Yes that piece of paper alone (a 3rd class) is worthless, you just have to prove yourself that you are not worthless.

Want to talk about better opportunities? there are still second class (second upper and lower) before you even qualify to compared yourself to 1st class graduates.

Self-actualization, people.

there you go.

There is a good reason i emphasize on the word 'team' and not putting any specialization on the engineers. If i were to put every details of constructions here from start to beginning, then who knows when it's going to end. 'Consultants' are too general, so let us put our focus on engineers, the main driving force in any constructions. Also, please do not stray any much further than it supposed to be, the main point here is about engineers who do design.

Usually at the start of a construction, the plan is already laid out from 1st stories to 10 stories. This includes every piping, wiring, safety escape etc. No such thing as designing during the middle of the construction. If there is a designing process during the construction, it is poor planning.

Let me rephrase the situation for you for better understanding.

You are "planning" to build a 10 stories building for orphans. The design is finalized by a "team of architects". These architects know what they're doing and the design is safe and approved by professional civil engineer. The design then passed on to "team of structural engineers" to design the main structure of the building. This is a properly planned construction, so there is no need for any redesign in the middle of the construction. This is totally the design and planning process. The construction has not started yet.

If you are to choose between A and B, what would your choice be?

A: The building structure is design by a team of "structural engineers" whose has direct involvement to the building process. Simply said, they have hands on experience in design and also building the structure.

B: The building structure is design by a team of engineers "structural engineer" who's never had direct involvement in the building process. Simply said, they have no hands on experience on building.

Both teams have fully understanding on how things work, and cost the same. Basically they are at the same par in terms of knowledge and theory. Let remind you again, this is a design and planning process.

I have another question for you. In school or college there are courses, let say chemistry that has normal class teaching theories and experimental class that is done in laboratory. Is there any good reason for the experimental class?

I also would like to know any better way to gain experience rather than working hands on. Please state at least 5 of them in the most effective order. I'm pretty sure you know them.

hey guyz...I'm actually just graduate with 3rd class and I can honestly telling I'm depressing right after I received the result. I know it's gonna be tough to further studies in MBA next time with the result. Luckily to have this thread, I become more positive thinking and looking forward to get a job soon. But to those who are still studying, better study a bit harder to get at least 2nd class degree.

ps: anybody did their MBA or any master courses after obtained 3rd class degree??

Getting a job with third class degree is hard, but not impossible. MBA usually doesn't have a minimum CGPA requirement. However you need several years of working experience and passed graduate management aptitude test (GMAT). Have a friend that just got accepted to do MBA in Australia. Does not have working experience, just 2nd class lower degree in engineering. He however has couple of good letter of recommendations and lots of money

Yeah..I know it's hard but it all thanks to those ppl here who encourage the rest. I'm wondering which company should I look into it and the possibility to be employed is high as well? Mind giving me some guide??

ps: Chemical Engineering Graduates.....

My apologies for not making this phrase clear.

What I want to point out is, the building is already there, what the landlord want is to extend the building.

If the building is 10 or 20 years old, sometimes the same design team cannot be assembled and they will have to bring in new team

Also, before we continue our discussion, I want to make sure of something. What is your definition of hands on?

Oil and gas industries tend to have chemical engineers at executive level positions.

Dreamer

Oh...U will need to have at least 5 years experience to apply for the position.....I'm wondering iszit true that I need experience to get better job next time??? Since I don't have experience, that's why I'm asking those senior here who have been through the stage where I'm standing at...I'm thankful for those who can guide me....really appreciate your help...

Watch Kings of Construction in Discovery Channel. There you could see engineers design and build. My definition of hands on is same as showned in the documentary.

---

Added on February 27, 2007, 9:39 pmNot all companies need working experience. Look at the job description and requirement. Most of the time, they stated 'fresh graduate encouraged to apply'. Do not be choosy; most big companies reject third class at first look. Work in a smaller company first for 2-3 years to build up experience, and then you can start searching for better opportunities.

Also try to contact your long lost friend while in college that has start their career. Ask for pointers or recommendations. I got my job with the help of my friend's recommendation. Good luck.


This post has been edited by tydell: Feb 27 2007, 09:39 PM

I got a friend who has 3rd class...but he still makes more than me and he's working in a MNC company who treats him good....wanna know why?
Altho he got 3rd class but he has more certs than me....
So never judge 3rd classes...just take more certifications or take up another course...

I do not have a TV at home.

I just want to make sure we are looking things at the same perspective. Your last post gave me a hint that we might be looking at different things.

If you could, please let me know what is your definition of hands on.

No wander. How about you answer my questions first and i'll answer yours. I'm just hoping that you be honest with yourself and face the facts.

Avoiding questions is not a sign of a good conversation. It is a sign of weakness.

If you have not realised, I am trying to save the both of us from embarrassment.

My answer that you insisted upon.

Your scenario is still unlikely to happen. The architect / civil engineers to do not have capability to finalise any design. This is simply because other inputs from the team will affect the design itself.

I am trying to emphasize that a design progress and ends with a team of people, ranging from M & E, Structural, Civil, Architect and so on. It is not as simple as you see. If the building requires a high fire resistance, hollow beams cannot be used and therefore, M & E cannot run ductwork through the hollow beam and therefore, more spaces has to be provided within the ceiling to run the ductwork and thus,the ceilings and floor height will have to change.

After all these changes, the architect will then have to amend the drawings.

The above is just a small scenario. There have been cases where the WHOLE structure of the building has to be redesigned simply because there is a need to add new shafts.

In conclusion, you don't finalise something and pass to another guy. The design progress concurrently as a team. Which is why I do not answer your question, simply because it is an unlikely scenario.

If you insist upon which group of guys should I pass to, my choice would be the guys who can demonstrate to me how much cost they can save me on the building. This is because simply having direct involvement doesn't mean you are able to do a better job than those who did not have any involvement. The only downturn I see of passing to the structural engineer who has no direct involvement is that, they will need time to know the design. All they need is the whole design parameters of the building and they can do an equally good job.

There have been many cases where an extension of an existing building involves a lot of engineers which has no involvement when the building was first built.

The reason I'm asking you about your definition of hands on is because you seem to be implying in your question that hands on = active involvement, while my definition of hands on = using manual dexterity on a job.

You got me confused when you talk about getting experience based on hands on job. Do you mean by actually doign something yourself or getting actively involved in it?

About the chemistry lectures, they need to practise in the lab because that is where they will work in the future, in the lab.

About gaining more experience as an engineer, you don't need 5 best ways. The crucial factor to become a good engineer is exposure. The more problems and real life scenario you are exposed in, the faster you grow to be an engineer.

There are engineering jobs out there where you have no choice but to work in the office, in front of a computer.

Lastly for your benefit, never say a building is safe. You can only describe your design as reasonble / code compliant. You will get into a lot of trouble by describing your building as safe.

*Note, my definition of hands on = things that requires manual dexterity.

*Note 2, my scenario above is based on what goes on internationally, not Malaysia.

This post has been edited by Geminist: Feb 28 2007, 09:03 PM

I don't need your good will to save me from any embarrassment, nor do i need it. Just because you need it, don't mean that you have to drag me along with you.

You're definitely do not understand the whole question nor do you read my statement carefully. This discussion started by you arguing that engineers not necessarily have hands on experience to do a good job. So let us stay on that course.

You could probably copy and paste every procedures of construction here but still it won't make any difference because it has no importance. It's not about the procedure, it's about the person and the experience he/she gain while working in the career of his/her choice. And how that experience could help in the in the course of their career. It couldn't be much simpler.

However i still would like to comment on some of your statements, what do you mean by "If" the building requires a high fire resistant? Are they any occasion where certain buildings not necessarily have high fire resistant? Architect has some knowledge in engineering and yes, the architect/civil engineers do have the power to finalize design. I dare you to provide a proof for your bold statement. I happen to chat with my friend who is a civil engineer right now.

I assumed you are an engineer or someone who just read about engineering. However there are several contradictions in some of your statement. I may not be a good student, but Mechanical Design is one of my favourite classes during college. Engineers are problems solver. One of the main aspects in design is that engineers design based on a certain objective or needs. If the client asks an engineer to design a 3 wheel car, the engineer must find a way to design the car and make it work. Saying no or it's impossible to the client is not a good engineering attitude. So if the client asks to design an egg shape building or design a car that can go 1000 mph, than that is what engineers supposed to do.

So you are putting cost first rather than the life of orphans?
How can you describe an equally good job if the structural engineers who do not have a direct involvement having a 'downturn'? Downturn is pretty assuring enough a disadvantage.
Sure that sometimes happen, but i'm also pretty sure if extension job is assigned to the engineers that have involvement when the building first built, they can do way better job.
Correction, hands on = direct involvement. I already stated this in my earlier posts. Engineers are not like hard labour you see on the construction site. They probably can lay bricks and mix cements, but why should they? Direct involvement is, they monitor and improvise the development of their own design rather than just designing and then passed it on to another person.
I learn chemistry at school's and college's lab, but i don't work in any lab.
Ok, how to gain 'exposure' without having direct involvement or hands on experience? Is it from books, building plan, computer software etc? Are you saying 'exposure' and 'experience' are two separate things? How can you face engineering problems and real life scenario if all you do is just sit in front of the computer? Engineering is older than computers, and the ancients don't need any to build the pyramid, the great wall or the rome coliseum.
If engineers cannot say a building is safe, why should they build it? Knowing engineering is not the same as working engineering. I say engineers are supposed to make a building safe. If is not safe, don't build.

All the statement above is from what i learnt during college, it is in US. I say it is pretty much international.

This is probably the longest post i made so far

This post has been edited by tydell: Mar 1 2007, 12:40 AM

stuck-ups~

tydell,

I rest my case here.

Just for your benefit on the engineering question you raise, there are occasions where the fire resistance period of a building varies, it is not as simple as just having fire resistance is good enough for a lot of complex buildings.

There are companies that weren't inolved when the building was first built, yet they won internationally recognised aware for their design.

Engineers cannot say that a building is safe simply because it isn't. The "safe" criteria cannot be quantify. There is no perfect benchmark for safe. By saying safe, you are taking on all the liability when someone dies in your building.

What if I tell you almost 80% of the shopping centre in Malaysia is not "safe" if it is built in the UK or US?

You cannot describe a building is safe because a building is designed based on different code guidance, and code guidance/regulations varies between countries.

Lastly, please do not assume what I do. What I described to you is something that will happen. Despite wanting to be righteous, cost is the main driving factor in building design.

I can tell you a lot of things are not "safe" by your definition. It is simply a compromise between cost and life safety.

This post has been edited by Geminist: Mar 1 2007, 02:20 AM

Building varies, but fire safety is standard.
Which companies is that?
In science, almost everything can be measured. Air, light, sound can easily be measured. Specifically for engineering, safety can be measured and it is defined as 'factor of safety'. In engineering, the engineer must be responsible with his/her design. That's how the system works and that's why they're paid handsomely.

If those 80% of the shopping centre are not 'safe', many people will die soon. You better report this to the authorities as soon as possible. Make sure you bring your proof.
The code is different, but the contents are pretty much the same.

Do you know what makes a building classified not safe? Not the planning, not the design but human factor. You shown me that example, by saying the 'cost as the main driving factor in building design". It happens a lot nowadays in malaysia where contractors trying to save cost, in the end the occupants have to pay for it with their lives.

Tell me the 'lots of thing not safe' by my definition. I can accept criticism and correction. Make sure you keep the facts right this time, happen to see lots of unsupported statements and false facts.

If you would like to withdraw from the discussion, i bid you farewell

Tydell and Geminist,

Once upon a time, in USA, there was a fire in a restaurant and many people died in the process. The reason was the exit door can only be open by pull in from inside. In a panic situation like fire, people just want to push out of the building as soon as possible. As a result of this fire, all public building in USA is required to have the exit door that can be pushed open from inside.

If you look and observe many many buildings in Malaysia and old buildings in USA, you will find that they do not have this feature.

People can only build building as safe as they know. When they learn something new, they may find that what was safe is not safe anymore. For example, asbestos as insulator for the building.

Dreamer

http://www.chapelfield.co.uk/
http://www.royal-arsenal.co.uk/
http://www.building.co.uk/hybrid.asp?typeC...4530&pubcode=43

Some example of companies who won award for the redevelopment of these places.

Fire safety is not standardise between countries. Google up BS 5588 / NFPA 101 and you can see the difference employed by US / UK.

The contents are not the same and buildings are not defined the same way in different standards. Do you know that NFPA has a more onerous set of design criteria i.e. shorter distance to an exit and etc?

Apart from standards, there are local regulations that governs the standard, which I will come to answer Dreamer101.

The shopping centres are not "safe" in UK or US, but they are considered "safe" in Malaysia, again it's because of the adaption of code guidance and local regulations.

Let's take a typical Malaysia shopping centre as an example, observe the next time you are in a shopping centre and ask yourself, if there is an uncontrolled fire in the unit, how will people escape to safety? If you cannot picture yourself getting out by 5 minutes, you would be considered "dead" in a different country. Also, do not forget there are other factors in the 5 minutes, i.e. smoke, heat and panic people.

I would appreciate if you would stop your false accusation of me. I note your sarcasm, however, you do not know me, so do not assume.

To further Dreamer101 statement,

At WTC, excluding death by plane crash, the reason people who survived would die on the floors above the plane crash is because of the stair core all being wiped out at once as they are closely positioned to each other.

Therefore, NFPA now specifies a minimum separation distance between exits and stairs.

After the King's Cross fire, the use of surface paintings became a more concerned issue. It wasn't before.

In the UK, there is a set of regulations that do not require landlord to upgrade the fire safety standards of their building, unless new extension is built. If it is only renovation of existing centre, regulations do not require the upgrade of fire safety if it can be demonstrated that the existing standard are not lowered.

Having a code compliant design does not mean something is entirely "safe", it's just that a lot of thoughts, statistic and research were put into developing the standard so that it provides a reasonable enough benchmark for design.

This post has been edited by Geminist: Mar 2 2007, 05:05 AM