Because I find this thread so annoying, I edited my profile to use the term “Engineer”, I have had this job (and that title which was given to me by my boss) for four years but I never liked to use it until now.
unclviny
Hence, where courts disagreed, the laws get changed to comply. Hence until the laws change they’re in the wrong.
To spell it out: Where law is changed: Yes you can.
Where laws are NOT changed (almost everywhere from the consensus of this thread): No you can’t.
And I agree with that verdict. You cannot call yourself an Electrical Engineer unless you are one because the state regognises and regulates Electrical Engineers. Same with other kinds of engineers regulated by the state. But if Microsoft wants to call its people Microsoft Systems Engineer and that label is not regulated by the state, then they should be free to use it. There is no such thing as a plain “engineer” and the state has no reason to regulate that word any more than any other word. So long as one is not misrepresenting himself, the state has no business legislating language.
Until the law changes then, as Mr. Brumble said in Oliver Twist, the law is a ass. And based on the cases presented so far, there are precedents by which one can expect that future cases brought in other US states will have similar results. YMMV in Canada, or other places where terminology differs.
In the US it is a bit like trying to restrict the use of the word “cook” to refer only to professionally lisenced chefs. Not because of the amount of training involved, but because the word already has an accepted generic usage.
Your not paying attention to the ruling. The courts said the the law was invalid, meaning even if it wasnt changed, it still was meaningless. The cases tourbot posted, they didnt say they changed the law, they said the law was invalid.
Nope, from what I have been able find on the net, only a handfull of states have this archaic law on the books, not everywhere.
Actually, I know many professors of EE, and none of them have PEs (as far as I know.) If you are teaching computer engineering or digital design, or doing digital design, you don’t need one. None of the engineers I knew in Bell Labs had one either.
Huh? The law is stupid, not any people in this discussion. Even ones with MCSE’s. 
Not in the States it isn’t. Actually, I know someone who is a professor at McGill, and someone who used to be. If they are PEs I’ll eat my mouse. I’ll have to tell my friend that he’s not an engineer any more.
tourbot, do you even read the material you cite?
The court ruled that Novell had STANDING to claim the rights. That means that it is up to them to go back to the lower court to decide the facts of the case. It all became moot because the Legislature changed the law (how much does it cost to buy a few legislators?).
Voyager, your professor buddies may or may not be PEs (most of my professors in the College of Engineering at Texas were). It’s pretty darn easy to get licensed when you are a professor in most states, because IIRC teaching experience in engineering topics counts as engineering experience for licensure, as does some postgraduate education. Being licensed would add to their credibility.
And no, a teacher (even a teacher of engineering) is not an engineer, unless they are licensed.
Yes. My misunderstanding was with your previous description of the case (which, upon rereading, I still find difficult). In any event, the suit was brought against Nevada’s Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. It is unclear from the article, but it leads me to believe that the loss at the lawsuit led the Nevada Board to change their pursuit of changes to Nevada law, which resulted in a law being passed which, wisely, allowed for non-misleading use of the term “engineer”. IMHO, A much much more sensible approach would be to have the law explicitly forbid the use of the term “Professional Engineer” unless one is licensed as such, instead of attempting to misleadingly co-opt a word which already has commonly understood generic meaning.
And ignoring the Illinois case won’t make it go away.
I hope you only meant that we in IT are not professional engineers, unless so licensed, and not that we’re not professional at all.
Actually one of the oldest and most respected IT associations, the Association For Computing Machinery wrestled with the issue of licensing software engineers, and concluded that software development is too varied to be adapted to such licensure procedures. IMO, if you’re developing engineering software, you probably need to be an EIT or engineer. But if you’re engineering software, as it were, you certainly don’t need to be a real engineer, i.e., you don’t need a B.S. from an ABET-approved engineering program.
Mr. Legend graduated from an accredited two-year technical school back in the 70s. He was then hired by MITS and worked on a design team making boards for the first generation of personal computers. He did hardware and software design for various companies over the next decade and was a recognized expert in his field. He finally got tired of being underpaid because he was “just a tech,” so he went back to school and earned his BSEE (the hard way, since the university no longer recognized any credits from the long-defunct technical school). Five years ago, he graduated at the top of his class after ten years of working in the field full-time and going to school part-time. He is now an independent consultant and has worked with several companies developing hardware and software for specialized control systems. When he’s worked as a subcontractor on government projects, the contractors have listed him as an engineer. He’s referred to as an engineer by the people he works for and with.
I just told him that he’s not actually an engineer, and he replied, “Shit, I don’t care. Just as long as I get paid.”
That’s a mighty big assumption there. I don’t suppose you have any cites that back up this claim now? Are you trying to say that your original cite of that case was not miscast by yourself? Because it sure seems that way.
You may be right on this one, but I’ll withhold judgement until I get to read it myself, rather than rely on you to tell me what in means in your opinion, thank you.
I don’t like how this is spun either. In some branches of Engineering a PE is not just “important”, you are unable to even be employed without one, and should you lose your license you will be fired. Like…um…my job, for instance.
In response to an earlier post - yes, the term “audio engineer” used to describe radio personnel infuriates me. Especially like the time when 99.7 FM here in KC called their “engineer” onto the mike to ask him detailed questions about a rash of poorly-built homes that were collapsing here in KC due to them having been built on unstabilized backfill. I think his response was along the lines of “Zeppelin Rulz”. But by the arguments presented in this thread, he should be fully allowed to get away with calling himself and even presenting himself to the mass public as an “Engineer”. Way to lower the bar, guys. :rolleyes:
Speaking from reviewing this entire damn thread again - I’m not just seeing an argument against mandating PEs as the qualifier for the claim of the job title “Engineer”. I’m seeing almost a misdirected contempt for PEs, as if we were trying to demean others, or form an exclusive “club” or something. I sure get this contempt at work and in my travels - people who look at my business card and say “PE, huh? Never thought those were any use at all.” :rolleyes:
Why have any distinction at all? Why not eliminate the PE entirely? Why not allow high-school dropouts to advertise their services as an “Engineer” to the public to design houses and buildings? After all, by an argument earlier in this thread, a smart person will check their qualifications, and see they are not qualified, right? So no harm, no foul, right?
(Oh, and anyone who believes Engineering qualifications are always checked in detail by everyone seeking Engineering services, be they company or individual, please stand on your heads)
Those of you that have clearly shown your hatred of the restriction of Engineer - where do you draw the line? Be very exact and detailed. Tell me exactly who can and who can’t jump on the bandwagon, and why.
Nobody says that anybody should be allowed to do the work of professional engineers without a being a professional engineer. And I for one do not hold any hatred for anything. In fact, I think the whole thing is kinda silly. But engineer is too general a term to restrict to just professional engineers. So restrict the usage of professional engineer to you guys, because the public obviously dont think that an audio engineer can design a bridge, just give it a rest on the more general term engineer.
Oh, and I didnt even think about radio station engineers. I was talking about recording and live audio engineers.
Anthracite, I think those of us on the “liberal” side of the debate can’t comprehend how anyone who is in a position to hire a P.E. could be duped into hiring a garbage collector, or even a software engineer. Maybe that type of fraud does happen, though I can’t imagine how they get away with it.
At some point, doesn’t the person hiring you under the colors of a P.E. want to see a license number, or some such?
…For instance, if you get called in to troubleshoot a problem at Topeka Light And Power, don’t you have to show your credentials at some point? Or even failing that, wouldn’t you have talk at some point with the staff engineers, and managers, who presumably would be in a position to evaluate your bona fides?
I don’t think thats really that issue. I think its more along the lines that you shouldn’t call yourself something that your not.
I can’t call myself a Policeman or Peace Office if I am a security guard.
I can’t call myself a Major if I don’t hold that rank.
I can’t call myself a medical doctor if I am a nurse.
I can’t call myself a lawyer if I am a paralegal.
And according to some laws, I can’t call myself a Engineer if I am not a Professional Engineer.
I think that’s it more it than anything, Javaman. I don’t think fraud is much of a problem (although I know that several people have been prosecuted for it) its the impression that the title gives.
Those are destinct titles, engineer is a generic term. If I somehow got laws passed to say that the term driver only meant people with a chauffeurs license , and then tried to procecute peopel for using the word screwdriver, or calling video card drivers drivers, or pizza dilivery drivers driver, it would equally as silly. And the courts would probably throw it out to. There is no danger someone who holds an MCSE being confused with someone who designs bridges, so its a non issue, and that is why the courts in every state that have this on the books have pretty much ignored the issue. NOw if that MCSE trys to pass himself off as the kind of engineer that designs bridges, then yes, he should be prosecuted.
Yes, it happens. Especially prone are small city governments or private citizens who just don’t know better.
Why does it matter? Believe it or not, it can be a matter of life or death.
Just as you wouldn’t want a dentist taking out your spleen, you don’t want someone who isn’t qualified designing an intersection.
Do these imposters get away with it? Maybe not for long around here. But ~ damage could be done before they are stopped.
IMHO the point of the whole debate is ~ some are saying the term “engineer” is generic ~ That’s what we are trying to stop, we are trying to say, NO, it Ain’t.
If you have an engineering degree from an ABET accredited engineering program, you are an engineer. Otherwise, you are not. Period.
Well, I disagree, and so does apparently at least one court, more to come. Your statement is true of PE, but not just plain engineers.
While it is true that people may try to pass themselves off as engineers of the type that would design an intersection…Wether or not they have an MCSE or a CNE is not going to have anything to do with it…Neither is them being employed as an audio engineer, choo choo engineer, or any number of other professions that have a legitimate claim to the word engineer. P.E. should be protected…that will acomplish what you want anyway, just plain engineer should be left alone.
I agreed…I think I will start using it now as well, maybe even print up a few biz cards.