×
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

The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile
19

The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

(OP)
Dear fellow engineers,

We all know how important is the role of the civil engineer in society by providing and maintaining its infrastructure.

However I believe most of you share my concern that the profile of civil engineering as a profession is rather low (world wide).  

What do you think it can be done to raise the civil engineer's profile in society?

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Profile of Civil Engineers World Wide is very high.It is very high in USA,UK,Australia and all countries in the World.There should be no doubt about this.

Mohammed A Sharief

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

(OP)
Mohammed,
In the country I work (UK), I can assure you that there is plenty of doubt about it. The situation seems to have begun improving lately with the important workload forecast in civil engineering and with the efforts of the Institute of Civil Engineers to restore the place of civil engineer in society. Yet, it is a recognised fact within our profession, admitted quasi-officially by the ICE, that our profile is not particularly high. My Australian colleagues share the same oppinions about the situation in their.  
By the way, as personal oppinions are largely influenced by the environment we are working in, I believe it would be interesting if we specify in which country we work.
Bogdan
 

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

I agree, with your assesment tuto.  I work in the US and I am also a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  As part of a solution to raise the level of professionalism for Civil Engineers it has been suggested that we institute the masters degree as the first professional degree.  Obviously there is also a definite need to expand the education for furture generations, so the first professional degree isn't all about professionalism.  It does mark a significant step toward increasing our public's perception of our value in society.

As a structural engineer, it drives me crazy to hear someone say what a wonderful job the architect did designing a building or bridge.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Like anything, I think part of the problem has to do with lack of knowledge about engineering in general.  Also, the notion that Civil Engineers are not as hi-tech as the other disciplines may also be a factor, since buildings and roads have been around forever and aren't as fun or stimulating as the latest electronic gadgets or the newest cars.

You generally don't hear about civil engineering in the news unless something has gone wrong.  Which isn't necessarily a bad thing since it reminds us that if we don't do our jobs right it could cause fatalities.  However, some of it can be misleading and unfairly portray us as people who don't know what we are doing.  I always think of those people living within the floodplain of some major river and whose homes are flooded every 2 to 5 years.  To some of them the cause is simple: the engineers didn't build the levees high enough, or some such answer.  Ask these same people if they would relocate outside of the floodplain or if they would be willing to pay more in taxes to build bigger and better flood control structures and they will probably say "no".          

One of the other reasons why civil engineers don't garner as much "respect" as they should, in my opiniion, is due to the fact that we are often perceived as a necessary evil to those clients who need our services.  If you look at other professionals such as lawyers, accountants, doctors, they all do work that is of direct benefit to their client.  A lawyer can help you win a big lawsuit or keep you out of jail.  An accountant will do some creative bookeeping to save you some money.  And a doctor will save your life.  

Although an Engineer will certainly add value to the work, and produce a design that is efficient and cost effective, the basic reason an engineer is required (from a clients perspective) is because some approval agency says that they need documents (drawings, reports etc...) that are prepared and/or stamped by an Engineer.  If it wasn't for that requirement, some clients would just go ahead and do the design themselves, or employ a "friend" whose only experience in structures (as an example), is building a backyard deck.

I'm not sure if I answered your question or not ?  

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

(OP)
It doesn't matter so much if my question was answered or not. What matters more is what we learn from each other's responses. Anyway, my query was meant to initiate a discussion and share oppinions.
Waterguy, I think your analysis of the causes of our profile not being as high as it should be, is very comprehensive and I do agree with you.
Indira Ghandi was saying: "There are two kinds of people: those who do the job and those who take the credit. Try to be in the first group, there is less competition there". Engineers are in the first lot. However we could use a bit of credit for what we produce, so we could use some publicity.
Qshake, the same I think has already been established in UK (MEng as an admission requirement in the Instutition of Civil Eng -ICE). Ii does indeed lift the standards a little bit. What also ICE is promoting is approaching the schools to let the kids know what is civil engineering about. I understand that the perception in school has already changed and keeps changing. It's like pubilicity in a way.
Kids will hopefully have a better idea what a civil eng. does even if they won't become one, and maybe they would ask themselves which engineer designed that bridge and not only what architect.
It is also very important that the professional association be well established and shall we say powerful. Co-ordinated effort has more odds to succed.
Anyway, things evolve, and who knows, maybe the society will move towards a technocratic nature, after engineers will have proven their leadership abilities and with that our profile we'll jet up :)

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

10
I don’t know how most people find themselves in the engineering profession.  It was something that I naturally progressed to.  There are few professions that a  person can favorably change or  influence the environment in which we all live.  More importantly to me, there are few professions that help balance the natural, wondrous world in which we live and the wants and needs of the people living in it.  

Civil/Environmental Engineering is a noble profession;  We earn a modest wage without drawing attention to the fruits of our labor.  We have done a good job if the work goes unnoticed.  If it rains and there is no flood damage, no one will notice what was done by an engineer to eliminate the flood damage.  If a person is looking for recognition and can’t persist simply on the satisfaction of having made the world a better place, then I would suggest looking into another profession.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

tuto:

I believe that part of the problem with the perception of engineers by society is that
1) too many job positions/descriptions are labeled "engineer" (with various prefixes) but the person filling the position is not an engineer by education or experience, (also many of the job activities are not related to engineering).  
The word engineer is too casually used by municipalities, contractors, various government agencies and so on.  If you do submit work to either federal or municipal or state agencies for review often times the reviews are conducted by personnel that are not licensed professionals.  The criteria or issues that they use to dictate changes to the "consulting engineer" is often based on check lists for such items as preferred drafting requirements or cad layer names, to name a few, without having the understanding what to do for the actual engineering.  (This is not to say that such reviewers don't often have valid and insightful comments).  Because so many people have the "title" of engineer without the background experience and knowledge relating to the discipline that they represent, the comments that they make to others outside of the profession are taken as factual. They are paid less and in todays environment all "engineers" are equal in ability to do the work; therefore the deciding factor is which engineer is available to do the work for the least amount of money? (just like contractors bidding on a job - supposedly all are capable of doing the work so the cheapest must be acceptable.)
2)  with the advent of the personnel computer and a variety of software packages available - all it takes is to plug and chug.  Why pay an engineer when you can have a technician or a cad operator to make the software run?
3) (I'll stop after this.) Relating to the software available I can now design and produce plan and profiles for roadway and sewer and water distribution lines with far fewer people than I could 10-15 years ago.  Supply and demand - our engineering societies with the prompting of the colleges and universities tell us that there are not enough engineers (engineering students).  However, our productivity has increased dramatically in the last decade.  I know from marketing our services to private industry and governmental agencies that there are many engineers/firms competing for a limited volume of work. Twenty five years ago it was considered unethical for engineers to"market" their services.  Today it is essential.  The addition of more engineers will result in lower pay which in turn requires lowering the standards to attract more people to begin a profession that doesn't pay as well as other careers.

In closing I would just like to say that I enjoy my work and that I find it very satisfying and believe it results in a valuabe contribution to my clients and the public at large.  I am glad that the Good Lord gave me the opportunities that I have experienced as a civil engineer.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

3
Deron is right on the mark!
We civil engineers are like the offensive linemen in football.  We are only noticed when we screw up, we make decent money but not the highest, and we are absolutely necessary.
So what's wrong with that?  If you need recognition to survive, become an actor.  We should be thankful that most of us don't.  
Perhaps our "Can-Do" attitude is our greatest failing.  We tend to do what is assigned to us instead of being part of the decision making.  Building a great dam can be an engineering masterpiece, but still be a poor project politically, environmentally and economically.  
As for advanced degrees, my personal experience is that engineers with them may be very good at one thing, but weak on everything outside their area.  It would be a mistake to create a profession loaded with speciallists.  We need general practioners in our profession, and lots of them.  The best engineer I've ever known never even went to college.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

I only want to comment on the advanced degree issue as most of the responses above cover my thoughts in general.  Civil Engineering as a profession has long understood the importance of practical work experience in what makes a good engineer.  To become licensed in most states of the US one has to complete at least four years of progressive experience (Looking back it seems I did not know very much after four years and had a license to practice engineering).  Whether one comes out of college with a bachelors, masters, or PhD, I suspect most would agree it is the day to day where they really learn what it takes to be an engineer.

I am not opposed to additional learning, in fact the contrary is true, but never underestimate the school of life's experiences.     

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

To Tuto and Fellow Engineers:

Multi-disciplined teams address many of the issues facing organizations today. The Civil Engineer is just one of many professionals that may be part of those teams.  We need to improve and increase our communication with other professionals. We need to clearly state our positions on issues so that they are understood and are given sufficient consideration.

Quebec University’s Sherbrooke campus has recently made dramatic changes in its Mechanical Engineering department.  The university has discarded its old curriculum and has introduced completely new Engineering classes to better prepare its students for Engineering careers.  The new curriculum was 10 years in the making.  It was partially a response to industry’s dissatisfaction with Engineering graduates who had difficulty applying their knowledge and also had poor teamwork and communication skills.
Discussions about the curriculum began in 1990.   In 1992, a faculty task force visited other Engineering schools in the U.S. and Europe.  After many meetings and debates, they gutted the old curriculum and set about creating the new curriculum, which became a reality in 1996.

The new curriculum includes courses on teamwork, creativity, and design methodology.  In the place of humanities courses, students take courses in ethics, management, and professionalism.  They also take on special projects such as designing an amusement park attraction that uses virtual reality technology and designing rockets that could later be developed to launch satellites.

This information was obtained from the NSPE U.S. Engineering Press Review at http://www.nspe.org in the “Members Only” section.  Your national membership number and your password are needed to enter this area of the web site.

Art Schrage PE
Professional Sanitary Engineer
Director, Oakland Chapter of Michigan Society of Professional Engineers
Troy, Michigan USA

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Qshake's comments reflect my sentiments exactly. It drives me NUTS when people comment on how the Architect did a wonderful job designing a certain building or bridge! The concept may be the Architect's, but the reality is the Structural Engineer's.

One reason for the low profile of civil engineers is a lack of knowledge and understanding by the general public. I've given up describing myself as a Structural Engineer because this invariably leads to the question "what is THAT?". Instead, I say that I design bridges, buildings and other structures which leads to the comment "oh, so you're an Architect!". At least I get to choose my own poison. Doctors and Lawyers have more glamorous professions - they are glorified and villianized in countless movies and TV shows. Civil Engineers will know they've arrived when their careers are documented/showcased on a station other than the History Channel.

Not that I'm complaining. I'm proud of the work I've done. Plus, most of the time my hours are very flexible. Most Doctors and Lawyers can't say that! Plus, how many Civil Engineering jokes have you heard? Yeah, I've heard a few, too, but that's not my point. In this age of greed, contempt, loud complaints and finger pointing, I'd like to think I'm part of a profession to which society gives quiet respect.

Oh, I work in the US.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Dear Tuto,

I'am an Indian, a civil engineer by profession.  In our country, many a middle class houses are by large built by skilled masons.  A maistry (Suprevisor) is usually entrusted with construction of houses on a contract basis.  There is practically no civil designing of any part of a structure and they are done only on practical experience of the maistry.  Many a time, it proves uneconomical and dangerous too.  But people have a notion that there is no requirement for a civil engineer during the construction of the houses.  The equation, here, is that a maistry possesses knowledge whatever an civil engineer knows.  You may, by now, have got a feeling of the plight of most of the civil engineers.  This has caused considerable downward trend in the civil engineering field.  There are a few takers for the civil engineering branch seats in the engineering colleges.  

The profile of civil engineers can be raised by world wide practice of the following :

* Use of low cost high quality building materials which results in reducing the final cost of building.

* Propogating the requirement of civil engineers in construction and also highlighting the dangers of hiring unqualified personnels.

* The civil engineers should update themselves with the recent developments in the field by exchanging the recent technologies worldwide.

* Working with true conscience and respect to the branch.

* Straightforwardness by not practicing unfair practices.

*  Engineers should not be money minded.

Waiting for a good suggestion and advice from engineers worldwide.  

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

please tell me i need veiws on this from all of you :

Does a Civil engineer needs the knowledge of art , culture, history of architecture  , if yes comment on this ?

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

No, a civil engineer does not require a knowledge of art, culture, or history of architecture.  Engineering is based on science, and requires the use of science to enhance the safety, health and welfare of the public.  However, a civil engineer must know that art, culture, and architecture are important for our quality of life.  Architects know about art, culture, and architectural history; Civil engineers should work closely with architects during design stages to ensure that the public's safety, health, welfare, and quality of life are enhanced.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Dilwala:

    I have done a few researches on your doubt and I wish i can help you.  As a matter of fact, in the process of designing and creating a structure, the person who knows about art, culture and history is the arquitect. It is not the engineer`s job to choose  the design of the structure , but to bring to reality what the arquitect had designed. Thereby an engineer(structural) job is much`more complex and difficult than the arquitect job inthis process.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

danmccarthy - why do you say the current trend in Structural Engineering is down? I wouldn't agree at all! The great thing about Structural Engineering is how useful it is - it's principles are used to design buildings, bridges, planes, tunnels, water treatment plants, by NASA ... you name it, we're there.

Cool Kid, I encourage you to study what interests YOU.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Preamble
Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.

I. Fundamental Canons

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall:

1. Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public.

2. Perform services only in areas of their competence.

3. Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

4. Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

5. Avoid deceptive acts.

6. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.

II. Rules of Practice

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

a. If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.

b. Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards.

c. Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.

d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe are engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.

e. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

2. Engineers shall perform services only in the areas of their competence.

a. Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.

b. Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.

c. Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for coordination of an entire project and sign and seal the engineering documents for the entire project, provided that each technical segment is signed and sealed only by the qualified engineers who prepared the segment.

3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.

b. Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.

c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.

4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.

c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.

d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice.

e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.

5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.

a. Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.

b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect of intent to influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.

III. Professional Obligations

1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.

b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.

c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their regular work or interest. Before accepting any outside engineering employment they will notify their employers.

d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another employer by false or misleading pretenses.

e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.

2. Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.

a. Engineers shall seek opportunities to participate in civic affairs; career guidance for youths; and work for the advancement of the safety, health and well-being of their community.

b. Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.

c. Engineers shall endeavor to extend public knowledge and appreciation of engineering and its achievements.

3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.

a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.

b. Consistent with the foregoing, Engineers may advertise for recruitment of personnel.

c. Consistent with the foregoing, Engineers may prepare articles for the lay or technical press, but such articles shall not imply credit to the author for work performed by others.

4. Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.

a. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, promote or arrange for new employment or practice in connection with a specific project for which the Engineer has gained particular and specialized knowledge.

b. Engineers shall not, without the consent of all interested parties, participate in or represent an adversary interest in connection with a specific project or proceeding in which the Engineer has gained particular specialized knowledge on behalf of a former client or employer.

5. Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests.

a. Engineers shall not accept financial or other considerations, including free engineering designs, from material or equipment suppliers for specifying their product.

b. Engineers shall not accept commissions or allowances, directly or indirectly, from contractors or other parties dealing with clients or employers of the Engineer in connection with work for which the Engineer is responsible.

6. Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or questionable methods.

a. Engineers shall not request, propose, or accept a commission on a contingent basis under circumstances in which their judgment may be compromised.

b. Engineers in salaried positions shall accept part-time engineering work only to the extent consistent with policies of the employer and in accordance with ethical considerations.

c. Engineers shall not, without consent, use equipment, supplies, laboratory, or office facilities of an employer to carry on outside private practice.

7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.

a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.

b. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so required by their employment duties.

c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering comparisons of represented products with products of other suppliers.

8. Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional activities, provided, however, that Engineers may seek indemnification for services arising out of their practice for other than gross negligence, where the Engineer's interests cannot otherwise be protected.

a. Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.

b. Engineers shall not use association with a nonengineer, a corporation, or partnership as a "cloak" for unethical acts.

9. Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will recognize the proprietary interests of others.

a. Engineers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be individually responsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.

b. Engineers using designs supplied by a client recognize that the designs remain the property of the client and may not be duplicated by the Engineer for others without express permission.

c. Engineers, before undertaking work for others in connection with which the Engineer may make improvements, plans, designs, inventions, or other records that may justify copyrights or patents, should enter into a positive agreement regarding ownership.

d. Engineers' designs, data, records, and notes referring exclusively to an employer's work are the employer's property. Employer should indemnify the Engineer for use of the information for any purpose other than the original purpose.

As Revised February 2001

"By order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, former Section 11(c) of the NSPE Code of Ethics prohibiting competitive bidding, and all policy statements, opinions, rulings or other guidelines interpreting its scope, have been rescinded as unlawfully interfering with the legal right of engineers, protected under the antitrust laws, to provide price information to prospective clients; accordingly, nothing contained in the NSPE Code of Ethics, policy statements, opinions, rulings or other guidelines prohibits the submission of price quotations or competitive bids for engineering services at any time or in any amount."

Statement by NSPE Executive Committee

In order to correct misunderstandings which have been indicated in some instances since the issuance of the Supreme Court decision and the entry of the Final Judgment, it is noted that in its decision of April 25, 1978, the Supreme Court of the United States declared: "The Sherman Act does not require competitive bidding."

It is further noted that as made clear in the Supreme Court decision:

1. Engineers and firms may individually refuse to bid for engineering services.

2. Clients are not required to seek bids for engineering services.

3. Federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected, and remain in full force and effect.

4. State societies and local chapters are free to actively and aggressively seek legislation for professional selection and negotiation procedures by public agencies.

5. State registration board rules of professional conduct, including rules prohibiting competitive bidding for engineering services, are not affected and remain in full force and effect. State registration boards with authority to adopt rules of professional conduct may adopt rules governing procedures to obtain engineering services.

6. As noted by the Supreme Court, "nothing in the judgment prevents NSPE and its members from attempting to influence governmental action . . ."

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

I got a Bachelor's degree this July and now working in a design institute. Now, I want to pursue a M.A., but I don't know which fields to engage in, such as steel, concrete? Would somebody give me some advices?

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

I think one way that lawyers and doctors got such high profiles is through Hollywood.  Shows like Matlock, Quincy, M.D., ER, LA Law, etc. etc. etc.

The closest I can think of for our profession would be McGyver, which was entertaining, but not quite engineering.

I heard somewhere that someone is promoting s TV show concept along the lines of "LA Engineer," but no studio has bought in yet.  If it were done well, I'd watch it.  After all, the reality of being a lawyer is much less exciting than the law shows.

Or, how about having a forensic engineer testify in court a few times? Then, if it goes over well, spin it off into a new show?  If it were up to me, I'd make the main character the son or daughter of Jack Klugman's character, and call it "Quincy, P.E."

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

I am a recent graduate from an ABET accredited Civil Engineering program. I have worked in the world of private consulting for approximately 7 months up to this point. While attending school, I worked at a law firm in order to make ends meet (5 years). This gives me the unique ability to compare the two professions with extensive personal experience rather than knowledge through heresay or jokes.

The fact that entry level law associates make more money than senior engineers and project managers is not only wrong but it sets a very dangerous precedent. I am fairly certain that we as a society could survive without lawyers but, coversely, there may be a problem if people stop pursuing engineering as a profession. It is frightening to me that lawyers make so much more than engineers but what is more frightening to me is that in many cases an engineer could make just as much money working as a janitor for a government agency. This creates an interesting problem in the future for the engineering profession: People pursuing careers at a higher wage than engineering jobs with less stress and less technical liability (i.e. LAW) or people pursuing careers at the same wage with NO STRESS and NO TECHNICAL LIABILITY (i.e. sweeping floors at the local fed building. NOTE the retirement benefit here boys and girls). I do realize that it is not all about money but please FIGHT FOR A WAGE THAT IS AT LEAST IN THE BALLPARK FOR THE JOB YOU DO.

Also, Engineering is a very male dominated field where the "grin and bear it" attitude is very prominent, swallow your pride and cry for higher wages. Do not cry to your boss so much as cry to politicians and people who are not in the profession because if you are crying to your boss and you are in the profession, he/she is most likely underpaid, you are most likely "PREACHING TO THE CHOIR".

It begins with a curriculum that is absurd as compared to others. The work is piled on at a ridiculous rate. we grin and bear it and then we enter the work place and it happens all over again. WE LET THIS HAPPEN!

Some lawyers that I had worked with held undergraduate degrees in engineering. They suggested to me that I attend law school after I was through with the engineering curriculum, they said "If you made it through an engineering curriculum, law school will be a joke!" I am seriously contemplating this suggestion.

These are only a few of my thoughts........ Remeber and remind people......

DOCTORS BURY THEIR PATIENTS ONE BY ONE, ENGINEERS BURY THEM BY THE DOZEN!




RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Dear visitor,

We are not alone, you know.  You could replace "engineer" in your post with several other professions and it would be equally valid.  Nurses and teachers come to mind.

A friend of mine told me most new teachers leave the profession within 5 years.  He lasted 3.  Why? 12 hour days and paltry pay.  He was required to be at the school 2 hrs before the day started, and stay 2 hrs after.  That was rarely enough time to get his grading and lesson plans done.

At a recent traffic safety conference I attended, there was talk of an alliance between engineers and emergency room nurses.  Makes sense to me.  Engineers and math and science teachers is another natural combination.

Maybe by working together, we can help each other get the respect we deserve.

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Once the Engineer has developed a solution to a problem, she/he will need to thoroughly convince the client that the proposed solution is the best one.  Upon attaining this ability, the Engineer's professionalism, communication skills, leaderhip skills, and status will also improve.
 
It is important to note that the client must become convinced on her/his terms, not the Engineer's.  

Art

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

well to add more...

C  common sense
I  Intellect
V  visualisation
I  Imagination
L  Logic

an engineer who rightly possess these would be sucessful.
regds

Raj

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Things will never change.  This argument rolls along with no answers.  If engineers want more money, make it harder to be an engineer.  Last time I checked a person cannot practice law or medicine without the required degree.  Don't worry, I'm sure you people complaining about the masters degree will be grandfathered. I'm tired of that argument about the best engineer I ever knew never went to school.  That should be illegal.  If I worked in a law firm for several years I'm sure I could do what a lawyer does, but I can't. I don't have a law degree.  I'm also glad some are getting some enjoyment from civil engr.  I also enjoy hearing about a person with a 2 year degree in networking is making more than a P.E. with 15 years of experience (or how about an entry level nurse making $57k per year and having full-tuition for graduate level work paid as well as any undergrad. student loans).  What should be done = to start, engineering work must be performed by a licenesed engineer (licensed engineer must have a masters at minimum).  Also for ASCE, please stop crying about a shortage of engineers.  Will more people doing what we can do help salaries?         

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Just a general comment to all the structural engineerings complaining about recognition.  Let's not forget about all those geotechnical engineers that designed foundations which hold up the structural engineers designs.  Even though you can't see fruits of the geotech's work, doesn't mean its not as amazing as any structural design.  Take a second to think of they type of materials the geotech has to work with,  heterogeneous soils behaving non-linearly with fluctuating water levels with random massive shaking of the ground, and that's only after hoping that the geotech's experience will allow them to assume they know what's really under the site from only a few small 6" holes.  We deal with not getting much attention from the general public but we wouldn't mind hearing a little recognition from our fellow civil engineers.  

I hope noone takes this the wrong way.  I agree with most of you.  Civil engineers have made the world as we know it possible.  Just think, if humans want to inhabit any remote place including other planets, who are going to be the most important people needed, civil engineers not architects

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

I always find that the most satisfying thing  being a civil engineer is the view of a completed project in my rear view mirror as I leave the site for the last time. There is nothing more satisfying in the job, at least to me, than to have completed a project, turned it over to those who are going to make use of it and having the knowledge that I had a significant role in making this project a reality. (And nothing more exciting than the start up of the next project).

I work in construction and at the completion of a project commissioning I then hand over the completed project to the users and leave the site. Absent any warranty problems I seldom return to the site unless a follow up project happens or there is something that I need (or want ) to know about some aspect of the project.

I go from being the head cheese on a site to just another visitor, which suits me just fine.

The goal of anyone involved in infrastructure work, be it new construction or ongoing maintenance and operation should be to be invisible to the end user. The users should be isolated from the process of construction and maintenance and simply have a usable facility for their uninterrupted use and enjoyment.

I have worked with individuals who had a high need for recognition. They missed the point that construction  is a team effort. They made every simple problem a major issue and positioned themselves in such a manner that their personal involvement was the only way to resolve the issue. The phrase pole vaulting over mouse droppings best describes their methods.

The result was a job site where no one would bring forward problems, suggest solutions nor have any degree of trust that everyone would work towards the goal of completing the project successfully. The two worst offenders are at the top of my “never work with again if possible” list.

Unfortunately some owners think that all contractors are out to do a bad job and take them for as much money as possible for as little work as possible and that the only way to manage a contractor is with an iron fist. These types will always find some work.

If you are in any branch of engineering for the personal recognition then you are probably in the wrong profession. I am more concerned with my reputation amongst my peers, those who actually know my work than with anyone else.

On a more global perspective, the profile of the profession does need to be raised if only to attract fresh talent. In my graduating class of about 200 over 80 were civil engineers. Now with the same size graduating classes there are generally less than 20 civil engineers. My local association is predicting a sever shortage of civil engineers as the last of the boomers retire in 10 or so years.

We need to encourage civil engineering both in the high schools and in the first year common curriculum classes of engineering schools. We should promote the high degree of job satisfaction that comes from civil engineering and seeing the results of one’s efforts being used in a manner that benefits society.

I agree that civil is not seen as sexy or exciting as computers but 1,000 years from now nobody will be able to see the electrons in a computer circuit, but some of the projects that I have worked on will still be in evidence (if not in actual use, witness the Roman aqueducts and roads).

Civil is the most permanent branch of engineering.

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

What a wonderful series of posts on a subject that sorely needs discussing.  I am in agreement with much of what has been discussed.

From my point of view, that of being a civil engineer for over 30 years, what is needed most is to educate the general public about our professionalism.

Unfortunately, many of us in the general civil/site community lack respectability in the eyes of the public because we work for "Developers", who as "everyone knows, are out to rape the land and screw the municipality". In the public's eyes, the few developers who do have that attitude damage the reputations all the others and the civil engineers who work for them.  A lack of trust is generated.

I do work that gets reviewed by non-engineers or sub-professional engineers who delight in telling me how I should design something.  Then in order to overcome that lack of trust and get approval for my Client's project from the public boards, I end up having to engineer a non professional's design so that it functions safely and effectively.

In other cases, because of the lack of trust, the municipality has its own standard designs, whose use is required.  This relegates the civil engineering design professional to little more than a technician.

All of this can be countered, I believe, by educating the general public about the professionalism, high standards of conduct and trustworthyness of professional engineers.

I have seen some movement in that direction from some of our professional societies, but unfortunately the proponents have not been able to "speak the same language" as the general public, and therefore, their message is less than effective.

I have been a member of Toastmasters for several years now and have started to get away from the engineering and technical jargon when talking to the public.  I recommend that those who want to improve our image and standing in the eyes of the public, learn to "speak the same Language".

Ed (northeast US)

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

I would like to go back to the comments about the humanities.  I feel that I am more well rounded by having gotten a history degree (about 12 years before my CE degree).  However I do agree wholeheartedly with the jokes about "You want fries with that?"

I think everyone should have some humanities background just for their own quality of life.  When I worked as a civilian for the Navy I felt like I was the only engineer in the organization who could spell, not to mention write a well structured paragraph.  (I can tell from the comments on this site that the situation is not that bad in private companies.)  I also seemed to be the only guy who could give a presentation thanks to the Army.

A good general background in arts and humanities may help to dispel the idea that all engineers are nerds.  Some are, but I know one who was a cowboy and then a logger before getting his engineering degree. I myself was in Army Special Forces.  We are definitely not nerds.

Rather than cut out the humanities I would like to see a "fifth year" made available or even mandatory.  In the teaching profession they have a mandatory fifth year and I believe they can go to work for awhile and then return to finish the fifth year later.  That would be great.  I would love to go back to the University of Washington and take some of the courses I missed.  Can't be done because they say they are overbooked.  The continuing ed courses they offer are just not comprehensive or even difficult enough. A mandatory fifth year program would force them to let me back in. Work experience as a co-op student caused me to see the value of what the professors were talking about when I came back to school after my first six month stint in the co-op program.  My grades and my understanding suddenly made a quantum leap.  A fifth year (with actual letter grades) would do the same for most everyone.  It could offer graduate level courses, even for those who have not formally been admitted to grad school.  It also might make some of the guys who were more "relaxed" as undergrads become eligible for grad school by raising their GPA's.

I realize that after touting my BA degree I have written some run on paragraphs but we engineers are a busy lot.

Dave Adkins

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

  I am not a P.E. there was a time in my life when I held all Civil engineers in contempt.  As a prof. geologist I ran across a bunch of P.E's that practiced outside of their abilities.  I once worked with a firm that had EE signing off on groundwater remediation plans.  I was uncomfortable with that.
  I deal often now with P.E's in the area of sinkhole research.  In representing the insurance companies in lawsuits often hire structural P.Es; these are easy fodder.  They make simple avoidable mistakes because they know foundation, they know code, they know stress modulus, they know more than I can ever know about their field. They don't know sinkhole stratigraphy. They think that organic material will not occur in the formation of a sink.
  I know that engineers are for the most part very competent, the arrogance I meet is astounding.  Last month in a town meeting the Civil Eng for a large E firm repeated twice that the small round lakes in Pinellas County Florida had nothing to do with sinkholes!  

As a geologist I am allowed to practice in Fla, and S.C where I have demonstrated ability through competancy testing.  I would not dream of making an opinion on (for example) California geology.  I have read, studied and visited it but I just do not have enough experince in that field.

My present opinion of PE is based soley on each individual and their willingness to stay within what they know.  
In my opinion the biggest enemy engineers have is yourselves.  I do work for engineers. I do from time to time hire engineers, You as a group know that saftey would suffer greatly without engineers.   The world MUST have you guys, so inspite of the poor opinion, keep on.  The work you do can not and must not be done by mass opinion.  

The truth will set you free. Best of luck. Geodude

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

As a PE I have had the opportunity to work with a lot of PG's that sent in their 5 dollars and got their license, that field has a long way to go.  In my opinion the biggest enemy PG's have is yourselves.

Sounds a lot like what you had to say...Hmmmm  bickering amound the various professional disiplines is what is bringing us all down...

Know your role.....

BobPE

RE: The Civil Engineer in Society: Merit v Profile

Ok when I did get a chance to re read that last post, I know why my english teacher did not give me A's.  I can spell when I am alert.

The truth will set you free. Best of luck. Geodude

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