www.www.buonovino.com

[roark.sol1]

Dear All,

As seen from the general trend of the emails (except a couple), it seems the
vote is overwhelmingly in favour of initiaition of licensing. But it is the
HOW & WHO that is most difficult to resolve, and in a forum like this we can
only debate about it, and actually take no action on it. Although I might
have some suggestions in Part 3 of the posting, about possible ways of
taking action & accelerating the process of the HOW & WHO, but in this post
I will stick to the HOW.

A lot of views have been expressed on the HOW aspect (experience,
examination, interview or a combination) and I would just like to add 3
points to it.

1) Whatever combination is choosen, the procedure and criteria for the test
will have to be defined in advance. And as soon that is done, the ultimate
aim of the candidate becomes to pass or excel in the test (as is the case
with every examination system) rather than gaining knowledge and its
application. And most seemingly there is no solution to that.

2) Whatever the procedure chosen, it has to be done with the aim in mind
that it is being devised for the future engineers, and foget about the
present pool of engineers. I do not mean to say that the existing pool
should not have to take the test, they should certainly take & pass some
testing procedure. What I mean to say is that, during deciding the type,
design & style of the test, the fact that the existing pool will also be
taking the test should not affect or change the pattern of testing &
reviewing, and should be solely be designed & patterned to test the future
engineers. This will make sure that with time, as the present pool retire &
the future generation takes over, the engineers ARE what they should be. If
we try to mix the two, we will land up testing neither. For the present pool
an option can be devised and made available for "accreditation on a
voluntary basis", and I believe that the market forces will (with time)
force the present pool to submit themselves through this voluntary
accreditaion过程。如果我们遵循这种模式,我们can nip a lot of hassle &
debate in the bud, and the roadmap to licensing will become very clear and
fast track, which in the long run will be much more beneficial, than sitting
and procastinating on how to test the present pool, while more and more of
the future engineers keeps on getting added to the unlicensed present pool.

3) We have to take the facts & conditions prevelant in our country, and will
have to cater for the step-ladder system of licensing. This is necessiated
by the fact that (as Alpa and Arvind have pointed out) in India, on the one
side mega projects like nuclear power stations and 40 storeyed highrises
have to be designed, while on the other side a 2 room brick house also NEEDS
to be designed. To cover the entire spectrum, the licensing system has to
cater to the fact that it is better to license (say) a diploma holder to
设计这个砖房子,而不是mak梅森ing the house without any
input or guidance. For each of the step, an upper limit of the
size/scale/storeyes/seismic zone/etc. can be decided, and to advance to the
next step, one should have to take the test valid for that next step.

This is all I have to add on to the HOW.

Regards

Pankaj Gupta

Posted via Email

[eondes at sify.com]

Dear Pankaj,

Thanks for the comprehensive para. I agree with them but like to add
supporting your second point that for existing pool the testing criteria is
going to be volumnatry only, but with a catch that if you do not get tested
during certain period, you may not get the works, as other lincesed PEs will
get the job!

Arvind

Posted via Email

[roark.sol1]

Dear Arvind,

That is what I meant by the market forces. As the pool of the new licensed
PEs grow, together with the voluntarily accredited old PEs, who will give
(or should I say risk giving) work to an engineer in the existing pool
without any accreditation, so basically we need not use any force or time
clause for the voluntary accreditation process for the existing pool.

One of the major problems with us in India, is that we have almost no trust
in the market forces (which in my opinion is the best procedure for judging
competency & quality), and always keep on hankering that the government or
some validated agency should do this or that job, in spite of a very bad
experience for the past 50 years with the government control & license raj.

Regards

Pankaj Gupta

Posted via Email