Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: SE Test[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: "'seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org'" <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: SE Test
- From: Scott Maxwell <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
- Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:06:34 -0500 (EST)
Harold: You are correct. The medical profession has ONE license that basically sets them up to practice medicine in any state and in any speciality. Once a doctor gets their MD license they are legally allowed to practice in _ANY_ sub field of medicine. The specialities only come into play _IF_ the doctor wants privaledges at a hospital. The specialities are "certified" and "policied" by the medical profession itself, NOT the states (or feds). For all intends, if a doctor wants to only establish their own practice and never needs or wants privaledges at a hospital, then they need not get certified in a speciality. If, however, they want privaledges at a hospital, then they typically MUST get certified in speciality, even if it is as a general internist. That is at least how my doctor explained it to me when I asked (why I was involved with the NCSEA Certification committee). Regards, Scott Ypsilanti, MI On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Sprague, Harold O. wrote: > I have to add my 2 cents on this one. > > > > Tests and even the licenses themselves do not assure that a project will be > designed with competence. An SE license will not provide assurance that a > design will be better than a PE license. I have done work all over the > world, and have done peer reviews on projects all over the world. I have > reviewed some pretty bad designs by people with their SE license. I am not > going to name names, but there are highly regarded engineers that are > experts in areas like base isolation that do not have an SE. > > > > I have several friends who are medical doctors and from what I am told > doctor's licenses to practice medicine are MD's throughout the US. They > generally do not take a separate State exam to make them qualified in > specialties. The states rely solely on their PROFESSIONAL status to > practice only in areas for which they are qualified. Within the profession, > the MD's have professional groups that certify certain specialty areas, but > it is generally not administered by the State. Registered nurses are > qualified by experience for various areas. Some are office administrators, > some are ER and trauma specialists, some specialize in hospice care. The > state does not have any different exams to qualify specialties. The medical > community relies on the profession to self regulate if a care giver is doing > work outside of their areas of expertise. > > > > Are we engineers less professional? > > > > Now turn your head and cough. > > Regards, > Harold O. Sprague > > -----Original Message----- > From: Keith De Lapp [mailto:keith(--nospam--at)kdlengineering.com] > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 2:04 PM > To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org > Subject: SE Test > > > > Bill, we have to be practical here. If obtaining a CE or SE license doesn't > demonstrate some minimum level of competency, then why do it at all? Are > you really suggesting that every sub discipline within civil and structural > (and the other branches mentioned in my earlier email) be independently > classified, tested and regulated? For what purpose? The current system has > checks and balances. The PE act states you can't practice in areas > outside your area of competency. Therefore, can the hydrologist design a > building? No, not legally nor ethically. Does that stop them from signing > a set of plans? No. If something goes wrong or if the client files a > complaint, there is a system in place to deal with that. Negligence "is" > prosecuted after the fact. It isn't a perfect system but it seems to work. > I don't believe more regulation is necessarily the answer. > > > > Looking at the BORPELS enforcement action publication the problem while it > exists doesn't appear to be spiraling out of control as your argument > suggests. Your comment "...until I (as well as others) think that I have > the necessary background to do it on my own..." sounds like you want a > governmental system in place to regulate competency. If you follow this > argument to its logical conclusion, you would have to take every > construction trade out there and further divide it into sub classifications. > An example would be a concrete contractor who does nothing but tilt-up > panels and wants to do a cast-in-place garage would have to obtain a > separate license. Breadth of practice exists in every profession. > > > > Bill, what concerns me most about conversations like this, is that we have a > certain element within our profession that wants to further limit the > practice of our profession. For what purpose I ask? Is it to protect the > public, or is it to secure ones place in the profession. If it's the former > then I would ask what is the magnitude of the harm? And how does Bill Allen > propose to solve it? If it is the latter, then it sounds very much like an > Ivory Tower syndrome. I would like to know the motive behind your position > and ask that you state it here for everyone to read. In your previous email > you said "...People taking on projects they're not qualified to do hurts us > all. We all know why they do it. Work is light. Can't say "no". The problem > with working in a new material, region, project type, etc. is quantity of > "unknowns" due to lack of experience. This lack of knowledge tends to drive > the fee down (again, hurting us all) and problems in the field up (again, > hurting us all). I can't say I've never done it, but I don't plan to do it > anymore." This remark suggest to me that the Ivory Tower syndrome may be at > play. > > > > Bill, before you blow a gasket, let me tell you I mean no disrespect towards > you. You seem like a good guy and I (as a lurker) have followed your, as > well as other engineers participation on this forum for many years and have > learned a lot. But for me this topic is a bit like taxes. We keep raising > and creating new taxes for "good causes" (dubious in my mind) but then some > time down the road when we feel we are over taxed, we turn and look at each > other and say "How did this happen, wasn't anybody watching?" > > > > I believe that the profession and the state has licensed me as a > professional in civil engineering. With that comes a code of conduct and > ethics. I believe that as a professional, I want to maintain the liberty of > deciding which engineering markets I would like to pursue. If additional > expertise is required then I will obtain it. I believe that I have to > satisfy my professional ethics (in regards to competence subject at hand) > that I have responsibly performed my duties in the interests of public > safety and my client. I don't think we need a regulating body further > verifying competence. It is of course true that some engineers will take > advantage of the system. But there is already a system in place to deal > with that. And I believe it works. > > > > > > Keith De Lapp, P.E. > > KDL ENGINEERING > > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- RE: SE Test
- From: Sprague, Harold O.
- RE: SE Test
- Prev by Subject: RE: SE Test
- Next by Subject: RE: SE Test
- Previous by thread: RE: SE Test
- Next by thread: RE: SE Test