Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!PT.CS.CMU.EDU!CIVE.RI.CMU.EDU!jwb
From: jwb@CIVE.RI.CMU.EDU (John Baugh)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Computer Science: where it belongs
Message-ID: <353@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16-Nov-87 09:40:10 EST
Article-I.D.: PT.353
Posted: Mon Nov 16 09:40:10 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Nov-87 03:09:13 EST
References: <469@ndsuvax.UUCP> <16118@clyde.ATT.COM> <180@spock.UUCP> <1752@pdn.UUCP> <16526@clyde.ATT.COM>
Sender: netnews@PT.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 28

In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes:
>
>No, when you consider that an architect is often THE responsible party
>for a structure, this approach would never do.  

What gives you this impression?  Certification of structural integrity
is required by a registered professional ENGINEER -- although you can
take liability if you want :-).

>						  Most architecture
>programs ... include substantial courses from the civil engineering
>domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural
>characteristics of concrete ...

You call this substantial?  I call it introductory (sophomore level) --
you'll never be able to design structures with that background, even
if someone actually let you.  The purpose of these courses in an
architectural curriculum is to improve the architect/engineer interface.

>		            ... Most architecture undergrad programs
>are 5 year programs (vice 4 for civil engineering), ...

The "who's curriculum is harder" syndrome ... pointless.

>If there are any practicing architects listening, ...

John Baugh (a once practicing, now academic, engineer)
Carnegie Mellon University