Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: WHO'S WHO? (Titles mean something!)[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: WHO'S WHO? (Titles mean something!)
- From: Dave Adams <davea(--nospam--at)laneengineers.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 09:46:34 -0800
This is EXACTLY why specific titles mean something. I don't want to rain on a person's parade, but if we begin attributing the label "Structural Engineer" to someone who is not licensed to do such (yeah, I understand the politics of licensing and am quite certain that there are probably many great individuals out there that have not taken the SE exam but are more qualified to design than some who have passed the exam), the qualifications of the title become fuzzy. When I was an E.I.T., I didn't dream of presenting myself as a "structural engineer" because I held the title in such high esteem. I love structural engineering and am always impressed by the achievements of my colleagues (many of you have impressed me over and over again with your posts) and there should be some sort of guideline to allow someone to take the title SE. Whether we agree with it or not, in California this is allowed only after passing the SE exam. Maybe there is more that SEAOC or ASCE can do to improve the reputation of the profession and, yes, there is much that we need to do ourselves. We've already had a discussion regarding automation in engineering, pro's and con's, but I think it serves here as well. SE's understand that this automation is merely a tool and that our profession requires personal judgment and artistry, but I think a lot of others (non-engineers) think they can just buy a program and they've got it handled. Sorry for the rambling. Regards, Dave K. Adams, S.E. Lane Engineers, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Bogdan [mailto:prodomus(--nospam--at)mail.dntis.ro] Sent: Friday, November 05, 1999 1:49 AM To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org Subject: WHO'S WHO ? Dear Sirs, yesterday night, being a little upset, instead of going to bed, I wrote a message : "how's your love life?". This morning, when the birds are singing everywhere (to prevent freezing), and when the sun shines (even if I cannot see it because of those rainy clouds), I was surprised to find my message inbox full filled with your answers; thank you very much, I'm really grateful... I already feel better (can anyone tell me how to knot this bloody rope ?). Jocking ... Reading your messages I was trying to imagine who's the author, how he thinks, so on... And I've had a revelation: there's a lot of YOUNG peoples watching this exchange of messages, being greedily to achieve new ideas about how is to be a structural engineer, or how such a man thinks ! Frankly, this was (still is) one of my reasons when submitted to this chat list; but I was a little bewildered: the most part of messages are about "what's the value for rho when...", or "who can tell me how to calculate...", or, the worst, "how could I modelise a structure..". It's unacceptable! I am sick and tired of rules I have to follow; more and more, ENGINEERING comes closer to lawers activity, trammelled by stupid rules created for protecting the incompetence of some self-called "engineers", who simply thought it is more simple to become an engineer than a medical doctor ( wrong: as a bad doctor you kill one man a time, but as a structural engineer you can kill thousands; don't belive me? watch the results of Turkish EQ and you will understand!);but we're swerved. My problem referes to the REAL meaning of being an engineer. Richard and Audra say "Good engineers are always needed -maybe not fully respected - but needed", while mr.Gerard Madden (who talks unacceptable dirty to his wife) recomandes me to consider moving to a country that appreciates my talents and skills, but he "wouldn't suggest the USA because here, the architects do all the work, right guys". THAT'S THE POINT !!! Too many engineers, structural engineers, forget who they are and why they are what they are; I don't say not to give to Cesar what's Cesar's, it is true the architects are necessary (essential) for a building design, but they have to realise that structural design is not a handicraft job, but an artistic one, exactly like their's (being well-known they considere themselves artists; but they only...). We should remember them that civil and structural engineering separated from architecture, when the architects couldnt face the increasing economical problems... If we want to be considered like that, we should, first of all, respect ourselfs; we should not base our skills on simple calculations, because, due to computers bloom, the architects could belive we are be replaceble; and do not blame only computers, but also ourselves! ! For example, if I want to come to USA, how many exams do I have to pass and how many new rules do I have to learn to design structures who will face the same physical phenomenons encountered not only in my country, but all over the world? What about architects? We are the worst ennemy for us ! They are not for them ! Are they for us ? WHO'S WHO ?
- Re: WHO'S WHO? (Titles mean something!)
- From: Paul Crocker
- Re: WHO'S WHO? (Titles mean something!): Engineering vs Code-Gineering
- From: sasquake
- Re: WHO'S WHO? (Titles mean something!)
- Prev by Subject: Re: WHO'S WHO ?
- Next by Subject: Re: WHO'S WHO? (Titles mean something!)
- Previous by thread: The real Cal Poly
- Next by thread: Re: WHO'S WHO? (Titles mean something!)