I have been reading with interest a travesty currently active in Great Debates.
It seems to me that some people just aren’t getting it.
To be an “engineer” you must do the following*:[ul]
Receive an undergraduate degree from an ABET-accredited educational institution.
Acqurire sufficient experience (varies by level of education) under the supervision of a previously liscenced engineer who will attest to you experience, and
Pass the liscencing exam.[/ul]
Now, I’m sort of liberal on this subject so I have no problem conferring the title of “engineer” on people who fit one or the other of the following descriptions:[ul]Someone who fits all the above criteria, except the “passing the exam” part, as long as they have never tried and failed.
People who had liscences and allowed them to expire(not possible in some states).[/ul]
I fit one of the two above, so I may be biased.
The insanity in the linked thread knows no bounds.
Garbageman are not engineers. Nor are janitors, homemakers, child-care workers, or people who have managed to aquire a MSCE.
bdgr, I’m looking at you.
Your case pretty much revolves around the fact that the title “engineer” has been diluted over the years to include non-professionals who have co-opted the title, so you may as well use it too.
That’s the problem, Spanky.
You are NOT an engineer, and the “everybody else does it” defense isn’t cutting it.
*[sup]These are the regulations for the State of New York, United States of America. I’m assuming the requirements are fundamentally similar for other States and the Dominion of Canada. I can’t begin to address the rest of the world.[/sup]
Engineers are just sensitive 'cause, a generation ago, mechanics and machinists were often called “engineers”.
See Pete Seeger’s I Wanna Be An Engineer
To the OP: I think the discussion has arisen because many people are confusing the professional title “Engineer” with the adjective “engineer” in their mind. A lot of people just don’t understand that Engineering is a regulated profession, just like being a doctor or lawyer. You do not become one just by going to the right school, or having a certain job for a long time.
A good way to bring back the value the title of “Engineer” has is to get people to think of it in more personal terms. Example: Would you believe I was a doctor and let me treat you for cancer if I just said I was one, and couldn’t prove it? No? Then why let someone design your house who only says is an Engineer?
Okay so when I was in the army, learning to build bridges and blow them up I WASN’T an engineer?? My bad, I’ll let Uncle Sam know he needs to fix that.
Hmm, the definition used by the Conference of Engineering Societies of Western Europe and the United States of America (EUSEC):
And this definition seems to be prevalent among professional engineering societies. I would say that there are few ways to demonstrate the above skills, the exam and a degree from an accredited university being two of them, but they don’t seem to be mandatory.
It’s a noble rant, the title is thrown about rather carelessly, but I don’t see even professional societies requiring anything that substantial training couldn’t impart.
To be fair, there is an apprenticeship-type provision under New York law.
If someone has twelve or more years of experience with relevant work, again under the direct supervision of a liscenced engineer who will attest to that experience, he or she can be eleigible to sit for the exam. But they don’t make it easy, and few PE’s will sign off on an application.
[sub](On second reading, I see that I fit Exgineer’s first definition, but I’ll post this anyway in case anyone was thinking of arguing with him about it. Plus I spent all this time writing the post.)[/sub]
Hmmm…
I have an Bachelor’s in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Tech, perform structural (stress, vibration, and fatigue) and occasional heat transfer analysis on aerospace (aircraft, space station, launch vehicles, etc.), electronics, and semiconductor components, and make recommendations and decisions based on the results of these analyses. I used to sign off in the “Analysis” block on drawings, but since I now work for a consulting company instead of the corporation directly, it’s the person for whom I’m doing the outsourced engineering analysis work who typically signs off. I also train people to use computer-aided engineering (CAE) software, providing a lot of theory and personal experience to go along with the step-by-step procedures. I don’t have a PE (haven’t even taken the EIT exam), but my business card still says “Analysis and Simulation Engineer”. Should I have this changed, perhaps to “Analysis and Simulation Guy”? (I would never call myself a PE, since I don’t have one.)
Note 1: I also take exception to some of the “looser” engineering titles, although I really don’t feel mine falls in this category.
Note 2: I also realize that, if I were to make to move to Civil Engineering from Mechanical Engineering, a PE would pretty much be necessary.
Would it be possible for you to post a link to these regulations? So far in each case that has been available for examination it turns out the regulations prohibit the use of the term “Professional Engineer”, not the generic term “engineer”.
True if you hold “engineer” to be synonomous with “Professional Engineer”. But for the vast majority of people who do not use that definition, not neccessarily.
It isn’t an everbody else does it defense. It is true of all words that they only mean what the majority of the people who use them agree that they mean. This is why you would be better off making the distinction more clear by saying “To be a Professional Engineer you must…” But, if you want people to not understand that it is a seperate title along the lines of MD or lawyer, then by all means, confuse them by using a term that has other generic uses.
Sheesh. I really don’t understand why you’re all so resistant to appending those extra 4 syllables before your title.
On preview, I notice that even the Conference of Engineering Societies of Western Europe and the United States of America (EUSEC) makes a distinction between the terms “professional engineer” and “engineer” (unless they are all supposed to be self-educating, which would kinda obviate the need for university programs). Thanks for posting that one!
I will have to ask for example from others for their states/provinces. From what I understand, many others have virtually identical legislation but I do not know which do/do not with any certainty whatsoever, nor do I feel inclined to check each of them
So, when you see someone with say, MCSE after their name is it implying that they are an Professional Engineer? It’s pretty safe to say that most people that have participated in the GD thread know they are not, but what does Joe Average think? There is a good example that Anthracite posted in GD:
So it does happen, the public assumes too much.
As mentioned in the GD thread linked at the top, the Military is exempt, as are some others.
I have heard rumors that there are some real Engineers these days who do not drink excessively or design dangerous pieces of machinery in their spare time. I have further heard it whispered that there are now some Engineers who drive well-kept automobiles and even–gulp–take them to the shop. These days, I am told, some Engineers fail to save every single broken appliance and used fastener they have ever owned. Can such things be true?
As you know, being an Engineer used to mean that you were also the neighborhood mechanic, plumber, landscaper, carpenter, and drunk. Can it be true that things have changed so dramatically? Is this why Microsoft thinks they can call their own automata “engineers”?
– A Special Someone Helping Out Legitimate Engineers
My sister’s a civil engineer, and my dad’s a chemical engineer. So add me to the list of those who don’t care to see the title appropriated by anyone who can wield a crescent wrench.
That’s easy, Cranky. It all depends on whether you’re using the term “doctor” in the colloquial sense, or as a term of art.
In everyday usage, when people say “doctor” without any qualifiers, they mean an M.D. So Ph.D.'s are not doctors, under colloquial usage.
But there were Ph.D.'s long before there were M.D.'s. Since Ph.D.'s were doctors first, they’re the true doctors, when using ‘doctor’ as a term of art, and those M.D.'s are just a bunch of people who went to a particularly useful sort of trade school.
If it’s any consolation Exgineer, all the sundry occupations aspiring to use the ‘Engineer’ title is merely a reflection of the prestige/cachet built up by years of hard-working, properly qualified Engineers.
Actually the wholesale appropriaiton of titles that used to actually mean something pisses me off (Executives, Managers, (Vice)-President’s (in the corporate sense).
I blame the whole HR ‘industry’ for selling the idea that “If we make the drone’s job titles sound snazzy they’ll be happier/more productive employees”…
Well, I wasnt gonna post to this nonsense, but since my name used in vain here, I guess I will. Even though we have already been through all this in the other thread.
First of all, I have never called myself an engineer, even though I do have an MCSE, but I still find this whole thing silly.
But, as we mentioned in the other thread, the courts have pretty much upheld that unless someone is trying to pass themselves off as a professional engineer, then the law doesnt really care. So much for the legally protected title.
Audio engineers, train engineers etc. have been called that for decades. Ask the average person on the street what an engineer is, I bet as many or more of them will say someone who drives a train.
Engineer is a generic term that is applied to a lot of things. Professional Engineer is all you should be worried about.
My mom has a doctorate in Music Education, that doesnt mean she is trying to pass herself off as an MD. Neither does some network admin haveing an MCSE meant that he is trying to pass himself off as a professional engineer. And its absurd to think that it does.
