Author: White, G W;Hitcham, E W
First published: N/A
Standard: £9 + VAT
An IStructE account gives you access to a world of knowledge. Create a profile to receive details of our unique range of resources, events and training.
Added to basket
White, G W;Hitcham, E W
This paper examines developments in the education and training of the structural engineering technician since the introduction of the Institution's Technician Certificate in 1970. The establishment of the Technician Education Council and the Engineers Registration Board has provided a framework within which the Institution has
developed its policy for technicians. The progress made by the Technician Education Council is reviewed and future changes in the education of technicians are discussed. A recent survey of those who have passed the Institution test reveals the nature of their employment, their opinion of the test and their desire for status. A training scheme for technicians is described in some detail and reference is made to the recent introduction of an Associate-Membership class within the Institution for technicians.
Kenneth Severn and K.C. White
Note: (i) All the notation used is as in the original paper, the only difference being that stresses denoted by ó are not necessarily horizontal or vertical but are along a set of axes which are mutually orthogonal.
(ii) Equation numbers (1) to (6) refer to the original paper.
This article was initiated by Richard Gardner, Director of the York Centre, who comments as follows: 'Mrs. Hedge has just completed a report' on a two-year research project into continuing education. Her study concentrated mainly but not exclusively on the needs and problems of architects. But it has also brought her into direct contact with other professions and with organizations such as BRE whose work is relevant to us all. Different professions and different kinds of practice/office/firms surely have different needs. But do the conclusions drawn by Mrs. Hedge and the suggestions she is making here have a kind of universal importance for all the building professions? And is the York Centre right to see them as pointers towards a new, more complete and more flexible provision of multi-disciplinary continuing education; and also as demonstrating fairly conclusively what its own role and programme of work should be?'