×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Entry-level competency
10

Entry-level competency

Entry-level competency

(OP)
Are we just having a run of bad luck at our company or is the level of competency of entry-level (say five yrs. experience and less) engineers going down in the US?  I'm talking specifically in the structural engineering arena.  Our last four hires have not been very familiar with any structural analysis programs like STAAD or SAP.  They've displayed very little initiative when it comes to solving a problem that doesn't have a "cook book" answer.  As a matter of fact, they don't even seem to know where to look in the "cook book" half the time. There fundamental knowledge of structures seems dubious at best.

For instance, when I discuss k-factors of columns in buildings none of them can offer any insight into what the current state of the art is.  I would have thought having been in school much more recently than me, they would have something to say on the subject.  I'm not even sure they realize the importance of understanding if the joint at the end of the column can sway or not.

Don't get too hung up on my example.  This is just one of many examples.  I'm wondering what other's are seeing in the workplace.  I'm hoping four folks is not statisically significant and this is really not the state of what our universities are turning out.

I have some more I could say, but this is getting a little long and I would like to hear from you folks.

RE: Entry-level competency

4/4 is enough to encourage some sort of review. I'd have a look at your recruitment policies, and think about why your recruiters are picking people who don't meet your requirements. Our graduate level recruitment is not dependent so much on  interviewing techniques - we get lots of them in as interns during their degrees, that gives them a year to show whether they are the sort of people we want. At least one company I worked for had a 3 month honeymoon period - they put us up in a hotel (for free) and at the end of 3 months decided whether to keep each person (and then pay a normal relocation package) or wave them a fond farewell. Personally I thought as a technique it sucked at the time, but since you are after entry level recruits they'd probably enjoy it. I certainly did, not too sure about whether my liver did.

Frankly I doubt their courses say anything new about k-factors. I must admit I don't care if they can use software or not, universities have much more important things to do than to teach the basics of software packages.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Entry-level competency

Dozer,

My 2 cents....

I wouldn't expect that an undergrad (BS) would know the state of the art in k factors but would expect an grad (MS) student to know.

If your last four hires didn't know about the fundamentals of structural analysis I must agree with Greg that your hiring practices need to be reviewed.

I'd much rather hire someone who knows how to "do it by hand", at least basic moment distribution (simple frame), size a beam/column/connection/rebar/or any basic element, be able to determine contributary areas, etc than a STAAD wizard who could refine a mesh like no one else but didn't know that 12 feet of lateral movement due to wind/seismic load in a two storey building is a problem.

I see too many people telling me "It is what XYZ software told me."

Most of my work is in large pressure vessels and if Compress or PV Elite can't handle it people are lost. There are exceptions but it frustrating to hire a firm to do the work then have to re-do it so we have confidence in the work.  I've experienced this with engineers on 4 different continents so it is not "dumb Americans" by any stretch. It is also at varying degrees of experience.

The biggest issue I see is that people are lazy in their work and don't want to look at the results and inputs to see if they make physical sense. These are not, for lack of a better word, stupid people.  If the solution isn't one they have dealt with several times they don't want to review what applies.

I know I'm a little of your topic but I believe it all ties together.

RE: Entry-level competency

Dozer:  Being in structural like you - I would second what dig1 says above about MS degrees - generally an MS degree comes in with a more solid understanding of the basics.  However, there are good BS graduates/EIT's out there and I think it depends on:

1.  Their school and the quality of the teaching (not the research)

2.  The individual's focus on engineering (for some its a job, for others its a passion)

3.  The individual's previous work experience.  I think this is really key.  I know that there are a lot of big design firms out there where new, young engineering grads are given simple tasks, or drafting for the first few years of their careers.  One guy I know was given the task of simply designing concrete retaining walls all day for two years...not a good quality experience even though it was in a very large, prestigous firm.

I would also agree with the above that knowledge of STAAD  or any other software just isn't a high priority - We can teach - or they can learn - the specific software of my company fairly easily.

RE: Entry-level competency

At the risk of being red flagged I would advise you to seriously check for GOM symptoms.  That's "grouchy old man" I have seen it before and it's real.  It happens when you reach a level of experience and competence and others just don't seem to be good enough.
It may be that you got four duds out of four but I would take a serious look at your organizational culture, your proceedures and the way you do work.  

RE: Entry-level competency

The only structural software I had my hands on as an undergrad was a bit of ANSYS.  As a grad student I got to play with more stuff.

Keep in mind that most civil engineering programs are general civil, and that there's only so much structural specialization undergrads can get.  That's a big part of why I got my master's.

Hg

RE: Entry-level competency

(OP)
BJC, don't worry you're entitled to your opinion.  As a matter of fact, I often ask myself have I just forgot what it was like to be new?  At the risk of sounding big headed I do think there is a difference between the "new breed" and my contemporaries 20 (groan) years ago.  No, we didn't know STAAD or anything like it right out of college.  But we understood the concept.  All we had to do was pick up the book and start reading to understand the syntax the program expected.  These kids can't even apportion a load by hand.  I'm not talking about not knowing how to tell the program what the load is.  They don't even know how to compute it.  

For instance, we had a duct that was being supported off of some roof framing.  I had to explain the whole nine yards.  The wind pressure on the duct, the shear that this produced at the base, the vertical reactions this caused because of overturning, the tributary area on a particular beam, how to lay it out to determine where the supports were landing on the beam and then finally how to input these loads in the model.

In my opinion, for somebody with 2 or 3 years of experience as this person had, the only thing I should have had to explain was how to use the program, which is what I think most of you are saying.

I am heartened, though, that none of you seem to think the general quality of engineers is dwindling (or am I putting words in your mouth?)  I do think our hiring practices leave a lot to be desired, but before I took off down that road I wanted to see if we were just fighting a losing battle.

I have kind of moved away from the day to day operations so I don't have any input into the hires.  My theory (and that's all it is) of hiring is different from the guys who have been responsible.  I think you should ask candidates some technical questions. No, I don't expect them to be Einsteins but I do like to find out what they know and see how they reason through a problem.

The other extreme is you just try to judge if people will be a good fit personality wise and you just assume that anybody can be brought up to speed on the technical stuff.  Personally, I reject this theory. Your responses have given me the confidence to assert to our management that we are doing a p**s poor job of hiring.

RE: Entry-level competency

One other point - (I'm in the biz about 25 years so this sort of applies to me too) - is that after practicing engineering for many years, sometimes we forget just how stupid we were when we came right out of college.

I don't have a real good feel for the quality of engineering graduating today vs. then.  I do know that today, with the tools we have in the computer, there are vastly different focuses on what we spend our time on. I use to hear stories from my older mentors (started engineering in 1927 to 1946) and they told of the hours and hours of time spent doing tedious math calculations to support the structural analysis.  

Today, the computer does the math quickly and I find that many of my staff can more quickly visualize the effects of changing different parameters in a model.

RE: Entry-level competency

2
What schools did these engineers graduate from?


Maui

RE: Entry-level competency

I think there are two very different problems here, one is lack of background and experience in your area of interest. You can't really blame a new grad for that.

The other is lack of initiative. Now that is a problem. I rarely blame anyone for a lack of knowledge, I do have a problem with those unwilling to put in the effort to learn.

RE: Entry-level competency

I agree with JAE..."we forget just how stupid we were when we came right out of college".  I remember the first few tasks I had to do on my first job.  I did them OK, but I'm embarrassed when I remember how long it took me, until I gained experience and confidence.

I've been in the business for 30+ years (yikes), and what I see generally is the lack of confidence.  If they seem to generally know the stuff, but aren't sure of their answer, I think it's a confidence thing, and I'd cut them some slack.

But you're right, Dozer.  They should at least know where to go get answers (methods, design examples, etc.) out of a book.  That would be my red flag on someone's competency.

RE: Entry-level competency

Got another point here too -

My professor from grad school came up to me a couple of years ago at a conference and half-jokingly half-seriously asked me if I'd consider coming back for a PhD.  He said that he has loads of candidates coming to him for the PhD program but that most of them don't want to get in the lab and do some real research.

He said something like, "They just want to sit in an office all day and hammer out little programs and graphs on the computer.  They don't want to do any real work or any real thinking."  (all paraphrased of course).

So that got me to thinking that there's lots of students overly enamoured with computers and not engineering.

RE: Entry-level competency

Yup. Since university is supposed to be about teaching, and providing a background, I would have thought a uni would be the last place you'd expect to see physical tests and experimentation replaced by computer simulations. Sure it's cheaper for them to teach the kids FEA, rather than have them build structures in the workshop and break them, but which is going to provide a better feel for the materials and designing?

I can see the value, to some extent, in using spreadsheets for the results, and I certainly think it is better to write reports on a PC than by longhand, but that's more or less it. Using MathCAD for your maths, and FEA for your structural analysis, and so on and so forth is not, to my mind, a good way to understand the principles for most people.





Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Entry-level competency

Far too many Structural guys in here... time for some input from other disciplines!

In my field - power generation - I'm certain that the standard is dropping. There are several distinct areas in which there is a drop year on year:

Basic engineering maths: in the UK school-leaver's grades rise every year, but the universities have to put on additional maths classes to make up the shortfall. Graduates at the end of their university education struggle to apply basic principles like Calculus to the real world. Mental arithmetic appears to have gone the way of the abacus too. I'll just get my calculator...

Practical ability: expensive to run for the educational establishments, I agree, but these kids graduate with an electrical engineering degree without having done electrical machines lab work, for example? The number of graduates who can't use basic test equipment correctly worries me. If they can't measure something accurately, more-or-less everything they do based on that measurement is suspect.


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

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

RE: Entry-level competency

If you compare just the time of now and that of 25 years back, the career options have changed dramatically. The talented lot prefers Management and IT, so the drop in engineer's quality , and in particular, civil engineer's quality, is not astonishing. Engineering is no longer the craze in minds of young. It goes well with "trends and stretegies" of the current times and I think we will have to live with the average and bring out the best out of them.

Ciao.

RE: Entry-level competency

I think I would like to put a younger spin on this thread.  I graduated with my BS 3 years ago.  I worked part time assisting in real design work my full senior year of college and then went to full time as soon as I graduated.  One year later I returned to school part time to get my masters but I continued to work full time.  I just received my masters this past December.  I went structural the whole way.  I graduated from a decent engineering school but not the best by any means (top 35).  I think that younger engineers have a lack of understanding of real feel calculations.  Industry puts a lot of pressure on the schools to make sure the graduating students can work analysis programs because they want to be able to use them as soon as they get out of school. But the result is a lot of new graduates pushing mouse buttons for two years drawing lines before they ever begin to do a calculation. The year after I took my very first structural analysis course beyond statics they quite teaching approximate techniques so that even the most basic engineer knows the stiffness method.  I think this was even pushed by the ABET accredation board.  I think that computer methods are great and highly needed, but I don't depend on it.  I have always tried to be able to prove what the computer puts out.  I think the biggest thing that helped me though was the year I spent working part time my senior year and the first six months after I received my BS.  I did a lot of design calculations but they were hand calculations.  (Size these columns or beams, analyze this portal frame,  develop the loads and load cases, etc.)  It was basic, but it got my feet wet and made me think about how structures responded.  Then I spent time looking at the structures during and after they were built.  This helped me to get a feel for what I was doing.  Overall I think universities are doing a fairly decent job.  Remember now there are pretty advanced techniques that will become common day as new engineers advance in there careers.  With FEA, non-linear, soil structure interaction, etc. something has to give.  Unfortunatly I think that some of the most basic things are suffering because of this.  Then there is the whole side that new engineers don't have the initiative.  I think there is truth in that, but I would say it was probably the same 25 years ago.  I love to sit at home and read engineering textbooks, just trying to learn something new, or sharpen my skills.  But I have also had more than one person tell me I am wacko (including my wife).  It takes all types to make the world go round and it always has.  To dozers original post I think that you would be better off hiring students with a masters degree if you are concerned with their technical abilities.  I think that masters students already have proven that they are just not run of the mill (not to take away from any BS only out their...my closest mentor only has a BS and he is one of the sharpest people I know) and are willing to work harder and are more pationate about engineering.  I can only speak for structural people though, as I don't think this is true across the board.  Also the newer masters programs cator to the design professional.  I took 27 hours of coursework...all in structural and did a 3 hour design project (that I spent about 450 hours on) for a total of 30 hours.  The nice thing about this is that it allowed me to take more courses like plates and shells, FEA, basic non- linear, buckling analysis and other advanced topics that I wouldn't have taken otherwise.  I would also suggest that you could do some testing by making the applicant sit down and solve a simple portal frame or something like that.  This would help to determine the basic skills and problem solving ability of the applicant.  The thing is with students today is that when you are in high-school if you are good in math then they say go into engineering.  You will make lots of money and you will be good at it and you get to work with computers.  So a lot of young engineers are engineers just because of this.  That is not the reason to become an engineer and it shows once they are in the real world.  Me, I struggled like heck to get through it.  I got C's in three out of four calculus classes, but I worked my butt of to get those c's.  I excelled in the physics - particularly newtonian physics which is why I went into structural engineering.  It never came easy, but I was on the deans list from the beginning of my junior year on.  I continue to work like that today and I think it shows.  For many students it is just easy for them and because of that they don't have to strive to prove things to themselves.  The issue with new engineers today is not so much the ability, but the work ethic.  But I would say that 25 years ago you had the same problem and with proper selectiveness at the hiring stage you should hopefully be able to wean many of these people out.

RE: Entry-level competency

After working in Industry for 10 years, I sort of ended up in a Civil/Structural Consulting Firm for 3-1/2 years. The firm had about 50 employees. My impression was that learning anything was more by accident rather than by intent. Even though there were many seasoned knowledgable engineers, they weren't given the opportunity to pass along their acquired skills. The patent answer seemed to be: "We don't have the time & money for this!" I have now been working in an A/E Consulting Firm for the last 4 years. This employer has 35 employees. This place has the same "We don't have the time & money for this!" mentality. I get the impression that I may end up making the same design mistake for 5 years before I somehow discover that I have been doing it wrong. I also get the impression that the employers want to shift the burden of learning more onto the student/employee and the school than they ever did before.

RE: Entry-level competency

I'm also relatively new (about 3 years experience and EI) compared to others who have posted here.  Many students are exactly like what dozer described: they couldn't engineer their way out of a wet paper bag.  They simply have no drive and think that if software can do it then hand methods are antiquated and useless.  That's not to say that everyone is bad but it seems the majority is just lazy and doesn't realize that skills are earned.  As far as software goes, I would be at a disadvantage because my current employer is too cheap to buy much of anything.  I can understand not buying the $5000 FEA software if we don't use it but we should have some things to facilitate production.  Most of the stuff I do is by hand or with spreadsheets that I've made with the exception of some 2D analysis and steel design software (no connections though lol).  On the one hand that's good because I understand engineering much better than the typical Gomer you're running into, but on the other I don't have a lot of diverse software skills employers do look for.

RE: Entry-level competency

I'm a consumer of structural engineering services, not a structural engineer myself.  But I've observed as a customer that there's a shortage of engineers, particularly young ones, with well-calibrated commonsense based on DOING and OBSERVING rather than merely calculating.  That goes for my own area of practice as well as for structural.

It's tough to teach someone commonsense, and it's impossible to calibrate commonsense without providing the opportunity for young engineers to receive feedback on their designs- not just red marks on a drawing from some senior engineer without explanation, but actual physical observations of the consequences of design decisions they've made.

I think it should be mandatory for an engineer to work in a manufacturing or design/build operation for a time prior to going on to consulting for hire.  Some consultancies are excellent, but many do not afford their staff, particularly the younger staff, any hands-on experience or even exposure to review the installation of their designs.  They don't get the chance to see what problems their oversights caused, or what something looks like when it's done right.  This is economic reality-driven for the consultants, but it sucks for both the engineers working there and for their customers.

Engineers who design without adequately calibrated commonsense or an appreciation for the work done by the people who install their designs and turn them into reality, give us all a bad name as a profession.  Yes, some of that is 20/20 hindsight, but a lot of it is actually well-deserved.

Is this an educational problem?  Perhaps so- but it's tough to teach this stuff at a university.  You learn this by doing under the watchful eye of a mentor.  That situation is sorely lacking in many firms out there- it's not just the recent grads' faults.

RE: Entry-level competency

Universities typically do NOT share the same priorities as the companies that hire their graduating engineers. With some exceptions, the tenured professors who work at universities that grant MS and PhD degrees as well as BS degrees focus their efforts mainly on their research. They do this because the view that their employer takes toward them is based largely upon their ability to acquire external funding for their projects. Before professors are granted tenure their job security depends largely upon how much grant money they bring in. My alma mater used to skim at least 1/3 off of the top of any grant money that came in for overhead costs alone. If a professor is not able to financially justify his or her presence in the university by acquiring grant money, they will be terminated. Even if they are the best teacher that has ever graced the classroom, their skill will not save their job. On the other hand, they could be the worst professor in the department, but as long as they maintain a healthy and steady cash flow into the university, they will receive nothing but praise from the higher-ups. Teaching is not the #1 priority at these types of schools. A significant percentage of faculty members view teaching undergraduates as an unpleasent but necessary part of their job. Add to this the fact that the vast majority of these professors never held a job outside of academia, and you begin to understand the picture a little better.  

Even though this is a contributing factor to the problem at hand, I can verify that there has been a fundamental change in the attitude that I have seen in my engineering classes. I have taught as an adjunct assistant professor in engineering at a major US University for the past eight years.  The ability of the students to comprehend and utilize basic engineering concepts has declined for the last two years in my opinion. Students are coming into these classes ill prepared, and in general they seem to be lazier than their predecessors. By grading them on a curve (which I refuse to do) the message that they get is that they don't really have to understand the material completely. They just have to have a better grasp of it than some of the other students. Do this for four years, and you end up with some engineers who have an incomplete understanding of the basic principles. Get them out into industry, and you will see the results that Dozer has observed.    

RE: Entry-level competency

Part of the problem also is that universities are requiring less credit hours to get a degree in order to move more students through.  As a consequence students come out with less knowledge than grads of yesteryear in part through no fault of their own.  At foreign universities for instance an undergraduate engineering degree takes about 5 years or a little more.  Besides having lazy students they have less and less requirement put on them.  This also leads into the discussions of requiring a master's degree to hold a PE, but that's another thread.

RE: Entry-level competency

2
I would like to add my own experience to the discussion. When I graduated from college in my early 20's I landed a good job with a good company. As a young single man I had a hard time focussing on my career and wanting to excel at engineering. So,I went back to school for a master's degree, got married and started a family. Now, I have a strong desire to excel and I do very well at my job.

I think alot of it has to do with the maturity of the young college graduates. Some of them are probably going to have to "grow up" a little before they become good engineers.

RE: Entry-level competency

(OP)
Looks like a hit something of a hot button.  Here are some of my observations on some of the comments made.

Mentoring: I've been asked to mentor the new engineers. And, oh yes, we need those drawings by the end of the day.  Could you run an FEA on this bracket. The shop has some questions on the new parts they are fabricating. Have you got those anchor bolts designed yet?  What I'm trying to illustrate is employer's pay lip service to the notion of training but the lure of making money right now (instead of investing in the future) always wins out.  At least, that's been my experience.

Schools: Someone asked what schools these guys are from.  Sorry, since as I've mentioned, I don't think we've done a very good job of hiring, I think it would be unfair to single schools out.  I will say that two of the schools these folks have come from are very well respected.

Testing applicants: Aggman suggested testing applicants. I agree. Unfortunately, our management has told us that we can't give applicants test because we might get our butt in some sort of legal sling.  I don't know what that's all about.  I know there are some cons to testing but it seems to me that if a company wants to give competency/ability test then that's their right.  I mean for goodness sake, to get a job now a days you have to piss in a bottle, but you can't ask someone to prove they have some basic knowledge of the job you are hiring them for.  I haven't personally researched this issue, but it could be that our management is full of sh ... whoops, I mean baloney. This could be a seperate thread in itself, so if anyone wants to see more, please, by all means.

RE: Entry-level competency

I have worked for 3 Consulting Engineering Companies during my career. All 3 of these organizations wanted you to magically have 5-10 years experience in anything that they asked you to work on, right from the moment that they hired you. The fact that you were entry-level or had experience in other areas than what you were being asked to work on meant nothing to them. And they made little effort to help you to get that experience. If I need to become truly proficient in all the various projects that I have been asked to work on over the years, I would be studying and working 24/7 for the rest of my life. Fat chance that I'm going to do that. Especially for a regular salary. The companies these days seem to have difficulty differentiating the difference between an employee and a partner.

RE: Entry-level competency

Well I guess it depends on how you look at it. My first design job was the air control for the cooling system for a research car. They didn't use the control system I'd come up with, but they liked the mechanism and the flap, and it ended up being fitted. I was as pleased as Punch.

My first analytical job was with the same group - working out the performance figures and fuel economy for a car from the engine map and the characteristics of the car. By hand. This drove me to distraction, so I taught myself Fortran and wrote a program to work it out. That program was still being used 5 years later. Not bad for someone a year out of high school.

More than 50% of my career has consisted of being dropped into the unknown, and having to make it up as I go along. Hey, it's fun. When I've got a job down pat I get bored.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Entry-level competency

I think that the changes in our economy and the lean corporate techniques may have an effect.  When I left school 20+ years ago, there was plenty of public and private work and most companies had extra money floating around.  Since some areas of engineering (especially civil engineering)cover such broad areas, schools can only give a good general education at the BS level.  Twenty years ago, a new engineer in my field would spend his first six months in the field working as a field technician, his second six months logging behind a drill rig, his third six months in the lab running materials testing and finally his fourth six month period actually writing reports and performing engineering analysis.  The purpose of the two year "internship" was to acquaint the new engineer to the real world and let him see how things actually worked.  His third to fifth years were generally to improve competence in enginerering prior to taking the PE exam.  Unfortunately, now I see too many companies expecting the new entry level engineer to hit the ground running with absolutely no time for training.  These engineers do not pick up any essential skills other than those necesary to get by with this method.  So when you hire that engineer with 3-5 years experience, you may also consider the on-the-job training that he may or may not have received at his previous employer.  Another interesting item that I have noted in my field; the most highly motivated engineers either rise to the upper ranks of a company or own their own company within about ten years, the least motivated engineers are about as useful as they were in year two of their experience.  About 50% of the other engineers fall somewhere in between.

RE: Entry-level competency

I graduated 5 years ago and my opinion is that we learn such a wide variety of subjects in the bachelor that employers of should expect to provide some training to the employee.

I also think that market dynamics are such that - the reluctance of the employer to train the employee is related to how long they expect to keep that employee.  

It is difficult to find an employer who has the intent of training and keeping you & in a company that actually has a future.  

New grads find themselves in a position of having "specialized" in a particular field for a certain employer for a few years, then they are layed off or the company folds and often they have to start over in another more or less related field.

RE: Entry-level competency

I graduated in 2002 with my BS from a pretty good engineering school.  In my experience it's the curriculum that's to blame.  My teachers had never had a job outside of academia and focus on the theoretical not the practical.  We had one teacher that was a retired 'real' engineer and it was the only class where we actually applied what we learned (we were given building plans and had to size ducts).  In all the rest we were given idealized pictures of cantelever beams but never related them to reality. They teach you how to plug and chug, not think on your own.  They give you all the information you need to go into an equation.  You just have to find the equation that matches what was given.

I also agree that the variety of topics taught in school are so numerous that you only get a cursory understanding of each.

I think undergrads nowadays need to be trained initially by employers.  I was looking for a program like that when I graduated and found it.  Now people with 4-5 years of experience under their belt should have an idea of what's going on.  That's a combination of poor schooling and poor training by the previous employer (and perhaps poor personal motivation). I have only 2.5 years of experience and feel much more competent.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources