About change in thinking who are called engineers
About change in thinking who are called engineers
(OP)
In recent years I have noticed or felt that the meaning of ENGINEER has been taken very lightly. In our times to be an engineer was a tough task with very sound foundation of knowledge of mathematics and science and had very good talent. Not every body had good command of these subjects and so Engineers became only those who were very very genious people. But now a days every subject was coined the name of engineering be it management or something else.So i think the weight of the term engineer has been reduced considerably in recent years. Do you agree with this view?





RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Regards,
-Mike
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I know a few men that never made it past high school and have a well developed and keen, albiet narrow, body of knowledge of an engineering specialty, complete with maths, physics, and theory related to their field. They have a naturally high ability to be very good at what they do.
On the other hand, I graduated from college with at least 15 people that could not translate nor apply what they had learned into a practical environment. While owning swift minds, and having a very broad knowledge of advanced math and physics, they quite simply would not be good for much of anything outside the alma mater laboratories and libraries.
University credentials do not provide authentication, they only provide context.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I too have worked with people in both groups that you talk about. In the past the designers and non-degreed engineers I knew had allot of experience and a high level of mechanical aptitude. Many worked their way into managerial positions where their experience and in-depth knowledge of the product and processes was a valuable asset to the company. Most were conscientious and very ethical, something you don't need an engineering degree for.
This seems to have changed however, at least at the companies I have worked for in the last ten years in the midwest (US). Instead of bringing in people to go through the learning process, my employers have brought in people with no engineering or management experience at all, and put them in charge. It seems that management and owners are so out of touch with what engineering and manufacturing is, that they are unable to recognize who it is they should hire to fix the problems. The resulting situation has not been fun to be part of.
So I do agree with 19652022, things have changed.
Regards,
-Mike
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
This is equavalent to calling a person a Doctor just by knowing that for example aspirin can be used for pain killing.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I doubt you will much luck with this line of thinking in this forum. This forum contains many nondegreed engineered and designers that work with the title engineer in a variety of countries. I think many of them have a large amount of technical knowledge to share with the group. If you think Eng-tips is only degreed engineers you are mistaken. Some countries have tryed to control the word engineer. It is not working well. For example the provincal and national associations have tryed to restrict the title of engineer to degreed engineers. It does not work. Canada is better off then most countries as far as this goes. In Canada at least the title professional engineer is working. Many companies only hire professional engineers. This means only degreed engineers with at least 4 years experience. If a technical person thinks they have enough knowledge to pass the required exams they can challenge the tests and become a professional engineer also. It is very rare, simply because many technical people are specialized in a field and don't have broad understanding and they did not have to sit through 4 years of math and physics lectures.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
there's two sides to the canadian system, i think i was on the other side !?
back in my day (several years ago now, maybe things have changed) the ONLY acceptable university was a canadian one (maybe north american). i had the misfortune (good fortune?) to graduate from an australian university, and so after some 15 years experience (and having an MRAeS and a CEng) they wanted me to sit many technical exams. my reply was short, and they allowed me a board interview which was a farse (i'm sure that spelling's wrong, but Word won't help, and it does get my meaning across !!).
this board interview was with three PEng's, who no doubt knew something of the engineering they practiced, but none of mine ... a favourite story of mine was when discussing my work on nacelles, one of them asked "what's a nacelle?" ... "its where the engine is, like on startrek" was my reply.
the interview ended shortly after that !, with me being released for having to sit the exams.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Read the Last Sentence Carefully!
Wes C.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Things have changed any recognized international degree will be accepted.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
the problem was two fold ...
not accrediting overseas universities (which it seems they've fixed now),
and a completely useless interview (well that's how it looked to me).
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Oklahoma's law is almost identical to the one stated above, except you can't even have Engineer in your title if you don't have a P.E. license in this state.
Texas added expeptions for empolyees of Telecom companies doing work for the Telecom companies.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Wes C.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I thought in the UK when you hear the title engineer the first person that they would think of would be a TV repairman or garage mechanic?
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Oddly enough in the UK there are not many instances of bridges being designed by scaffolding erection 'engineers', or sewage systems designed by sanitation 'engineers'.
Because, basically, businesses aren't that stupid. (Having said that there have been cases where designs have been made with insufficient oversight, I remember that Flixborough was used as an example). There again that seems to happen everywhere to some extent.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I happen to have a BS in Engineering Technology which makes it impossible for me to take the EIT in my current state of Kansas. But I can take the South Dakota EIT test and get my PE there as the requirements are different. If I was an Oklahoma resident I could also take the test and get my PE. So if I get my PE in SD or OK should I be allowed to call myself an engineer in Kansas or Missouri? Should not having your degree preclude you from taking a test to prove your proficiency? I am not pursuing my PE but feel if a person can pass the tests and have the years of experience should be enough for a PE. My specialty is Manufacturing Engineering which I have done for 25 years. There are no states who give a PE in manufacturing engineering.
I still find it interesting to discover people with minimal education who were the founders of current day engineering fields and others who greatly appreciated in their field of endeavor who do not have degrees. The Wright brothers, Harry S. Truman, George Washington, and Bill Gates to name a few.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I had a friend who transfered from Oklahoma to Texas. He had his PE here in Oklahoma, but put P.E. on his new business cards in Texas before he had a chance to transfer it. He had to pay a fine in Texas because someone turned him before he got his license in Texas.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
So that option is still available. I didn't check exactly how many years of experience were required, I guess 22 covers most things!
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
The EIT test will be tough without the classwork ahead of time. Also the PE exam may be touch or extremely tough depending on the Disicipline you take it in. The Agricultural/Biosystems PE exam is impossible to study for unless you take classes from multiple univerisities that have different specialty areas (chicken farms at University Arkansas vs Environmental, Machine Design and Grain Storage at Oklahoma State and Texas A&M).
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
That does not mean that a heating engineer who is trained in fitting household heating systems can go out and design a power station, but he is none the less an engineer by the UK definition.
If I hack my way around a golf course am I a golfer or do I need a PGA card to be so?
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
A "sanitary engineer" doesn't fit that "definition". When I was a mechanical operator in a Navy Nuc Plant my job (with a high school education and 6-months of class room work in Nuc School) largely fit that "definition".
This thread has turned into yet another "to PE or not to PE" thread. The only reason that I can see governments getting involved is their explicit responsibility to protect the public. They have regulations to describe who can "hold themselves out to the public as an engineer", and they try to satisfy those regulations by defining the requirements in their jurisdiction to hold yourself out to be an engineer. If another law requires a bridge design to be stamped by an engineer, I for one appreciate that the law clearly controls who can own a stamp.
Reading the original post it looks to me like the question isn't about PE's (or the local equivilent), it is about the errosion of the stature of term "engineer" by management using the title in lieu of pay.
I had a friend who did a job for the phone company that used to be called "Lineman" and in one of their monthly re-organizations his job title got changed to "Engineer, First Class". When people asked him what he did he said "I'm an engineer with the phone company". Often enough, his response elicited the question "Oh, where did you go to school?". Every time I saw this exchange it was followed by an embarassed "Littleton High School" and a change of subject.
Just like economic inflation, no one benefits from "title inflation".
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The harder I work, the luckier I seem
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
That is what is not true, that is exactly what most people view engineers as in the UK as that is what the vast majority of engineers are. The very definition of an engineer in the UK has nothing to do with having a formal qualification, although obviously some do.
However to undertake certain tasks you have to have certain qualifications, but I guess you already knew that.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Very good point. I have seen this on many occasions and nobody wins here. Its always sad to see someone who has a title but none of the responsibility/pay that is supposed to go with that title. If managers or companies think that this REALLY works for the majority of the public then they are very confused. I personally think it is demoralizing, only leads to resentment, and status anxiety for the person. What surprises me is that the U.S. military who happens to be the origin of engineering in the U.S. (West Point Military Acadamey) is one of the organizations that does this the most. Please don't take this as a knock to the military.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
What you say is true about earning your PE by experience is true, there is some more info you need to know.
I started school in the early 70’s and took about two years of classes. I then went to work surveying, which led to construction engineering. I earned an RLS and went to work at a water utility district, in the engineering department. I ran into a glass ceiling; pay wise, I could not go pass it with out a PE. I applied in my home state but could not take the EIT much less the PE w/o an ABET degree. I applied in another state that would allow PE by experience. Passed the EIT and take the PE in Oct. The kicker is I can not practice in my home state w/o the degree even with the PE from the second state. Be sure to double check the states you want to practice in about transferring an ‘experience’ PE to that state. To practice in my home state I have been going back to school to earn my ABET engineering degree. I lack about 2 semesters to finish before I can practice here.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I’m confused about National Society of Professional Engineers stance of the engineering title or who can call them selves an engineer in this article “Engineers' Image Differs Across the Globe” (http://www.nspe.org/etweb/10705image.asp). Apart from the daunting issue of fewer engineers graduating in the US, but the article carries on that the kids that are graduating are Engineers, including the kids that are graduating from the other countries.
Maybe I am reading this wrong, but I am coming away with the idea that in order to be an engineer, you have to graduate with an engineering degree. There is nothing mentioning about the PE requirement.
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
In Canada it is basically if you have a degree you are professional engineer and if you don't have a degree you are an engineer. More and more companies are only hiring professional engineers. For me it is an acceptable system.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I think that you meant to say that, in Canada, if you have a LICENSE you are a professional engineer. The jurisdictions that I work in all clearly legislate that one must be licensed to use the term "professional engineer". The degree is one component of one method of obtaining the license.
Cheers,
CanuckMiner
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
So here, you need a LICENSE to call yourself an engineer, period. Whether you have a degree in engineering or not is irrelevant. An engineering graduate, Canadian or otherwise, can't even call themselves an "engineer in training" unless they pay fees to the regulatory body and enroll in their EIT program. But having a business card which says "John Doe, B.A.Sc. (chemical engineering)" is not against the rules.
But you DO NOT need a license, a degree, or even a functioning cranium to get a job as an engineer, doing engineering work, in Canada! All you need is a boss dumb enough to hire you!
Huh? How does that work?
Unlike in the USA, where there is a general exemption from licensure for all engineers in "industry", in Canada there are only narrow exceptions from licensure specifically for persons working on their employer's means of production (i.e. toolmakers and millwrights making non-structural modifications to their employer's assembly line etc.). The actual exemption rules are not rigorously followed because of our proximity to the US and its GENERAL exemption from licensure, and the licensure bodies are pretty toothless on the enforcement side- though they do hang a few of the worst offenders in the Blue Pages every few months to keep people on their toes.
Companies can also obtain (i.e. are required to obtain) Certificates of Authorization to practice professional engineering, in which case all a firm needs is one licensed professional engineer willing to take professional responsibility for the engineering work done by the firm (i.e. a "patsy"!) and BINGO! you can hire a hundred highschool dropouts as your engineering workforce!
That's why, in a practical sense, the Canadian P.Eng. license is basically a license to do NOTHING, and more than 50% of Canadian graduates and ~ 80% of engineering immigrants to Canada practice without a license. The P.Eng. is a license to pay fees and accept career-terminating responsibility for your work, in return for NOTHING- no exclusive scope of practice, no effective enforcement against the non-licensed, and usually no more pay. I work shoulder to shoulder with non-licensed engineers and non-engineers who do the same work that I do for the same pay, but have less personal liability for the consequences of their work. It makes me scratch my head every time I write the cheque for my yearly licensure fees!
Many engineering immigrants to Canada are clamouring to get P.Eng. licenses, because they think that it's merely the lack of this license which prevents them from finding work. But in fact, the license is neither required to find work as an employee engineer, nor is it any guarantee of employment once you have one.
In fact, it's not the lack of the license, but rather the massive oversupply of engineers to Canada which is preventing them from finding work. See www.geocities.com/martinsmoltenmetal/index.htm if you haven't seen the stats for Canada yet, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
All the P.Eng. does for these people is to demonstrate to prospective employers that someone more knowledgeable than them has reviewed this person's transcripts and work experience and determined that this person is fit to practice professional engineering- they're not some charlatan masquerading as an engineer, or some technician or technologist looking for an instant "upgrade" via immigration. Believe me, amongst the tens of thousands of brilliant, qualified and experienced (and mostly unemployed) recent immigrant engineers here in Canada, there are more than a few of this latter category spoiling things for the rest.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Having nearly completed my BSMET, I only recently learned about the licensure process (a process sadly underemphasized in universities). I had previously thought that anyone who had an engineering degree could be an engineer (I also knew nothing of abet accredation). I found out that the MET program that I am in is accredited. I called my state board (Ohio) and asked if an engineering technology graduate could sit for the FE exam. I am allowed to sit for the exam, much to my relief, and will do so. I can also sit for the PE after 8 years of experience.
Back to the original post, I think that the title of engineer is handed out much too readily by industry, to the extent that most of the public doesn't know what an engineer actually does. (There have been SO many times I have heard this question,"So, you're going to drive trains?") The licensure process should be emphasized to a greater extent at universities.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Things have gotten a little weaker recently with the introduction of Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer. The associations have allowed the term to be used in the full designation.
IMHO this weakens the term engineer since it implies that the person is somehow ‘certified’ to be an engineer which is not the case unless the person is registered. The associations chickened out as far as I am concerned.
To achieve the P.Eng designation it takes 4 years experience as a EIT (engineer in training) one of which has to be North American experience. If you graduate from a non North American university (one not accredited by the engineering school accreditation board that covers most NA engineering schools), then the terms of an international agreement come into effect. Basically this includes the equivalent schools world wide by year, discipline and degree. If you graduated form a program on the list for your year, then you are considered academically qualified. If not then there is a long process where your credentials are examined and you may have to sit some exams.
There is of course some differences between the different provincial associations, I know of one foreign trained engineer who would have had to write several exams in one province but was accepted in another. He then was able to transfer his registration under the mobility agreement (P.Eng in good standing in one province is accepted in all other provinces with no hassle.)
As far as I am concerned to be called an engineer you should have to be a licensed registered professional.
(Before anyone gets off on me for saying that the US PE system does not apply in your industry, that is a failing of the US registration system which is unrealistic, not a failure of the desirability of universal registration of engineers.)
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
"As far as I am concerned to be called an engineer you should have to be a licensed registered professional."
I wish it were the case but maybe that is only be because it would benefit me.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Were the unlicensed engineers degreed and under the direct supervison of a PE? Sometimes I think this situation is a little to casual.
Where I work (Wisconsin) engineers can still be grandfathered into a PE with enough experience and some references, no degree required. And just about anyone can be given an 'engineer' job title by their employer. It's not a good system.
What I would like to see is a system where an engineer title requires an engineering degree, and where a professional engineer designation requires an engineering degree, a specified time of experience, and an examination. While I realize that this is less than what some others have suggested in this thread, it sure would be an improvement where I am.
Regards,
-Mike
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
ABET is a joke. Anyone who has been intimately involved in a college accreditation can attest to this fact. It is a political process, not one based on any form of real merit. It is a smoke and mirrors show to highlight the best students academically, and show off to some board. Accreditation was instituted so one college could look more attractive than another.
Also, It is a sad state of affairs when the people in a job that is known (traditionally) for its independence (thinking and being) is begging for more government intrusion into their lives.
If one wants to regulate their success instead of earn it, than good luck to them, but I want no part of it. Licensure is a form of nobility. America is based on a system where every man can (and should be allowed to) find success through hard work.
I have as much respect for a man (woman) who has become an engineer through hard work, and years of experience as I have for Mr. PhD. PE (and more titles that I have forgotten – Like pops) for the work they do.
I work hard for what I do. I am good at what I do. If someone wants to come to my office and sit down next to me, and do this job; fine with me. But they better know what they are doing (degreed…licensed… or none). OR they must have the willingness to learn what I do. Then I will gladly show them.
Wes C.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Lets take the opposite point of view, that there is absolutely no governmental regulation of the engineering profession. Buildings and infrastructure would routinely collapse on a daily basis. Why? Because there would be no method of disciplining the engineers who designed them. They would be designed based upon lowest price, no matter what. Engineering would become like construction contracting, where if someone goes after you for something faulty (or deadly) you close your business and reorganize under another name with essentially the same cast of characters. Believe me, you want engineers to be licensed, and not just a "ruling caste" but almost all of them in the Building/Infrastructure community.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Also, there are many industries that do not follow Govt Purchasing Practice. They do not take the lowest bid. They take the best price for the quality.
I understand the necessity of liscensure. I mean, my wife is an architect, and I encouraged her to get liscensed (which she has done). BUT she as sworn to me that she WILLNOT stamp anything at ANY FIRM SHE WORKS AT, without talking to me first. Because if somthing does go wrong, IT WILL AFFECT ME financially.
AND. I am also not saying that people should not be trained as engineers. There should be an appropriate training. I am an engineer. I am sucessful in my career. I am willing to give back. Isn't everyone on this list. So why should we be so exclusionary.
Wes C.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Wes C.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Since all cars are designed without a PE in sight (and boy would we love to have someone to act as chief patsy), and are certainly built via competitive tendering, can we safely assume that absent government control they'd all fall apart on a daily basis?
I can assure you that a competitive market place is a far stronger driver towards vehicle durability and safety than the government is. Seat belts were invented and installed by car companies, not governments.
Cheers
Greg Locock
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Hg
Eng-Tips guidelines: FAQ731-376
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
FORD stands for found on road dead.
Most NA cars are junk, that’s why I have never owned one nor seriously looked at one.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Any comments on the no restriction of the word engineer in the act. It is important to clarify the issue. One or possibly two of us are wrong I would like to know. I will fully admit that I am mistaking if you are correct it is just that i was of the same opinion as you and i would like to know because i looked into it and was suprised. Have you looked into it or is it just APEGO and APEGM tough talk.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Regards
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
Many believe that it is only a matter of time for those pretending to be engineers without proper preparation to be unable to compete with the new generation of graduates and highly qualify professionals in their respective fields.
Here is some interesting data:
I wonder if this may be one of the reasons why US is loosing the leadership in Science and technology in the global market.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
The same sentiment is echoed by this article in Engineering Times http://www.nspe.org/etweb/10705image.asp. The way this report is gauging how many engineers are being produced is by how many are graduating and it seems that only people with engineering degrees are considered Engineers. But, this article does not address the person who calls them selves engineers that does not have a degree, but are very intelligent. Our (USA) work force is flooded with these individuals. I am wondering why they are not included in this study.
Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
PEO can and does send letters of warning to persons who are not licensed to cease and desist from using the term "engineer" on business cards etc. if they are doing so in a manner which may confuse the public. An empty threat? Perhaps, but most of the time it's effective. Offenders quickly change their cards to something like "project manager" or "instrumentation specialist" or some other euphemism. One of the regulators also took a run at Microsoft for their "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer" designation and training course.
PEO issues notice of enforcement action against anyone who uses "professional engineer" or the abbreviation P.Eng. on their business cards or other literature, and against firms using the term "engineering" in their literature or advertisements if they don't have a C of A. This is NOT an empty threat- recently a repeat offender got a fine in the $20k range for doing so.
That said, less than 50% of engineering graduates in Canada, and an even smaller proportion of engineering immigrants to Canada, go on to licensure. The reason is the irrelevance of the license in terms of finding work as I've mentioned in previous posts.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
http
There is information on the use of the word "engineer" in many states on that document. Are you or your company breaking the law? :)
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I would prefer the title not be the requirement but the ability to engineer something be the qualifications. If there is a test for that like the EIT and PE then let all with that type of background apply.
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I think you need to be a little careful though about referring to yourself (or engineers in general as "only those who were very very genious people".
The wise man knows that he knows nothing at all.
Not everyone who is a genius has an engineering degree and I'm pretty sure that not all degreed engineers are geniuses.
By the way, you spelled genius incorrectly.
PP
RE: About change in thinking who are called engineers
I did join the work and at the same time was doing MS in ChemE as part-time. After about 3 years of both study and work, I had felt that practical work gives much experience and skills to the engineer than the theoretical study does.
To be a good engineer, you should relate theoretical aspects to the practical application or other related filed as to establish an experience during your study time.
I can not blame totally the engineer, but I do for the university programme that should emphasis much on the applications that the industries are doing every day.
Cheers