Talk:Architectural engineer (PE)

Architectural Engineering versus Architectural Technology

I am not aware of the profession being represented in Europe. However, comparing to CIAT's definition of a Chartered Architectural Technologist MCIAT, I find many similarities with the Architectural Engineer in the United States.

It seems that the US have architectural engineering technologists, but the article claims that this profession is limited to a draughtsperson responsibility. If so, it does not represent the role of a MCIAT who has a statute similar to the architect with an approach focussed on science and technology rather than aesthetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 00:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Is Deceptive. It is Possible That Legal Sanctions Can be Brought Against Its Authors

There are no citations to the false statements made in this article. The reason that there are no references to the Statements made is because there is no truth in these statements.

This article is almost completely inaccurate and it appears to be deliberately deceptive.

The American Society of Civil Engineers and the professional engineers boards of several States and the AIA will be notified and directed to examine the content of these articles.

ArchitectBoiseIdaho (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on the unresolved discussion of Architectural engineering before its restructuring:

Does someone trained in AE have the right to obtain a licence in MEP or structural simply by virtue of an AE exam? I understand some states have an AE licence... what does that licence entitle them to do? certainly not architecture, MEP or structural?? If so, how is this possible??? The article does not clarify this and conveniently "skirts" the issue.
ALL university info I have come across focusses on the discipline and is generally vague on future licensing... and where it is less so, it alludes to the need for "specializations" in one of the traditional groups if one is to practice as an engineer or architect. To me this means a broadly trained mechanical engineer (or structural, etc.- whatever)- not a generalist architectural engineer that does it all. Again, keep in mind this is academic- practice is a very different thing.
point to any legislation, statute, act- or whatever it is that governs professional practice in your part of the world- that governs the requirement for architectural engineers on any project. This exists for structural, civil, architects, etc., but I've never come across anything for AEs.

I simply would like to know what the AE is entitled to do by law (without a license in Struct, etc.- just with the AE license), NOT what he/she studied in school. Please don't tell me "everything"... this cannot be true!! Mariokempes (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Legal action can not be brought. That's a threat and apparently you've been prolific enough with these to earn an indefinite block, Boise.

I've basically left this tripe alone as I'm not sure I could be entirely even-handed on this subject. I take very seriously the U.S. engineering ethical canon that one does not practice outside of one's education and training. This particular discipline's coursework seems tailor made for a technician or building contractor — not an engineer. It's simply not possible to complete a four-year course of study covering electrical, mechanical, civil, and structural engineering (fire protection, acoustics, and construction management too?) with some architectural design whirled on top, and begin to claim even rudimentary proficiency in any of these.

That said, the {{unreferenced}}, {{POV}}, {{SectOR}}, and other tags are so old (as in years) that it's way overdue to play Exclusionist with a clear conscience.

WP:V and WP:OR are clear. Any deletions of mine are on those grounds. MARussellPESE (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]