It is still an issue of perception. People generally cannot distinguish between the practice of civil engineering and architecture. What should also be understood is that titles and the illusion of success that comes with it are a big deal in the Philippines. And the middle class family wants their sons and daughters to be Doctors, Attorneys, or Engineers. It does not matter which kind of engineer—civil, mechanical, electrical. Even if what is meant is an architect. In short, popular notion lumps the building professionals in just one title, and that is Engineer. Perception is very hard to change, and it is at times futile to go about correcting somebody who calls an architect an engineer.
It also makes me wonder what medical doctors think of PhD holders who are their ‘namesake’, but that is another story.
I have read Senate Bill 2770, and I think it is confused. It sets upgrading the competence of civil engineers as one of its objectives but touches nothing about the basic education and training for the profession. Civil engineers want to prepare building plans even if they do not have the skill set to do such. Sure they do have courses on structural design for timber, steel, and concrete, but sadly none for building design. And I have yet to meet a civil engineer who can draw. Despite this I have due respect for civil engineering as a profession, and in fact, perhaps with some encouragement, a relative is now studying civil engineering. I have hopes of collaborative work in the future, but he does not look promising, now in his third year but practically useless to me, cannot even help me with drafting work. The fact is that the courses in civil engineering do not equip their students with knowledge equal to that earned by architects through school and experience. It is bad enough that there are architects who produce bad designs for buildings, but it will be worse if civil engineers who are four or five times as many produce worse designs for buildings.
It is unfortunate that the plight of the civil engineers have gone for the worse over the last years, but architects have nothing to do with it. The problem is that the population of the former has burgeoned, especially in the 1970s, because of the promise of foreign employment. The scene is much similar to the way the government encouraged the production of nurses over the last half decade. There is just too many of them and with too little prospect of working in their country.
In case of nurses there are those who get employed but without pay. They call it ‘volunteer work’ to make it a little less painful to the ear. There are worse cases where nurses are made to pay the employing hospitals some sort of ‘training’ fee, implying that new nurses are unprepared to be employed.
As for civil engineers, what options do they have? Work for the government? While many have made a career in civil servant posts there is still too little prospect in government offices. That is why the majority choose the other path—practicing as a builder. Practically it is what civil engineers are known for. Some start as employees of big construction companies while others find small-scale construction as their niche. This is where the friction with architects starts. Architects want to build for the private residence client, but so do civil engineers.
Two professionals in the construction industry but with two differing perspective on building for human habitation. Architects appreciate the fact that construction is twofold: design and construction. Civil engineers, at least the way I imagine it in the local context, seem to neglect the former. The process of drawing is just another road block to them, consequently employing CAD monkeys to do the job that architects would give an arm (well, perhaps a leg) for.
