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]
Basically, how Scott explains it is true. 

Other arguements were that SE is more often at the base of life safety and MAJOR property damage than is any other discipline.  Certification, similar to AMA and AIA, etc, was one direction to move. 
 
Most states have several different branches in which you may claim proficiency.  Just pick one.  If you deem yourself qualified, you may practice outside that branch.  You may have to justify it in court, though.  I'm a CE in CA and am allowed to design most anything I'd want to.  I know my own limits.  For the most part, don't most of us know when we're getting over our heads? 

All these acts do, is add more burocracy, difficulty, and fees, to do what we already know how to do.  And if you move to a different state, you may be faced w/ more hassle.
There's always the option to be certified    http://www.secertboard.org/

Already, the current SE exam is so rigorous, it keeps many qualified people that aren't good at tests, or don't have time to pound through a study program (try studying for that w/ 2 kids and a working wife), from practicing.  I'd wager that most practicing SEs over 40 couldn't pass it without a great deal of studying.  But they're good SEs

We don't need it.


>>> 
From: 	"Scott Maxwell" <smaxwell(--nospam--at)umich.edu>
To:	<seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
Date: 	11/1/2007 10:45 PM
Subject: 	RE: SE Practice Act

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




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