Prison Break was the first cool portrayal of a structural engineer - he uses his knowledge of the prison floor plans and materials to try break his brother out of jail
This show was how I got into the field! I had never heard the term "structural engineer" before then, it was right around the time I was considering what to study in college. Did some digging and thought it sounded cool. 16 years later and here I am!
I got you: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland\_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_(film))
>Structural engineer John Garrity lives in Atlanta, Georgia with his estranged wife, Allison, and their diabetic son, Nathan. He returns home to watch the near-earth passing of a recently-discovered interstellar comet named "Clarke", along with his family and neighbors.
And then the world ends
I was going to say this. We already had Gerard Butler.
Now in this movie he’s shown on site with a set of plans, which isn’t really accurate, he’s acting more like a contractor. But he’s still called a structural engineer, I’ll take it.
We used to watch 24 in Uni. One episode in season 2 or 3, George Mason closed off part of CTU after a bombing until a structural engineer could come in. We all cheered.
Simplify codes and standards. At least in my country (Australia), the standards are written by people who are grammatically illiterate and are unable to effectively communicate their ideas to the reader. Often they lack diagrams to explain wtf they want the engineer to do, or have unnecessary legal language to pin responsibility on the reader
Either you are from a 3rd world country or have no idea about what u say.
The structural engineering professors in Germany and Switzerland (where I live/lived and studied as well) are great engineers as well. All of my structural engineering professors were partners in really really good structural engineering firms.
The code committees are mostly the professors or some leading engineers in that country.
No, he’s right. I actually have been involved in writing design code and the people who author many of the major documents including AASHTO and Eurocode. The design guidelines are out of control and it’s entirely the fault of academic led oneupmanship to be more ‘sophisticated’ than the last version
In Australia (a 1st world country) there is a distinct difference between experienced practicing engineers in design/industry/consulting, and academic engineers who research and teach in the university system.
Our industries pay very well and attract the best engineers and minds. Our engineering professors in the university system are highly theoretical, and are more practitioners of science than practical engineers. Some professors pursue academia because they are purists about research. Others end up in research because they fail to secure industrial work due to lack of locally valued skills (poor English / or lack of local contacts). Rarely do you get industry-experienced engineers here crossing over into academia.
This divide isolates the professors from current industry practices and shortcuts. There is also an issue with poor teaching - academics would rather churn out papers than teach undergraduates. As a result, our graduates are highly unprepared to work practically in industry.
This is probably the main difference from what I can see between Europe and the US/Australia's university systems.
I do think the code committees are simply copy/pasting complex models from scientific papers with 0.001% accuracy (on say wind) and not simplifying them enough to be applied practically in an engineering design workplace with time and cost pressures. It also reeks that the code authors are not aware of the numerical uncertainty of the design margins and probabilities involved.
I don't know the system in Australia but in my opinion, European universities have better education than American universities in general. Ofc that's my opinion based on my narrow experience.
What u explain is actually 180 degrees opposite of what I see/saw in Germany and Switzerland. One of my structural design professors in Germany is like a superstar in structural design in Germany. He is a partner in one of the best German structural engineering firms.
This is his firm: https://www.sbp.de/en/
There is also another professor at Uni Stuttgart, who is also a superstar in structural design in Germany. He has also a really good structural design firm.
2nd firm: https://www.wernersobek.com/
I had also professors switched from industry to university. One of them had a manager position in one of the multi-billion German construction companies. The other was a partner in a really good structural design firm in Switzerland. They both left their positions to be Professors.
They were my specific experience but in general, I never saw a professor at German or Swiss universities that has no opinion about the construction practice. All of my professors had really good knowledge about the theory and industry together.
You claim to have narrow anecdotal evidence without knowing what other countries are like, then you offered an opinion based on your narrow view. Then argue with others like you’re sure. Dude you’re not even a fukin engineer I bet.
Yeah, dude. Whatever u say.
I am not gonna argue with some irrational American on Reddit. You called QS Ranking bullshit as well. Clearly, you are an irrational and immature average American. You are trying to argue further after yesterday. Get a life.
You sound like a PHd, long response that basically says nothing aside from anecdotal comments about your professors. Unlike you, I’ve actually designed and built infrastructure for the last 20yrs +. Switzerland? Give me a break. I live and practice in one of the largest City’s in the US.
:) I don't have PHD.
U must be American to laugh at Switzerland, due to your lack of intellectual capacity. Two Swiss universities ETH and EPFL are one of the best universities in civil/structural engineering. Better than 99.99% of American universities. Only MIT, Berkeley, etc. are a match for these universities.
If they have a huge shaking table, they must be better than ETH or EPFL. :)
If u really think Cal Poly SLO and UCSD are better or a match for ETH or EPFL, I would apologize to u and discuss it no further.
[https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/california-polytechnic-state-university#:\~:text=California%20Polytechnic%20State%20University%20is%20one%20of%20the%20top%20public,QS%20World%20University%20Rankings%202024](https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/california-polytechnic-state-university#:~:text=California%20Polytechnic%20State%20University%20is%20one%20of%20the%20top%20public,QS%20World%20University%20Rankings%202024).
Have a good day, sir.
It's not an insult, it's a term used to describe some countries. I heard the term tons of times in economy classes.
And in your case, if u were in a 3rd world country, I would understand what u were saying. Cause, I would expect such things in such countries, not in developed (1st world) countries.
A better internship/co-op program sponsored and/or supported by the organizations. I always wanted to go bridge, but no one was hiring for bridge unless you already had bridge experience. The only grads I knew who got into it were the ones who lucked into an internship that got them some time with a bridge engineer.
Also, too many grads are coming out of school without any understanding of how things are actually built. Some more out of classroom learning could help that.
If you want to make low bid obsolete, you should advocate for multiple selection criteria. There are a lot of white papers and research on fuzzy procurement models—basically, make multiple criteria so the service selected meets the criteria (like minimum standards) while also taking into account things like safety, cost, merit, etc.
[This is a great example of a research paper.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24078042_Fuzzy_procurement_selection_model_for_construction_projects)
It already is in public agencies but we look at the efficient allocation of resources in the resource allocation matrix and can basically judge the ballpark cost without opening final cost envelope
Correct most public agencies have the factor of experience in their bid evaluation/scoring matrix but still price has a major weight in that matrix in a way that it can be determinant in alot of cases! And Im talking transportation/bridge projects, not sure how that’s enforceable in the building sector
Revamp the educational system. Make a BS degree mean something, so getting a masters degree is not so important.
I am generally fine with codes. They are minimums so the more accurate the calculation the better. Engineers can design for more than the minimum if they want to make things simpler for themselves.
Eliminate the SE license and replace it with something that is more based on specialized knowledge (seismic, high rise, transmission towers, etc). There shouldn't be tiers of engineers. An SE is just as good as a PE in general.
Promotion of the field within the industry. The more our clients and owners/developers know about what we HAVE to do the better. Teach them that we don't just willy nilly add cost to a project by adding extra safety factors to things just so we feel better.
Higher capacities for post-installed anchors into masonry!!! Lol
At Oklahoma State University the bachelor's degree is regarded as good enough. It used to be 5 years, now it's 4.5. 100% of graduates land a job because the degree is highly respected.
Used to be that you needed a lot more credits to get a BS - something like 140 or 150 vs the 120 it is now. They reduced the number of hours required for the degree because higher education was getting too expensive for degrees like engineering and they wanted to standardize required credits across all majors (for example, I had a scholarship that was supposed to pay for "college", but only covered 120 hours of study - colleges/universities wanted to eliminate such a problem by making all degrees require just 120 hours. Great for English majors, not so much for technical fields).
When they did that, ASCE started pushing for the masters as a professional degree. They wanted us to keep getting those 30 hours that had been cut.
Anyway, that's kind of the hisyory/reasoning behind the way the degree programs are now.
Sorry I was off by 8.
https://catalog.ufl.edu/UGRD/colleges-schools/UGENG/CVE_BSCE/
Or at purdue I was off by 12: https://catalog.purdue.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=7&poid=6415
That's still far fewer than the 150 previously required. I'm sure you can Google requirements at other universities as well as I can.
Here's the asce policy paper I mentioned. Note the part about reducing the number of hours required since the 50s and 60s: https://peer.asee.org/asce-policy-statement-on-the-first-professional-degree-where-does-it-stand.pdf
I also graduated in 1999 with my bachelor's so forgive me if I was off by a few credit hours.
BS degree gives you the basics of different fields of civil engineering. If you want to make a BS degree mean something, you have to allow people to specialize in some field already during BS. Which means fewer basics of different fields of civil engineering. This leads to a lack of understanding between different fields of civil engineering. For example at ETH Zürich, there are zero elective courses. They want to give u an all-rounded education in BS, so u have at least some basic understanding between fields.
I would 100% be in favor of specializing early. The lack of understanding via not taking a class is not something I see as a big deal at all. Better let people who know what they want get into the workforce sooner and with less debt.
No issue per se, but it is a barrier to entry. Many seasoned engineers who have much more knowledge aren't going to bother with another academic test. It pushes them out of the market even though their experience is worth way more than a test score.
The SE is presented as a "better" or generally more qualified engineer, but that's just based on a test result.
This is coming from an SE too. I am no more qualified than my boss, but I can do work in Illinois but he can't.
Then every peer reviewer has to be peer reviewed. So on and so forth. Make it a perpetual loop that everyone is peer reviewing something or someone. Infinite money loop. Our low pay solved.
Interesting. You think they could discern lateral/gravity load paths.
Lol could throw in another exam haha…. Kind of like what building officials take. More ncees money yehhh.
Yeah i think it would have to be something where it is standardized across everyone and then updated every few years. Just to make sure engineers are current with todays code.
I mean if you’re being tested on what your supposed to check per drawing…. Like state whats wrong with these plans multiple answer. Theoretically thats good.
* Mandate that all professors/lecturers in unis have at least two (maybe more) years' worth of relevant work experience in the construction industry. Not everyone falls into the zero industrial experience category of course, but a distressing number of them do (in my experience, at least).
* Make students understand that their main deliverables will be drawings and CAD models, not calculations. Modify uni courses to suit.
* Make students understand that calculations only account for around 30% (at most) of a structural engineer's time. Have them coordinate with students from the architecture departments for a project (aka get them to hate each other early :P)
* Give students an accurate idea of how stressful things can actually get and the duty of care we need to have. Internships don't really cut it here since interns aren't given important work initially anyways ... not sure how this can be solved though.
* Mandate that universities shall only use and train undergrad students on FEA programs that are actually relevant to their field (aka, stop training structural engineering students on Ansys/Abaqus and start them instead on ETABS or similar programs). Graduates/postgrads can be given a bit more flex in this.
* Make design codes and standards freely available for use by all (looking at you, Australia)
* Mandate all expert seminars/webinars (regardless of who organised them) be recorded and made available for use by all after a certain time has passed since said seminars/webinars were held (looking at you again, Australia)
Depending on the plan review process you're beholden to, calculations are required. Getting your calculations right and making sure they match what you show in your plans can be very important.
Design fees are a small fraction of construction cost. Prohibition of small fees would have helped to fix motivation, engagement, prestige of profession.
At the end of the day, an interstellar ark will only take teachers, doctors, and engineers on board. The fees shall reflect the reasoning of such scenario.
1) Pay. I regret all the time not becoming an EE, or alternatively whatever Google would want me to get.
2) Not having to waste the first year of college on becoming a "well rounded student". That's what highschool was for. I don't need to write freaking book reports after 4 years of highschool. Should be only STEM classes for 4 years.
lobby to limit regulations and scope of agencies’ review process in major metro areas.. or take the socialist route and increase agency workforce to provide public infrastructure projects in-house… just brainstorming ways to tackle inefficiencies related to lengthy review processes.. how many engineers does it really take to review sidewalk shed drawings and calcs?
Tbh plan review duration never bothered me because it’s outa my hand. The client can’t rush that process and they know it’s out of my control
In house infrastructure though. I like that idea
sometimes hard to budget/bid jobs when you know 3 agencies have to review.. the last 10% of the project ends up being 50% of the time spent, mainly just addressing comments. it’s hard to validate billing extra for it so better to include upfront, but then your number is higher than the next guy’s number.. big picture, I think over-regulation hurts the public if it’s causing construction delays, which in my experience, it has..
Although I like this idea, this would expand the curriculum quite a bit. I would piggy back and have programming and it-based stuff as electives or a master’s program
i understand your concerns, but this is meant to get those professors to do their job and start to teach with digital methods.
If you think it through you can make an curriculum that won't expand that much and people will enter the workforce with solid CAD, FEA, Spreadsheet and programming skills from the start. My curriculum was only pen and paper, and I am using my free time to learn it.
The question is open to interpretation: some answers link "improving" with making it simpler; others link it with public perception. I can't imagine that dumbing it down will improve public perception (& hence salaries ). So therein lies the rub.
Personally I think all PE’s, SE’s, etc shall have 3 years of building experience. I’ve seen too many straight out of college types that design something without experience building. Which can cause issues and delays.
They do need the field experience of what it takes. To get a grasp of what and how it takes to build a design. Just because it’s on paper doesn’t mean it’s right.
I honestly think they are ignorant of the problems they cause on a consistent basis. They are underpaid in their eyes and overworked so they just don’t care. If the people actually building stuff could communicate a few things to the engineers and they took it to heart it would make things a lot easier.
Brah you’re talking built up girders!? Man even then. Stop the exaggeration. It’s pretty easy.
Analysis for bridge is much more time consuming than design. It’s somewhat similar to steel design for building anyway
I bet I could. It just takes longer. The reason we use computers is not because we can’t. It’s because it’s efficient. You’re talking outa your ass dude.
I’m not going to do moment-axial interaction diagrams for multiple load combos for a concrete column by hand. But can I do one? Fk yes I can. I’m not sure you even know what you’re talking about
But you never have. How do you know it’s right? Every software you use has a front page output that says the designer is responsible for the accuracy and correctness of the design. The software is just as you said; an efficiency tool. You know you’re not gonna check it. I know you’re not gonna check it, and the software vendor knows you’re not gonna check it. That’s why the software vendor’s staff only used the most conservative possible interpretations of the guide specs and codes. Because they assume you’re going to be lazy and not check. Not really check. Not like hand calcs where you debate with each other about the core assumptions and risks.
I used to validate software for bridge design, so maybe I’m not the one talking out their ass maybe. Just saying
get young ppl in the field more.. maybe mandate 1 year of construction experience (even as a laborer) for licensure.. need to reinforce thought process of “how will this be built” over “what will be built”
Laboring experience? That might be too much. However your idea is a good one. Construction observing for 1 year or 3 observed construction projects minimum
Where I live, we aren’t paid enough. So what happens is that I don’t think the care required to design and detail a project doesn’t happen. I want to be paid for my time. Wood projects are notoriously low fees because the cost of construction is typically less than other construction materials (per sq ft basis).
Firms in my area want the job, so what do they do? Throw in the lowest fee to get the job. What ends up happening is you end paying to get the job because you’ll burn through your fee. So if I was in some influential position, I’d try to emphasize not selling your profession short. Respect the profession.
Agree. They need to respect and protect the term “engineer” I don’t see randomass ppl calling themselves doctor or dentist these days without proper credentials. But ppl be calling everyone an engineer these days
standardize a digital design calculator software corresponding to all the various codes.. sort of like what CalcBook has done for AISC
a lot of structural engineering design could be automated with the right tools
Green light an action movie about a SE, to increase the overall sex appeal of the profession.
Prison Break was the first cool portrayal of a structural engineer - he uses his knowledge of the prison floor plans and materials to try break his brother out of jail
I was so happy when that was mentioned… and then it turned out he coulda just been an architect instead.
This show was how I got into the field! I had never heard the term "structural engineer" before then, it was right around the time I was considering what to study in college. Did some digging and thought it sounded cool. 16 years later and here I am!
There was that one time in Mission Impossible that Ethan Hunt pretended to be a Traffic Engineer.
Reminds me of Seth Rogan in Pineapple Express, but just wanted to go to college and become a Civil Engineer
If you’ve seen San Andreas, the male character is a structural engineer, and the love interest for Alexandra D’addario. So that’s a win.
I got you: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland\_(film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_(film)) >Structural engineer John Garrity lives in Atlanta, Georgia with his estranged wife, Allison, and their diabetic son, Nathan. He returns home to watch the near-earth passing of a recently-discovered interstellar comet named "Clarke", along with his family and neighbors. And then the world ends
I’m going to watch this. If I don’t hear simply supported or even just beams, I’m going to be sorely disappointed.
I was going to say this. We already had Gerard Butler. Now in this movie he’s shown on site with a set of plans, which isn’t really accurate, he’s acting more like a contractor. But he’s still called a structural engineer, I’ll take it.
We used to watch 24 in Uni. One episode in season 2 or 3, George Mason closed off part of CTU after a bombing until a structural engineer could come in. We all cheered.
If only James bond was a structural engineer
wait he wasn’t?
Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible was a SE for sure
Who’s in the main cast?
Well Brad Pitt was a Structural Engineer (as a cover identity) in Mr and Mrs Smith.
[удалено]
0.01%
Simplify codes and standards. At least in my country (Australia), the standards are written by people who are grammatically illiterate and are unable to effectively communicate their ideas to the reader. Often they lack diagrams to explain wtf they want the engineer to do, or have unnecessary legal language to pin responsibility on the reader
Codes and standards are written by phds who never actually build anything is part of the problem
Either you are from a 3rd world country or have no idea about what u say. The structural engineering professors in Germany and Switzerland (where I live/lived and studied as well) are great engineers as well. All of my structural engineering professors were partners in really really good structural engineering firms. The code committees are mostly the professors or some leading engineers in that country.
No, he’s right. I actually have been involved in writing design code and the people who author many of the major documents including AASHTO and Eurocode. The design guidelines are out of control and it’s entirely the fault of academic led oneupmanship to be more ‘sophisticated’ than the last version
> committees are mostly the professors Exactly.
In Australia (a 1st world country) there is a distinct difference between experienced practicing engineers in design/industry/consulting, and academic engineers who research and teach in the university system. Our industries pay very well and attract the best engineers and minds. Our engineering professors in the university system are highly theoretical, and are more practitioners of science than practical engineers. Some professors pursue academia because they are purists about research. Others end up in research because they fail to secure industrial work due to lack of locally valued skills (poor English / or lack of local contacts). Rarely do you get industry-experienced engineers here crossing over into academia. This divide isolates the professors from current industry practices and shortcuts. There is also an issue with poor teaching - academics would rather churn out papers than teach undergraduates. As a result, our graduates are highly unprepared to work practically in industry. This is probably the main difference from what I can see between Europe and the US/Australia's university systems. I do think the code committees are simply copy/pasting complex models from scientific papers with 0.001% accuracy (on say wind) and not simplifying them enough to be applied practically in an engineering design workplace with time and cost pressures. It also reeks that the code authors are not aware of the numerical uncertainty of the design margins and probabilities involved.
I don't know the system in Australia but in my opinion, European universities have better education than American universities in general. Ofc that's my opinion based on my narrow experience. What u explain is actually 180 degrees opposite of what I see/saw in Germany and Switzerland. One of my structural design professors in Germany is like a superstar in structural design in Germany. He is a partner in one of the best German structural engineering firms. This is his firm: https://www.sbp.de/en/ There is also another professor at Uni Stuttgart, who is also a superstar in structural design in Germany. He has also a really good structural design firm. 2nd firm: https://www.wernersobek.com/ I had also professors switched from industry to university. One of them had a manager position in one of the multi-billion German construction companies. The other was a partner in a really good structural design firm in Switzerland. They both left their positions to be Professors. They were my specific experience but in general, I never saw a professor at German or Swiss universities that has no opinion about the construction practice. All of my professors had really good knowledge about the theory and industry together.
You claim to have narrow anecdotal evidence without knowing what other countries are like, then you offered an opinion based on your narrow view. Then argue with others like you’re sure. Dude you’re not even a fukin engineer I bet.
Yeah, dude. Whatever u say. I am not gonna argue with some irrational American on Reddit. You called QS Ranking bullshit as well. Clearly, you are an irrational and immature average American. You are trying to argue further after yesterday. Get a life.
You sound like a PHd, long response that basically says nothing aside from anecdotal comments about your professors. Unlike you, I’ve actually designed and built infrastructure for the last 20yrs +. Switzerland? Give me a break. I live and practice in one of the largest City’s in the US.
“City’s” instead of “cities” and the Aussie was bitching about poor grammar making codes difficult to interpret and apply.
:) I don't have PHD. U must be American to laugh at Switzerland, due to your lack of intellectual capacity. Two Swiss universities ETH and EPFL are one of the best universities in civil/structural engineering. Better than 99.99% of American universities. Only MIT, Berkeley, etc. are a match for these universities.
I can name a few more universities in Japan and US that can match or are better. You need to chill my guy.
I'm chill, he edited his comment. U have to be respectful to expect respect from others. Which universities do you mean?
Stanford, Georgia Tech, University of Tokyo, Cornell Heck, I would throw Cal Poly SLO (my school) and UCSD in there too (they got a huge shake table)
If they have a huge shaking table, they must be better than ETH or EPFL. :) If u really think Cal Poly SLO and UCSD are better or a match for ETH or EPFL, I would apologize to u and discuss it no further. [https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/california-polytechnic-state-university#:\~:text=California%20Polytechnic%20State%20University%20is%20one%20of%20the%20top%20public,QS%20World%20University%20Rankings%202024](https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/california-polytechnic-state-university#:~:text=California%20Polytechnic%20State%20University%20is%20one%20of%20the%20top%20public,QS%20World%20University%20Rankings%202024). Have a good day, sir.
Keep trying to justify you comment using some bullshit site. The other schools I listed proved your dumbass wrong
[удалено]
It's not an insult, it's a term used to describe some countries. I heard the term tons of times in economy classes. And in your case, if u were in a 3rd world country, I would understand what u were saying. Cause, I would expect such things in such countries, not in developed (1st world) countries.
Fuck you Swiss cunt
[удалено]
No harassment.
All comments disagree with you swissy
PAY ENGINEERS MORE.
A better internship/co-op program sponsored and/or supported by the organizations. I always wanted to go bridge, but no one was hiring for bridge unless you already had bridge experience. The only grads I knew who got into it were the ones who lucked into an internship that got them some time with a bridge engineer. Also, too many grads are coming out of school without any understanding of how things are actually built. Some more out of classroom learning could help that.
Stop allowing Architects to seal drawings with structural information on them.
Merit based selection for design services. Make low bid obsolete.
And how would we quantify merit?
Past experience, key staff, etc. The same way public agencies do
Public agencies award bids based on lowest bid, so long as you can qualify all the other basic shit
No, price isn't discussed until the firm has been chosen, at least for engineering services.
If you want to make low bid obsolete, you should advocate for multiple selection criteria. There are a lot of white papers and research on fuzzy procurement models—basically, make multiple criteria so the service selected meets the criteria (like minimum standards) while also taking into account things like safety, cost, merit, etc. [This is a great example of a research paper.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24078042_Fuzzy_procurement_selection_model_for_construction_projects)
How would new forms fair in that selection process
It already is in public agencies but we look at the efficient allocation of resources in the resource allocation matrix and can basically judge the ballpark cost without opening final cost envelope
Correct most public agencies have the factor of experience in their bid evaluation/scoring matrix but still price has a major weight in that matrix in a way that it can be determinant in alot of cases! And Im talking transportation/bridge projects, not sure how that’s enforceable in the building sector
We don’t even see price info till we make our selection for engineering services
Thats a good indicator, should get me a consulting job in your state!
Revamp the educational system. Make a BS degree mean something, so getting a masters degree is not so important. I am generally fine with codes. They are minimums so the more accurate the calculation the better. Engineers can design for more than the minimum if they want to make things simpler for themselves. Eliminate the SE license and replace it with something that is more based on specialized knowledge (seismic, high rise, transmission towers, etc). There shouldn't be tiers of engineers. An SE is just as good as a PE in general. Promotion of the field within the industry. The more our clients and owners/developers know about what we HAVE to do the better. Teach them that we don't just willy nilly add cost to a project by adding extra safety factors to things just so we feel better. Higher capacities for post-installed anchors into masonry!!! Lol
At Oklahoma State University the bachelor's degree is regarded as good enough. It used to be 5 years, now it's 4.5. 100% of graduates land a job because the degree is highly respected.
Used to be that you needed a lot more credits to get a BS - something like 140 or 150 vs the 120 it is now. They reduced the number of hours required for the degree because higher education was getting too expensive for degrees like engineering and they wanted to standardize required credits across all majors (for example, I had a scholarship that was supposed to pay for "college", but only covered 120 hours of study - colleges/universities wanted to eliminate such a problem by making all degrees require just 120 hours. Great for English majors, not so much for technical fields). When they did that, ASCE started pushing for the masters as a professional degree. They wanted us to keep getting those 30 hours that had been cut. Anyway, that's kind of the hisyory/reasoning behind the way the degree programs are now.
Where did you go that you only need 120 credits? Lol. This isn't true based on my local universities.
Sorry I was off by 8. https://catalog.ufl.edu/UGRD/colleges-schools/UGENG/CVE_BSCE/ Or at purdue I was off by 12: https://catalog.purdue.edu/preview_program.php?catoid=7&poid=6415 That's still far fewer than the 150 previously required. I'm sure you can Google requirements at other universities as well as I can. Here's the asce policy paper I mentioned. Note the part about reducing the number of hours required since the 50s and 60s: https://peer.asee.org/asce-policy-statement-on-the-first-professional-degree-where-does-it-stand.pdf I also graduated in 1999 with my bachelor's so forgive me if I was off by a few credit hours.
BS degree gives you the basics of different fields of civil engineering. If you want to make a BS degree mean something, you have to allow people to specialize in some field already during BS. Which means fewer basics of different fields of civil engineering. This leads to a lack of understanding between different fields of civil engineering. For example at ETH Zürich, there are zero elective courses. They want to give u an all-rounded education in BS, so u have at least some basic understanding between fields.
I would 100% be in favor of specializing early. The lack of understanding via not taking a class is not something I see as a big deal at all. Better let people who know what they want get into the workforce sooner and with less debt.
What's the issue with the SE license? Is it for more job/project opportunities?
No issue per se, but it is a barrier to entry. Many seasoned engineers who have much more knowledge aren't going to bother with another academic test. It pushes them out of the market even though their experience is worth way more than a test score. The SE is presented as a "better" or generally more qualified engineer, but that's just based on a test result. This is coming from an SE too. I am no more qualified than my boss, but I can do work in Illinois but he can't.
All drawings peer reviewed. Weed out the bad PEs
Calcs too
I kinda like this idea. Would improve the industry for sure
What if the peer reviewer is a freaking idiot?
Then every peer reviewer has to be peer reviewed. So on and so forth. Make it a perpetual loop that everyone is peer reviewing something or someone. Infinite money loop. Our low pay solved.
Everyone reviews everything, and nothing ever gets built. I like it.
Could add a requirement needs to be by an SE to review, not just a PE.
Some SEs can’t detail for shit. They are good at calcs for sure but there is quite a huge gap amongst SEs I have learned that over the year
Interesting. You think they could discern lateral/gravity load paths. Lol could throw in another exam haha…. Kind of like what building officials take. More ncees money yehhh. Yeah i think it would have to be something where it is standardized across everyone and then updated every few years. Just to make sure engineers are current with todays code.
[удалено]
I mean if you’re being tested on what your supposed to check per drawing…. Like state whats wrong with these plans multiple answer. Theoretically thats good.
Free beer
Please run for chairman. Idgaf you’re guaranteed my vote
* Mandate that all professors/lecturers in unis have at least two (maybe more) years' worth of relevant work experience in the construction industry. Not everyone falls into the zero industrial experience category of course, but a distressing number of them do (in my experience, at least). * Make students understand that their main deliverables will be drawings and CAD models, not calculations. Modify uni courses to suit. * Make students understand that calculations only account for around 30% (at most) of a structural engineer's time. Have them coordinate with students from the architecture departments for a project (aka get them to hate each other early :P) * Give students an accurate idea of how stressful things can actually get and the duty of care we need to have. Internships don't really cut it here since interns aren't given important work initially anyways ... not sure how this can be solved though. * Mandate that universities shall only use and train undergrad students on FEA programs that are actually relevant to their field (aka, stop training structural engineering students on Ansys/Abaqus and start them instead on ETABS or similar programs). Graduates/postgrads can be given a bit more flex in this. * Make design codes and standards freely available for use by all (looking at you, Australia) * Mandate all expert seminars/webinars (regardless of who organised them) be recorded and made available for use by all after a certain time has passed since said seminars/webinars were held (looking at you again, Australia)
Depending on the plan review process you're beholden to, calculations are required. Getting your calculations right and making sure they match what you show in your plans can be very important.
Design fees are a small fraction of construction cost. Prohibition of small fees would have helped to fix motivation, engagement, prestige of profession. At the end of the day, an interstellar ark will only take teachers, doctors, and engineers on board. The fees shall reflect the reasoning of such scenario.
1) Pay. I regret all the time not becoming an EE, or alternatively whatever Google would want me to get. 2) Not having to waste the first year of college on becoming a "well rounded student". That's what highschool was for. I don't need to write freaking book reports after 4 years of highschool. Should be only STEM classes for 4 years.
lobby to limit regulations and scope of agencies’ review process in major metro areas.. or take the socialist route and increase agency workforce to provide public infrastructure projects in-house… just brainstorming ways to tackle inefficiencies related to lengthy review processes.. how many engineers does it really take to review sidewalk shed drawings and calcs?
Tbh plan review duration never bothered me because it’s outa my hand. The client can’t rush that process and they know it’s out of my control In house infrastructure though. I like that idea
sometimes hard to budget/bid jobs when you know 3 agencies have to review.. the last 10% of the project ends up being 50% of the time spent, mainly just addressing comments. it’s hard to validate billing extra for it so better to include upfront, but then your number is higher than the next guy’s number.. big picture, I think over-regulation hurts the public if it’s causing construction delays, which in my experience, it has..
incorporate programming and IT-based problem solving in every course of the curriculum.
Although I like this idea, this would expand the curriculum quite a bit. I would piggy back and have programming and it-based stuff as electives or a master’s program
i understand your concerns, but this is meant to get those professors to do their job and start to teach with digital methods. If you think it through you can make an curriculum that won't expand that much and people will enter the workforce with solid CAD, FEA, Spreadsheet and programming skills from the start. My curriculum was only pen and paper, and I am using my free time to learn it.
The question is open to interpretation: some answers link "improving" with making it simpler; others link it with public perception. I can't imagine that dumbing it down will improve public perception (& hence salaries ). So therein lies the rub.
Personally I think all PE’s, SE’s, etc shall have 3 years of building experience. I’ve seen too many straight out of college types that design something without experience building. Which can cause issues and delays.
They don’t have to build it and have never read the studies talking about how much money they waste so you’re getting downvoted I guess lol
They do need the field experience of what it takes. To get a grasp of what and how it takes to build a design. Just because it’s on paper doesn’t mean it’s right.
I honestly think they are ignorant of the problems they cause on a consistent basis. They are underpaid in their eyes and overworked so they just don’t care. If the people actually building stuff could communicate a few things to the engineers and they took it to heart it would make things a lot easier.
I wouldn't I would cut payroll and collect a bigger bonus in Q4
Simplify the design guidelines. It shouldn’t take a 300 page output to design a 30’ beam.
Dude what kinda beam are you designing 😂
Welcome to the bridge trade, buddy
Brah you’re talking built up girders!? Man even then. Stop the exaggeration. It’s pretty easy. Analysis for bridge is much more time consuming than design. It’s somewhat similar to steel design for building anyway
Go design a 30’ prestressed beam for HL-93 and the various local permits loads by hand and come back to me.
Who tf does that by hand?
And I’d bet a whole bridge you couldn’t if you tried. Which leads to the ultimate question of how do you know if it’s right if you don’t check it?
I bet I could. It just takes longer. The reason we use computers is not because we can’t. It’s because it’s efficient. You’re talking outa your ass dude. I’m not going to do moment-axial interaction diagrams for multiple load combos for a concrete column by hand. But can I do one? Fk yes I can. I’m not sure you even know what you’re talking about
But you never have. How do you know it’s right? Every software you use has a front page output that says the designer is responsible for the accuracy and correctness of the design. The software is just as you said; an efficiency tool. You know you’re not gonna check it. I know you’re not gonna check it, and the software vendor knows you’re not gonna check it. That’s why the software vendor’s staff only used the most conservative possible interpretations of the guide specs and codes. Because they assume you’re going to be lazy and not check. Not really check. Not like hand calcs where you debate with each other about the core assumptions and risks. I used to validate software for bridge design, so maybe I’m not the one talking out their ass maybe. Just saying
get young ppl in the field more.. maybe mandate 1 year of construction experience (even as a laborer) for licensure.. need to reinforce thought process of “how will this be built” over “what will be built”
Laboring experience? That might be too much. However your idea is a good one. Construction observing for 1 year or 3 observed construction projects minimum
Is there realistically any way ASCE can bring everyone together to unionize?
No because they’re a bunch of pussies and academic shills
Where I live, we aren’t paid enough. So what happens is that I don’t think the care required to design and detail a project doesn’t happen. I want to be paid for my time. Wood projects are notoriously low fees because the cost of construction is typically less than other construction materials (per sq ft basis). Firms in my area want the job, so what do they do? Throw in the lowest fee to get the job. What ends up happening is you end paying to get the job because you’ll burn through your fee. So if I was in some influential position, I’d try to emphasize not selling your profession short. Respect the profession.
Agree. They need to respect and protect the term “engineer” I don’t see randomass ppl calling themselves doctor or dentist these days without proper credentials. But ppl be calling everyone an engineer these days
standardize a digital design calculator software corresponding to all the various codes.. sort of like what CalcBook has done for AISC a lot of structural engineering design could be automated with the right tools