Dear Sir,

Your statement about using your work experience at the Sorbonne University is most interesting. Have you done this in the English or French language ?

For my own part I do believe that an Engineer who does his studies whilst doing daily work is almost invariably a better all-around technician. Where the weakness do sometime appear are in structural designs and calculations. These are the areas that are very tough for the studying on ones own.

Of course the final exams must be closely monitored and if possible by independent Colleges or Learning Centers but apart from this remark I can only repeat my own thoughts as expressed above .

May I congratulate you quite sincerely in your own pursuit at the stage where a lot of others start thinking of the conforts of the " rocking chair".

Bon courage.

Labor Omnia Vincit

I think the authorities in Nepal are trying to tell you something.

This is a question that I've been struggling with. I've worked with many engineers from all sorts of backgrounds. I've known engineers that completed their bachelor degrees in engineering from schools such as MIT and RIT and the first thing I've had to do was teach them how to read a blue print. I've worked with engineers by training, not schooling, and they didn't make nearly as many mistakes as the school taught engineers.

I know one engineer who is self taught. When ever he ran across a problem he's never seen before, he looked up the way to solve that problem and guess what? He never had a failure.

So, should these engineers bring there life experience to a school and get a degree handed to them?

So much of civil engineering is experience based and each engineer treats his experience and specific knowledge like it is proprietary that you can work quie effectively as an engineer without formal education. However, you are then limited to working within your experience base, unless you have the broad education and understanding of the methods to solving the problems that lie beyond your experiences. In the US, there is no formal requirment for an education. Education is equated to a number of years of equivalent experience towards a license. However, with regards to education, only honorary pHDs are typically granted for experience in the industry without formal education. Most of what you learn in school will never be used anyways, except that one time when something appears similar to other project experiences you have had, and you lack the education to distinguish an important difference.

I am not an engineer nor a scientist although, sometimes I wish I continue school and become one; I am a frame and body technician with over 20 years experience and an understanding of collision damages above average. I once, had an engineer come to the shop, after being told by his insurance that they needed photos and estimate of the damages, I took the photos and started to take notes of the damages, in his eyes no damage had ocurred, from my point of view, the impact was strong enough to have caused structural damage. He mentioned that he was an engineer and I did not know what I was talking about. I asked for a few minutes to explain his accident and damages sustained and if incorrect, I would admit it and apologize for my mistake, however, after I explained the impact, what effect inertia had and the present stress on metal parts, he said nothing and left without returning to fix his vehicle. There is this idea that a technician has no education, I did not finish college, but as a technician I have become certified and continued, until today, taking mechanical courses to upgrade and update my knowledge. In regards to your situation, without regards to what the law or rules are in your country, you could probably challenge it, then again, for what purpose?

It is the same in every industry. However, it parallels something i heard the other day as an argument for why doctors should be paid more than nurses. The argument was based on an elderly gentlemens current interpretation that to him a good nurse is more knowledgeable and useful than these young doctors. To refute this, a friend of mine who is attending medical school explained that in many common circumstances a experienced nurse may be more useful to many patients, but who would he want to have cutting into his brain or heart during surgery, and who would he hold responsible for medical advise when they had a serious condition that he did not really understand like cancer. Of course the above statements do indicate that when discussing the more mundane things, as they perceive them, Many highly educated people tend to not fully think them through as they might a more complicated situation, and make errors when they shoot form the hip.

By relating the older person's comment you have made a good point. Yet and without being argumentative he has omitted a quite important point. He is comparing nurses that have acquired huge experience in their field with Doctors who by necessity have to have absorbed lenghty theoritical knowledge. These still require from them intern stages "on the job".

If I may say so , his comments would be like comparing work based Engineers ( who are still exposed to the civil responsabilities of their calling , irrespective of whatever training they may have had - these are, inevitably, increased by the exposure to legal actions which they must contend with particularly in the event of work failure ). Insurance Companies are far more likely to have an Engineer bought to court for inappropriate construction than they are at taking action against a Surgeon who may claim that : " the operation was a success, unfortunately the patient died " As a good friend of mine says when that happens the patient is unlikely to be heard . Is he ? .

Just imagine what happens if a suspended slab comes down on peoples head anywhere in the world ! Are insurance claims laid at the Foreman's or on the Engineer's head ?

Without being pedantic , let us compare apples with apples and even go to the further extent of comparing green apples with green (and not red ) apples