
> >>Now that this survey question is complete (I guess we can have job posts
> >>here), should we ponder the next survey question? Maybe we should query
> >>whether BORPELS should be more restrictive on who can practice
> structural
> >>engineering in seismic zone 4?
> >>
> >>Bill Allen
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Shafat Qazi <seaoc-ad(--nospam--at)>
> >>To: seaoc(--nospam--at) <seaoc(--nospam--at)>
> >>Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 12:21 PM
> >>Subject: Survey, final result (Corrected)
> >>
> >>
> >>>Here are the final results: (Corrected)
> >>>
> >>>62% Voted YES
> >>>38% Voted NO
> >>>
> >>>A total of 137 people participated in the survey.
> >>>Shafat
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >