OK. Your Jeopardy scenario. Getting even more picky, Fred probably shouldn’t be called an Engineer but at least Fred holds an Engineering degree. Steve does not.
As long as Steve does not call himself an “Engineer” there isn’t much of a problem (although the CCPE doesn’t even like the E in the certificate). However, some other people with Steve’s Certificate call themselves “Engineers” for whatever reason. That’s whats causing the problem.
And I’ll bet 80% of the public don’t even really know what an Engineer is, since their TV (which never lies) does not tell them. However, the horrendous failure of education of the public on exactly what Engineering is is of limited relevance.
AFAIK, one does not typically get a degree as an “Engineer”. One gets a degree in “Engineering”. Just like I do not believe anyone gets a degree as a “Physician”, but instead has a degree in “Medicine”. This is a big difference.
Does studying medicine make you a physician? No.
Does studying law make you an attorney (I may be wrong, but doesn’t “attorney” mean “legally empowered to represent another in court?”, by being certified by the State after passing the bar?) No.
But does studying Engineering make you an Engineer? According to most people, it seems to. Strange.
FTR, there is a movement amoungst CPAs to try and restrict the term “accountant” too (their degree is typically in “accounting”).
In that case, 80+% of the population is ignorant, and we are supposedly here to fight ignorance.
I notice you didn’t say “Mike, a guy with a CNE certification.” You are refuting your own argument here. You are identifying yourself as a “Certified Novell Engineer,” but unless you are have been licensed as an Engineer, you are not an Engineer.
Scooby, the Professional Engineer
Anthracite, up at the top of the page, you bemoaned the fact that there are no “Engineer” TV shows. Do you really want to see “Wastewater Plant Blue,” “Bridges of San Francisco,” or “Space Shuttles & the City?”
No, that would make to much sense. The people who are in charge of this sort of thing dont do things that are logical.
Well, heres my take on it.
People with a MCSE, CNE, CCNE, or any other cert shouldnt be called engineers…the cert shouldnt have engineer in the title. But it does. It may be illegal, but nobody that has the money and political clout to do anything about it gives a rats ass.
So, the Engineers that complain wind up looking like those organists who tried to sue to get Hammond to stop calling its organs organs because they didnt have pipes(back in the 40’s, I believe). Nobody took them seriously, and hammond sold a lot of organs, even thoug technically they werent in fact organs.
If you complain enough, and try to get the law enforced, they will just change the law. To many people who bought and payed for our government representatives dont want to be incovnienenced by trying to come up with a legitimate certification name. ITs gone on too long and is too far entrenched for anybody with less than a trillion dollar legal budget to fix it.
I am not saying this is the way it should be, but that this is the way it is.
That said, I have put in more time learning my trade than most “real” engineers did for thiers. I spent may hours taking tests(MCSE isnt just one quick test), that I didnt just memorize the answers to and cheat, but honest to god knew the information becuase I had done it in the field. I work with “real” engineers every day, they show me the same professional respect I show them, because they know I am not just some help desk geek but a proffesional.
Having read this thread, it’s surprising that Novell and Microsoft didn’t try to come up with better names for their certs, that is, names that would not potentially run into trouble with the law.
Not cast like that.
How about a dramatic show about a young woman engineer who travels with an “old timer” to structural/machine disasters, and does forensic analysis? Maybe for insurance? You combine the old/young man/woman interaction, with always keeping in touch with the human side of the accident. It would be the sort of thing that people who are into deep human interest drama would eat up. It could also have a strong legal and medical tie too.
How about a show about the “drama” of building the world’s largest building? Since these things take a decade or so, you could easily make a drama about the lives and fortunes and misfortunes of the team working on the building - the new “Fuck You Osama Towers” in New York, the World’s first half-mile high building. You could have subplots dealing with the mob and orgnaized crime, a dramatic case of faulty wide-flange beams being substituted (and how it’s a race against to clock to find out where and what), political issues, finance issues, terrorist threats…yeah.
From dictionary.com:
en·gi·neer ( P ) (nj-nîr)
n.
Well, now which is it. Since this is a purely semantic argument, I am going to need clarification on this. Does the law prohibit me from presenting myself as a “Professional Engineer” or is just “engineer” enough to get someone in hot water? If the latter, then the law has been too vague to be enforceable since long before computer certifications came around. If the former, where’s the beef?
Well, you read it that way. I don’t, and I don’t think most people do. Much the way someone might say “I’m a B.A.” (not technically very good grammar, but I have heard people talk this way) and nobody thinks they are literally a bachelor or an artist! They understand it to mean that this is a degree or certification that they have achieved. (For a more obvious example of how most people would parse that type of statement, think of a karate student who says “I am a brown belt.” Would you try to use them to hold up your tan trousers?)
True, and I honestly sympathize with your side of the argument. There should be a recognizable professional standing for engineers who have attained a certain stature. My point was that this high level of misperception has been around far longer than Microsoft has, so their certifications cannot be the cause of it can they? I would say most people are more familiar with colleges giving out degrees in engineering than they are with software companies giving out certifications which contain the word engineer, and that this is where there perception of what an “Engineer” is comes from. (And most people, sadly, don’t differentiate much between a 4 year degree in communications and a 4 year degree in Chemical Engineering, which I was at one time about 15 credits or so away from completing.)
And here I think is where the explanation is of the difference in public perception. When one completes medical school, it is generally for the sole purpose of eventually becoming a doctor (of medicine. I will be precise here since this argument is purely semantic.) The same is true of law school (except, of course, they expect to become lawyers), or at least that is the general perception, and I am sure there are exceptions for both. I would still bet that something like 80% of graduates of these schools eventually become entitled to the aforementioned titles. For “Engineers”, this seems not to be the case at all. In fact, it seems that there is a very small minority who get engineering degrees (which, unlike medical or law degrees, can be had through undergraduate school alone) who go on to become “Professional Engineers”. You are asking that people take the rather odd view that the majority of people practicing the trade of engineering are not “Engineers”. And you wonder why there is a perception problem?? I don’t think we can pin this one on TV. (And PS, given the way TV handles doctors and lawyers, don’t you think shows about engineers would cause even worse misperceptions?)
Now, if you want people to accept that the majority of people practicing engineering are not “Professional Engineers”, I see a lot more heads nodding, light bulbs going on above them and all, but then you also have to have no problem with anyone calling themselves merely an engineer.
This argument gets me, but again this is a problem of semantics, solvable by same. How about they change the cerification to CMSE, Certificate of Microsoft Systems Engineering. That way the syntax is the same as with Bachelor degrees. Anyone have a problem with that? Fred can say “I’m a CMSE” and nobody has to get their shorts in a bunch, right? (Well, William Safire probably would, but that’s his problem. And of course, Microsoft would never stand for having their name come second like that, so it might have to be MSEC instead.)
No, but he does have an engineering certification, whatever one might take that to mean.
[Brief hijack]
Actually, if not for the horrendous state of public education, more students would arrive at college who could realistically consider an engineering major.
GAH! That’s the problem. He does not. Just because his certificate says “Engineering” doesn’t mean it is. If you clean up your house and I come over and award you with a certificate as a “House Sorting Engineer” since you did such a bang-up job, it is just as much of an Engineering certificate as Steve has.
Its worthless as far as “Engineering” goes and (un)fortunately, since the title “Engineer” is protected by law (see above for where) its not even legal.
The problem is, the public may believe he is an “Engineer” (or even Steve might) and he is not, since it says “Engineer” on his title.
I’m sure that most of the engineering nomenclature statutes have been on the books a long time, but even when they were enacted, that cat was already long out of the bag, in the middle of the street, and run over by a car. People had been using the word “engineer” (verb and noun) to mean doing the work, and the worker, regardless of the worker’s background for such a long time already that it amounts to an attempt to force a change in the language.
Professional Engineer is different, as CPA is from accountant. I see the justification for restricting THAT usage to those who have passed the exam, and been licensed. But it’s just IMO.
Now as tourbot said, to say that o
Whats the point. This whole thing is gonna piss off Bill Gates, so he will come out with EngineerXP next year, totally replacing engineers with a 5 cd set.(or one DVD rom).
But aren’t you falling into the possible error of assuming that Steve’s (We are still discussing Fred and Steve, are we not?) MSCE certification is so trivial as to require no more talent or aptitude than housecleaning? It’s just possible that there might be more to it than that.
I see this knee-jerk reaction from your side all the time here, to the basic effect that if you don’t restrict the name engineer to the minority who have passed the exam, then putting a bandage on a child’s skinned knee makes Mom a doctor of medicine. Like I said, a great deal of the technology in this world is designed, implemented and managed by non-P.E.'s, often by people who don’t even have engineering degrees. I’m not saying that anyone who works with technology deserves to be called an engineer, but such belittling arguments as the above do little to sort out the issue at hand.
Right, but keep that line of thought going.
Is it just possible that being a P.E. (or P.Eng) is so trivial that it required no more talent or aptitude than just paying $900 for some tests and studying some books for a couple months?
It takes years. 6 to 9 to be more accurate to become a Professional Engineer. And because of that it’s a respected Profession.
Why do you suppose MS, Novel, Cisco even want “Engineer” in the title? It’s because it sounds important… and it is.
Well, I never meant to equate the MSCE cert with passing the P.E. test, but neither do I think the MSCE is as trivial as you make out. I haven’t done it, so I don’t know for sure. I wouldn’t call an MSCE a Professional Engineer, but possibly in some circumstances I might refer to such a person as an engineer, or say that he is doing engineering work. If he were Fred with the bachelor’s degree I almost certainly would. Otherwise, in most cases I wouldn’t, but even then if, for example the person works at an equivalent level with degreed engineers, I might extend the title to him/her.
IMO you want your profession to be like law or medicine, where only after licensure can you use the basic descriptive job name–engineer, but I think the reality is more like that of accounting, with ‘P.E.’ being roughly equivalent to ‘CPA’, and ‘engineer’ being roughly equivalent to ‘accountant’. Sorry, but I would say that’s how the language has operated all these years. If you guys have your way, Microsoft will have to rewrite the reverse engineering clause of all its EULA’s, merely because it implies that a non-engineer might do engineering work!
For those who have done the MSCE, is it really as simple as these people are saying? Is it really just a matter of reading a few books, or do you have to draw on your work experience?
**
[/quote]
Why do you suppose MS, Novel, Cisco even want “Engineer” in the title? It’s because it sounds important… and it is. **
[/QUOTE]
Here again, I would NOT call a person an engineer for the cert alone, but might if there were other factors.
You know what? Other people may agree with you. But it doesn’t matter. Its the law in Canada’s provinces and from what I understand the 50 states and has been for quite some time. Well before the new Computer companies started using it for their own benefit. The OP has an example of this law.
I for one am not saying it is simple or easy to get a MCSE. I would suspect (hope?) it is a very difficult test. But, I am quite certain that it doesn’t compare to the 4 years minimum formal education and another 2-4 years of on-the-job training that a Professional Engineer has gone through.
You shouldn’t, but some do call them Engineers and some believe they are Engineers. The only “other factor” that they could rightfully be called an “Engineer” is if they are a P.E. (P.Eng). If they are, then by all means call them an Engineer 'cause thats what they are. If they don’t have a P.E. then they are not an Engineer.
It’s really as simple as that.
Easy to get an MCSE or a CNE. I have a lot of experience with Novell, so I got my CNE based on a lot of experience. But I had no experience (and still don’t) with Microsoft, and found the MCSE to be simple - provided you crammed via transcender. This was NT 4.0 (I haven’t bothered to go to 2000, since I’m moving away from Systems Administration - I hear the 2000 test is more difficult - they got sick of people like me). Took me about two weeks - cram for a day, take the test, cram for the next test…Then again, I’m supposedly brighter than average. But it was certainly easier than my four year liberal arts degree - and way easier than my “boyfriend at the time’s” degree in Chem Eng. It was also easier than picking up my Six Sigma Black Belt (Statistical Analysis).
It is not easy to pass if you actually learn all the stuff you need to know to pass. It is easy to pass it you just get one of the cheat sheets like transcender, testkiller etc. and memorize the answers. I have looked at testkiller, and it is almost word for word the question, and the answer for every test. IF you can memorize it, you can pass. I took a couple of tests toward the CNE, I thought it was harder. I hear Cisco certs actually mean something, that you cant fake your way through them. I may be getting one of those soon, so I will find out.
Well, here in New Mexico the only term with any restriction is P.E. Still though, rather than calling myself a Mechanical Engineer (which is perfectly legal here), I instead say, “I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering.” I do this out of respect towards my brother, father and others who actually have their licenses, not because I’m afraid of legal ramifications.
I guess I could call myself an EIT. I haven’t worked a day in the field, but I did pass the test back in '95.