Wa ha ha ha ha! Those engineer dorks finally dropped their lawsuit for making architects subservient to engineers in the building process. See here:
Maybe the real reason is that it finally dawned on them that they were fighting tooth and nail for the right to make even less money.
This whole fiasco is indicative of the problem the architecture profession faces now. Aimless and fractured, the vultures are circling to carve up the remains of a once great profession. The truth of the engineers' ill-fated case is that it is a power play by a vocal minority. It is not based in improving quality or service to clients or in improving the health, safety, and welfare of the public that the licensing laws are intended to protect.
It is a grab for the prime contract.
Once upon a time, the building process (and the typical building, for that matter) was relatively simple and often one design professional would carry multiple licenses (if they were even required) and preside over all aspects of the design of a single building. Not so today. Technological complexity is mushrooming even in relatively simple buildings, and for good reason designs of different aspects of buildings are divided among different people with different training, experience, and licensing. To be honest, engineers do not need more responsibility; they need less. It is ridiculous that in Texas any PE can design anything requiring a PE stamp. Designing an electrical system is a lot different from designing a structural frame. Some states are moving toward discipline-specific licensing, but as it is now in Texas, you must depend on your engineer to decide if he or she has the experience necessary for undertaking a specific project. My experience with engineers tells me that this works pretty well. However, I think this lawsuit demonstrates that this skill is not uniformly distributed.
