> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williston L. Warren, IV - S.E. [mailto:billw4(--nospam--at)sesol.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 1999 1:11 PM
> To: General List SEAOSC
> Subject: RE: Dynamic Loading
> Please be careful of the use of that wide brush, painting graduating
> students with the same hue.
I'm not, but I admit to painting engineering school programs with the same
Very few graduate programs are interested in practical engineering. To an
extent, we are grateful that they are not, because their research provides
the cutting-edge that advances engineering science.
I'm simply saying that a statement that "structural engineers must complete
a six-year program to BE structural engineers" has some problems, for me.
"More schooling" is not the answer. We have examples right now of those who
have "more schooling": Those with advanced degrees (as I said, I have one).
I'm afraid that my advanced degree did NOT make me a "better engineer." I
learned a few things in grad school that helped me negotiate the learning
curve once I got out into the world of work, but the vast majority of those
things that I needed to know to be a structural engineer were learned by
> There are some programs that produce BS
> graduates (ArcE) ready to go and more knowledgable than a lot
> of MS from a
> CE farm.
I know. I hired two of them last year from the University of Texas, and they
have been exemplary Engineer Interns.
> My experience has been that most BSCE programs are based on
> the preparation
> of the student for the MSCE experience.
I don't agree wholly with that. I don't think that the baccalaureate program
that I attended, for example, prepared me all that well for grad school.
There may be some programs, such as at Cornell, perhaps, that are so
oriented, but most BSCE programs aren't.
BTW, I'm not all that enamored of the Ar.E. programs I'm familiar with,
either. I've seen more than one Ar.E. grad get "off track", being wooed by
the money paid by building construction companies, for example, and then
realizing (DUH!) that they can't become licensed to practice engineering if
they continue with those employers. It surprises me that the faculty
advising of these students isn't more explicit in this regard.
But then I guess the contruction firms represent money in terms of donations
and other forms of largesse, so why tick 'em off?