See my comments below:
>I am truly amazed at the dialog on what an engineer should be. What does a
>Masters or Ph.D.. degree have to do with finding solution to problems.
It depends on the complexity of the problem to solve. I agree that I have
been in the company of some PhD's who didn't have any skills to solve
everyday problems. On the other hand, I've met some who's mastery has led
to major advances in how things get done (i.e., just listed to all the folks
on this bandwidth who often quote James Fisher (PhD) or other well known
structural engineers) on a very practical level. The answer to your
question is fairly obvious; complexity of the problem to be solved and
mastery of the subject are directly proportional.
>Analyze the stress level from a supposed earthquake in a frame is not as
>knowing the connections should be at a lower stress then the beams. With
>the classes at the masters level very little was taught about design of
>connections and no one talked about the amount of connection failures verse
>member failure. In steel design we learned to design the lightest beams and
>concrete classes taught the least amount of steel. I must be doing the
>kinds of structures as the ability to build the structures quickly is
>important as the cost of the steel. There were no classes in
>offered. There were no classes offered in specification writing. These are
>of the things which make a real world engineer good.
Careful here..... your experience with graduate school may not be the same
as others. It truly depends on the competence of who was teaching you and
their background. Quality of the teacher means a lot. Don't generalize
your experience to everbody's experience.
>If you feel you do not get enough money in your paycheck find a new job.
>It will only take you eight years to become the doctor you want to be but
>not take the time to become. It takes even less time to become a lawyer. As
>me I am an engineer and do not like being compared to either. I solve
>on how to build structures. I do not dispense pills of vast amounts of
>verbiage. I know what I contribute to the world and do not need others to
>me what it is. Your pay is between the doctor who need 8 years of
>school and the iron worker who only has a high school diploma. That is
>belongs. If you chose engineering for the money you chose poorly.
Again....be careful with what your saying. I didn't want to be a doctor and
it wasn't due to the extra time. And if you've ever spent a day with an
ironworker on a bridge job, you'd say they deserve a lot more pay than what
they're getting. Regardless, I would chance to say that if you didn't make
a comfortable living at what you do, you would probably be looking at other
professions. If engineering services continues down the path as a commodity
service you will be "bidding" your work. If the profession doesn't police
itself, the opportunity always exists to cut corners and "under-bid" others
and make money (unethically). The question then becomes ethical; do I stay
in the profession, cutting corners, producing widgets, while my real
"bring-home" pay decreases or do I do something about it or find another
profession. I love engineering; but if the balance of scales doesn't allow
fair & equitable payment for my efforts then I gotta a problem with that and
I'll look elsewhere.
> Using the S.E. or P.E. license to limit immigration really upsets me.
>country was made up of many different races and nationalities. Anyone who
>freedom will have problems with this attitude. This is the country where
>one can become what ever they want. We should keep it that way.
This issue is not as simple as loving your country. I love my country; I do
not love companies that treat human resources as commodities and find the
cheapest price to do the job. Do you think all the multinational
corporations who place factories in foreign countries always do so out of
the best interest of the people in that country ? Take this hypothetical
question and answer it:
You're going about your job, happy as can be, when a coworker is hired who
has similar skills to you but is pleased to make 50% less than you because
for that person, it means life in the US and its 150% more than they would
make in their place of native origin. Over the course on the next six
months this person can do anything that you can do from a production point
of view. At the end of the six months your employer, for whatever reason
they can come up with, informs you that you're no longer needed. The
company makes out (they're getting your skills for 50% less), the new
employee make out, but you however, have problems. I'm not advocating
protectionism here, I'm just saying there's a lot of things to consider, not
all of which favor you - the worker.
> One last point. A person who gets a Ph.D. to work in the engineering
>will find few jobs which will put his additional knowledge to full use. Any
>person with a Ph.D.. can do ordinary structural design work, but most want
>do high profile work. This is the reason they took the additional classes.
>The problem is there is not much of this high profile work out here. The
>of work is less then three story and can be done by a engineer with a BS
>diligence to the laws of static. There is no need for the owner of a
>to pay for a push over analysis when a simple UBC static analysis with
>attention to connection will prevent collapse of the building.
Again...be careful here..... there are lots of folks who go through the
academic "hoop" process who don't seek the "high profile". Some of us just
truly want to understand and know all we can about the process of applying
highly theoretical concepts to practical applications. And if you're doing
a three story steel building, or steel warehouse, there's a little more than
"statics" to be applied (but I'm not even going to get into LRFD vs. ASD).
The only points to my comments here are be careful how you generalize.....
and realize there's a lot more going on than folks trying to "limit" or
"exclude" the people in our profession.
Robert C. Rogers, PE