Did you reach your opinion after reading the Final Order by the board which included the particulars of the case? If so, what do you think about his previous agreement with the board to not call himself an engineer, that he was not fined at that time and that he violated that agreement? Does the story not matter or is it irrelevant?
UPDATE: the State board has conceded that they were incorrect in fining Järlström, and violated his free speech rights.
He still strikes me as a bit of a jerk, but at least he’s not an unlawful jerk now.
How about a train engineer?
Ah, the memories. There was a protracted debate here on the use of the terms engineer and engineering sometime back before the year 2000.
In terms of whether the state can reserve the word “engineer” to PEs, that’s been standard for a long time. I don’t think he’d have much success challenging that one.
My question would be: did Mr Jarlstrom assert that he should be listened to because he was an engineer (unjustified, because he isn’t a PE), or did he assert that he deserved be heard because he was sufficiently skilled in mathematics to understand the equations that were used to determine the duration of the yellow lights (justified)?
Licensing laws exist to protect the public from fakers and charlatans. You can’t hold yourself out as a consulting engineer if you haven’t been licensed to do so. You can’t hang out a shingle as a doctor or lawyer without having been licensed; nay more, you’re not allowed to lease a store, put up a striped pole, and call yourself a barber if you don’t have a barber’s license.
In this case I don’t see how Mr. Jarlstrom endangered anyone, or attempted to obtain for himself any professional benefit or remuneration by what he did. He’s not a faker or charlatan.
[quote=“F.U.Shakespeare, post:52, topic:785331”]
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.
[/QUOTE
This. I never imagined that the licensing law would be used to prosecute somebody for this.
Firstly, I’m not an engineer, so take this for FWIW
In the long-ago debate I mentioned (or one of them–I think there were two or three) someone criticized the co-opting of the title “engineer” by people who didn’t even know the least bit of calculus. While I agree that the professional title should be protected and restricted, one has to ask if knowledge of calculus (or any other math) is what defines an engineer. I don’t think it should be, any more than a hammer and spirit level define a carpenter. By the same token, I object to the idea that one has to be a licensed or articled engineer to be allowed to use mathematics to make a point. Mathematics is universal.
Now that he’s exonerated, does he get all his umlauts back?
“The arc of engineering board negotiation is long, but it bends towards justice”
-Martin Luther Steinmetz
Not to put words in Chronos’ mouth, but I think the key point here is the notion* that professional licensing laws exist primarily to protect the public, that is, they prohibit you from from holding yourself out to be a professional _______ and offering your services to the public in that profession. But they shouldn’t, according to this notion, prohibit someone from talking about the subject in question, especially when the other party in the conversation–in this case the local traffic engineering bureau–should be least in need of the state’s protection against engineering fraud. IOW I believe there’s a significant difference between the fraudulent practice of engineering, and merely knowing enough mathematics and using it to make a point, or suggest a change in procedure to the local bureau.
By the same token, I happen to know a bit about insurance, because I once held a job indexing the relevant state codes. I can explain the difference between a moral hazard and a morale hazard, and my not being licensed in my state as an insurance agent or broker should not make it illegal for me to do so.
*I say “notion” because I’m not sure this idea is correct; however, I believe that it is.
To be perfectly clear, my last post is largely my opinion; I’m not saying it’s necessarily correct.
This is very true. As I think we discussed long ago, engineering remains, unfortunately, a rather obscure profession to the average Joe. Not only does a person typically not realize what it takes to become a PE, but they most likely have never have any personal contact with a PE in a professional setting, or as a result of having consulted one in private practice. This is quite in contrast to, say, a doctor or a lawyer. Back in the late Paleocene when I was in college, just about everyone believed that all the BSEE majors would be snapped up by a power utility or phone company immediately on graduation, and that they were therefore “engineers” right out of the gate.
Further complicating things is that it’s possible to work for a company that calls you an engineer and styles your business card accordingly, regardless of whether that’s valid or accurate. If I had started working at DirecTV a year earlier than I did, my title would have been “Computer Scientist” which would have been laughable as I have no STEM credentials at all, but I think it was a holdover from Hughes Electronics, who owned DirecTV at the time.
I think you once berued the fact that there are few if any movies that treat the engineering profession the way it should be. I agree mostly, but there are certainly exceptions, like in Apollo 13 when they guy throws an armful of parts on a table and says they have to figure out how to bring the astronauts home alive, with just this equipment…Now that’s pretty damned impressive. 
I’m pretty sure those aren’t Professional Engineers either. I don’t actually know, but it would surprise me very much if they were. In my head, Professional Engineers are usually Civil Engineers and Structural Engineers - the type of engineer you need certified so that you have confidence your bridge won’t collapse or the walls of your building won’t crush someone. I work with a lot of Engineers and none of them are Professional Engineers.
Yup. Though there can be PEs of all stripes - my Industrial Eng boss was a PE, and we were trying to figure out (still unsure) whether working under him would satisfy the experience requirements for a Minnesota PE license; most are engineers that work in a public-facing role, as those positions tend to require licensing. Others do it, seemingly, for fun*. My boss got his PE almost as a sidenote with his immigration paperwork (when everything was being sorted out, he found he was just a small piece away from a PE, so decided to just finish it off), and I like taking tests anyway, continuing education is more fun than tedium, and I want some letters behind my name, in order to compete with some of my colleagues. Heavens knows I can’t afford to go back to grad school if the tax bill goes through as planned, even if I’m being offered tuition plus a living stipend.
What I’m reading into all these posts is that it ought to be allowable for anyone to call himself an engineer, as that is a generic word. But the phrase Professional Engineer™, just like Realtor® is what the Board should reasonably restrict.
As long as our self-appointed Traffic Light Critic merely described himself an an engineer and not a Professional Engineer™ that ought to be perfectly okay. If it’s not, then the Board is a little bit too full of itself.
(Disclaimer: I’m a wanna-be self-appointed Traffic Light Critic myself. Some of the signals in the city I recently lived in were, AFAICT, programmed by idjits.)
I’d go along with this, since there is no discipline of software engineering. Oh there are people who claim there is, but there are no generally recognized and used principles of software engineering that if you follow will not prevent bugs in your program. Computer science departments have no curriculum that will lead to such principles, since they are mainly interested in algorithms and in theory of languages and the like.
What I infer from this thread is that if I claimed as a mathematician that there was something wrong with the red light timings in Oregon, for example, that the yellow was too short for a person with normal reflexes to stop with normal braking to avoid the red light, that would be okay since there is no legal definition of mathematician.
[quote=“Hari_Seldon, post:94, topic:785331”]
I’d go along with this, since there is no discipline of software engineering. Oh there are people who claim there is, but there are no generally recognized and used principles of software engineering that if you follow will not prevent bugs in your program. Computer science departments have no curriculum that will lead to such principles, since they are mainly interested in algorithms and in theory of languages and the like./QUOTE]
How about train engineers?
Just so there is a basis for what are the official types of engineers are here is the list
Agricultural and Biological Engineering
Architectural Engineering
Chemical
Civil
Control Systems
Electrical and Computer
Environmental New!
Fire Protection New!
Industrial and Systems
Mechanical
Metallurgical and Materials
Mining and Mineral Processing
Naval Architecture and Marine
Nuclear
Petroleum
Software
Structural
Not every state regulates types of engineers and even those that do don’t worry about every type. I’ve always been told that as long as you avoid those titles you’re generally ok as far as the law is concerned so instead of a petroleum engineer I’ve been a drilling engineer or instead of mechanical engineer I’ve been a distillery engineer. That being said I just got my PE this week so that kind of changes that a bit.
Here in California, there are certain activities that only a mechanical, electrical, civil or structural can perform and those titles are considered practice regulated. In Colorado, where I’m registered, any type of PE can do anything that they believe they have the knowledge to do.
Haven’t been here in a while but ran across this link.
Oregon lost, the engineer won. Furthermore, the law was ruled unconstitutional. Yay courts getting it right.
Another link to the judgement. Warning, PDF.
Slee
Probably not; there are no software engineers. Sure there are people who call themselves that but there is no such thing as a recognized software engineering. MIT Press has just published an interesting book (called The Problem with Software: Why Smart Engineers Write Bad Code, The Problem with Software) to make the point that there are no engineering principles by which software is constructed. It’s as if every bridge designer started from scratch and used the seat of his pants to guess where to put supports, etc.
You still havent answered my question- how about Train Engineers? Are there train Engineers? Do they have the right to call themselves that?
It only dates back to the 1730s.
If they are electrical engineers, they can call themselves conductors.
Regards,
Shodan