Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

Re: Structural Drafting course (was RE: Connections)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Actually, Paul, the late George Hasslein said that the Cal Poly ARCE curriculum was a structural engineering school in disguise!

Another of his "famous" statements was: "It's not that Cal Poly is so good, it's because (some of ) the other schools are so bad!

It's good to refresh others than the Cal Poly ARCE program was started by professional architects and engineers, some who had many years of practice.

And this school has been going for over a half century!

And back to drawings etc.: what is our product that we get paid for? It's drawings and specifications.

Forgot to mention that the Cal Poly grads also have to take a course in specifications.


Neil Moore, S.E.
go mustangs

At 09:00 AM 12/2/2003 -0800, Paul Feather wrote:
Scott,

You should review the curriculum at Cal Poly before making these
assumptions.  As a Cal Poly grad, former lecturer, and current member of the
Curriculum Advisory Committee, I assure you that structural engineering is
not a specialty of an otherwise typical architectural engineering program.
Structural Engineering is the primary focus, and I would put a Cal Poly
undergrad up against most of the masters program grads I have encountered.
By the time a student graduates from the ARCE program with a BS, they have
had more structural classes than most combined undergrad / masters programs
in the country.  How many programs as an undergrad have more than a year of
just concrete design (concrete, concrete lab (full building design with
drawings), advanced concrete, and prestressed).

The largest percentage of licensed SE's in California are Cal Poly grads.


I think my bias is showing :-)

Paul Feather PE, SE
pfeather(--nospam--at)SE-Solutions.net
www.SE-Solutions.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell(--nospam--at)engin.umich.edu>
To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 5:10 AM
Subject: RE: Structural Drafting course (was RE: Connections)


> Mark,
>
> While I am not familiar with Cal Poly/SLO's program, I would assume that
> it is like any other architectural engineering undergrad program.  If so,
> then in reality, the degree is STILL a "general" architectural engineering
> program with a "specialty" in structural (as opposed to a specialty in
> electrical or mechanical).  While certainly different (and in many ways
> better) than a general civil engineering program, it will still have the
> same basic premise...you will graduate with a general knowledge of the
> field (architectural engineering) with some minimal specialization (i.e.
> in structural).  In otherwords, you will take a lot of "general"
> architectural engineering courses (some basic mechanical, electrical, and
> even architectural in addition to basic structural courses) with just a
> few courses really directed toward your "specialty".
>
> The end result is that I can certainly see that such a program would be
> much better in MANY regards for a budding structural type who wants to go
> into buildings.  OTOH, it would like be a waste on a budding structural
> type that wants to go into bridges.
>
> Basically, I should have been clearer when a mentioned a structural
> degree.  I meant a Bacholar of Science in STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING or a
> Bacholar of Science in Engineering (STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING) that is
> ABET accreditted (a beast that does not exist).  I would assume that the
> Cal Poly/SLO degree would be a Bacholar of Science in ARCHITECTURAL
> ENGINEER or a Bacholar of Science in Engineering (ARCHITECTURAL
> ENGINEERING) which in some regards is very similar to the Bacholar of
> Science in Engineering (Civil Engineering) that I received in Michigan and
> most other schools.  The function difference is that my general courses
> were in civil engineering while someone from a architectural engineering
> program would have "general" course work in architectural engineering (so
> of which would be structural as in the civil program).  Neither of which
> would have near as many structural courses as a true undergrad structural
> program.
>
> FWIW, I doubt that anyone who went through a undergrad AE program took
> anymore structural courses than I did.  Of course, it helps that I am a
> geek that could have graduated in 3.5 years but instead took extra
> structural courses.  A "normal" student is civil program likely has a few
> less structural courses than a architectural eng program student (but not
> that many fewer).  Where the AE student will really gain a benefit is a
> better understanding of overall building systems and likely get more
> "practical" type course work (at least that is the impression that I got
> from reviewing PSU's AE program).
>
> Regards,
>
> Scott
> Ypsilanti, MI
>
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003, Mark Gilligan wrote:
>
> > It was stated : "One partial solution (for structural engineering at
least)
> > is to have an undergrad ABET accreditted structural degree, but frankly
> > that is not too likely."
> >
> > Please note that the Architectural Engineering Program at Cal Poly/ SLO
is
> > an undergraduate structural engineering program and has ABET
accreditation.
> >
> >
> > Mark Gilligan
> >
> > ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> > *   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
> > ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
> >
> >
>
>
> ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
> *   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
> ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
>


******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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
******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********




******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* ***
*   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 ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********