If you feel you need to lie down, just go ahead. We’ll wait.
Yes, they have. He’s being fined. That means he’s liable.
Saying that someone can’t share their opinion about how something could be fixed is ridiculous. The idea that the word “engineer” cannot be used except in certain circumstances is ridiculous, since it’s a general word that means anyone who designs things and constructs them with machines. I’m a fucking engineer.
The idea that you have to have credentials to present your opinion of how to fix something is absolutely insane. It makes sense that you can’t represent yourself as a professional engineer when you’ve been hired for something, but not merely unsolicited advice.
And, no, it’s not remotely the same thing as a “lawyer” since that is a specific term that means something. Engineer is just a word.
At least REALTOR has an alternative: real estate agent. Engineer is just another word like scientist.
But that’s CPA, not the generic word “accountant.” It makes sense that you can’t have credentialed letters in your name. It makes no sense that you can’t use a word.
You’d think “doctor” would be more important than “engineer,” but it’s not forbidden. I know a whole lot of people who use the word “doctor” to describe themselves. What they can’t say is that they are an “M.D.”
I have a huge problem with states redefining generic words to use as credentials. The only reason I leave “lawyer” is because I’ve never heard it used for anyone but someone licensed to practice law. But I can think of no other word that is always used that way.
I honestly think it should be a First Amendment issue. You could do this with any word you don’t want people to say. “Fucker” is now a registered license for sex therapists, and if you use it, you can be fined.
Or, if you think that’s outlandish, how about a license on grocery store. Heck, what about one for the word store? Let’s certify the word “movie” so that only Disney movies can be called that.
The whole concept is dumb.
A somewhat less obvious version of this is why I’m very leery of requiring software engineers to have special certifications to call themselves that: If the right companies worm their way into the licensing boards, it could become the case that the only way to get certified as a software engineer is to use their proprietary technology, which of course would be unavailable to normal people and companies unless they pay exorbitant rates because, after all, all of the real work is done using this company’s tools, so the only way to do real work is to use this company’s tools.
Smaller companies and Open Source is locked out, and innovation is strangled to the point it can’t compete with that special, regulator-blessed blessed company.
Speaking as an engineer who does not have a P.E. license, I don’t condemn the whole concept. But I think there are instances (like this one) where it gets taken too far.
The idea is (supposedly) that the licensing protects the public from unqualified engineers in areas where serious damage would occur. One thing a P.E. license allows you to do is sign off on structural and wiring plans for buildings. The potential for mishaps there is obvious.
That’s not a concern for all engineering work though. In my decades of work for the DoD on communications systems, I could count on one hand the P.E.'s I’ve known. The requirements for the systems (and the subsequent testing and validation) provide the necessary oversight. If every engineer working for the defense department had to have a P.E. license, not a lot of work would get done.
Now I understand that the licensing boards also are interested in protecting the livelihood of their members, and can sometimes go too far in enforcing their mandate. Requiring software engineers to pass tests and have experience in structural engineering would be ridiculous (as would be the converse).
In the instance described in the OP, I strongly side against the Oregon state government. IMO, their interpretation of the law far exceeds its stated intention: what interest of the public is being protected by disallowing this citizen from truthfully describing his knowledge of a civic matter when petitioning his government?
In non-dead languages, the meanings of words change. Hell, look at the word “engineer” itself: it originally referred to (I assume) train and boat engines.
The fact is that there are in 2017 numerous disciplines for which the word is a valid description, but the licensing boards don’t recognize them. They would probably claim they’re trying to protect the public from unqualified practitioners. But in some instances, they’re acting out of simple self-interest.
In Britain we have Barrack Room Lawyers, originally defined as:
*UK:
A member of the British army that knows every paragraph, clause and sub clause of the Kings or Queens regulations, a book regulating discipline in the British forces.
*
Urban Dictionary
Which pissed off officers no end; and now means:
British
A person who likes to give authoritative-sounding opinions on subjects in which they are not qualified, especially legal matters.
Oxford Dictionaries
Maybe you don’t have the latter over there.
I once was employed as a Senior Engineer at a military contractor. I was paid the pay grade of a Senior Engineer. It said, right there on my personnel file, “Senior Engineer.”
I do not have a Professional Engineer license or certification. I never got a ticket or paid a fine.
Guess my employer was violating Oregon law. Good thing we were in California.
I am in architecture. A lot of what I is being discussed here applied to us.
To answer a few questions posed:
Technically, I am an architectural intern* until I am licensed. I may not use the title Architect until then. I usually say I work in architecture and that is good enough.
My colleagues that are licensed:
Socially, of course they say they are architects even in states not registered in: “Hi, I’m Jane. I’m an architect”.
It changes if the subject is professional. My coworkers were advised at a conference in architecture law to not use Architect in your signature (or to include states) when sending emails. It could imply they are an architect registered in the reader’s state and could be used in litigation. It’s different to be Jane, Architect at a Starbucks drinking coffee vs Jane, Architect, talking about your building’s roof leak. As with anything in life, there are ways to dance around this.
There is a reason why it’s state to state licensing. Each state can have various rules and regulations that are unique. When I work on projects this is usually not a problem… but in some states it can be a headache. California is one such case. When working on projects outside of the country, we hire an architect of record. Math, structure, buildings in general work the same but governing laws do not.
Further, simply graduating is not enough to earn a title, nor should it be. There were a couple of my classmates that I have no idea how they passed and they most certainly do not deserve any title. Last I heard, they are not working in the field.
As for the use of the word architect in other professions, it is my understanding that the AIA did indeed take issue with this but litigation proved to be too difficult. It became one of those things much like Kleenex is used for tissue.
As for other fields such as train engineers and people using the word Dr, there is a huge difference between:
“No matter how hard you work to bring yourself up, there’s someone out there working just as hard, to put you down.” - Dr. Dre
Vs him hypothetically saying
“That’s a serious medical condition that needs to be operated on” - Dr. Dre
In the end, yes some states/lawsuits can be heavy handed with titles but there is a reason. I’d rather have my MEP team be licensed instead of just calling themselves engineers because they have a bachelor degree from XYz country.
*last I heard the name might be changed. Nobody likes this term because it implies a college-aged person working over the summer.
So if I had done the legwork, thought it all through, and submitted it, all without calling myself an engineer, it would be OK, or are the common folk not allowed to have any knowledge, ideas, or opinions?
Airman, I assume he was hoping to be taken a little more seriously by this stranger whose work (traffic light timing) he was implying he could do better. If someone had told you they could improve your work in the Air Force, wouldn’t you have been more patient if they’d told you they’d had military experience?
Exactly this, except a better example would be if that someone had once been in boot camp in Sweden and now claimed to be a General (or other rank).
I don’t think that would go over too well in the military.
I disagree. Mats Jarlstrom has a degree in engineering, and years of experience in technical fields. His voluntary work on this subject was good enough for the Institute of Transportation Engineers to feature it at their national conference. The laws of math and physics are the same in Sweden as in Oregon.
As noted in post #3, he does appear to have broken a very broad law that appears to sometimes be insanely-strictly enforced. That has no bearing on the merit of his ideas.
Compare this with the licensing of physicians. If you have an M.D. degree but no license, you are not allowed to perform surgery, prescribe drugs, etc. But you are allowed to conduct and publish research. (Doctors, please correct me if I’m wrong about this).
And AFAIK, you can call yourself a doctor.
Anyone can conduct and publish research with a notable condition in the case of medical research: Can’t do anything that requires a medical license such as prescribe trial medicine, procedures on humans, etc. But if you’re doing cultures in a lab testing out weird rainforest products as anti-biotics there’s no law being broken.
Journals might be hesitant to accept papers from seemingly unqualified people though. But if you start off working for a respectable person and establish your own credentials, then you can go off on your own.
They do if you have an airplane.
This sounds to me like exactly the sort of situation the law was written to encompass. It’s not just that he was offering a mathematical solution to a problem, and it’s not just that he was calling himself an engineer. Either of those separately is fine. But he was calling himself an engineer for purposes of bolstering confidence in his proposed solution to a mathematical problem, and he is clearly not qualified to do that.
Anyone else always expecting this thread title to be “Use math, will ya? That’s a paddlin’.”
It’s a good thing he didn’t go after the gas station attendants or he might have even bigger problems on his hands.
This seems analogous to someone making medical recommendations and claiming to be a “doctor” when they are actually a PhD. Not technically wrong, but by deliberately using an ambiguous title they are implying they have qualifications that they don’t.
He does have an engineering degree. How can you say that “he is clearly not qualified” to present mathematical formulas?
Count me in with the “heavy-handed” side. What if he had said:
You can trust my math on this because I am an engineer.*
*Although not licensed in Oregon.
Would that be in compliance? It seems as if a secondary purpose of these laws is so that the public does not spend money hiring engineers who didn’t pay the state licensing fee or otherwise participate in the monopoly the state wants to create. Of course, the primary purpose is to prevent Joe the Handyman from lying to the public and saying he is a structural engineer or other such nonsense, but that can be dealt with under general fraud laws.
For whatever valid purpose the law has, it should not extend to a citizen who makes a verifiably true statement to a public official when petitioning for a redress of grievances in a wholly non-commercial venture.