Civil Engineer Wages Question

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

godtabh

Can we bring it back on topic please

Seán_B

A couple of points,

The undermining of posters in this thread unfortunately highlights some of the challenges facing the profession at present. If fellow engineers belittle the role of professional engineers and the level of responsibility demanded then how do they expect others in the construction sector to value an engineers' contribution?

I do not accept that civil/structural engineering is an "easy" degree. All degree courses require a certain aptitude for the topic and for example I would not consider law, science or indeed any of the other engineering streams any easier or more difficult. Simply different.

Like all professions, there are engineers of all levels but a baseline standard must be maintained. Due to the complete lack of regulation of the title "engineer" there is no respect for the role of an civil/structural engineer nor an understanding of the liability placed on each engineer as they perform their role. This, I feel is the root of the issue surrounding the level of remuneration in the profession at present exacerbated by the total collapse of the construction sector. I hope that Engineers Ireland can make progress in restricting the term "engineer" as well as the "chartered" term

Finally, I feel it has never been more important to support and indeed champion the engineering profession at this time. I hope that this forum can develop into a positive resource for fellow engineers and students.

Seán,
Chartered Engineer.

godtabh

Chartered engineer is protected under legislation relating to nursing homes, multi storey car parks and play ground where it has reserved functions

yourpics

Seán_B wrote: »

A couple of points,

The undermining of posters in this thread unfortunately highlights some of the challenges facing the profession at present. If fellow engineers belittle the role of professional engineers and the level of responsibility demanded then how do they expect others in the construction sector to value an engineers' contribution?

I do not accept that civil/structural engineering is an "easy" degree. All degree courses require a certain aptitude for the topic and for example I would not consider law, science or indeed any of the other engineering streams any easier or more difficult. Simply different.

Like all professions, there are engineers of all levels but a baseline standard must be maintained. Due to the complete lack of regulation of the title "engineer" there is no respect for the role of an civil/structural engineer nor an understanding of the liability placed on each engineer as they perform their role. This, I feel is the root of the issue surrounding the level of remuneration in the profession at present exacerbated by the total collapse of the construction sector. I hope that Engineers Ireland can make progress in restricting the term "engineer" as well as the "chartered" term

Finally, I feel it has never been more important to support and indeed champion the engineering profession at this time. I hope that this forum can develop into a positive resource for fellow engineers and students.

Seán,
Chartered Engineer.

Excellent post Séan.

Warchild aka Lupton_Pittman

yourpics has clearly (and worryingly) demonstrated a lack of understanding of some very basic stuff. We are entitled to, nay have a duty as engineers, to question his abilities, without being accused of undermining him or belittling his role.

Civil Engineering is relatively "easy" in terms of understanding compared to some pure sciences or maths, no question. Saying that isn't denigrating engineering. It's still relatively "difficult" compared to lots of other things. Maybe for some people it's more difficult than others.

And what exactly has good old Engineers Ireland done lately to protect the title "engineer" or get better fees for engineers? They don't hesitate when it comes to collecting/increasing their own fees for sure anyway.

Seán_B

Warchild aka Lupton_Pittman wrote: »

yourpics has clearly (and worryingly) demonstrated a lack of understanding of some very basic stuff. We are entitled to, nay have a duty as engineers, to question his abilities, without being accused of undermining him or belittling his role.

Civil Engineering is relatively "easy" in terms of understanding compared to some pure sciences or maths, no question. Saying that isn't denigrating engineering. It's still relatively "difficult" compared to lots of other things. Maybe for some people it's more difficult than others.

And what exactly has good old Engineers Ireland done lately to protect the title "engineer" or get better fees for engineers? They don't hesitate when it comes to collecting/increasing their own fees for sure anyway.

Warchild,

I respect your opinion and it is obvious you have a passion for the industry. I'm sure we could have a protracted debate about the role of engineers ireland and the standards of practicing engineers at present but I would rather contribute to positive and informative threads which will bolster spirits.

Seán.

yourpics

Warchild aka Lupton_Pittman wrote: »

yourpics has clearly (and worryingly) demonstrated a lack of understanding of some very basic stuff. We are entitled to, nay have a duty as engineers, to question his abilities, without being accused of undermining him or belittling his role.

Civil Engineering is relatively "easy" in terms of understanding compared to some pure sciences or maths, no question. Saying that isn't denigrating engineering. It's still relatively "difficult" compared to lots of other things. Maybe for some people it's more difficult than others.

And what exactly has good old Engineers Ireland done lately to protect the title "engineer" or get better fees for engineers? They don't hesitate when it comes to collecting/increasing their own fees for sure anyway.

I graduated with a First Class Hons Degree so I am as qualified as the next engineer

godtabh

Warchild aka Lupton_Pittman wrote: »

yourpics has clearly (and worryingly) demonstrated a lack of understanding of some very basic stuff. We are entitled to, nay have a duty as engineers, to question his abilities, without being accused of undermining him or belittling his role.

Civil Engineering is relatively "easy" in terms of understanding compared to some pure sciences or maths, no question. Saying that isn't denigrating engineering. It's still relatively "difficult" compared to lots of other things. Maybe for some people it's more difficult than others.

And what exactly has good old Engineers Ireland done lately to protect the title "engineer" or get better fees for engineers? They don't hesitate when it comes to collecting/increasing their own fees for sure anyway.

Engineers Ireland havent increased membership fees for about 3 ears if I'm not mistaken

godtabh

Last chance. Any more off topic posts and people will be banned/thread closed.

Debate the topic at hand and attack the post not the poster.

yourpics

Back on topic...

Séan, what sort of money can a chartered engineer expect??