ESSAY 1: LIFELONG LEARNING

In the past, I have used a combination of Google scholar articles along with The Ohio State University library catalog to locate professional engineering knowledge. Along with the textbooks I receive from my engineering classes, these sources were all beneficial to learning more about my career. Google scholar was used to get an overall understanding of what exactly I was trying to look for when locating information. Classroom textbooks from my FABE courses were useful in showing examples of everyday problems and understanding how to solve them with given information. The Ohio State library was a great way to obtain specific research related to the topic of interest.

An example of how I have integrated and applied new knowledge to my professional work was the use of surveying tools to obtain data needed for our capstone project of Carmack Woods. We, as a team, were required to survey the site of Carmack Woods by taking points of a GPS tracker in order to map out the entirety of the area.

My career goals include obtaining an EPA job that involves surface water quality control to ensure that wetlands are not being polluted by nearby sources. Lifelong learning will be important to this goal as it will help me in the constant evolving world by providing me with up-to-date information of an area near a wetland.

I don’t plan on pursuing more than a B.S. in engineering, however, I do plan on obtaining knowledge from professionals in my field that will in-turn help improve my future self and works.

Given the opportunity, I plan to always attend a professional conference based around engineering because I enjoy learning more information that may one day become useful in a situation I have. Reading technical journals is a hobby of mine to this day and I’m sure as I grow into my career, this passion will continue and help me through everyday problems.

ESSAY 2: ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES ESSAY

From reading an ethical case study titled “Planning Ahead Raises Ethics Issues” an engineer has been hired to provide risk assessment for a residential development project in a coastal area with no building code. The Engineer believes the project should be built to a 100-year projected storm surge elevation, due to public safety risks. The client that hired the engineer refused to agree to the project plans due to the increase in cost. The ethics of the engineer to protect the welfare of the public are at risk here due to a disagreement between the two.

When others were asked about this issue, most agreed that public safety comes first before business. The most common recommendation was that the engineer should seek a higher power to report this disagreement to, and to immediately stop working with the company if problems persist. An alternative course of action to this recommendation is to try and work with the company to see if different outcomes can be made that will better both parties. The case study suggested that the engineer try and report the situation to an appropriate federal authority to ensure that relevant engineering standards are consistent with the safety of the public. This is likely the best course of action as it can help the engineer try and demonstrate how relevant engineering standards should apply. The engineer should withdraw from further service on this project until the issue is resolved for a favorable outcome of the public safety, health, and welfare.

If I were in this scenario, I would most certainly take this up to a federal authority. Firstly, I would try to reason with the company and show standards of similar building projects to the company for them to better understand engineering code and ethics. It is possible that they could have a change of heart, but otherwise, federal authorities would have to step in and take it to a higher level in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. I feel as though not only engineers, but everyone, should be concerned about safety to the public and want the best possible outcome to decreases the chances of anything going wrong that would seriously injure someone. This would not only cause lawsuits, but would also gravely impact each and every individual that knew the person who may have become injured from a project that wasn’t properly reviewed.