Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: SE Practice Act

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: Message
Well, the big one against SE practice acts (and seperate SE licenses in general) is that many PEs don't want to have and don't believe they need specialty licenses.  Basically, the arguement along the lines of restraint of trade.
 
Conversely, the arguement for an SE practice act is that the based PE license does not really ensure that someone is getting adequate training or education in the specialty of structural engineering.  Many argue that your typical civil PE is not equipped to do structural engineering unless they do it on a regular basis due to the more complex codes and in general more advanced knowledge needed in today world of structural engineering.  Basically, if people practicing structural engineering on regular basis struggle to keep up with the current codes and practices, then how is a general civil practitioner supposed to do so when they only spend a small percentage of their time doing structural work and a lot of time doing other general civil work?
 
Regards,
 
Scott
Adrian, MI
-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Watson [mailto:jake.watson1(--nospam--at)gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2007 9:55 PM
To: SEAINT
Subject: SE Practice Act

What are the best arguments for and against an SE practice act?

Jake Watson, SE
Salt Lake City, UT