Before you can design a bridge, you have to graduate with a four year degree in Civil Engineering. Then you have to pass the Engineer In Training (EIT) exam, then work for four years in the industry (helping with, but never actually able to sign off on, designs), then pass the Professional Engineer (PE) exam specific to the discipline you now have 4 years experience with.
Then you get to design your first bridge and put your stamp and signature on the plans.
So, with that knowledge, how exactly does civil engineering have problems with untrained entry level people signing off on designs for bridges that readers here are likely to drive over?
Are you on the ethics review board? Or can one speak frankly here about engineering?
You do not need a degree to be an EIT.
You do not need to have studied engineering to be a PE.
The CAD tech who assists in design (to the review board:"so I've been told by our competing firms") does not even need a high school diploma.
The PE who seals the plan is human. He had four projects going, they all have deadlines, and he trusts his staff to get it right. He checks as much as he can, but he doesn't have the time or the skill to check everything. He often cannot even check his own assumptions on many calculations because half his focus and career development is on project management and business development. It has not been on double checking the basis of the formulas his software has implemented.
If you're going for an EIT without a degree, you're required to have 20 years of experience (in my state at least). Any decent engineering firm is going to have a quality control process in place to ensure that someone reviews drawings before they're stamped and signed (maybe not necessarily the person stamping and signing them).
Yes, there is a level of trust involved, but "I had four other projects going" is not going to be an acceptable excuse if a bridge collapses.
Additionally: In AZ one can test for the EIT without a degree after four years of work experience (thus, you can start at 18, work instead of school, and still be at the same point as a college grad at 22: an EIT).
Is this a metaphorical point, or do you actually have knowledge of the civil engineering job market? I wouldn't think that civil engineering would find itself in a similar place as the software industry, because civil engineering work seems like it would be more constant over time and less susceptible to bubbles. This would mean the demand for new civil engineers would be relatively time constant.
However, I know nothing about the job market for civil engineers, so if you do, could you please horrify me and tell me that civil engineering standards have actually fallen in recent times?
I've just graduated in Civil Engineering and many of my peers are seeking jobs in the industry (UK).
In terms of market conditions, you are quite right in that although volumes do fluctuate with economic conditions, work is always required (remedial work for example). Also, and I can only speak for the UK here, in tougher economic times the government often tenders large infrastructure projects to boost demand (think HSR).
The other reason civ eng is quite different is due to a high level of regulation and accreditation, in most countries you simply cannot practice (legally) if you are not chartered. This is one of the major factors that drove me away and into an industry where i could move much faster, with more freedom and lesser consequences (most of the time!!).
I was not replying to the point about lowering the bar due to market demand. Though, now that I think about it, if you were a very bright engineer, would you go into a lackluster career in civil that would start out at $45k and only find small increases in salary now that there is little demand for housing, or would you go into software? So clearly there is going to be brain drain. But I was not referring to market economics. See my point above (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4412278).
I will say that my point did not suggest "horror" - as in horrifying you. Leaking sensitive user data is not, in my opinion, on par with a bridge completely structurally failing while traffic is on it. Unless of course the web app is for a bank. Which is the sort of security work that likely does not have the coffee fetching intern designing its protocols. But even then, I think as a society we are clearly willing to have many more cases of ID theft than deaths from bridge failure.
The comparison should be equal: are there bridges that require maintenance more often than is reasonable? Is their lifespan long enough? Are their piers sunk deeply enough to accommodate the scour of the river (we have several bridges here locally that are under restoration efforts because the scour was not adequately considered)? Was the water surface elevation of the design storm of the river accurately predicted to which the answer is realistically always no; there is no such thing as accuracy in backwater analysis - for before one even begins to model the river, one has to assume how MUCH water it could have - and that can vary widely, being a combination of not-always-comprehensive statistical analysis of historical precipitation, stream gauge data, and semi-empirical algorithms - stress on the semi.
Now, see my above comment about how civil plans actually get out the door, and I would say this is not a metaphor. We know from experience that if a "hot new startup" or even a stodgy old site (linkedIn, eHarmony, Last.FM) loses user data, it is not the end of the world, let alone the end of the startup. If a bridge fails and falls, the PE loses his licence. If the bridge fails and requires extra maintenance, the county and the firm lawyer up and the JDs make a lot of money in court.
UK specific: very tight regulation, including audited software, together with economy of scale leading to standardised and 'modular' construction. I don't think people here would like being a civil engineer, it's a very conservative profession.
Construction is notoriously cyclic: demand for civils will ramp up when the next boom comes along.
