Non-degree licensed engineer grief 15

[Riversidean]

Hi all,

Is it actually a thing for engineers who went to school to discriminate against licensed engineers who never went to school? I have a friend whose father never went to school, but became a licensed civil engineer. She told me that engineers who went to school would give him crap for never going to school and not trust his work until he became respected. I've also seen an incident in my workplace where a individual got a engineering license in a field he did not take in college. Is this just a jealousy thing because someone studied on their own and got the license without the schooling and money being spent? Or do people feel that being able to get a engineering license without a college education cheapens the license?

For the record I admire people who are able to get licensed if they never got that "official" education.

-Riversidean

 

[bimr]

Roman structures that have been constructed over 2000 years ago and still standing were designed by what we term now non degree engineers.

Right, Stonehenge, the Moai, and Mayan sanctuaries are still standing too.

 

[JAE]

It’s amazing what non-degrees engineers can do with unlimited slave labor and lots of rocks.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[chicopee]

"It’s amazing what non-degrees engineers can do with unlimited slave labor and lots of rocks" At least those structures are still standing whereas structures designed by degreed engineers have crumbled from the end of the 19th century to the present. Now let's see for examples, be the space frame roof collapse of the Hartford Civic Center. Collapses of structures throughout the USA and the world from winds. About highway bridges collapsing? Non degreed engineers, by our standard,during the medieval times have designed and constructed European cathedrals such as Notre Dame in Paris. About the Patheon in Rome, a real engineering feat for its time and still standing. About the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople albeit somewhat modified by the Muslems to convert the structure from a Chritian church to a mosque.

 

[JAE]

So the best way is to avoid formal education and use slave labor and your structures will stand forever? Got it, thanks.







Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[Retrograde]

At least those structures are still standing whereas structures designed by degreed engineers have crumbled from the end of the 19th century to the present.

I do not think it is sensible to extrapolate from three examples that things were better in ancient times. There are loads of examples of ancient engineering failures. In fact, one of the examples you list, the Hagia Sophia, has had the main dome collapse and had to be rebuilt at least once.

 

[bimr]

At least those structures are still standing whereas structures designed by degreed engineers have crumbled from the end of the 19th century to the present.

Have you overlooked structures like the Fidenae stadium (built during the Roman empire) in your comparison.

In 27 AD, an amphitheater, constructed by an entrepreneur named Atilius, collapsed in Fidenae resulting in by far the worst stadium disaster in history with anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 dead and wounded out of the total audience of 50,000. The Roman Senate responded to the tragedy by requiring that all amphitheaters to be built in the future be erected on a sound foundation, inspected and certified for soundness.

Since the design life (as well as the functional life) for most structures is measured in decades, this comparison seems to be an exercise in futility.

 

[chicopee]

So, the point to all of these replies is that regardless who is the architect/ designer/ engineer, structures have either stood the test of time or collapse by the work from non-degreed professionals and now in our modern time, similar problem are occurring by the work of degreed professionals. So the more things change, the more they remain the same.

 

[TheDW]

"So, the point to all of these replies is that regardless who is the architect/ designer/ engineer doctor, structures patients have either stood the test of time or collapse lived or died by the work from non-degreed professionals and now in our modern time, similar problem are occurring by the work of degreed professionals. So the more things change, the more they remain the same."

 

[JAE]

I think the point of this thread, originally, was about how various degreed engineers give out crap to non-degreed engineers.
I am degreed but I for one don't do that to others...see no reason to and have never seen it happen.

The thread then devolved into the topic of whether non-degreed engineers can be successful (some can and some can't) and whether they are competent (they can be certainly but some are disasters) and then it moved to justifying non-degreed engineers based on pyramids, which is not a necessary thing to do.





Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
faq731-376

 

[lacajun]

I haven't worked with an non-degreed Professional Engineer. I have worked with other non-PEs, who discriminated against me. That is even more wrong than what you complain about.

As I read history, the government steps in when the private sector fails and fails repeatedly. As the industrial revolution evolved and engineering designs became more complex, more failures occurred and government stepped in to regulate professions.

Many states no longer offer the non-degreed, experience only route to engineering. And many states have limitations on the number of times the FE and PE can be taken. For example, Texas offers three tries, for one application, to pass the PE exam. If you do not pass it by the 3rd try, you have to get at least another year of engineering experience or complete 6 more credit hours of engineering school courses before you can re-apply for another 3 tries.

That is wise, in my estimation, in view of the Peanut Company of America, ConAgra, Blue Bell, formerly BP's Texas City Refinery, Schlitterbahn, Deepwater Horizon, Imperial Sugar Copmany, etc. The list is long and those are simply the ones that made national headlines. Many other accidents happen, including fatalities, that never get much exposure beyond the local news.

It is, indeed, at the very foundation to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public by government officials. The power of the police state is mentioned many times in California statutes and California is cited in Colorado statutes. Government and its regulation have a purpose, a legitimate purpose. Are they perfect? No. But they are better than chaos and catastrophe.


Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:

http://nspe-co.org/events.php

 

[IRstuff]

The only industry watch dog I've seen that seems to be doing a bang-up job is the IIHS, which is the insurance industry looking for a profit angle by badgering the auto manufacturers into building better cars. It's obviously still about profits, but public safety improvements do manage to come out of it because there's a clear antagonistic role for IIHS against the auto makers. Now, if the IIHS was supposed to police the insurance industry, that would possibly have totally different outcome altogether.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Riversidean]

I have seen and heard of many professionally engineered projects fail like the recent bridge collapse in Florida; Many licensed engineer projects that fail become case studies. I am not saying licensing is a bad and pointless regulation, but I would not say that licensing makes an engineer infallible. I do not think that it is impossible for individuals to be self-taught. Having gone to school and gotten a degree I know how the education system works. Frankly I switched classes sometimes because I couldn't understand my professor (because they were foreign college grads) or I found them unable to teach and they were only there because the University forced them to teach if they wanted to do research there.

https://www.eng-tips.com/

 

[bimr]

doing a bang-up job is the IIHS,

A cynic would argue with that.

Many do not realize the way that insurance works. The insurance company model is to make money by holding and investing the premiums between the time that the premiums are paid to the insurance company and the time that the insurance company pays out ALL of the money in claims.

Anything that the IIHS does to make a vehicle more expensive benefits the insurance industry with increases in premiums. The more expensive the vehicle is, the more expensive is the insurance.

Many of the supposed safety features also tend to make drivers exhibit more reckless behavior because the drivers are now relying on the safety features to save them in an accident.

Don't take this the wrong way, but the IIHS is self-serving the insurance industry.

 

[lacajun]

IRstuff, I gotta' agree with bimr on IIHS.

Riversidean, I suspect all of us had that experience. I had professors, US born and naturalized citizens, that were difficult to understand. I picked up as much as possible from them, studied hard on my own, and picked up tidbits from other courses, where applicable. But, I had those experiences and overcame them just as you and so many others do. But, even those hard-to-understand professors provide enough structure to learn. Some of my grades were lower because I couldn't understand the professors but that's part of life, too.

I've talked to other professionals about licensure w/out benefit of requisite education. One consistent theme that comes across is protecting the public and it's the whole cultural experience of getting <insert applicable degree>. I'll admit each school has its own culture and it's an important experience.

Licensure doesn't make one infallible just as not having licensure doesn't make one infallible. At least having the PE after one's name tells someone that you have passed the FE and PE and that you are answerable to the state. Not having the PE doesn't relay any information. With the PE, in most states, others know you attended a vetted engineering school, passed the FE, got four years of experience, four other PEs recommended you, and you passed the PE. The PE conveys quite a bit of other information about an individual. Not having the PE in most states doesn't convey anything. Anyone can walk in and claim to be an engineer even though they're not and they do. But, do you really know they're a graduate from an engineering school? Did they learn enough to be a half-way decent engineer? How many people walk around with a transcript or diploma? The PE means at least an individual met some minimum standard of performance. That's true in all professions.

I often heard people at Marathon say, "If it was good enough for my grandfather, it's good enough for me." My reply, "This is not your grandfather's refinery." It was a lot more complex than the refinery their grandfathers built. I've seen a lot more depth in the understanding of many aspects of my area of expertise and that's the way it goes. It would be exceptionally difficult for anyone to pass the PE and be successful today without an engineering education.


Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:

http://nspe-co.org/events.php

 

[IRstuff]

The IIHS has indeed made cars more expensive, but it now takes a lot more to create huge amounts of damage. There once was a time when a 5 mph backup collision would destroy the bumper and cause structural damage to the car as well. I was involved in a 25 mph rearend collision with, I think a Datsun hit by a 64 Impala which totaled the Datsun, and only resulted a pushed in bumper on the Impala and a puncture on the radiator in 1980. That same collision would likely only result in minor bumper damage today. IIHS and the insurance companies don't want expensive repairs, because that eats into the bottom line. The business model is collect the premiums and pay out as little as possible. Now, an expensive car does call for higher premiums, but the insurance company does not want expensive repairs, because that doesn't help the bottom line, and they know that cranking the car price up will reduce the demand for cars and the demand for insurance, so there's a delicate line that IIHS walks to bully-pulpit the car companies to make the cars survive harder collisions, and there's no doubt that such is the case, just as in the case of race cars that can now survive crashes that would have left nothing but debris on the raceway 20 year ago. There was recently a story about a toddler who survived an accident that resulted in its mother dying, but the toddler climbed out the wreck and was able to get help for its baby sibling.

There was a time when American cars with (literally) tons of Detroit steel were essentially tanks, but the 70's resulted in much lighter, and wimpier, cars that could barely survive someone sneezing. I think IIHS gets a lot of the credit for forcing the car makers to go beyond the DoT minimum testing requirements.

I absolute agree that IIHS is serving the insurance industry, but they make even more money if they don't pay out ANY claims; which is their best case scenario, expensive cars-- expensive premiums--zero payouts.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[GregLocock]

This is a graph I'm proud of - the red line is deaths per vehicle mile travelled.. The IIHS helps.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[bimr]

This is a graph I'm proud of - the red line is deaths per vehicle mile travelled.. The IIHS helps.

Not sure what the point is as you may change the labels from automobile to airplane, or railroads, or NASCAR, or whatever and essentially show the same declining death rates.

Don't believe that the IIHS efforts are affecting comparable graphs from those other areas.

Don't take it the wrong way, unless the statistical data is compared to a control group, the data is just showing trends and can't be attributed to a single factor. There are all sorts of factors that distort the statistics such as more educated population, better roads, more lighting, etc.

Finally, most of the decline in death rates actually came before the IIHS was founded in 1959.

 

[lacajun]

Insurance companies have their place in society but a lot of factors have changed the way they operate. And don't forget laws that govern their operation, too, and that they can influence politicians to pass laws that favor them not the insured.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:

http://nspe-co.org/events.php

 

[GregLocock]

I'm not attributing that graph solely to IIHS, it is part of an ecosystem that is pushing things the right way.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[ACtrafficengr]

The insurance industry really wants to reduce injury and fatality crashes, since those are the ones that cost the most. This list comes from FHWA, so it includes other costs besides insurance payouts. It is a bit dated, but the orders of magnitudes of different severity levels probably have not changed much.

Crash Costs by Injury Severity Level
[ul]
[li]Fatality (K) $4,008,900[/li]

[li]Disabling Injury (A) $216,000[/li]

[li]Evident Injury (B) $79,000[/li]

K,A and B severities (weighted average) $158,200

[li]Possible Injury (C) $44,900[/li]

[li]Property damage only (O) $7,400[/li]
[/ul]


A lot of people don't get it when I'll accept an increase in overall crashes in exchange for a reduction in injuries and call it a good trade.



My glass has a v/c ratio of 0.5

Maybe the tyranny of Murphy is the penalty for hubris. -

http://xkcd.com/319/