Calling all SEs

[mudpuppy]

I apologize if this has already been posted elsewhere on the board, but I haven't come across it.

This was in today's NSPE Update:

NCEES Seeks Volunteers for Online Study
The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying is seeking licensed structural engineers to participate in a Professional Activities and Knowledge Study (PAKS) for the Structural Principles and Practice of Engineering Exam. The results of this study will be used to determine the specifications for the exam, which is scheduled to replace the current Structural I and II PE exams by April 2011.

Participants will complete an online survey about the tasks and knowledge required of a licensed structural engineer with four to six years of experience. The survey can be completed in less than 45 minutes.

Volunteers must take the PAKS online survey no later than November 10. Questions about the survey should be directed to Prometric at 609–895–5234 (leave a voicemail message) or [email protected].

And is also posted on the NCEES website.

 

[StructuralPoke]

It sounds like anyone who's long-term goals involve practicing in a state that would require an SE2 should take the test now. If they wait until 2010/2011 they will have to retake the SE1 in the 2 day format. Those of us that will be doing what we are doing now will be OK. Nobody is going to come an take our license away (as was stated in the other thread). I haven't taken the survey yet, but plan to. I hope there is a "bridges should be in Civil/Transportation" option. In my area, there are no firms that do bridges and buildings. It's one or the other...

 

[Casey]

So the architect that wants engineer status feels it is ok to say that the people that design bridges don't deserve to be called Structural Engineers... That's rich!

And yes, I have worked at a firm where they have done both bridges and buildings...

 

[StructuralPoke]

So the architect that wants engineer status feels it is ok to say that the people that design bridges don't deserve to be called Structural Engineers... That's rich!

And yes, I have worked at a firm where they have done both bridges and buildings...

GT ME? Is that you? WTF man? When have I ever said I'm an architect wanting engineer status? I have said I graduated as an Architectural Engineer.

All I was saying about bridges is that AROUND HERE Civils do that. Apparently I pissed in your Wheaties by saying that.

*EDIT* Let me say it this way -- I know of no Structurals that do bridges. Not saying there aren't any. Just saying of everyone I know of, nobody was able to help me prepare with the bridges portion of the PE because that's not what is done around here. Let me say it even another way: in my opinion, there should be Building Structural and Bridge Structural.

 

[Casey]

I just found it ironic that you had this big debate with GT ME that archietectural engineers are the same as engineers because you studied the same stuff and do the same work as a regular engineer and then you come in here and say that a bridge engineer that took the same courses as a structural engineer and designs using the same standards and codes as a structural engineer should not be classified as a structural engineer... And that they should be classified as civil engineers, whom don't take in-depth structural courses or do structural analysis in their daily work...

You don't see anything ironic in that?

I'm not pissed about this, I just saw a couple of pots and kettles and thought I would call you on it.

I think the work that bridge engineers do can be difficult and that the risk to public safety is high; therefore, they should be held to the same standards as structural engineers.

And I don't eat Wheaties, I prefer Captain Crunch.

 

[StructuralPoke]

I just found it ironic that you had this big debate with GT ME that archietectural engineers are the same as engineers because you studied the same stuff and do the same work as a regular engineer and then you come in here and say that a bridge engineer that took the same courses as a structural engineer and designs using the same standards and codes as a structural engineer should not be classified as a structural engineer... And that they should be classified as civil engineers, whom don't take in-depth structural courses or do structural analysis in their daily work...
You don't see anything ironic in that?

I'm not pissed about this, I just saw a couple of pots and kettles and thought I would call you on it.

I think the work that bridge engineers do can be difficult and that the risk to public safety is high; therefore, they should be held to the same standards as structural engineers.

And I don't eat Wheaties, I prefer Captain Crunch.

check your PMs. No reason to do this "in public" -- it's not bringing anything to the thread...

 

[IlPadrino]

check your PMs. No reason to do this "in public".

Uh... have you discounted the "entertainment of the public" value?

 

[kevo_55]

I find this VERY entertaining.

opcorn:

 

[StructuralPoke]

Nah -- I understand there is entertainment value with doing this in "public" but this is a legitimate thread it got successfully jacked extremely quickly.