Liability of Unsealed/Unstamped Design/Calculations 8

[Jerehmy]

Hello,

Here's my issue. I'm an EIT who thought about making some extra cash on freelance job sites. I've been offered a job to design a retaining wall, but I'm having second thoughts because I don't want to put myself at risk legally.

Am I liable for a design if it is unsealed? Am I allowed to accept payment for the design since I'm not professionally registered?

They're just calculations, what they do with them is their responsibility. Is this a valid argument?


Thanks.

 

[ztengguy]

Im just thinking that you could have received just as good of education at another school, and not paid thru the teeth. Hopefully it pays off and you get out of civil/structural engineering and make some real money, haha.

 

[steellion]

Ztengguy, I don't think it is appropriate to call engineering graduate school a "waste of money". Many structural engineering firms now won't even consider an applicant that doesn't have an advanced degree. Especially an entry-level employee, especially in this economy where employers can afford to be picky. Also, my state is considering requiring a Master's degree or equivalent to be able to sit for the P.E. exam (those already licensed, of course, would be grandfathered in).

 

[msquared48]

Although I never got my masters in engineering, the extra two years of study helped to solidify the previous four years, and expand my theoretical and practical thinking abilities. Coupled with over 30 years of experience, it was not wasted.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

 

[TDIengineer]

Wow.. long thread... They beat you up good Jeremy.. But is purely out of sadistic love..

lol

A stupid questions is the one never asked.

 

[ztengguy]

@ steellion, 90K for a graduate degree is a waste of money. My opinion; written down for all to see.

 

[a2mfk]

ZT - perhaps a kinder way to put it is there are less expensive alternatives. Graduate school itself is fine, but graduating with the debt of a med student or attorney without those types of salaries is a rough way to start one's career. That is way more than my sister's 4 years of optometry school cost her. There are two girls in my office who got their master's and had TA positions and got out pretty much break even, from a pretty well respected state university.

I see it as he bought a Mercedes and now he is not liking the payments, doesn't make the car better or worse....

However, is it a WASTE of money?
We are engineers, so lets check the numbers, and there are similar studies out there in Money Magazine and other places that compare a high school grad, a BS degree and a MS Degree. Besides just pay, maybe you get job edges over other candidates and may be more selective in your job choices, and can move up faster. Maybe.

I selected a few terms that I think are conservative, its just for an illustration. Annual interest rates, compounded monthly:

Loan: $160k @ 4%, 30 years. Total payment= $275k

Additional salary over 30 year career, on average, after taxes- $500 per month, invested at 6% in a tax free retirement account:
$500 per month, 30 years. Total= $502k

 

[ztengguy]

Sorry, but I guess I am not one to sugar coat, just call it as I want.

 

[Jerehmy]

I didn't have much of a choice in location, I had to stay close to home to see my daughter on weekends. Therefore I couldn't shop around much for a cheaper institution.

 

[Archie264]

The most offensive thing on this thread is the discussion of state boards requiring a masters degree in order to get licensed. That's nothing more than an intentional barrier to entry, the likes of which Milton Friedman documented and predicted in his doctoral dissertation. It's obscene to require that and further burden people trying to start out when it's not needed.

And yes, I have a master's degree and yes, I'm licensed.

 

[Jerehmy]

Logically, to me, it doesn't make sense. Just like only being able to take the EIT from accredited university programs makes no sense.

If the test is adequate, it should determine if you are capable. Why does it matter where your degree is from? The way it should be, IMO, is a degree from an accredited university waves the EIT examination if your GPA is above a certain criteria. If you aren't from an accredited university program, you can take the test to be an EIT.

For the PE, if the test adequately tests your knowledge, why does a certain degree matter more than another? It's as if they don't trust their examination process.


The requirement for a graduate degree will make PE's scarcer in the future and possibly increase salaries though.

 

[kylesito]

ASCE is supporting this required Master's degree for licensure with their "raise the bar" initiative. Although traditionally a big supporter of ASCE, this one thing I am very opposed to them on. I've had master's and even graduate students that I wouldn't let me design a way out of a paper bag. While education is still valuable, the push for universities to increase enrollment and for faculty to engage in research means that the emphasis for schools is to increase profits...not better educate students. Plus, since most of the faculty I have encountered are not proponents of registration, it seems like this initiative is aimed in the wrong direction.

I think we need to increase the standard for licensure but the effort should be made towards specialized licensing (structural, environmental, geotechnical, etc), not towards requiring more education. This is going to do little except make getting licensed much more expensive and therefore cut the number of available engineers.

PE, SE
Eastern United States

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then that builder shall be put to death!"
~Code of Hammurabi

 

[Archie264]

"...and therefore cut the number of available engineers."

And that is the whole point, that is, that is the goal, not a side effect. Barriers to entry are a good thing for those already admitted, who, incidentally, are the ones sitting on the boards who decide such things. Not so good a deal for the public at large, though, who has to pay more for the fewer remaining engineers who can then charge higher prices. And not so good for the struggling students who have to decide whether make such an otherwise necessary sacrifice in time and tuition or to simply seek a field with less barriers to entry. And not so good, ultimately, to the engineering profession when some of the best and brightest do the math and decide that it's not worth it.

 

[Archie264]

^^^ Should read, "...an otherwise unnecessary sacrifice..."

Is there an edit button that I'm overlooking?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

This discussion has reminded me of an issue that I faced earlier in my career. At the time, I didn't feel there were any ethical issues. But, after reading this thread, I'm not so sure. I'd be curious to see what other people think on the subject.

I was a registered PE at the time, but only in California. We were doing some work for a small industrial plant. Very multi-disciplinary type of project. Piping, process, electrical, structural. I was the lead structural engineer on the project. The client ended up wanting to build a "test" version or proof version of the plant closer to their headquarters out of state. This required that we re-engineer some of our existing designs to work for the new site. But, it also meant that the site would be out of state and I couldn't stamp any of the drawings.

We raised the issue to the client (and our project management team) early on and I believe it was written into the contract that they would need to get the structural aspects of the design reviewed and stamped by a local engineer. Though there was not any discounting of our normal fee to allow them the budget to do so.

Did they ever actually get those drawings reviewed and stamped? I believe so. Although I had virtually no interaction with that engineer, I had some interaction with the plan-check department at the city.

At the time, I felt comfortable with the situation. The company I was working for had deep pockets and would certainly be more of a target for any lawsuit than I would be. Plus, I trusted the project management team and contract lawyers to have worked out the details. Now, after reviewing this thread, I'm not as comfortable with the situation. Is that a situation where I could have been said to be "performing engineering without a license" in that state?

 

[steellion]

Logically, to me, it doesn't make sense. Just like only being able to take the EIT from accredited university programs makes no sense.

If the test is adequate, it should determine if you are capable. Why does it matter where your degree is from? The way it should be, IMO, is a degree from an accredited university waves the EIT examination if your GPA is above a certain criteria. If you aren't from an accredited university program, you can take the test to be an EIT.

For the PE, if the test adequately tests your knowledge, why does a certain degree matter more than another? It's as if they don't trust their examination process.

Sorry, I don't agree with this as all. We're going to give a engineering license to anyone that can pass a multiple-guess test? I think the degree, experience, and testing barriers all make sense.

 

[steellion]

Requiring a master's degree (or a +30 credit requirement) would be a seismic shift in the industry. It would elevate the role of the engineer as professional closer to doctors and lawyers. Is that really a bad thing? How often do we complain that engineers don't get enough respect. Economically, it would increase the barriers to entry, which would decrease the number of engineers, which would increase engineers' salary, which would in turn increase the number of people going into engineering for the higher salaries. Tens of thousands of law students every year determine that $150k of student debt is worth it based on the salaries they can make after school.

 

[Archie264]

Here's a link to a five minute video where Milton Friedman argues to a group of medical doctors at the Mayo Clinic that there should not be licensure of medical professionals.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/milton-friedman-argues-for-no-licensure.html

And here's a link to the chapter in his book where he goes into in greater detail.

http://books.cat-v.org/economics/capitalism-and-freedom/chapter_09

The most important point he makes is that it leads to worse service to the public. Whether you agree or disagree please don't overlook that part of his argument.

 

[paddingtongreen]

It would be sad if there is only one route to registration. I would not have made it, I made my way via the National Certificate system in the UK and there are many like me. In getting my Ordinary National, I was intrigued by to find out why three different methods of analyzing a truss got the same answers, how were they equivalent? Then came half a dozen ways of calculating statically indeterminate structures, I had to figure why they were equivalent. I read books, picked people's brains and figured some things out for myself. I started the Higher national but quit when I realized it would be three years before I learned anything new. Back then, you only had to know your stuff to be employed at it.

Here in PA, I documented 14 years of suitable experience and took the exams. Note, it is not just the exams that count, you need recommendations from PEs who have supervised you.

I took the PE on a Friday, and the EIT next day and passed both.

Do you really want to shut out people like me?

A degree says that your education has reached a certain stage, lack of a degree does not say the opposite. One of my tasks was to teach the recent grad hires how to use the "toolbox" the brought from college. This was often, difficult.

Michael.
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." ~ Tim Minchin

 

[steellion]

I'm not advocating the requirement that everyone needs a Master's degree. I am playing devil's advocate perhaps because I understand their logic, and I do want to see the stature of "engineer" improve among the gen. pop. But I think that anyone that takes the simultaneous positions that engineers should be held in the same regard as doctors and lawyers, while only requiring half the schooling is being disingenuous.

Archie, we'll have to agree to disagree about the importance of licensure. I think getting rid of the engineering license requirements is absurd and is counter to the first axiom of the engineering code to protect public safety and welfare. I want to know that the engineer that designed the structure that I am in right now has met all of the requirements for licensure.

 

[fel3]

Here are my thoughts regarding the idea that a Master's Degree should be a prerequisite for engineering licensing:

I graduated from the VERY expensive California State University, Fresno, in 1980 (~$100/semester for fees plus books and supplies). My undergraduate Civil Engineering program had 96 semester units in the major. This overlapped with the requirement for 4 semesters of Calculus/DifEq (16 units), three semesters of Physics (12 units), two Semesters of chemistry (8 units), and geology (4 unis). By overlap, I mean that some of these courses counted on the general ed side of the ledger and some on the CE side of the ledger…I just don't remember the exact split. In addition were other general ed courses such as English, History, PolySci, etc. Y'all probably had similar program requirements if not more.

My total program was scheduled for 134 units in 8 semesters (an average of 16.75 units/semester, but as you know lab classes makes this feel like more, especially when you work through college like I did). I graduated with 136 units, but had to add a 9th semester for my one-unit senior project report (problems with the hydraulics lab delayed completion until after finals week of my 8th semester). In my entire program, all but maybe 3 units was picked out already or limited to a very short list of alternatives.

At the time (and it may still be true today), California law limited the graduation requirement for a Bachelor's Degree at its institutions to 124 semester units and 40 to 48 units in the major…except for nursing and engineering. I had friends in easier programs who were able to double major or major/minor and still had it easier. Nobody I knew in engineering even attempted this.

My point in reciting these dreary facts is to point out that an engineering Bachelor's Degree is more work than a Bachelor's + Master's Degree in most if not all other fields. Calling our initial degree a "Bachelor's Degrees" is a misnomer, but we're not going to change that. One of my professors back in the day told me that he thought the initial degree for an engineering major should be a Master's and not a Bachelor's with maybe only a few additional units thrown in as a sop to the other departments (I am paraphrasing, but not losing his meaning). The fact is, we have essentially earned a Master's Degree by completing our Bachelor's Degree even if no one else believes it.

My dad has a BS in Petroleum Engineering and an MA in Education. He told me that any one semester of his Bachelor's Degree program was at least twice as hard as his entire Master's Degree program.

==========
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill