Revisiting Structural Engineering as a Profession vs Trade (Reboot from 2019) 9

[MJB315]

thread507-459807

I'd like to reboot one of my favorite threads on this forum -- the one where Kootk explains how structural engineering is a trade and that the way that our business models work is by keeping early-stage engineers in the dark about the economics.

There's more to it, but that was one of my core takeaways. You can find the entire thread here and I'll bring in the core of the piece below for convenience.

I'd like to reboot this thread by:

[ol 1]
[li]Providing some background;[/li]
[li]Asking the $100k (USD) question, and;[/li]
[li]Asking for the contrary opinions and advice. [/li]

I'll also copy and paste a few of Kootk's points from 2019 for reference at the bottom.
[/ol]

Background

I'm a structural engineer in my late thirties practicing engineering in New York State. I have a bachelors and masters in Civil Engineering (Structures Focus), practiced at three dedicated structural firms (50 people, 3 people, 10 people) and a multidisciplinary engineering firm (150 people). I've worked on my fair share of projects and for the most part, generate successful outcomes in them. I'm a licensed PE and formerly an SE (I have the quals, but just let the license lapse).

I started questioning my own career path into engineering early on in the process. I started questioning how anyone actually chooses career paths. I mentored and shifted into education (teaching Civil Engineering and Construction Technology) to explore it more. I started a start-up devoted to understanding how professionals act and think in a local geography and use video, VR, and human networks to try to expose students to the career paths that surround them. I'm in this pot, stirring the stew.

$100,000 Question.

The best way to approach career discovery with the typical high schooler tends to start with money. Not starting salary money, but a number like $100,000/year (USD). If you ask a student if they'd like to learn more about local careers and pathways -- they don't say no, but they don't exactly sit up. If you ask them if they'd like to understand the ways they can make $100K within ten years of graduation, they do. The quality of the discussion tends to increase from there, but money (of course) is important.

There are lots of discussions about work life balance, curiosity, duty, earnings in middle and advanced ages, etc...that we could add in here. Pros understand burn out. Pros understand the common desire to shift paths and try something new, finances be darned.

Students do not however. And as an educator (and as one who has been "educated"), I'm mortified that the economics of engineering is not a cornerstone of our national curricula. I know why we "say" that we do not teach it (there is so much technical material that we have to teach) but the truth is, there is time and I don't think it's in firms (therefore our industry's) interest to do so.

I think we collectively feel (fear?) that if understand the economics, they'll shift. I say, if we don't tell them and they find out later - they'll shift anyway... at a great opportunity cost to nearly everyone involved.

Going back to, "Can a Structural Engineer earn a $100,000/year within ten years of high school?" I feel like the answer is no. Fifteen-twenty years, probably.

Construction Project Management? Yes. Many other skilled trades, possibly. But engineering, no.

Push Back

Is there anything about that understanding that is inaccurate? If you're in a class full of high schoolers or college students, what do you say? What should you say?

I'm literally asking. Because as I make more career discovery content - I feel like the heavy equipment operator pathway is getting more love than the PE/SE with Two Degrees Pathway. At least to an 18 year old.

As a thirty-eight year old, I like having the club in my bag. Because I know that clients aren't just paying for product - they're paying to have someone take uncertainty away and they like doing so by someone they know and like. I also know it becomes a different way to make a $100K, which may be more appealing as we age.

But again, I'm focused on the question of what should we say to students?


--
Here's a few excerpts from the 2019 thread which I think resonate. The thread overall is great of course, here's two of Kootk's points.

START KOOTK's DEFINITION OF A PROFESSION

As humans toil away, I propose that they get paid for two things:

1) The effort/labor that they put into producing their product, on a product by product basis.

2) The requisite knowledge that a practitioner must posses in order to successfully product their product.

A profession is work where compensation is dominated by knowledge rather than effort.

A trade is work where compensation is dominated by effort rather than knowledge.

Some applications of this definition.

3) Landscapers (my son last summer). 5% knowledge; 95% effort. Trade (or unskilled trade I suppose). Bodies functioning as machines.

4) The Plumber that fixes my dishwasher. 30% knowledge; 70% effort. Trade (skilled).

5) Surgeon that replaces my pacemaker. 95% knowledge; 5% effort. Profession.

6) Structural engineer?? I would say 30% knowledge; 70% effort. Trade (skilled).

But wait? Didn't I go to school for six years to get my masters? Didn't I take a dozen arcane licensing exams to prove my worth? Yeah, you did. But remember that we're not talking about what you had to do to be able to legally practice structural engineering. Instead, we're talking about what your actually getting paid for when your client contracts for your services. I submit that we're mostly getting paid for effort. In a way, structural engineering is a particularly cruel form of a trade. Imagine if plumbers had to endure six years of post secondary and endless post graduation exams and professional development?

END DEFINITION

And...

Yes, issues with schedules, fees, and quality are the day to day nuisances. But, then, why do these things bother me really? All that just falls under the umbrella of "work", right? For me, these things are bothersome because they put me at odds with my own integrity almost constantly. Since we're talking big threes:

1) If an alien landed on earth and read all of our codes and design guides, they would have one impression of what structural engineers should be doing in regard to detail and rigor in design. Then, if they observed what practicing structural engineers actually do, they'd be horribly disappointing and confused. We take shortcuts. And lots of them. In fact, this is one of the first difficult lessons that new structural engineers must learn in a hurry. For me, this discrepancy between what I feel that I should be doing and what I'm actually doing is a challenge to my integrity. I tell the world that I'm delivering one product in terms of rigor and safety and then I turn around and deliver something quite different. I'm lying to the world in this respect.

2) As pointed out above, we have to commit to very aggressive schedule in order to keep winning work. This inevitably leads to agreeing to unrealistic schedules that give little account to reasonable contingencies. Yet I agree to these schedules because I feel that I have to to survive. This is me knowingly committing to delivering something that I know that I often wont be able to deliver. This is me lying to my clients and fellow project participants.

3) It is the low paid efforts of junior engineers that make our business model go 'round. Since most structural engineers get into the game to satisfy their inner nerd, the only way to keep such engineers motivated is to perpetuate their misunderstanding that society places a high value on the activity that is structural design. As a senior structural engineer, I'm guilty of this on a near constant basis. You can't very well motivate a junior by telling them "the only way to make any money at this is to get out of design and into management or sales as fast as you can". Again, this is me lying... now to junior engineers.

As structural engineers, we like to facetiously toss around the concept that we lose sleep over our work. You know, stuff falling down and crushing baby carriages etc. The truth is that none of that costs me any sleep. What does cost me sleep is my being constantly at odds with my own integrity as I've described. I think that a practicing structural engineer would actually be well served by some degree of sociopath in this respect. And, indeed, I know of some mild sociopaths that are wildly successful in structural engineering and make it look easy.

 

[bookowski]

To some degree this is already out there for architecture and zoning. I haven't looked at them in depth and i'm sure people will poke holes in what exists now but we're at year 0.

Here's one example for architecture.

https://www.buildflowai.com/

and for zoning:

https://www.deepblocks.com/

and wood design:

https://daisy.ai/

I don't see much long term opportunity but I do see short term. In 20 years I think we're screwed. In 3 years I think that with AI I can convince someone that I can do a 1,000ft tall building. I don't need to be doing this in 20 years.

I also suspect many have not actually tried AI to do some actual work. Having done this has completely changed my opinion.

 

[KootK]

I don't see much long term opportunity but I do see short term.

In broad strokes, I agree that all forms of change always result in some form of short term opportunity for someone. That's just econ 101: all innovation based advantages are exploitable and temporary.

I also suspect many have not actually tried AI to do some actual work. Having done this has completely changed my opinion.

Can you elaborate upon how your opinion has changed? I think that your opinion has been changed such that you view AI as more capable than you thought it to be before. That said, I can also read your statement as rolling the other way.

 

[bookowski]

I agree that all forms of change always result in some form of short term opportunity for someone

Yes, I was only concerned about my own future and being that someone.

I think that your opinion has been changed such that you view AI as more capable than you thought it to be before

I now view it far more capable than I had imagined. I also see using it in a completely different way. Prior to using it I had read about it and seen the clips of conversation such as the one posted above. This didn't impress me that much. My first impressive encounter was via a family member that was using it for actual technical work. I'm too lazy to recount the entire story but the very condensed version: a family member that has zero engineering education, no experience with any form of drafting software, and does not do coding was using it to sort out information for a crazy concept boat design via grasshopper, rhino, and some python. He had sliders where he could parametrically mess with the boat, determine the draw, material qty, etc. This was actual work that he does, not a neat q&a. I've since started testing it with work. So far I'm mostly messing around but I'm sold. No, it won't design anything for you but it's like an intern with a perfect memory, does not get insulted, and can code.

 

[YoungGunner]

But more than how fast AI develops is how quickly legislation develops with it. As of now, the legal requirements of having a stamp and the ethics surrounding that stamp of "responsible charge" protect us from getting overrun by any tech savy company. In order for tech to overcome our industry, the politicians would have to remove or rewrite license requirements. And we have time to raise red flags about job loss before that happens. Looking at the past 20 years of tech, I don't think we're going to see that in the next 20 years. The next 20 years, we'll just adapt to the tech that allows us to do our jobs faster, more efficient, but "dumbing down" the next generation of engineers who don't have to understand "why" little toggles do what they do, but that if they click it something bad happens.

For the sake of the OP question, it does seem like money is becoming more and more a factor of concern for the young generation, as inflation rises, social media reveals more about the working conditions of teachers and other low paying jobs that used to be admired (which used to be looked at for their job satisfaction with adequate pay - now poor satisfaction with inadequate pay), and as more tech jobs advertise higher wages. It is frustrating for me as a relatively recent grad with a masters to see my wife's cousin graduate with just a bachelors and making more RIGHT out of college than someone who's been out for a few years.

What faith then do we have in the industry? What reason to encourage students to join?
1) I still think this profession will have jobs in the future. Civil engineering in particular isn't going to die anytime soon, structural engineering may die sooner but not 20 years. So long as the world wants to continue building we will have something to do.
2) Job satisfaction. This job has the ability to capture the imaginative eye. We can still get a kick out of looking at a finished building knowing that we contributed to it.
3) Decent compensation. It's not the highest out there sure, and may be lower than other civil engineering disciplines, but it is still a technical job. If we see more abandon structural engineering for tech, then more money to those in structural engineering. As the test becomes harder, those who pass it will become more desirable. There is a way to get money in this industry, like many others, if you put in the work.
4) Chances of entrepreneurial life. I don't think it's often discussed how you can start your own business in structural engineering. Emphasizing the lucrative nature of business ownership if you find out how to get your company run by others and you retire off them buying the company from you. Our founder retired a couple years ago, and is in a 10-year plan to sell the company back to the rest of us (he started the company 20 years ago). I predict in the next 10 years, he'll have 2-3 million between stock distributions and the value of his stock.
5) Variety to the work. You don't just have to sit in an office - there is forensic opportunities or inspection opportunities. Opportunities to go on-site. I am still dumbfounded by the number of engineers who want to go into geotech and go outside in our freezing or blistering temperatures, but they want to do it. For those who worry about being stuck in an office, this has some appeal.
6) Better on your back. While some of those trades or other physically demanding jobs are lucrative, your back can only take so much. My brother is just getting into the plumbing industry (got his journeyman) and he talks about the plumber who is waiting to retire. Every few years a new vertebrae in his back is fused to prevent movement, and by the end of his career he won't have a bendable back. Lot of rhetoric in this, doesn't happen to everyone, but something to consider.

Just throwing a few thoughts in there. I think this is a great profession that has many downsides, as any profession does. There is no greener pasture, just a pasture with green in different assortment.

 

[NorthCivil]

There is a little sentiment of fear here about losing our jobs (or meaning? purpose in life?)

When the automobile came out, those in the horse business were fearful. With automobiles came an enormous boom in the economy along with huge employment opportunities and improved quality of life.

my grandmother made her living as a stenographer in corporate offices and she was damn proud of it. I couldn't dream of a worse career today, and there is a reason they don't exist anymore.

We have cars today, and no stenographers, but still have a serious labour shortage.

Whatever AI brings, it may render us all useless, but future generations (and likely even ourselves) will probably appreciate AI for it

 

[KootK]

...but in the meantime there will be a definite "who's going to take the time to develop a young engineer...

That's a great question and one that I do not have an answer to. As most recognize, the development of young engineers now is often a problem.

Maybe it'll go like this:

1) 80% of us will be disappeared by AI.

2) When all of us who knew the world pre-ChatGPT are done, perhaps regulatory requirements will still make it such that a few of us remain to tweak and check.

3) Taking a future SE grad from zero to the kind of skill that they would have possessed had they had 20 years of "real" experience in the before time will take a PhD + 10 years post doc.

4) Those seven engineers insanely keen enough to do the PhD and post doc will get paid $350K/annum because, once the SE supply glut is worked through, they will possess rarified skill.

 

[KootK]

There is a little sentiment of fear here about losing our jobs (or meaning? purpose in life?)

A little? Try a lot. Short of me or a member of my family actually dying, losing my profession and the sense of meaning that it brings me is about the worse thing that I can imagine happening. And, for me, the prospect that I might currently be toiling away in what may soon be a "dead" profession seriously detracts from the meaning that I derive from it in the present.

When the automobile came out, those in the horse business were fearful...we have cars today, and no stenographers, but still have a serious labour shortage.

Hop a plane over to the US rust belt, where I spent my 20's, and espouse that story. Those folks were sold the same bill of goods regarding automation and globalization: after a short adjustment period, they'd all have higher paying, more interesting jobs. 3+ generations on, that still hasn't worked its way through the system. This is, effectively, why every US election debacle is now the story of "Two Americas".

Whatever AI brings, it may render us all useless, but future generations (and likely even ourselves) will probably appreciate AI for it

I've no doubt of that whatsoever. If AI decimates structural engineering, that will bring lower cost, improved efficiency, and net benefit to society in the aggregate. That said, the making of such omelets always require the breaking of a few eggs. In the US rust belt, those eggs were the factory workers who are still not remotely whole. With AI, those eggs will be the non-genius office workers like us. Progress is good and will not be stopped. At the same time, it's folly to try to convince those will become "broken eggs" that they've nothing to fear from the omelet. History suggests otherwise.

 

[EZBuilding]

I have found the construction and development industry as a whole to be pretty resistant to innovation and change. I believe there is still a very healthy portion of construction in the United States run by general contractors that don't utilize Revit in performing any sort of clash detection. Is a GC's project manager going to Value Engineer ChatGPT - "I may not be an AI but I have been doing this for 35 years"...

When I have thought about this, I have found the large amounts of changes and fixes that occur during construction to be one of the biggest reasons for possible job security. Is AI going to be able to develop the same level of Engineering Judgement as KootK? Will it be able to weigh the differences of a code section based on something that was tested once in 1955 and codified, something that is an empirical design or something that is grounded in fundamental engineering principles?

 

[KootK]

I see CA as being another "space" where there will still be a need for human structural engineers. But, like all of the other safe spaces previously mentioned, is that a future than can/should be sold to highschool prospects? Many engineers consider things like CA to be the green beans that one has to finish in order to get to the rib eye. If it's going to be all green beans and no rib eye, is that still saleable?

 

[Trenno]

We're doomed...

 

[human909]

I have yet to fully play and explore the amazing (frightening) world of the recent AI developments.

But I don't yet see much doom on the horizon for engineers. We sell the one thing that a good AI can't sell and is unlikely to be capable of selling in the future. Responsibility and liability.

In the same way structural analysis programs haven't rendered engineers obsolete, I don't see AI rending engineers obsolete. We simply spend more of our time doing 'other stuff' and less of our time grunting through calculations.

I'm a relatively new engineer compared to most regular people posting here. I rarely grunt my way through calculations and I personally am glad of it. In other aspects of my work I spend a little too much time optimising a design to improve structural and economic efficiency (I enjoy this). I can see that aspect disappearing within a decade. And until I see AI wandering around a site performing inspections I'm not worried.

 

[Aesur]

1) Developer asks ChatGPT for five, fully priced options for an eight story condo tower on a site in Pheonix.

AI hasn't had to deal with Phoenix plan review... good luck..

2) Without even knowing what a building is, ChatGPT will access its worldwide library of BIM models and PDF drawings to generate the five options via pattern recognition.

Time to make sure everyone copyrights their drawings so we can sue the AI owner/users (developers).

4) The developer will take their permit drawings over to Upwork.com and ask the hungry engineers and architects there to bid on the opportunity to review, tweak, and stamp ChatGPT's permit drawings.

Technically this is illegal/unethical as it wasn't under an engineers direct supervision, but with AI being the lawyers and probably lawmakers - I'm sure that will change by then.

Moral of the story, raise our prices, make our money, retire as fast as we can!

 

[Just Some Nerd]

Time to make sure everyone copyrights their drawings so we can sue the AI owner/users (developers).

Just wait until software licenses start including in their ToS that they can use your model data for AI training...if one starts doing it, they all will, and we will be graced with a non-choice between using any half-decent 3d software or not being able to do work.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why yes, I do in fact have no idea what I'm talking about

 

[NorthCivil]

A little? Try a lot. Short of me or a member of my family actually dying, losing my profession and the sense of meaning that it brings me is about the worse thing that I can imagine happening. And, for me, the prospect that I might currently be toiling away in what may soon be a "dead" profession seriously detracts from the meaning that I derive from it in the present.

Koot, everyone has their job to do. Without horses we never would have made it to cars. The work of all those horse-traders was imperative. And the work we are doing now, we are just standing on the shoulders of giants. and eventually someone will be standing on our shoulders.

 

[Tomfh]

Thirdly, there are ethical and legal considerations involved in the field of structural engineering. Engineers have a responsibility to ensure that their designs are safe and comply with applicable regulations and standards. AI, while capable of analyzing data, cannot be held accountable for its decisions in the same way that human engineers can be.

Oh goodie! Engineers will still get sued when things go bad! Can’t let robots have all the fun, can we…

 

[IRstuff]

Answering the question is one thing, but knowing WHICH question to ask is more important.

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

 

[KootK]

...but with AI being the lawyers and probably lawmakers - I'm sure that will change by then.

Moral of the story, raise our prices, make our money, retire as fast as we can!

Yeah, pretty much. Over a long enough time horizon, I think that it's pretty clear that AI will lay claim to much of what we consider to be white collar work.

I fully expect AI to supplant humans in these fields well before it supplants us in structural engineering:

- Law
- Accounting
- Genal Practitioner Doctoring

All of those fields are more algorithmic and ASCII character based than ours.

Who in their right mind would want some shitty human trying to diagnose their obscure autoimmune condition when they could have an all knowing AI that never botches statistics do that? Not me.

Time to make sure everyone copyrights their drawings so we can sue the AI owner/users (developers).

One thing that we have playing in our favor, I think, is the graphical nature of the information that we produce. Somebody will have to teach ChatGPT to:

1) Use BIM models and PDF drawings as pattern recognition inputs and;
2) Create BIM models and PDF drawings as outputs.

So some human -- probably from within our own ranks -- will likely have to care enough about our space enough to make a play for it. This might buy us a little time.

 

[KootK]

Koot, everyone has their job to do. Without horses we never would have made it to cars. The work of all those horse-traders was imperative. And the work we are doing now, we are just standing on the shoulders of giants. and eventually someone will be standing on our shoulders.

Once again, I am not bemoaning technological progress at the societal level. I'm simply acknowledging the reality that real humans will get hurt along the way. And to MJB's original thesis, if we can avoid some of that pain by intelligently steering the career choices of future generations, we ought to consider doing that.

I'm no luddite. I don't need to be repeatedly sold on the benefits of giving up the horse drawn carriage that I drive into the office every morning.

 

[dold]

We're doomed...

Meh... not just yet:

I mean, it got some of it right, but some of it very wrong. Still fairly impressive for it to recognize the question and come up with the appropriate criteria.

 

[KootK]

But I don't yet see much doom on the horizon for engineers. We sell the one thing that a good AI can't sell and is unlikely to be capable of selling in the future. Responsibility and liability.

I disagree that our ability to sell liability will make for anything resembling a desirable business model.

We've had countless discussions on this forum regarding whether or not structural engineering is a commodity and how we might improve that situation. Without exception, the consensus has been:

1) Our stamps are functionally worthless and relying upon them to justify our value is a fast track to being a complete commodity.

2) Where we do add meaningful value is in the service that we provide: responsiveness & ingenuity primarily.

The concern with ChatGPT, I feel, is that it will be able to meaningfully compete with humans on the service front.

We simply spend more of our time doing 'other stuff' and less of our time grunting through calculations.

I feel that view grossly underestimates the threat that ChatGPT represents. ChatGPT is not ETABS on steroids. It's a machine built to mimic and eventually supplant human creativity and intuition. ChatGPT is built to do the very high level things that you're imagining yourself doing while ChatGPT toils away on the "grunt" task. Which begs the question: what then will you be doing? I fear that the only scope left to us might be this:

4) The developer will take their permit drawings over to Upwork.com and ask the hungry engineers and architects there to bid on the opportunity to review, tweak, and stamp ChatGPT's permit drawings.

Are we happy with that level of diminishment potentially? I would not be.