The structural engineer is the skeleton which keeps the body stable and brings together all the muscles, tendons and joints - without this engineer, everything falls apart. The architect is the nice looking exterior which makes sure the whole body has a good presentation to the rest of the world - without this architect, very few people would care about what lies inside.
@@naveedladha4211 normally the salary of an architect or engineer depends where you live. But from what I know, the reason why it's due to a combination of factors 1. People doing projects for relatively slow prices: that aspect alone can put a dent to your market value, because if you have so many people doing projects with a relative degree of quality for a slow price, that slowly becomes the norm. 2. The amounts of things an architect can do, doesn't just limit by doing the architectural design of a building. Their input can be extended to other areas, not just construction (structural engineering shares this same concept, although is not as versatile as architecture) and thus, can increase its value. Also when a building collapses, it can be blamed for these reasons A. the structural engineer for failing to provide the necessary structural requirements in maintaining the project. B. the builder failed in accomplishing these requirements said by the structural drawings. In those reasons alone you can see the architect doesn't have the blame at all, because his job wasn't that. The engineer is the one to take the blame because he failed in making a reality the vision of the architect, and said failure comes at the cost of lives.
@@symonortega Exactly so if the engineer is to be blamed because his works determine whether the building will be stable or not This means he should be valued more than architects I know the architects do a lot but if you are not responsible for building stability which is the main factor to determine Then the one who is responsible should be given the better reward that is the engineer whether it be the site engineer or structural
@@naveedladha4211 one thing is the responsability of the job and another is the salary man. I know what you are saying, don't get me wrong. But the severity and implications of the job to justify a higher salary isn't enough. When you are searching for a job the first thing they tell you is about your responsabilites and all that. And in the end they will ask you if you accept or not the job Your market value is what DEFINES your salary, not the severity of the job. By that argument you are saying, the people who work as security or construction workers should have a super high salary because they often take jobs that put their lives at risk and the reality is those people have a salary inferior to that of an engineer.
@@naveedladha4211 but I do agree with you. The area tends to be underpaid in some countries and sometimes even mocked at. But is because of the reasons I explained to you in another comment, it tends to do a negative impact on the market and thus, a negative impact of the possible salary you could potentially gain.
Having worked in the construction technology industry for a couple of decades I can tell you in no uncertain terms that architects and structural engineers rarely "partner" they just argue 😂
Who the hell are the guys actually planning on how to make it? That is the person or people who never get any love. Not once have I seen any documentary on someone getting the blue prints from the engineers, and being like alright... We need these pieces at that time. Also we need this/that type of equipment. We will build it starting here. Is that the construction company who does it? Takes a look, and says yeah we can do this? Is there a name for that person?
@@dianapennepacker6854 Hello, I believe that the position for someone who does things like that is Project Manager (I sure there is a more formal title depending on the project that is being managed, but I believe that is the more basic name).
I don't know the technical name for the cement rebar construction technique that's used in Asia but I seen many buildings rise in Bangkok and Phnom Penh that will fold down on themselves in a seismic event. After these ugly skeletons are up the fancy facade follows making the buildings look modern and safe. Safe they are not. If Bangkok ever experiences an earthquake on the larger size of the scale it's not going to be pretty.
And thats why I'm doing a degree in structural engineering and architecture, i don't need anyone to argue with about the best approach- blend of the both!
Civil engineering is the easiest engineering discipline that any halfwit with a pulse can practice. Majority of architects could work as one if they went through the same education, the majority of civil engineers would probably be horrendous designers if they tried to become an architect.
@@DOPEdwarf I mean anyone could do any type of engineering if they went through the proper education, the point is most of them didn’t and likely wouldn’t have made the cut regardless of the type of engineering. Something tells me you’re one of the ones who didn’t make the cut…
I was about to comment the same thing. Also what are you doing now and are you still on the same plan? If so are you sure you will do structural engineering after arch??
@@mlem.2829 no, I think I will have to find a job first, and figure out the answer for this myself. I am getting mixed opinions on this. If it is worth it, I'm gonna prepare for it for the next gate exam, definitely not possible to score high with 6 month preparation in civil eng. Ps. Gate is an entrance exam to get into masters in india😅
@@theinvincible103 hey I am from India! And actually I am just going to join b.arch. Hey can I ask you if you are satisfied with this course or you are regretting or what are you actually feeling right now😭. I would really love to know what you will do next and would love to get any advice.
ARE YOU SURE THAT AMERICAN TECH IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING HAVE COMPLETELY PROVIDED THE MOST REALISTIC SOLUTION ,,, THAT CAN REALLY ASSURES THAT THE STRUCTURES WILL NOT COLLAPSE OR FALL ?
Hmm, structural engineering tech/theory developed until today has not been contributed by Americans only you know. And for your question, no, structural engineering solutions are based on assumptions. There is no such theory that can provide the most realistic solution. This is the reason that structural engineers have to take a heavy responsibility in ensuring safety because no calculation/structural analysis software guarantees a building is 100% stable.
Nah more so because of sustainability/environmental causes Wood is good for a lot of applications but some of the uses recently haven’t been the best. I believe one of the Nordic countries has been using it for some modern bridges with mixed results. Good for houses and even mid rise towers but maybe we should stick with steel and concrete for things like bridges till wood becomes a more consistent engineering material
Architects are the ones trying to make the structural engineer's job impossible, and structural engineers are the ones who ruin the architects' vision.
The structural engineer is the skeleton which keeps the body stable and brings together all the muscles, tendons and joints - without this engineer, everything falls apart.
The architect is the nice looking exterior which makes sure the whole body has a good presentation to the rest of the world - without this architect, very few people would care about what lies inside.
Then why is it that an architect is paid more than the structural engineer
Whereas if the building falls the one to blame is the structural engineer
@@naveedladha4211 normally the salary of an architect or engineer depends where you live. But from what I know, the reason why it's due to a combination of factors
1. People doing projects for relatively slow prices: that aspect alone can put a dent to your market value, because if you have so many people doing projects with a relative degree of quality for a slow price, that slowly becomes the norm.
2. The amounts of things an architect can do, doesn't just limit by doing the architectural design of a building. Their input can be extended to other areas, not just construction (structural engineering shares this same concept, although is not as versatile as architecture) and thus, can increase its value.
Also when a building collapses, it can be blamed for these reasons
A. the structural engineer for failing to provide the necessary structural requirements in maintaining the project.
B. the builder failed in accomplishing these requirements said by the structural drawings.
In those reasons alone you can see the architect doesn't have the blame at all, because his job wasn't that. The engineer is the one to take the blame because he failed in making a reality the vision of the architect, and said failure comes at the cost of lives.
@@symonortega
Exactly so if the engineer is to be blamed because his works determine whether the building will be stable or not
This means he should be valued more than architects
I know the architects do a lot but if you are not responsible for building stability which is the main factor to determine
Then the one who is responsible should be given the better reward that is the engineer whether it be the site engineer or structural
@@naveedladha4211 one thing is the responsability of the job and another is the salary man. I know what you are saying, don't get me wrong. But the severity and implications of the job to justify a higher salary isn't enough. When you are searching for a job the first thing they tell you is about your responsabilites and all that. And in the end they will ask you if you accept or not the job
Your market value is what DEFINES your salary, not the severity of the job.
By that argument you are saying, the people who work as security or construction workers should have a super high salary because they often take jobs that put their lives at risk and the reality is those people have a salary inferior to that of an engineer.
@@naveedladha4211 but I do agree with you. The area tends to be underpaid in some countries and sometimes even mocked at. But is because of the reasons I explained to you in another comment, it tends to do a negative impact on the market and thus, a negative impact of the possible salary you could potentially gain.
Architects are the visionaries, SE are the doers.
The architect and the builder, they arrive calmly from their escalator with a sense of purpose
holy shit, i was just thinking about this too
Every single person who helped to build should be notice and respected. 🙌
Close coordination between arquitect and engineers brings the initial building concept to its final physical configuration.
Forgets about the trades workers who also do the physical work...
They do different work than architects or engineers though. Laying rebar and flying girders has a different skill set than designing those systems.
He’s specifically talking about the design side
Amazing short video. Thank you very much!
Having worked in the construction technology industry for a couple of decades I can tell you in no uncertain terms that architects and structural engineers rarely "partner" they just argue 😂
Who the hell are the guys actually planning on how to make it? That is the person or people who never get any love.
Not once have I seen any documentary on someone getting the blue prints from the engineers, and being like alright... We need these pieces at that time. Also we need this/that type of equipment. We will build it starting here.
Is that the construction company who does it? Takes a look, and says yeah we can do this? Is there a name for that person?
@@dianapennepacker6854 Hello, I believe that the position for someone who does things like that is Project Manager (I sure there is a more formal title depending on the project that is being managed, but I believe that is the more basic name).
In Britain, everyone thinks that the architect does everything.
Master the concepts of practical civil engineering here
Great summary
Kind of like designers and coder. One designs the looks snd the other writes the code and make it functional
I thought the Architect's job was to be a pain in the Engineer's ass.
Engineers educate architects when they want a building with big roof spans and no beams!!!
What is the software that shows the load distribution?!
what about architectural engineering vs structural
Then why do they get paid more than we do?
The architect is responsible for the entire project, the structural for the structural portion only
@@davido3026 in my career that hasn't been the case. Architects and engineers have equal parties reporting to a project manager.
Is physics necessary for civil engineering?
I don't know the technical name for the cement rebar construction technique that's used in Asia but I seen many buildings rise in Bangkok and Phnom Penh that will fold down on themselves in a seismic event. After these ugly skeletons are up the fancy facade follows making the buildings look modern and safe.
Safe they are not. If Bangkok ever experiences an earthquake on the larger size of the scale it's not going to be pretty.
And thats why I'm doing a degree in structural engineering and architecture, i don't need anyone to argue with about the best approach- blend of the both!
Just become a civil engineer. They handle all the tasks.
Thank you the explanation now I know that architecture is easyer than civil engineering.
Lol
Civil engineering is the easiest engineering discipline that any halfwit with a pulse can practice. Majority of architects could work as one if they went through the same education, the majority of civil engineers would probably be horrendous designers if they tried to become an architect.
@@DOPEdwarf I mean anyone could do any type of engineering if they went through the proper education, the point is most of them didn’t and likely wouldn’t have made the cut regardless of the type of engineering. Something tells me you’re one of the ones who didn’t make the cut…
@@DOPEdwarfobviously you are not an engineer. What is more difficult: medicine or civil engineering ?
Plz help me, I am in final year, graduating as an architect and I want to do masters in structural engineering... Is it worth the hassle?
I was about to comment the same thing. Also what are you doing now and are you still on the same plan? If so are you sure you will do structural engineering after arch??
@@mlem.2829 no, I think I will have to find a job first, and figure out the answer for this myself. I am getting mixed opinions on this. If it is worth it, I'm gonna prepare for it for the next gate exam, definitely not possible to score high with 6 month preparation in civil eng.
Ps. Gate is an entrance exam to get into masters in india😅
@@theinvincible103 hey I am from India! And actually I am just going to join b.arch. Hey can I ask you if you are satisfied with this course or you are regretting or what are you actually feeling right now😭. I would really love to know what you will do next and would love to get any advice.
civil engeering is enough
Lets go back to real architecture from tartaria
Shocking how somebody could be so stupid yet manage basic literacy
ARE YOU SURE THAT AMERICAN TECH IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING HAVE COMPLETELY PROVIDED THE MOST REALISTIC SOLUTION ,,, THAT CAN REALLY ASSURES THAT THE STRUCTURES WILL NOT COLLAPSE OR FALL ?
Hmm, structural engineering tech/theory developed until today has not been contributed by Americans only you know. And for your question, no, structural engineering solutions are based on assumptions. There is no such theory that can provide the most realistic solution. This is the reason that structural engineers have to take a heavy responsibility in ensuring safety because no calculation/structural analysis software guarantees a building is 100% stable.
I mean we lead the world in structural research and most of the codes around the world are based on our universities research sooooo?
Timber wood is becoming common because you look or see and feel or touch the wood.
Nah more so because of sustainability/environmental causes
Wood is good for a lot of applications but some of the uses recently haven’t been the best. I believe one of the Nordic countries has been using it for some modern bridges with mixed results.
Good for houses and even mid rise towers but maybe we should stick with steel and concrete for things like bridges till wood becomes a more consistent engineering material
Architects are the ones trying to make the structural engineer's job impossible, and structural engineers are the ones who ruin the architects' vision.
Basic level shit… Show me something real.. These buildings are so dam boring.. There is nothing too them… From a technical expert level that is.
He’s making videos for the layman, not the experienced engineer. There are plenty of other channels with that kind of content if you’re interested