Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

WB SNAME Article

Expand Messages
  • pongo19050@yahoo.com
    The latest WB has an article concerning legislation which is being pushed in the states legislatures on testing and professional licensing of naval architects
    Message 1 of 9 , May 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      The latest WB has an article concerning legislation which is being
      pushed in the states' legislatures on testing and professional
      licensing of naval architects and marine engineers. The legislation
      is championed by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
      (SNAME)and opposed vehemently by Mr. Bolger and less vehemently by
      others.

      I have to agree with Mr. Bolger on this one. State-imposed
      professional licensing seems to do more harm than good in most
      areas. In my profession, the law, it's totally meaningless and is
      more of a weapon used by the bar to limit competition than any
      assurance of competence. Attorney wannabes are subjected to an
      increasingly irrelevant rites of passage in order to actually
      practice law. It starts with the LSAT, a standardized test that has
      nothing to do with law or much else that I can see. Law school
      itself is largely irrelevant; I learned mostly about long-dead
      principles of English common law. The bar exam is comprised of
      a "multistate" exam in which potential lawyers are tested on
      multistate law, which is a fictional amalgamation of archaic common
      law and a sort of lowest common denominator state law. I worked full-
      time with lawyers while attending law school and learned a lot more
      at work than at school.

      The teaching certification process also seems wrongheaded.
      Certification has given us our wonderful public school system. I
      imagine Socrates, Plato and Aristotle walking into my local school
      board administrative offices to apply for a teaching job and being
      turned away because they hadn't earned any credits in the Psychology
      of education(although their penchant for young boys may have landed
      them in hot water today). And think of the teachers we all had that
      were certified in spite of being totally incompetent. I don't want
      to denigrate the good teachers out there - and there are a lot of
      them - it's to their credit that they waded through the bureaucratic
      **** to become teachers.

      On the other hand, I want my surgeon or cardiologist to be licensed
      and board certified and insured out the wazoo.

      Enough rant. Did anyone else read the article? Is this another
      indication of Mr. Bolger's liberterian leanings? Will this
      legislation have any effect on the builders of small boats?

      Regards

      Andy Farquhar
    • cha62759@traverse.com
      As you are aware, licensing (registration) is meant to provide for protection of the public health and safety and some say welfare. Also licensing exams are
      Message 2 of 9 , May 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        As you are aware, licensing (registration) is meant to provide for
        protection of the "public health and safety" and some say welfare.
        Also licensing exams are supposed to test to insure MIMINUM
        competency. My own feeling is that states like licensing because it
        restricts out of staters from practising though many have reciprocity
        arrangements. Professionals for all the cant about protection of the
        public are most interested in preventing others from practicing their
        trade. My impression of the comments in the article is that it is the
        big boat guys versus the little boat guys and the little boat guys
        are going to lose because they are not organized. Of course the
        unintended consequence is that great designers like Bolger, Paine,
        Newick etc will be frozen out. As to the law I for one am glad for
        the bar exams. If law were unregulated we would have 380,000,000
        lawyers ready to take us to court rather than1,000,000 or whatever
        the number is now.

        Bob Chamberland


        --- In bolger@y..., pongo19050@y... wrote:
        > The latest WB has an article concerning legislation which is being
        > pushed in the states' legislatures on testing and professional
        > licensing of naval architects and marine engineers. The
        legislation
      • wmrpage@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/4/01 12:01:14 PM Central Daylight Time, ... I found Tom Jackson s article in WoodenBoat on the SNAME licensing project to be less than
        Message 3 of 9 , May 4, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/4/01 12:01:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
          pongo19050@... writes:


          I have to agree with Mr. Bolger on this one.  State-imposed
          professional licensing seems to do more harm than good in most
          areas.  In my profession, the law, it's totally meaningless and is
          more of a weapon used by the bar to limit competition than any
          assurance of competence.


                I found Tom Jackson's article in WoodenBoat on the SNAME licensing
          project to be less than enlightening. It seemed to me to be dutiful piece of
          "objective" journalism which quotes and paraphrases the opinions of parties
          on both sides of the issue without casting any illumination on the
          consequences of the proposal's adoption.
                If state adoption of the "PE" certification would mean that no one
          could build a boat for sale not designed by someone so certified, the article
          certainly did not make that clear (at least not to me - I know I'm slow). If
          the effect is only to allow certified practitioners to advertise their
          professional qualifications, and give them a competitive advantage over
          non-certified practitioners in competing for design work requiring USCG,
          Lloyds or ABS classifications, I'm not sure I see anything to complain about.
                My impression from Jackson's article is the the USCG, in the interests
          of budgetary economy (somewhat analogous to the FDA's letting drug companies
          pay for their own drug trials), has decided to off-load a proportion of its
          regulatory burden on to certain certified practitioners. This may or may not
          be a very good idea, but it does not necessarily follow that Phil Bolger
          could not continue to market plans, or that people could not continue to
          build and license boats built to those plans, even for re-sale to others, or
          that they would face any greater legal liability for those activities than
          they do presently despite his lack of the proposed "PE" licensing in the
          builders' states.
                It is not clear from the article whether this "off-loading" is
          mandatory, or if practitioners can continue to do things as before - i.e.
          submit to whatever inspection, manufacturing, etc. requirements that the USCG
          (or Lloyds, or ABS, or whomever) might require in the absence of the
          alternative validation process (i.e. that a suitably certified "PE" signed
          off on the work that the USCG (or Lloyds, or ABS, or whomever would otherwise
          perform under the "old regime") If the latter, then builders of vessels
          requiring or desiring one or more of these classifications will probably find
          it more cost-effective or less time-consuming (essentially the same thing on
          a commercial project) to use the alternative validation process (i.e. having
          a SNAME certified "PE" sign off on the work), but this would be a commercial
          competitive advantage, not a bar to "non-PE" certified practitioners doing
          the work. Indeed, one can imagine collaboration on this - suppose some
          dot.com zillionaire wanted a radical boat design and elected to commission
          Bolger (who better?) to come up with something, but also wanted the vessel
          classified for regulatory, insurance or re-sale purposes - what would stop
          such a patron from retaining a certified "PE" to check and certify the design
          for the appropriate bodies?
                I do take exception to your assertion that that state professional
          licensing, in general, does more harm than good. Mandatory standards of
          (putative) competence regarding plumbing, wiring, pipe-fitting, boiler
          testing, boiler operation, steam-fitting and a host of other occupations do
          substantially contribute to public safety (and economic efficiency). While it
          is certainly true that some or all of these occupational classes are perhaps
          more intent on using the licensing process to limit competition than to
          promote public good, they are obliged to cast their perogatives as in the
          public interest and, to some extent, find themselves obliged to so perform.
                As far as school teachers are concerned, I have no knowledge regarding
          the utility or otherwise of the accrediting requirements. I do think that
          standards should be more, rather than less, stringent and the level of pay
          and other perogatives increased to a level necessary to attract really gifted
          persons to that occupation. I doubt that letting anyone who thinks they can
          teach do so would necessarily give results consonant with their own high
          opionons of their un-tested abilities. (Someone on this group cited a study
          which purported to show that the less someone knows about a subject, the more
          certain they are that they "know" it all.)
                As to the law, a profession with which I have more familiarity, I
          agree that accrediation is no measure of competence, but the notion that the
          process keeps capable people out of the profession by limiting access is
          doubtful.
                Anyway, it is not clear to me why SNAME's proposal for a naval
          architecture "PE" certification is a threat to Bolger, Bolgeristas,
          Bolger-wannabees or would be Bolger-builders like myself. If you can persuade
          me that it is, I will certainly do whatever I can to frustrate any such
          nefarious proposal.

          Bill in MN
        • KF4call@aol.com
          Some states have what is referred to as a title law to regulate practice of some professions. These laws regulate what practitioners can call themselves,
          Message 4 of 9 , May 4, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Some states have what is referred to as a "title law" to regulate
            practice of some professions. These laws regulate what practitioners can
            call themselves, but not what they can do. Such a law would not keep anyone
            out of boat design, but would provide an additional credential to those
            consumers who thought such a credential might be meaningful. The use of a
            particular title (PE or whatever) could be used to indicate that one has
            taken and passed a particular test, or other wise jumped through some hoop.

            Riddle: Q. what do they call the person who graduates last in his or
            her medical school class? A. Doctor.

            It is good to be skeptical of a credential conferred by a governmental
            entity. This is because most credentials or titles that I am aware of are
            not evaluated to determine their validity, that is, to find out if they
            actually measure competence to practice or if they just measure "book
            learning". In other words, the tests have not been tested to see if they
            measure what they purport to measure.
            Regards,
            Warren

            In a message dated 5/4/2001 10:34:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
            wmrpage@... writes:

            <<
            > I have to agree with Mr. Bolger on this one. State-imposed
            > professional licensing seems to do more harm than good in most
            > areas. In my profession, the law, it's totally meaningless and is
            > more of a weapon used by the bar to limit competition than any
            >
            >>snip<<
            I found Tom Jackson's article in WoodenBoat on the SNAME licensing
            project to be less than enlightening. It seemed to me to be dutiful piece of
            "objective" journalism which quotes and paraphrases the opinions of parties
            on both sides of the issue without casting any illumination on the
            consequences of the proposal's adoption.
            >>
          • James Fuller
            I realize that this horse that I am beating has probably expired but... In my involvement in the construction industry for more that 40 years, at least in my
            Message 5 of 9 , May 4, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
               
               
              I realize that this horse that I am beating has probably expired but...
              In my involvement in the construction industry for more that 40 years, at least in my home state of New Mexico, licensing
              has no bearing on skills or ability. construction codes are arbritrary and depend on state/local boards whims. Or even the
              individual inspectors personal rules.  Licenses can literally be bought by attending one day or one half day "cram" schools
              that will guarantee a license. My entire working life has been spent in the wholesale plumbing, heating, and air conditioning
              business.  To make my point consider this.  In conversation with a customer, who was about to take a test for his general
              construction license I opinioned that the test was probably not too difficult.  He disagreed. as in "thems fighting words!"
              The end result was a bet that I could pass the test cold. I went to Santa Fe with him and we both tested for the GB98
              license.  That would allow us to build anything except bridges. ( no I don't know why not bridges)  Passing grade
              was 70 and I scored a 92.  I'm not bragging, it ain't rocket science.  Point is, I could then have built homes, offices, whatever,
              except bridges.  I had a lot of trouble with my first boat, a flat bottom skiff, and can't imagine tackling a high rise apartment.
               
              James Fuller
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 7:32 PM
              Subject: Re: [bolger] WB SNAME Article

              In a message dated 5/4/01 12:01:14 PM Central Daylight Time,
              pongo19050@... writes:


              I have to agree with Mr. Bolger on this one.  State-imposed
              professional licensing seems to do more harm than good in most
              areas.  In my profession, the law, it's totally meaningless and is
              more of a weapon used by the bar to limit competition than any
              assurance of competence.


                    I found Tom Jackson's article in WoodenBoat on the SNAME licensing
              project to be less than enlightening. It seemed to me to be dutiful piece of
              "objective" journalism which quotes and paraphrases the opinions of parties
              on both sides of the issue without casting any illumination on the
              consequences of the proposal's adoption.
                    If state adoption of the "PE" certification would mean that no one
              could build a boat for sale not designed by someone so certified, the article
              certainly did not make that clear (at least not to me - I know I'm slow). If
              the effect is only to allow certified practitioners to advertise their
              professional qualifications, and give them a competitive advantage over
              non-certified practitioners in competing for design work requiring USCG,
              Lloyds or ABS classifications, I'm not sure I see anything to complain about.
                    My impression from Jackson's article is the the USCG, in the interests
              of budgetary economy (somewhat analogous to the FDA's letting drug companies
              pay for their own drug trials), has decided to off-load a proportion of its
              regulatory burden on to certain certified practitioners. This may or may not
              be a very good idea, but it does not necessarily follow that Phil Bolger
              could not continue to market plans, or that people could not continue to
              build and license boats built to those plans, even for re-sale to others, or
              that they would face any greater legal liability for those activities than
              they do presently despite his lack of the proposed "PE" licensing in the
              builders' states.
                    It is not clear from the article whether this "off-loading" is
              mandatory, or if practitioners can continue to do things as before - i.e.
              submit to whatever inspection, manufacturing, etc. requirements that the USCG
              (or Lloyds, or ABS, or whomever) might require in the absence of the
              alternative validation process (i.e. that a suitably certified "PE" signed
              off on the work that the USCG (or Lloyds, or ABS, or whomever would otherwise
              perform under the "old regime") If the latter, then builders of vessels
              requiring or desiring one or more of these classifications will probably find
              it more cost-effective or less time-consuming (essentially the same thing on
              a commercial project) to use the alternative validation process (i.e. having
              a SNAME certified "PE" sign off on the work), but this would be a commercial
              competitive advantage, not a bar to "non-PE" certified practitioners doing
              the work. Indeed, one can imagine collaboration on this - suppose some
              dot.com zillionaire wanted a radical boat design and elected to commission
              Bolger (who better?) to come up with something, but also wanted the vessel
              classified for regulatory, insurance or re-sale purposes - what would stop
              such a patron from retaining a certified "PE" to check and certify the design
              for the appropriate bodies?
                    I do take exception to your assertion that that state professional
              licensing, in general, does more harm than good. Mandatory standards of
              (putative) competence regarding plumbing, wiring, pipe-fitting, boiler
              testing, boiler operation, steam-fitting and a host of other occupations do
              substantially contribute to public safety (and economic efficiency). While it
              is certainly true that some or all of these occupational classes are perhaps
              more intent on using the licensing process to limit competition than to
              promote public good, they are obliged to cast their perogatives as in the
              public interest and, to some extent, find themselves obliged to so perform.
                    As far as school teachers are concerned, I have no knowledge regarding
              the utility or otherwise of the accrediting requirements. I do think that
              standards should be more, rather than less, stringent and the level of pay
              and other perogatives increased to a level necessary to attract really gifted
              persons to that occupation. I doubt that letting anyone who thinks they can
              teach do so would necessarily give results consonant with their own high
              opionons of their un-tested abilities. (Someone on this group cited a study
              which purported to show that the less someone knows about a subject, the more
              certain they are that they "know" it all.)
                    As to the law, a profession with which I have more familiarity, I
              agree that accrediation is no measure of competence, but the notion that the
              process keeps capable people out of the profession by limiting access is
              doubtful.
                    Anyway, it is not clear to me why SNAME's proposal for a naval
              architecture "PE" certification is a threat to Bolger, Bolgeristas,
              Bolger-wannabees or would be Bolger-builders like myself. If you can persuade
              me that it is, I will certainly do whatever I can to frustrate any such
              nefarious proposal.

              Bill in MN


              Bolger rules!!!
              - no cursing, flaming, trolling, or spamming
              - no flogging dead horses
              - add something: take "thanks!" and "ditto!" posts off-list.
              - stay on topic and punctuate
              - add your comments at the TOP and SIGN your posts
              - To order plans: Mr. Philip C. Bolger, P.O. Box 1209, Gloucester, MA, 01930, Fax: (978) 282-1349


              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • StepHydro@aol.com
              In a message dated 05/04/2001 10:
              Message 6 of 9 , May 5, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 05/04/2001 10:<BR34:<BR46 PM
                Eastern Daylight, wmrpage@... writes:
                > - suppose some
                > dot.com zillionaire wanted a radical boat design and elected to commission
                > Bolger (who better?) to come up with something, but also wanted the vessel
                > classified for regulatory, insurance or re-sale purposes - what would stop
                > such a patron from retaining a certified "PE" to check and certify the
                > design for the appropriate bodies?

                The answer to this one is easy. That guy would act as a "gatekeeper" to make
                sure that Bolger was unsuccessful. The jealousy of the elect has no bounds.

                Carron
                realist today
              • ellengaest@boatbuilding.com
                Don, Right on and bingo! Sincerely, Peter Lenihan........ ... to make ... bounds.
                Message 7 of 9 , May 5, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Don,
                  Right on and bingo!
                  Sincerely,
                  Peter Lenihan........

                  --- In bolger@y..., StepHydro@a... wrote:

                  >
                  > The answer to this one is easy. That guy would act as a "gatekeeper"
                  to make
                  > sure that Bolger was unsuccessful. The jealousy of the elect has no
                  bounds.
                  >
                  > Carron
                  > realist today
                • Chris Crandall
                  ... Yeah, my Ph.D. from the University is quite suspect! Actually, credentials of any paper sort should be considered suspect. Drafting Dorade, or HMS Rose, or
                  Message 8 of 9 , May 8, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Fri, 4 May 2001 KF4call@... wrote:
                    > It is good to be skeptical of a credential conferred by a governmental
                    > entity.

                    Yeah, my Ph.D. from the University is quite suspect!

                    Actually, credentials of any paper sort should be considered suspect.
                    Drafting Dorade, or HMS Rose, or Ticonderoga, now those are credentials!
                  • pongo19050@yahoo.com
                    In letters in WoodenBoat Andy Davis hjas given the address for a web page on the Leavitt sinking but I think that the URL is bad. Has anyone else tried?
                    Message 9 of 9 , May 8, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In letters in WoodenBoat Andy Davis hjas given the address for a web
                      page on the Leavitt sinking but I think that the URL is bad. Has
                      anyone else tried?

                      Regards

                      Andy Farquhar
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.