In my judgment, the discussion has turned into a debate on the meaning of the word engineer, and is far enough removed from the subject of the original column that this thread is leaving the «Comments on Cecil’s Columns» forum and going to visit my colleagues David B and Gaudere in the «Great Debates» forum.
moderator, «Comments on Cecil’s Columns»
Texas has enacted specific licensing requirements for software engineers.
The big rift on licensing engineers has to do with the old Fed vs. States argument. State governments license engineers, and the Federal Government doesn’t. Works (things like buildings, landfills, etc.) are designed to state or municipal ordinances, and those that the relevant legislating bodies feel strongly about the safety of tend to have to be designed by licensed individuals or firms. Products, when regulated at all, tend to be regulated at the federal level, and since there’s no such thing as a federally licensed engineer, they have other criteria. So you don’t need to be a PE to design a car, but you do to design a building.
Most states have laws prohibiting anyone from using the title Engineer, unless specifically licensed by the state. Penalties are small, and usually nobody cares if the garbageman calls himself a sanitation engineer, because the watchdog groups like NSPE have limited resources and the public is not likely to believe that the guy who picks up their trash spent four years at MIT, or rely on them for technical assistance (btw, my bro-in-law designs landfills. He’s called an “environmental engineer”). NSPE does get wound up when anybody uses the title engineer to imply a certain level of training and professional expertise, which is why they go after Microsoft and Novell periodically. Texas is rumored to be very tough on this, and they’ll go after people who have PE’s in other jurisdictions but not Texas, just for handing out business cards with “engineer” on them.
Interesting. In a somewhat parallel case, Texas went after
Nolo Press, which publishes a wide array of self-help law books, for practicing law without a license. I don’t know how it came out, but obviously TX is very concerned about
the ethics surrounding licensure.
I wonder if a person who has graduated medical school, and
has the MD degree but hasn’t passed the state boards yet,
can call himself/herself a “doctor” in TX.
I never cared for the term “software engineer” because I don’t believe that most programming practice is engineering in the classic sense. When I think of an engineer I think of someone who had no trouble with math in school, and has to use differential equations and the like,
to solve day-to-day problems on the job. Programming does
have a mathematical aspect to it, but it isn’t something most programmers have to deal with every day, and there are
many very good programmers who were mathematically challenged in school. For those programmers who deal with
optimization, asymptotic analysis, and the like, then maybe they could be called software engineers IMO.
Loren Pechtel wrote:
And by the time the government hammered out the details of said test, it would be 5 years out of date.
How about train engineers?
I do agree technical careers do not have the prestige of lawyers or doctors. This has been a slow process of degradation for the last 40 years. As a result fewer people pursue technical careers and there is a shortage in the US which has to import people in those fields.
For the matter of that, what about train engineers? Are there any of you out there, or does anyone know one? How
technically involved is their work? How does such work pay?
Considering the everyday risks faced, the pay ought to be stupendous!
As for technical careers not having the prestige of law or medicine, maybe it’s because you can basically qualify yourself to be a newbie engineer while you get your bachelor’s degree, but law and medicine require years of schooling past the bachelor’s. I don’t say this attitude is
justified, but I do think it exists. As I’ve said elsewhere in this thread, I think technical professional societies should consider mass media public awareness campaigns.
Wow - so here’s where it went to.
I left this thread when it was hijacked into a math debate.
I’ll be happy to pick this up if anyone wants to. Of course now that we’re in Great Debates I won’t be able to do as well, since I’ve been told many times I “suck ass” at Great Debates threads :rolleyes:
[Hijack]
Anthracite, did you ever get to work in the Caeserea plant?
(BTW, sorry about how I spoke to you back in July. I was under a lot of stress at the time).
[/Hijack]
Well, I didn’t go to Israel yet - mainly due to political reasons. I’m not sure which of the four coal plants I would visit either - well, I’m pretty sure it’s not the one at Ashkelon… On a related note, I was unaware until recently that coal supplied about 70% of all Israel’s electricity.
I don’t remember any exchange that we had except that re: airport security a long time ago, but thank you for your kind thoughts nonetheless.
First let me say that in my opinion there should be a distinction between an ‘engineer’ and an ‘Engineer’. As many have pointed out, there is a specific license that can be obtained which qualifies one as a Professional Engineer. That is something much like a lawyer passing the Bar exam, and definitely should have privileges and prestige associated with it. However, it is possible to know quite a bit about the law without being licensed or even having a JD. While such a person is not authorized to ‘practice law’, they certainly can use their knowledge to help themselves and others - provided they say “Talk to a Lawyer” when someone needs real legal help.
Likewise, someone can know a great deal about diabetes and how to manage it without actually being a doctor. It would be illegal for such a person to ‘practice medicine’, but if my niece were having an insulin reaction in the forest, I’d be damn glad if such a person were around to help her out.
While giving someone informal legal advice or medical advice is not called ‘lawyering’ or ‘doctoring’, there is a task called ‘engineering’, which is what an Engineer does. One does not necessarily have to be an Engineer to engineer. Let’s look at a working definition of the activity of ‘engineering’: (all quotes from Anthracite)
I would tend to agree that ‘engineering’ is the activity of applying pure science, math, and research to the real world. For example, my brother is a guy with a BA in biochem who is an inspector for the fire department. When people design new buildings, they must design a sprinkler system that satisfies all the requirements of the law for the safety of the occupants of the building. My brother must verify that the sprinkler system is adequate by calculating water pressure, flow rates, and other variables to know if the builder must add pumps or other measures to improve the system. He does not have an engineering degree or license, but this activity is engineering IMHO. He’s applying math and research in such areas as fluid dynamics and metallurgy to determine if a real world sprinkler system will protect lives.
If that were his main task, he would be doing ‘engineering’ most of the time. Would that make him an engineer? My main point is that just as you don’t have to be a Doctor to know how to treat poison oak, you don’t have to be an Engineer to know how to do some kinds of engineering.
So, let’s move on to the bugaboo of Computer ‘Engineering’ (in quotes as the term is in dispute.)
Let’s first talk about this last question. Why in fact did the MS in CS ‘waste’ so much time? Perhaps it wasn’t a waste, he truly was interested in learning. Perhaps it wasn’t a waste, he was incapable of programming out of high school. If he sees a high school graduate (or drop-out) and she is smoking him in terms of salary and accomplishments, does he have a right to resent it? I’m not so sure. Hacker culture has a long history of valuing skill and not skin color, educational background, or age. If a 19 year old high school graduate and a 27 year old MS can do exactly the same things, why should one get paid more?
The situation is not analogous to civil engineering, because if a bridge falls down someone’s ass is on the line. The P.E. in charge of a project should be paid more than a junior engineer because the P.E.'s reputation is at stake. When building a computer program, unless it is a vital system, bugs aren’t the end of the world.
I don’t know the specifics about where you work, but if it is something like a computer program that prevents people from dying when a coal plant explodes, they may have a legitimate complaint. However, unless there is that type of accountability, I don’t think they have a right to bitch about it.
Perhaps you don’t feel qualified to be a programmer, but you cannot deny that you were programming. What would make you feel qualified to be a programmer? If you write 1.3 million lines of code and learn all the same algorithms and theories that a recent graduate would know, why not? You say “I was not trained or degreed as a programmer”. Doesn’t learning it yourself qualify as ‘training’? Where do you draw the line?
All my career I’ve been a programmer, it’s what I do. I have a degree in physics. Does that mean I shouldn’t get paid as much as someone with a CS degree? What if they are totally clueless? I’ve seen people with degrees in CS who can’t program their way out of paper bags. Some of them come to me for advice. If they got paid more because they have a CS degree I’d be pretty pissed off. I’ve worked with high school drop-outs who were total wizards, people I would have gladly underearned because they kicked ass. Not once did I regret it. I value the chance to work with and learn from people of high skill, from drop-outs to PhDs.
I’d agree if you wanted to build a bridge or a power plant that you should have a P.E., but why does it matter what degree you have if you have equivalent experience and can demonstrate that by going through the licensure process?
It doesn’t bother me when a 14-year old HTML hack can sell his services as an HTML hack. [side note: hack = crappy writer. Hacker = skilled computer-oriented person] It would bother me if he could sell his services as a Java hacker. But, if he learned how to work with Java, and became a 16-year old java wizard, why shouldn’t he sell his services as such? It’s all about ability and merit. This isn’t some dark priesthood he must obtain entry to through secret rituals.
Finally, how about using the term ‘engineer’ for people who aren’t degreed or licensed, or in fields that aren’t necessarily considered ‘engineering’?
I have said before that for some types of engineering, it is a good idea to have regulation and licensure. For some types, I’m not sure it is needed. Certainly civil engineers need licenses, you won’t get an argument from me on that.
But what is ‘engineering’? Are you opposed to the use of the term ‘Software Engineer’? Certainly some software writing tasks are programming, but when applying basic research in computer science to ensure efficiency of some code, is that not engineering? And, if anyone with the appropriate experience can apply the theories appropriately, why do we need to have an aristocracy of licensure to keep them out unless they pay homage to the gods of the University Education?
douglips, let me think for a day before I post a reply. Not ignoring you.
I thought I would take this opportunity to sum up my points, since my last post was a bit big.
[ul]
[li]Engineering licenses should be required for tasks in the public trust (e.g. bridge building.)[/li][li]There is an activity called ‘engineering’, which can be engaged in by anyone sufficiently educated or experienced.[/li][li]It is my position that anyone who is applying science to the real world (usually in a way which requires some kind of math) is ‘engineering’.[/li][li]Furthermore, I believe that outside of tasks in the public trust for which an engineeering license is required and thus a career is on the line, that ability and not certification should be the driving force in titles/compensation. Certification (degrees, licenses) and/or experience can both indicate ability.[/li][li]Finally, if someone engages in ‘engineering’ on a regular basis, I am inclined to think they are entitled to call themselves an engineer simply because of the words and their relationship. They do not have the right to perform professional Engineering, tasks where a license is required, except (perhaps?) under the supervision of a P.E.[/li][/ul]
One of the things I’m most interested in is the gray area of ‘what is engineering?’ Certainly some computer programming is not, but I think that some is - for example tuning an algorithm for maximum efficiency may be engineering.
Douglips, I generally agree with you, but I think you’re overlooking the distinction between one who knows “how” and one who knows “why”. THAT’s the difference between an engineer and a technician, a term which covers much of the activity you described.
Knowing “why” does take enough varied and intensive theoretical-type classwork to get a BS degree, and that knowledge is a prerequisite for being able to do the conceptual work needed to make any real advances in state of the art, whatever art that may be.
FWIW, I’m a practicing engineer with a BS from a top school, and I do NOT want what I do and can do confused with what a technician does. I don’t have a PE license although it would be easy; it’s just resume eyewash in my industry.
I think it would be a good idea.
And the solution is to dilute the talent pool, thereby preventing the free market from adjusting wages so that more talented individuals are drawn to the field?
You know this because?
There are a lot of different engineering specialties, and a lot of different lawyers, and different doctors, etc. What’s so different about CS?
No, but good programming is. And isn’t that what we want?
So easier is better? What you’ll get is a crummy program that’s most likely full of bugs. It’s kind of funny, really - you’ve gone through all this trouble to hire a PE who uses a tool they (probably) barely understand. Talk about a recipe for disaster.
Or it would open up the avenue for professionalism in the industry based on a shared, challenging education and a commitment to continued practice, rather than a pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I think that’s a decent working definition.
Here’s where we start to disagree, perhaps. Do you propose that it is necessary to have a Foo Engineering degree in order to be a Foo Engineer? What if someone has a Bar Engineering degree, which gives them a similar background in differential equations, fourier transforms, etc.? Can they learn Foo Engineering from a text book, given that they already know Bar Engineering? Can a physicist who also knows the same advanced math learn from the text book? I certainly would think it would be more difficult for, say, a History major to learn the requisite math, but given a hard scientific degree is malleability an option in your opinion?
I think I get that, but I’m not sure if this means you think you could never do a different type of engineering because of your specific degree. Or if someone with a, for example, Physics degree and lots of experience should be barred from your particular field.
What about “up from the shop floor” engineers, people who have no formal academic degree in engineering, but through experience take positions in which they do actual engineering (by any definition). The work side-by-side with other academically trained engineers.
I know several people like this. For instance, someone I know just retired from the automotive industry where he was responsible for overseeing the design of a major technical component of a new vehicle line being launched.
I understand (from the dark recesses of my memory back when I was studying engineering) that to get a P.E. license, you do not actually need a bachelors in engineering. Rather, the four years of a bachelors degree simply substituted for four of the eight years of experience needed before you can be qualified for P.E. certification. Perhaps someone with actual knowledge of the requirements can halp me out here.
In any event, “up from the shop floor” engineers in traditional engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical, etc.) can be viewed in a similar manner as those computer “professionals” (to pick a neutral term) who do not have any formal training or certifications.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by douglips *
[BHere’s where we start to disagree, perhaps. Do you propose that it is necessary to have a Foo Engineering degree in order to be a Foo Engineer? What if someone has a Bar Engineering degree, which gives them a similar background in differential equations, fourier transforms, etc.? Can they learn Foo Engineering from a text book, given that they already know Bar Engineering? Can a physicist who also knows the same advanced math learn from the text book? I certainly would think it would be more difficult for, say, a History major to learn the requisite math, but given a hard scientific degree is malleability an option in your opinion?
[quote]
**
Hardly - the thought processes, and most of the basic physics, are the same no matter what the discipline and the word on the diploma may be. My answer to all of your questions is “yes”. In my case, I use almost none of the detailed information I got in school, but almost all of the thought processes. The saying in school, and common among alumni, is “This place teaches you how to think”.
Regarding “up from the shop floor” engineers, I believe most state licensing boards allow that as an equivalent to a 4-year degree. But there will be inevitable holes in such a person’s education that only an organized academic curriculum can fill. Those holes may or may not be relevant to that person’s employment, but will restrict his/her ability to change disciplines. That background may be enough to qualify as an engineer, but it isn’t as good as going to school.
Thanks for concurring on knowing how vs. knowing why.
I got a four year degree in Mechanical Engineering before becoming an M.D. I think the work done by engineers is generally more difficult than that done by doctors. I never bothered getting my P.E. and agree the test, which is straightforward, is bureaucratic resume fluff.
As an engineer, it is hard to define “engineering”. I didn’t know what it was when I finished high school, but I’m not sure I could explain engineering to high school students either, since the field is to darn diverse. Engineering is an understanding of why and how, not just how. But most engineers probably apply only, what, 20% of everything they learned to their job? At most? Having holes in your education is absolutely no problem if the holes have nothing to do with the job at hand. A P.E. is about protecting the reputation of people with the skills to do a Bachelor in Engineering. Prime Time TV shows exactly what a good job they do of doing this. Don’t you see positive Engineering roles on Star Trek? Is there no truth at all to the stereotype?
Wow. Looks like I broke my promise. 
I’m sorry doug, I actually got tied up and forgot. I will try to respond tonight.