"just completed post-graduate work at the time he worked on the Oroville project"
There was a difference (even back then) between a grad student and a person who had "completed post-graduate work"!
Of more concern are the Report's statements:
The same source reported to the IFT that this engineer’s design work was not overseen or directed by any engineer within DWR who was experienced in design of spillways.There were FUBARs all over the place.
It was also reported that there no significant literature review or comparison with the designs of other large chute spillways built in the years and decades prior to the construction of Oroville Dam.
Another contributing factor to the design vulnerabilities is that there was an apparent lack of communication between the designer(s) and geologists during the design.
It appears that the DWR construction team was making decisions regarding chute design and construction without any significant consultation with the principal spillway designer.
.
>> There was a difference (even back then) between a grad student and a person who had “completed post-graduate work”! <<
Irrelevent!
The only thing to look at in any engineering applicant is time on the job!
You cannot learn the practical elements of engineering from any “professor!”
You can plug the holes in their formal education in a short time in the real environment, but experience cannot be faked!
.
.
As a bare minimum, this grad student should have been under the direct supervision of a licensed professional engineer. The PE would have been obligated to check his work, especially since the PE’s stamp would be going on the drawings.
In civil engineering, the involvement of a licensed professional engineer is universal practice. If no PE was involved, then there is a serious liability problem.
Then again (help me out, California PE’s), was there a time when one could get a California PE license without taking an exam?