You have the law on your side, but it’s a bad law because it goes beyond strict protection of the public and attempts to legislate language and usage. Remember, I’m not objecting to restricting the use of Professional Engineer, because that’s what the licensing exam seems to be for. Pass the test, and you can command a higher salary, put P.E. after your name, and put your license number on your business card. But to say that all those people who do have engineering degrees but are unlicensed, are not ‘engineers’ pure and simple is ridiculous.
The law reminds me of those grammarians who still insist that you must answer the question "Is that you? with “It’s I”. They are technically correct and everyone who says “It’s me” is wrong. But I don’t think that everyone’s going to stop saying “It’s me” anytime soon.
The reason engineers want this to be recognized is because it’s true. In law or medicine, there is a very high degree of personal responsibility associated with the certification, and a large amount of prestige as well. Yet, in many cases, the registered and certified doctor or lawyer does not do all the work by him or herself. Physician’s assistants and nurse practitioners do most of the routine work for a doctor - having patients describe symptoms, taking a temperature, drawing blood, etc. Lawyers have paralegals who research case law and write briefs. Yet in both these cases, if something goes wrong, it is the registered doctor or lawyer whose ass is on the line.
The same is true of engineering as a profession. A PE may have several EITs or designers working under his or her direction, and these people are often the ones who do much of the actual number crunching and design work. Where the PE takes over, however, is on “sticky” problems that aren’t solved by applying standard formulas. In the same way a surgeon wouldn’t allow a nurse practitioner to remove a patient’s gall bladder, a PE wouldn’t allow a designer to specify the reinforcing structure of a uniquely shaped concrete building. And, like a doctor or a lawyer, the registered engineer is personally responsible for any mistakes.
The problem that the engineering profession has is that the public does not know this, and the profession itself is partially resopnsible for this lack of public knowledge… Almost nobody, unless they are related to or good firends with a professional engineer, knows how much time and effort goes into obtaining that certification, and very few people know the amount of personal responsibility that the PE takes on.
I know it sounds cliched, but ignorance is no excuse. Engineering is a specifically designated, legally defined profession, and the title “Engineer” carries both legal and ethical obligations. If you’re not both aware of and prepared to meet these obligations, you have no business calling yourself an engineer.
Why? A future MD has to complete an internship before they can practice, don’t they?
For what its worth, the issue isn’t so much (if at all) with people that have completed their B.Sc in Engineering and then getting “Engineering” jobs before they become a P.Eng. It’s the people that actually have “Engineer” as their title (or call themselves “Engineers”) when they are not. The new-ish Computer Industry is by far the largest offender, and why the associations seem to be focusing more on them now since they’re turning out thousands of these people. While most (hopefully!) are not calling themselves “Engineers” when they receive their MCSE, many are. Thats the problem.
Just thought of a nother group for you guys to get upset about. Audio Engineers. Lots of em, you even see them listed in the movie and CD credits. I will probably have an audio engineering credit coming up in a new horror film that I did some sound work for. And they have been called this for 50 years or more. Go to any recording studio, you will find plenty of them.
Sure, there’s thousands of people that use it incorrectly, and there are also allowed, legal exceptions to non-P.E. using the title. Audio may even be one of them (I might check into that). I do know, for example, you can be an “Engineer” in the Army and not have a B.Sc in Engineering or even a P.Eng. It’s one of the allowable exceptions.
Enginerd, yes EITs/EIs do a lot of the sweat work- that is what they do for years while getting “progressively responsible experience.” It wouldn’t make since to have them around for four or more years just to get coffee, rearrange files, answer phones, etc. If the Engineer of Record is only taking over on the “sticky problems” and not reviewing calculations & analysis behind all design work done by the people working under the aegis of his seal, he is a fool.
javaman- I can think of a couple reasons why someone would falsely claim to be engineers (outside of the legal exceptions to the law):[ul][]they are dishonest, unethical or fraudulent[]they have so little pride in what they do that they feel the need to borrow the prestige/ credibility of others[/ul]The first ones are bad, and the main reason for the law- to protect the public from unsafe work and from fraud. The second ones are just sad/pitiful, and a secondary reason for the law- to protect the trade. Yes, it regulates language, but please remember that untruthful commercial speech is not protected by the 1st amendment in the US.
Or maybe they just picked too generic a term for what you guys do, because apparently engineer has been aplied to all sorts of people for many many years. Such as the Audio Engineer that i mentioned.
Doctors dont bitch when non-medical doctors are called Doctor. My father is a psych proffesor, is not a medical doctor, but he is called Doctor(he doesnt refer to himself as that though…hes not much on titles).
So maybe somebody back in the dark ages chose a term that was just too general, and tried to legislate it into being exclusive to just them.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ScoobyTX *
*javaman- I can think of a couple reasons why someone would falsely claim to be engineers (outside of the legal exceptions to the law):[ul][li]they are dishonest, unethical or fraudulent[]they have so little pride in what they do that they feel the need to borrow the prestige/ credibility of others[/ul]The first ones are bad, and the main reason for the law- to protect the public from unsafe work and from fraud. The second ones are just sad/pitiful, and a secondary reason for the law- to protect the trade. Yes, it regulates language, but please remember that untruthful commercial speech is not protected by the 1st amendment in the US. **[/li][/QUOTE]
OR a couple of more reasons
[list=1]
[li]They just dont know any better, because the general public doesnt accept the legal deffinition[/li][li]They dont take it that seriously[/li][li]They arent trying to pass themselves off as anything other than what the people in profession consider them to be[/li][/list=1]
You can get a Doctorate in Engineering too. Having a Doctorate doesn’t mean you are a medical “doctor.” That’s pretty basic knowledge.
Somebody… Back in the dark ages in every state and province?
I don’t think so. I suspect it’d be far more true to say they don’t even know the legal defintion.
I don’t take the speed limit seriously either. Does that make it OK for me to break the law and speed?
Again. It doesn’t matter what they think or anyone else in their profession thinks. That doesn’t make it right and until the laws change, it isn’t right.
You missed my point. I can get a doctorate in basket weaving, and refer to myself on my business card as Dr. BDGR, and no-one will care. However if I refer to myself as DR. BDGR, MD, I go to jail. So if someone refer to myself as BDGR, MCSE, its not the same as BDGR P.E. , even though they both contain the word engineer.
Nah, it started somewhere, and it caught on.
Same thing. Most people when they hear the word engineer, they think its someone who drives a train.
It would seem so, there are many places where the speed limit is enforced, and people drive a few miles above the limit…Most of the area I live in. If the law is not enforced, its meaningless.
I dont equate legal with morally right. It seems tath the word has come into comon usage as meaning something other than what the law says it means, and the law is considered archaic and unimportant by the people who enforce the law(except in cases of outright fraud where someone really is trying to decieve someone).
I don’t have any real useful contribution to make, except that there are a lot of replies saying “Microsoft, Novell, Cisco, etc”
AFAIK, Cisco don’t have the word Engineer in any of their certs. A CCIE is a Cisco Certified Internetworking Expert, not Engineer. Strange that the really tough one should be the one without Engineer in the title. I guess they thought it was too low a term…
I’m too backed up at work to add anything lengthy, and since no substantive rebuttal was made to anything of significance from my last post, how about some new facts.
In the US, this issue has already been decided by the courts. I will leave it to any lawyer who cares to comment whether this sets a precedent for all 50 states, but it sure seems to, since the only court higher would be the Supreme Court. Also, if anyone can find a link to something on this court case that isn’t a press release, that would be nice.
So for the pickers of nits among you, the genie is now that much harder to put back in the bottle. Have fun.
Since the 9th Circuit COA’s main function seems to be to provide cases for the SCOTUS to reverse, forgive me if I disagree with them. In any case, the court didn’t rule that “engineer” wasn’t a protected term, just that Novell had standing to sue, as opposed only the individuals using the CNE label. Novell then did what several non-engineers have said MS would do: they bought legislative relief (I hear it’s pretty cheap in Nevada).
And, no, this has no binding effect on any state outside the 9th circuit, and very little within the 9th circuit.
I mentionned this in the GQ thread about what is a Software Engineer - regarding that title specifically, in Canada, I just want to point out the following:
Software Engineering is now a certified, recognized, ENGINEERING program at the university level (B.Eng) at at least 2 universities (McMaster and Carleton), and is a new or developing program at several others (including McGill and Western). There are at least 2 graduating classes out there at the moment, so these are engineers in training who will one day be professional engineers.
In light of this, I speculate that the existence of these certified degrees will come into play when issues regarding who is and who isn’t a “software engineer” come up. I would hope, at least, that the courts will recognize the use of the term for the professionals, and therefore removed the inappropriate usage from the IT industry.
But overly restricting the use of the term engineer also keeps people who can legitimately use the term from using it.
I know someone quite well who is a professor of EE at a leading university, an IEEE Fellow, and a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He is not a PE. Saying that he is not a “real” engineer is freakin’ stupid.
In some branches of engineering a PE is important. In others it is absolutely useless. I’ve worked in the microprocessor design groups of two major companies, and there are no PEs in sight. I’ve never even seen one in the resumes I’ve reviewed, and I can assure you that someone having one would not have an advantage. But that is only in the area I work in. I’d thank the PE fans out there to not exclude me from the field because the hoops I jump through are different from yours.
Also, as to your interpretation of the Nevada case, do you have a cite? Even some corroborating details would be nice.
Insofar as Canada is concerned, it is possible that common usage in Canada does not hold that the “term ‘engineer’ is a generic term that covers many types of activities outside the scope of 'professional engineering,”. So far in this thread we have documented three US states where this is the accepted interpretation. (New Mexico, Illinois, and Nevada (which changed their laws in accordance with the courts ruling, however anyone wishes to cast it)).
See above sites that tourbot posted. The courts disgree with you. ‘engineer’ is a generic term that covers many types of activities outside the scope of 'professional engineering.
