“Malpractice” has little real meaning in law - it simply means negligence. The standard of negligence in malpratice cases is, admittedly, whether you acted as a reasonably prudent member of your profession would have, but that’s not unique -
when you sue your car mechanic for negligence, the test will be whether he acted as a reasonably prudent mechanic should when he repaired your car. It’s called negligence in that case, but it is the same standard as malpractice.
So even if the distinction stands - I don’t know the precise answer to your question - it would be a distinction without a difference.
I have an MCSE.
MCSE is more of a cert for the people who setup and administer servers and all the fun stuff that goes along with that. Not the guy that comes out and fixes your desktop. Not that a lot of desktop people dont have MCSE’s, because they do, but thats not what it is designed for.
Some of the MCSE tests are very hard, some of them moderate, and all of them can be passed by anybody who has the money to go to one of these bootcamps where they basically teach you to memorize the answers. I didnt go to any such classes, I did it on my own, but I have been doing this for a long damn time. In fact, I have so little faith in the MCSE cert, that I wasnt going ot get mine until my boss made me.
Anyway, MCSE is not a job title, its a certification. Anybody who when asked what they do for a living states that they are an MCSE should be laughed at. I just means that you know (or should know) how to design and impliment and network for people to connect to, with servers ,domain controllers, directory services, backups, basic network design like firewals, routers, radius servers, ras servers etc…Actually that you know the bare minimum you should know to do these things.
Microsoft put the engineer part in there to compete with Novells CNE and ECNE certs, and Novell got the same kind of grief back when they started using the engineer name. Blame them.
I think the Canadian stance is pretty stupid to want to “copyright” the generic word “engineer” in such a way. The word by itself means nothing. I understand that I cannot present myself as a specific kind of engineer unless I have a degree in that field, so, an Electrical Engineer should have a degree in Electrical Engineering but what’s the problem with using “Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer”. It clearly says “Microsoft Certified”. I have no problem with that. I would have a problem if the MCSE presents himslef as something else like a priest or a doctor. I think Canadians are a bit too anal about this. Just MHO.
The specific problem with the MSCE is that Microsoft (who does not own any state or national gov’ts or their authority, yet) is claiming to certify persons as “Engineers” (that’s what the E stands for). MS has no authority to issue such a certification, and people hanging out a shingle as a “systems engineer” put themselves at risk of fines (perhaps jail- I’m not familiar with the laws of all 50 states, DC, Guam, PR, etc.).
By the law of every state in the US, as well as Canada, the title “Engineer” is restricted to licensed persons. There are in some states a few exceptions: “engineers” in industry not offering their services to the public, boiler “operating engineers” and locomotive “engineers”- both based on historical use predating licensure, etc.
This is no different from other professions offering services to the public: if a person represents themselves as a “doctor” or “attorney,” they are also subject to having the MAN[sup]TM[/sup] come down hard on them. I only wish enforcement was more consistent- so that people would get the message that they need to find a new title to go by.
And before this arguement pops up from all you unlicensed persons with engineering degrees- would you say that a person who graduates from law school or medical school but does not pass the bar or the medical boards and does not complete the required internships should have the right to call themselves “doctor” or “attorney?”
This comparison has often been used in this debate, but I don’t think it’s entirely valid. There is a long tradition of using the title engineer for a variety of technical job functions which may or may not require a specific educational background, or at least there was until fairly recently. That’s not quite true about about professor or doctor. I’m not saying I think that everyone who claims the title of engineer is entitled to it, but I believe that some are, depending on the nature of their work.
I think we also have to make the distinction between those who go into private practice and those who work for companies. IMHO a consulting engineer takes on a mantle of responsibility which an employed engineer does not. The consultant has nobody validating his/her competence or qualifications except the licensing board. That’s not true of an employed engineer. It’s up to the employer to guarantee his/her work, and to maintain standards of compentence. I know someone’s now going to say, “well what about medical doctors who are not in private practice? Should they be allowed to style themselves “Doctor” without having an MD, or without being licensed?” Well, no. But it’s simply not the same thing, however some people might like to think it is.
On the other hand I do agree that the term “Professional Engineer” should be limited to those having the license, and by the same token, I agree that only P.E.'s should be able to do private practice consulting, while still holding that certain non-licensed individuals, including especially all those who hold engineering bachelor degrees, should be able to call themselves engineer.
That is interesting. I know a huge number of people myself included that have the title X Engineer, myself included. Almost none of them have a license beyond getting an engineering education from an accredited university. Some of them don’t have the degree. I suppose that we really don’t offer our services to the Public. I would submit that the majority of people in the States with the title Engineer do not hat a PE license.
Cite? Where does MS claim to certify people as engineers without putting the “MCS” in front of it?
Fallacy of composition.
MS is not certifying “engineers”, they are certifying Microsoft Systems Certified Engineers".
When you walk into a doctor’s office and ask to see “The Doctor”, there is a certain amount of ambient context that assures you will be (eventually) seeing a doctor of medicine, or a doctor of some medical or physiological specialty for which you were referred.
I have no problem at all with Gilligan referring to Roy Hinkley as “The Professor”, on the other hand, if Mr. Hinkley walks into a lecture auditorium, writes “Professor Hinkley” on the blackboard and starts yakking, I have a problem with that.
It’s all in the context.
To spin the argument in a different direction, I have no problem with Laura Schlessinger calling herself “Dr. Laura” (she is a doctor of physiology), but when she starts counselling people for their emotional hangups and dishing out what sounds like psychiatric advice, I have a problem with that.
See? It’s that all important context.
So lighten up. MCSEs aren’t calling themselves “Engineers”, they’re calling themselves MCSE’s. If you real engineers feel aggrieved, go ahead and toot your own horn by identifying yourself as an Electrical Engineer, or a Structural Engineer.
At my old company, I worked with a few guys who had never gone to college. They started in technician positions, gradually gained knowledge, and started reading some books. After awhile, they were given more responsibility, learned the basics of engineering, and then the not-so-basics. These guys were damned good at their job, and knew a helluva lot more than I did, with my fancy MS in Mech. Engineering.
What did we call them? Well, according to the payroll department, they were “designers”, but I didn’t know a person there who didn’t refer to them as engineers. Lucky ones, too. “Designers” were non-exempt, which is pretty nice when 50-60 hour weeks are the norm.
This isn’t strictly true. In civil engineering, at least, every drawing that is used in the construction process is signed and stamped by a registered (licensed) engineer. What that stamp signifies is that the project was designed under the “responsible charge” of that engineer. The company obviously has their reputation on the line with each project, but the ultimate responsibility, both ethically and legally, is on the certifying engineer. The fact that he or she works for a corporation doesn’t make a difference.
Actually, I have heard several call themselves Engineers.
And that is the genesis of this issue and why the CCPE is making a big stink out of it. It doesn’t want students/graduates with a MCSE certificate to be under the impression they are Engineers. They do not have the rights, privileges and responsibilites of a P.Eng. And, in Canada,** its the law**
FTR, I am more or less neutral on this issue. I just find it a very interesting one.
So, “Microsoft Certified Systems Medical Doctors” would be OK?
Check.
AFAIK, “professor” is not a legally protected title. What “Prof. Hinkley” would be doing is misrepresenting himself as an employee of the university in a certain capacity- the university could go after him, but not the state.
What “Dr. Laura” is handing out is not “psychiatric” advice- she doesn’t tell people to take one Prozac daily and see you for your next appointment. She gives questionable relationship advice on an entertainment program. She is entitled to use the title “doctor” based on her doctorate degree- there is a legal exception for this.
The relevant passage in the Texas Engineering Practice Act (your state/country may vary, but don’t bank on it varying by much):
Now that’s just nonsense. It doesn’t help us at all with the issue at hand. Why would MS train people to work on computer networks (which has nothing to do with medicine) and then certify them as MCSMD’s? MS would be saying that these people are a kind of medical doctor, when they clearly are not. OTOH, I think that it is possible to have many different kinds of engineers. Of course the law defines engineer in one way and the dictionary defines it another. This is the heart of the issue, should the law give way and acknowledge what seems to be this increasingly common usage?
Arguably, people working on computer networks (which is what an MCSE “qualifies” you to do) have as much to do with engineering as they do with medicine- i.e. nothing. They are technicians (not that there is anything wrong with that).
This isn’t a trademark issue- popular usage doesn’t come into it at all. That the several authorities have been lax in their enforcement of the law is a shame, but it is no excuse for deliberately misrepresenting qualifications.
Using the word “engineer” in any way, shape or form in a title, business name, “certification,” etc. (other than those specifically allowed by law) misrepresents the qualifications of the person or business involved. In other words, it is fraudulent.
I disagree. “Systems Engineer” is pretty well established and people who call themselves that are not misrepresenting anything. . . unless they are, in fact, not systems engineers.
P.E.'s do have a “better” title than “Engineer” (in the US): “P.E.”
I do not have a P.E. because, in my field (RF Engineering), there is no P.E. category more specific than “Electrical Engineering”, and that test is mostly about power generation/distribution and some semiconductor stuff, and it never got in the way of my getting a job, so it never seemed worth the trouble.
Professional Licensing is not required for RF jobs in any state I know of (perhaps Texas? please correct me if I’m wrong here) because, unlike other fields or disciplines, the “downside” is not that significant to justify it. A CE or ME can build a bad structure and then people could get hurt. An EE could design a faulty power system and ditto, but what happens if I locate a cell tower in the wrong location? (Never happens, of course!) Well, gee, you might not get your cell call!
(Some employers require a P.E. for particular jobs - but it’s usually for the prestige or to meet a client requirement.)
Thus, IME, a P.E. for work in this field is generally considered “nice to have” (and prestigious) but not particularly necessary - experience is more important.
Having graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering, and having worked as such for many a year, I feel confident considering myself an Engineer (whoop-dee-do!) but I would never refer to myself as a “PE” or Licensed/Professional Engineer. (I do have one on staff, however. Makes the clients happy.)
