Civil Engineer Wages Question

yourpics

Hi, in some industries there are wage agreements whereby a person cannot be paid less than a certain amount.

Example - a hairdresser must receive at least 361.44 euro a week plus 10% of their clients.

does anyone know if there is such an agreement for civil engineering???

tia

godtabh

it certainly doesnt!

dan_d

Emphatically - no.

We're very bad at standing up for ourselves as a profession.

And civil engineering wages right now are dire (unless you're PS), because the industry is so dead.

godtabh

Why should there be a minimum wage?

Offy

godtabh wrote: »

Why should there be a minimum wage?

Motivation, effort equals reward. Four years for a degree is a lot of effort. Why shouldnt there be a minimum wage?

godtabh

because the industry cant afford it.

I've worked here and in the UK for the same company. I was earning 50% more than my UK colleagues while on assignment.

There was no work here and my company couldn't afford to keep me in the UK. Got a 10% pay cut and then a 3 day week. If my pay wasn't as high I probably still be working as an engineer.

You wont get rich working as a civil engineer. As you work up the grades and become senior after 15-20 years you might make something decent but until then its about jobs and experience.

Offy

godtabh wrote: »

because the industry cant afford it.

I've worked here and in the UK for the same company. I was earning 50% more than my UK colleagues while on assignment.

There was no work here and my company couldn't afford to keep me in the UK. Got a 10% pay cut and then a 3 day week. If my pay wasn't as high I probably still be working as an engineer.

You wont get rich working as a civil engineer. As you work up the grades and become senior after 15-20 years you might make something decent but until then its about jobs and experience.

I hear what you are saying but I'd like to made one or two points, firstly comparing UK salaries to Irish salaries isnt so straightforward, rate of exchange, cost of living, etc. should be factored in. So 50% more in Ireland isnt actually 50% more in real terms. Its actually very complex to calculate an equivalent between different countries.
Secondly we have to maintain a certain level for engineers, I have 16 years experience and yet I get a higher income from post grad education than I can presently secure in industry. Im qualified in Mechanical, Electronic and Computer engineering - not civil but regardless a certain level must be maintained for Irish engineers accross the board or we simply will not be able to compete on a global scale. We cannot afford to let this level slip. Engineers play a critical role in a countries economy.
Lastly we should be looking at other professions. I have eight years full time post leaving cert education in engineering, how many do doctors, solicitors, accountants, etc. have and what is their pay scale? Why should we engineers get a lower income than other professionals? We train just as hard, we work just as hard and we should be equally rewarded.

Low Energy Eng

Offy wrote: »

I hear what you are saying but I'd like to made one or two points, firstly comparing UK salaries to Irish salaries isnt so straightforward, rate of exchange, cost of living, etc. should be factored in. So 50% more in Ireland isnt actually 50% more in real terms. Its actually very complex to calculate an equivalent between different countries.
Secondly we have to maintain a certain level for engineers, I have 16 years experience and yet I get a higher income from post grad education than I can presently secure in industry. Im qualified in Mechanical, Electronic and Computer engineering - not civil but regardless a certain level must be maintained for Irish engineers accross the board or we simply will not be able to compete on a global scale. We cannot afford to let this level slip. Engineers play a critical role in a countries economy.
Lastly we should be looking at other professions. I have eight years full time post leaving cert education in engineering, how many do doctors, solicitors, accountants, etc. have and what is their pay scale? Why should we engineers get a lower income than other professionals? We train just as hard, we work just as hard and we should be equally rewarded.

We were rewarded when we were needed, we're no longer needed, so we compete in the rat race to the bottom. Rightly so too, this country would be in worse shape if they tried to impose a mandatory minimum pay scale
Theres also plenty of solicitors out of work

godtabh

Low Energy Eng wrote: »

We were rewarded when we were needed, we're no longer needed, so we compete in the rat race to the bottom. Rightly so too, this country would be in worse shape if they tried to impose a mandatory minimum pay scale
Theres also plenty of solicitors out of work

I would agree with this.

We need to start from scratch

There are to many engineers out there looking for so little work. Add a minimum wage into it and they'd have no chance

aquascrotum

Offy wrote: »

firstly comparing UK salaries to Irish salaries isnt so straightforward, rate of exchange, cost of living, etc. should be factored in. So 50% more in Ireland isnt actually 50% more in real terms.

Irish engineering salarys up until 08/09 were inflated beyond belief alongside every other Irish salary (not that we were complaining).

I worked in the UK, came to Ireland for 10 months and had easily twice to three times as much disposable income, in real terms, as when in the UK. It was great while it lasted. Got laid off (along with probably 30% of the rest of the construction industry) and returned to the UK to pick up a salary less than what I'd left 10 months previously. And I was grateful for it!

Low Energy Eng wrote: »

We were rewarded when we were needed, we're no longer needed, so we compete in the rat race to the bottom. Rightly so too, this country would be in worse shape if they tried to impose a mandatory minimum pay scale
Theres also plenty of solicitors out of work

Think this hits the nail on the head. We're poorly(ish) paid because there are lots of us - supply and demand. If the civil engineering industry was better regulated / audited and stopped e.g. architects doing drainage design etc, then we might be in a position to demand greater pay because there would be greater demand for our services.

Irelands engineering sector also has to be competitive - UK companies with the remains of a presence here can still pick up work and ship it across to the UK office where it could be completed using cheaper staff (probably less so now due to the wage cuts). When I was laid off our MD was complaining that our company was min. 40% more expensive in staffing terms than competitors in the UK, which hurt when UK firms won Irish work, and when Irish firms were looking outside of Ireland (UAE, Saudi etc) only to find the same UK firms bidding against them there.

In summary, if you want to get rich, don't be a civil engineer. Theres a lot of potential job satisfaction but unless you get 15-years down the line and get to associate or director level (or start up yourself and are prepared for 70+ hour weeks) then imo we're destined for Mondeo-man lifestyle. Comfortable but unspectacular.

yourpics

it is imperative that we have a minimum wage to ensure that an engineer gets a decent wage especially considering all the education required to become an engineer.

I worked as a fully qualified engineer for less than the national minimum wage for 14 months. When i pointed out the min wage to my employer, he said we can get plenty other people to do your job. very flippant attitude.

godtabh

yourpics wrote: »

it is imperative that we have a minimum wage to ensure that an engineer gets a decent wage especially considering all the education required to become an engineer.

I worked as a fully qualified engineer for less than the national minimum wage for 14 months. When i pointed out the min wage to my employer, he said we can get plenty other people to do your job. very flippant attitude.

supply and dmeand should set the wage limits. When things are good you get paid good. When things are bad you have to take a hit. No one is entitled to a minimum salary (and I think that goes for the irish minimum wage). Just becasuse you did a 4 year degree or possible a masters (like I did) it doesnt entitle you to get a minimum salary. Thats not the way the world works. The non union version of it anyway

123easy

Let this thread be a lesson to anyone considering a career in engineering - run a mile its a total waste of brains and do not be taken in with any of the rubbish the government are spouting about careers in science and engineering. If you have the brains to be a very good engineer than you will only be properly rewarded in another profession. Most engineers get paid crap and treated like crap if they work in the private sector. Engineering salaries were never great even during the boom they were only just ok and lagged well behind other professions.

yourpics

godtabh wrote: »

supply and dmeand should set the wage limits. When things are good you get paid good. When things are bad you have to take a hit. No one is entitled to a minimum salary (and I think that goes for the irish minimum wage). Just becasuse you did a 4 year degree or possible a masters (like I did) it doesnt entitle you to get a minimum salary. Thats not the way the world works. The non union version of it anyway

The purpose of the min wage is to protect ALL workers from exploitation regardless of how much or how little education they have.
Other professions have a wage agreement so I don't see why engineering shouldn't.
Anyway I see the new government is possibly going to change the current wage agreements for certain sectors.

Nocaster

If you're good enough then you will be rewarded when things are good. If you're a mediocre engineer then your pay will reflect same - just like any other profession.

godtabh

123easy wrote: »

Let this thread be a lesson to anyone considering a career in engineering - run a mile its a total waste of brains and do not be taken in with any of the rubbish the government are spouting about careers in science and engineering. If you have the brains to be a very good engineer than you will only be properly rewarded in another profession. Most engineers get paid crap and treated like crap if they work in the private sector. Engineering salaries were never great even during the boom they were only just ok and lagged well behind other professions.

One week ban for this.

You were infracted previously for similar comments on the female engineering grants thread.

Any more comments like this and it will be for keeps.

yourpics

the wages for engineers were very good in contracting during the boom to be fair

Turbulent Bill

I'm not a civil, but a few things jumped out at me:

aquascrotum wrote: »

We're poorly(ish) paid because there are lots of us - supply and demand. If the civil engineering industry was better regulated / audited and stopped e.g. architects doing drainage design etc, then we might be in a position to demand greater pay because there would be greater demand for our services.

The "lots of us" bit is part of the problem, you need to differentiate yourself as a drainage design expert (for example) rather than just a generic engineer. The medical devices jobs thread showed how poorly people are branding/marketing themselves when it comes to interviews.

yourpics wrote: »

The purpose of the min wage is to protect ALL workers from exploitation regardless of how much or how little education they have.
Other professions have a wage agreement so I don't see why engineering shouldn't.
Anyway I see the new government is possibly going to change the current wage agreements for certain sectors.

Minimum wage agreements don't work in open, highly-competitive and non-unionised environments like engineering. Couple this with EI's poor defense of the engineer title and you've a recipe for disaster - anyone could call themselves an engineer and abuse the system. Chartered engs do have title protection but already earn good money.

Nocaster wrote: »

If you're good enough then you will be rewarded when things are good. If you're a mediocre engineer then your pay will reflect same - just like any other profession.

If you promote yourself as a good engineer you'll be rewarded - don't hide under a rock!

aquascrotum

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

The "lots of us" bit is part of the problem, you need to differentiate yourself as a drainage design expert (for example) rather than just a generic engineer. The medical devices jobs thread showed how poorly people are branding/marketing themselves when it comes to interviews.

I'd agree with you in what you're saying - but many aspects of civil engineering aren't well enough protected to be a specialist in. Most of us are specialised in one of drainage or roads or maybe a couple of other niches (structural seems to be better protected). But you won't find any requirement for the typical housing or middlish scale industrial development, when submitted to Planning, to have any formal signoff from a qualified civil engineer for roads / drainage / wastewater. Or at least if there is one its very loosely enforced.

Any architect can knock up a road and drainage design on PDS or Civil 3D and chuck it into planning, and 99% of the time LA's / clients have neither the wit nor will to question whether the thing is properly designed. Outside of civil led infrastructural projects, specialist civil input is often (in my experienc) seen as an inconvenience and/or afterthought. And those are the projects every engineer in the country is left to scrap over.

forfcksake

does anyone have an idea how much a graduate civil engineer with an honours degree (level 8) would expect to earn?
and what the difference would be if he held a masters degree?

godtabh

forfcksake wrote: »

does anyone have an idea how much a graduate civil engineer with an honours degree (level 8) would expect to earn?
and what the difference would be if he held a masters degree?

I would imagine that there would be very little difference. Experience is key.

Very little work going for grads so I would forget about how much you think you are going to be paid and work on getting experience.

dan_d

Mid 20k.If you're lucky to get a job.

That's a lot of luck, to be honest.

yourpics

forfcksake wrote: »

does anyone have an idea how much a graduate civil engineer with an honours degree (level 8) would expect to earn?
and what the difference would be if he held a masters degree?

Graduate with Honours Degree
23-24K for contracting
19-23K for consulting

Masters will be worth around 1000-1500 more per annum

But as another poster said, very very hard to find any work out there!

aquascrotum

Heard yesterday that one of the few consultants who had a graduate program this past year (think there may have been a thread on it here) had their graduate intake on a reduced working week within 2 months of their starting, and is now going through more rounds of redundancies.

For new graduates imo its a case of take what you get, emigrate, or else get creative and forget civil engineering at the minute.

miss no stars

yourpics wrote: »

Hi, in some industries there are wage agreements whereby a person cannot be paid less than a certain amount.

Example - a hairdresser must receive at least 361.44 euro a week plus 10% of their clients.

does anyone know if there is such an agreement for civil engineering???

tia

The problem is less to do with a lack of such an agreement with civil engineering.... more to do with the existence of one for hairdressing. Over 360 a week MINIMUM for someone to cut hair?!?! Far too much. All that serves to show is that the cost of labour in this country is horrendously expensive and is making us not just uncompetitive, but completely non-competitive. The price level in this country needs to drop FAST. You may disagree, but honestly I don't see hairdressing as a profession or as being a particularly difficult to obtain skill. That should be reflected in the pay. Engineering is more difficult to do and is a profession. As such, engineers should be paid more than hairdressers, BUT, that's only valid where hairdressers are being paid appropriately to begin with. People need realistic expectations of what constitutes proper remuneration for their skills/effort and also to account for the gravity of what they do.

I don't mean to pick on hairdressers, but that is the example you gave.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

I have eight years full time post leaving cert education in engineering, how many do doctors, solicitors, accountants, etc. have and what is their pay scale? Why should we engineers get a lower income than other professionals? We train just as hard, we work just as hard and we should be equally rewarded.

Plenty of accountants and solicitors are on low wages too. Civil engineers are two a penny, it's not an especially difficult degree either.

godtabh

Civil engineering isnt a hard degree. Engineering can be a tough degree depending on the type.

When regulation comes into the industry I see it going down a similar route to chartered accountant.

Grads will be on 4 year training contracts and get paid sweet fa. Once the become a chartered engineer then will see a decent increase (depending on the health of the industry).

yourpics

miss no stars wrote: »

The problem is less to do with a lack of such an agreement with civil engineering.... more to do with the existence of one for hairdressing. Over 360 a week MINIMUM for someone to cut hair?!?! Far too much. All that serves to show is that the cost of labour in this country is horrendously expensive and is making us not just uncompetitive, but completely non-competitive. The price level in this country needs to drop FAST. You may disagree, but honestly I don't see hairdressing as a profession or as being a particularly difficult to obtain skill. That should be reflected in the pay. Engineering is more difficult to do and is a profession. As such, engineers should be paid more than hairdressers, BUT, that's only valid where hairdressers are being paid appropriately to begin with. People need realistic expectations of what constitutes proper remuneration for their skills/effort and also to account for the gravity of what they do.

I don't mean to pick on hairdressers, but that is the example you gave.

Electricians are on a very high rate per hour because of a similiar agreement. It is not a particularly difficult job either, strip back the flex, join the copper to metal connection, job done!

yourpics

godtabh wrote: »

Civil engineering isnt a hard degree. Engineering can be a tough degree depending on the type.



When regulation comes into the industry I see it going down a similar route to chartered accountant.



Grads will be on 4 year training contracts and get paid sweet fa. Once the become a chartered engineer then will see a decent increase (depending on the health of the industry).

I would have to stongly disagree, I found civil engineering extremely difficult. My degree wasn't practical enough and focused too much on theory that will never be needed.

Warchild aka Lupton_Pittman

What specifically did you find "extremely difficult"? The maths? If degrees are too practical they can become too specialised. Not all graduates join design offices.

Imo, civil engineering is dead easy in terms of understanding compared to pure mathematics, physics or even other types of engineering for example. Anyone who finds it "extremely difficult" arguably doesn't have the intelligence to be an engineer, because you are expected to think on your feet and have an immediate and comprehensive understanding of engineering on a day to day basis. If you can't do that, then frankly you have no business being an engineer because your incompetence would put the public in danger from shoddy work. No offence meant.

And godtabh, why ban that guy for giving his opinion on wages? Some people undecided on becoming engineers need to be told the truth about wages. There's a reason the best and brightest have been going into finance for years. They also need to be aware of the cyclical nature of the industry and it's cold reality. To do otherwise is to do them a disservice and validate one's own career choices merely to save face.

dan_d

Actually if you're in any other country, wages are fine.

We have an over-supply of civil engineers at the moment, and engineers are not appreciated in Ireland. Nobody has a clue what we do. And sure, we don't have a union, and we don't stand up for ourselves, so we just get walked all over. It's always been the way.

I wouldn't say it's an "easy" degree. I would say that most people who go into engineering don't wander in saying they couldn't think of anything else to do (like some Arts degrees).Most people who do engineering do it because they like the idea of it, they're practical problem solvers who have some aptitude for maths. Mind you, I can't count the number of times I've said to people I'm an engineer and I get in response "Oh wow, you must be really smart - that's all maths, it must be really hard". Which says more about the general population's perception of Maths as a subject that it does about what they know of engineering...

I wouldn't consider accountancy or law to be particularly difficult degrees either. In the case of law - time consuming maybe, but not technically difficult. Anyway, paying a wage based on the "difficulty" of a degree is not really an option. Jobs like hairdressers in this country get paid relatively well because unions went out and fought for their rights on the basis that they were underpaid. And in recent years, they got into the mindset of wanting all the rights (wage increases etc) and no responsibility. Same goes for brickies, chippies, labourers on site, etc,etc. Unions. Jobs like accountancy, law...everyone knows what they do, they get paid accordingly, they always were big ticket jobs. Engineering? Great, if you're not in Ireland. But here, nobody has a notion what we do, and we're ok with letting everyone walk all over us...so we get paid accordingly....

aquascrotum

yourpics wrote: »

I would have to stongly disagree, I found civil engineering extremely difficult. My degree wasn't practical enough and focused too much on theory that will never be needed.

Wouldn't go as far as Warchild, but theres no question that Civil is the easiest of the university engineering disciplines, as typically evidenced by course entry requirements across most institutions, and numbers within those courses.

Its still a lot more ball ache (and a lot more useful) than an arts degree but its definitely the easiest engineering profession.

That being the case, the exceptional civil engineers will rise to the top and make a good living. There is a worrying number of "engineers" about though who I wonder about. Spent a couple of hours on site there a few days ago trying to give advice to a recent graduate and finally copped that he didnt seem to understand that water can't flow uphill.

yourpics

Warchild aka Lupton_Pittman wrote: »

What specifically did you find "extremely difficult"? The maths? If degrees are too practical they can become too specialised. Not all graduates join design offices.

Imo, civil engineering is dead easy in terms of understanding compared to pure mathematics, physics or even other types of engineering for example. Anyone who finds it "extremely difficult" arguably doesn't have the intelligence to be an engineer, because you are expected to think on your feet and have an immediate and comprehensive understanding of engineering on a day to day basis. If you can't do that, then frankly you have no business being an engineer because your incompetence would put the public in danger from shoddy work. No offence meant.

And godtabh, why ban that guy for giving his opinion on wages? Some people undecided on becoming engineers need to be told the truth about wages. There's a reason the best and brightest have been going into finance for years. They also need to be aware of the cyclical nature of the industry and it's cold reality. To do otherwise is to do them a disservice and validate one's own career choices merely to save face.

I feel very insulted by your suggestion that I don't have the intelligence to be an engineer and that I am incompetent.
I have a very good aptitude for maths. I found some of the principles in mechanics of materials difficult to grasp. And I also thought that the pressure of exams did not help, but that is the same for all degrees. I have, however, gone on to be a very competent engineer with a 2.1 Hons Degree. The university bit isn't for everyone but has to be done none the less.

A practical course makes sense as it could train a person in both consulting and contracting allowing the person a choice at the end.

estadio

I personally chose engineering because unlike say dentistry it is not a closed shop. By that i mean the market decides your value. I know of people who are unemployed and others who are earning nearly 7 figure sums in the middle east.
Ireland's construction industry and industry in general is in a bad state so when i graduate i intend to immigrate.
To answer the op you will earn what you deserve.
http://www.dubai-information-site.com/civil-engineering-jobs-in-dubai.html

yourpics

estadio wrote: »

I personally chose engineering because unlike say dentistry it is not a closed shop. By that i mean the market decides your value. I know of people who are unemployed and others who are earning nearly 7 figure sums in the middle east.
Ireland's construction industry and industry in general is in a bad state so when i graduate i intend to immigrate.
To answer the op you will earn what you deserve.
http://www.dubai-information-site.com/civil-engineering-jobs-in-dubai.html

Ahh so I deserve 188 euro a week lol

Warchild aka Lupton_Pittman

No offence meant yourpics but what concepts exactly did you find difficult to grasp?

and

nearly 7 figure sums in the middle east

?????

WTF???!!!!!! Who, where, what?!!

yourpics

Warchild aka Lupton_Pittman wrote: »

No offence meant yourpics but what concepts exactly did you find difficult to grasp?

and
?????

WTF???!!!!!! Who, where, what?!!

For example, if you are given a truss and have to find the moments of the members: i understand how to do it, but a lot of the time i start with the wrong member and this mistake carries throughout the truss grrrr!!
just a small example but very frustrating!!
And I don't think being able to find moments of truss members via first principles is very relevant to the actual job you get upon graduation.

breadmonkey

Do you mean axial forces?

godtabh

The thing about engineering is you need to know your first principles. If you do you can work out any problem.

dan_d

And that everything can be proved by induction.....:p

yourpics

breadmonkey wrote: »

Do you mean axial forces?

yes

yourpics

godtabh wrote: »

The thing about engineering is you need to know your first principles. If you do you can work out any problem.

Nonsense. first principles never helped me construct miles of road over poor ground, it was down to on the job experience. never learned anything about floating roads at college, all on the job

apoeiguq3094y

yourpics wrote: »

I would have to stongly disagree, I found civil engineering extremely difficult. My degree wasn't practical enough and focused too much on theory that will never be needed.

There if you do know the theory how can you apply it in a practical way? I'm sure everyone in civil eng thought aerodynamics was irrelevant until the Tacoma bridge tore itself assunder. Or people thought crack growth was to technical until the Liberty ships started sinking.

There needs to be regulation in engineering, so that people who have earned their degree have some value for it. You get every tom dick & harry calling themselves engineers, even though they are builders or fitters etc. In the states you can't call yourself and engineer unless you have the right qualification. It would be like pharamcists calling themselves doctors or vice versa. There needs to be protection of job descriptions.

Turbulent Bill

yourpics wrote: »

For example, if you are given a truss and have to find the moments of the members: i understand how to do it, but a lot of the time i start with the wrong member and this mistake carries throughout the truss grrrr!!
just a small example but very frustrating!!
And I don't think being able to find moments of truss members via first principles is very relevant to the actual job you get upon graduation.

I think a first-principles understanding is absolutely essential, even just to sanity-check a new design against a software model (for example). Calculating truss forces is a 1st year topic for a reason - understanding forces and moments is fundamental to pretty much everything in mechanics. The understanding doesn't have to be perfect, but you do need a feel for what's reasonable and why.

I know you work on roads but surely there's a branch of mechanics (soil mechanics?) that is relevent?

breadmonkey

yourpics wrote: »

Nonsense. first principles never helped me construct miles of road over poor ground, it was down to on the job experience. never learned anything about floating roads at college, all on the job

I think it's a bit naive to dismiss fundamental principles of engineering through one anecdotal example.

miss no stars

yourpics wrote: »

For example, if you are given a truss and have to find the moments of the members: i understand how to do it, but a lot of the time i start with the wrong member and this mistake carries throughout the truss grrrr!!
just a small example but very frustrating!!
And I don't think being able to find moments of truss members via first principles is very relevant to the actual job you get upon graduation.

Look... I'm not out to get you but that post is just way too littered with stuff I just can't bring myself to ignore.

1. You find the structural analysis of a truss difficult? Please tell me you're talking about some whopper of a geometrically bizarre and insanely indeterminate truss... Cos sure first and second years are generally quite proficient at analysing statically determinate trusses and third years should be fine for indeterminate trusses.

2. What do you mean analysing a truss from first principles? Like doing it by hand? Sure anyone could model it in a computer program!

3. How is knowing the force to which a member will be subject irrelevent? How can you design a member if you don't know what you're designing for?

yourpics

miss no stars wrote: »

Look... I'm not out to get you but that post is just way too littered with stuff I just can't bring myself to ignore.

1. You find the structural analysis of a truss difficult? Please tell me you're talking about some whopper of a geometrically bizarre and insanely indeterminate truss... Cos sure first and second years are generally quite proficient at analysing statically determinate trusses and third years should be fine for indeterminate trusses.

2. What do you mean analysing a truss from first principles? Like doing it by hand? Sure anyone could model it in a computer program!

3. How is knowing the force to which a member will be subject irrelevent? How can you design a member if you don't know what you're designing for?

Look that is just a topic that i had difficulty with, i had no problem understanding others topics which a lot of people regarded as more complex e.g. geotechnics alot of people could not get their heads around certain geo principles.

With regard to using a computer program as you suggested, you have to do it by hand in exams, real life uses computer models though!

miss no stars

I get what you're saying about real life using computer models but surely you have to know that doing it by hand in exams gives you at least SOME intuition as to what sort of force should be in a member? Otherwise are you just blindly accepting an output?

You may be happy to carry on as is using computer models that other people create... But other people have to create them. Surely a degree has to provide a broad grounding in civil engineering to those who want to end up in the purely practical end of it and to those who want to go down the more theoretical end? Like how engineering chemistry courses do actually cover the details of hydration of cement - how many engineers go and work out that from first principles? Not many, but it's good to at least have an idea of what's going on (cos most people forget the details) and then those who want to do their thesis in that area or go on to work in concrete research will at least have seen the stuff before. So should that be scrapped from the syllabus too? How much do you want to cut out? Where do you draw the line?

I mean it's a massive area. Not everyone can be pleased 100% and if you come out with a firm grasp of the basics and with the ability to learn enough to specialise in an area that interests you most, where's the problem?

yourpics

yes i agree with your views, my original point was that civil engineering is not as easy as some boards.ie posters were suggesting!!

miss no stars

ah sorry, got sidetracked
I do get where you're coming from, though. Mechanics of materials and structures do have a steep learning curve and usually require a lot of time put into them. It's easy to look at a civil course that's say, very heavily influenced by the environmental end of things and go "pah, easy", but one that's more structural definately isn't!

yourpics

miss no stars wrote: »

ah sorry, got sidetracked
I do get where you're coming from, though. Mechanics of materials and structures do have a steep learning curve and usually require a lot of time put into them. It's easy to look at a civil course that's say, very heavily influenced by the environmental end of things and go "pah, easy", but one that's more structural definately isn't!

Another good example would be analysis and design of pre-stressed concrete - i loved it and flew through it but others hated it the way i hate trusses