Do U agree
Do U agree
(OP)
Hi,
I once read : "An engineer is one who can do for one dollar what any fool can do for two". To say the truth I am very much impressed with this statement and most of the times it seems valid to me. Do U agree with it, or do U think that it somehow contradicts the engineering ethics???
I once read : "An engineer is one who can do for one dollar what any fool can do for two". To say the truth I am very much impressed with this statement and most of the times it seems valid to me. Do U agree with it, or do U think that it somehow contradicts the engineering ethics???





RE: Do U agree
First of all, no fool can do what an engineer can do, but a person with common sense and some experience can. Then again, I am the biggest fool I know and I'm an engineer.
Second, it seems that the title of engineer is given to anybody that a corporation feels fit to assign. So, what exactly is an engineer these days?
Finally, an engineer is always looking for ways to cut costs of a product while increasing value. So, I don't think that the phrase is against engineering ethics in that manner. Consider that the way we usually cut costs is by developing machines, processes, or other devices that take away jobs from people with families to support, that may be an ethical issue to some.
In summary, the phrase has some truth to it and I don't think it contradicts engineering ethics. I am a little insulted that I can only cut the costs in half of any fool, though.
--Scott
RE: Do U agree
This caused some problems for Microsoft Certified System Engineers and others. A comprimise was reached where they also had to use the title fully and not simply call thenselves engineers.
The term engineering in company titles is also protected. To register my company ,which uses the title engineering in it) I had to get permission from the local association and agree to some restraints (The company has to be managed or owned by P.Eng's, as we are called in Canada.)
The proatice of engineering is also regulated differently. For example, I believe that in the USA there is an industrial exemption where if a product is designed and manufactured by a company, the design does not have to be sealed by an engineer. In Canada if you design it you seal it. No exceptions. Hence we have a larger percentage of our graduating engineers as professionals.
The various professional associations all have a defination of engineering and they protect the public by only allowing their members to practice. They vet all applications and only allow those ualified to practice. They take legal action against illegal practices, both by menbers and non members alike.
RE: Do U agree
RE: Do U agree
I said that the title ‘engineer’ is protected in Canada not the word. I also pointed out 2 of the 3 only exemptions that exist under Manitoba law. The third is military engineers. Otherwise the title engineer is protected. Sanitary engineers would design sewage treatment plants. They are not garbage collectors as the term is sometimes used. Domestic engineers would design the residence and associated functions. They are not housewives as the term is sometimes used.
The reason that Microsoft got away from keeping engineer in their title was that the provincial associations wimped out and refused to fight for the protection of the title. IMHO the associations were wrong. The precedent is now set and any one can now use the title without fear of any action by the provincial associations. The full Microsoft title must be used similar to what the power and railway engineers do. There is also a rumor that Microsoft will be changing the title as not to use the word engineer sometime in the near future.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Do U agree
Hugh Mason, P. Eng.
RE: Do U agree
The draft revised act for the APEGBC prohibits the use of “any word, name, title or designation mentioned in the definition of “practice of professional engineering” or “practice of professional geoscience’ including the words engineer or geologist or any combination or abbreviation of them” by anyone else besides a professional engineer or geoscientist.
See http://www.apeg.bc.ca/downloads/draft-act/Draft%20Act%20-%20November%2028%202001.pdf for the full text.
In Alberta (where I have had past registration) the act states
“Exclusive use of name engineer
3(1) No individual, corporation, partnership or other entity, except a professional engineer, licensee or permit holder entitled to engage in the practice of engineering, shall
(a) use
(i) the title "professional engineer", the abbreviation "P.Eng." or any other abbreviation of that title, or
(ii) the word "engineer" in combination with any other name, title, description, letter, symbol or abbreviation that represents expressly or by implication that he is a professional engineer, licensee or permit holder
See http://www.apegga.com/aboutapegga/theact.html for the full text.
I think that if you look at the acts for every province in Canada you will find similar requirements. Most of the provincial associations post them on their web sites.
This clearly prohibits the use of the term engineer by anyone who is not an engineer, was not the use of certified that caused Microsoft the problem but the use of the word engineer. If they used the term “System Engineer” or “Microsoft Engineer” then they still would have been in violation of the act.
That the associations allowed Microsoft to continue to use engineer as long as they use the full MCSE term was IMHO allowing the act that they are charged with enforcing be violated at the expense and to the detriment of everyone who is an engineer.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Do U agree
RE: Do U agree
I wish (for the betterment of PE's such as us) that I could agree with you, but based on what you state, it appears that Hush may be correct. Please note that this is based on an objective interpretation of that which is posted here; subjectively I would definitely desire the prohibition to exist.
The key thing that sways me to interpret it along Hush's interpretation is 3(1)(a)(ii):
" . . .that represents expressly or by implication that he is a professional engineer,
licensee or permit holder"
That leaves a lot of room for legal loopholes. If somebody is granted the diploma of "Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering", there is no implication that he is a licensee or permit holder. Similarly, if somebody has on their company business card the title "Senior Project Engineer", there is still no implication that he is a licensee or permit holder.
If that somebody opens his own business called "Joe Smith Engineering Services" and his business card reads "Engineer", that likely crosses the line, as it may be implied that Joe Smith is certified. Along those lines, the Microsoft title could've been implied to mean a licensure/permit situation.
It appears that Hush may be right, but at this point we're starting to sound more like lawyers and less like engineers.
:)
Brad
RE: Do U agree
I do want to note that in US, titles such as Professional Engineer, Civil Engineer, Structural Engineer, etc. are protected under the Department of Consumer Affairs of each state and legal actions can be taken for misuse of such titles. Of course, people just use the term such as Structural Designer, or Consultant Engineer instead, as long as the title isn't meant to mislead or to use in the capacity of a licensed professional engineer.
In my example, my California PE license in civil allows me to do business using the title of Civil Engineer, Professional Engineer, or Licensed Engineer. However, if I want to do business in a different state, I'll have to be licensed in that state as well.
However, those who validated the above Business Code, the usual penalty is just a tiny slap on the wrist in the form of a tiny fine and maybe public humiliation via ones name being published on the Consumer Affairs Newsletter.
Back to the “An engineer is one who can do for one dollar what any fool can do for two" statement and I would like to play devil’s advocate.
Why would an engineer want to charge a service for $1 when he or she can get $2 for it? Engineers compete against each other for business by lowering the cost of the service, resulted in poor salary and lack of recognition for all engineers.
RE: Do U agree
Anyone can put up enough structural steel to hold up a building (i.e. $2 worth). What the engineer does is designs the steel so that no more than that required, but that required amount, the $1 worth is used.
At least that is how I look at it.
Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng
Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com
RE: Do U agree
some reasonable inferences may be taken as follows:
1. Your term “engineer” refers to professional engineers rather than the proliferation of trades and quasi-professions currently claiming some connection to engineering.
2. You imply that "P.Eng's" and "fools" are equally effective (ie. “fools” can produce the same
effect as “P.Eng’s”, all-be-it at twice the cost).
3. "P.Eng's" are thrifty, economical and innovative, at least to the extent of being twice as
efficient as "fools" . This is reminiscent of that seventies sitcom, The Beverly Hillbillies, and
Jethro Beaudeen's concept of higher math (ie. naught times naught is naught, . . .naught times
two is naught, naught times . . . ). I think Jethro only wanted to become a street car conductor or
a brain surgeon, so I doubt he could be representative of the “engineer” in your question. In any case, the point is that two times a fool's productive effort ain't much to crow about.
4. “P.Eng’s” and “fools” are mutually exclusive (ie. “P.Eng’s” cannot be “fools” and “fools” can’t
be “P.Eng’s”.) This, unfortunately is not the case in my experience. “P.Eng’s” are not immune
from foolishness, especially when they step outside their area of competency.
5. “P.Eng’s” who are NOT twice as efficient as a “fool” are somehow unethical. I note that my own ethical code requires me to express opinions on engineering matters 'only on the basis of adequate knowledge, competence and honest conviction'. If being a “fool” means incompetence, then it is accurate to say “P.Eng’s” are unethical if they are “fools”.
On the other hand, your question as to the ethical status of an engineer who is twice as efficient as a fool seems less clear. If it is true that twice a fool is still a fool (qv. #3 above), then the answer to your question would have to be yes !
RE: Do U agree
While the definition of "engineering" in our provincial Act is broad (' "engineering means the science and art of designing, investigating, supervising the construction, maintenance or operation of, making specifications, inventories or appraisals of, and consultations or inventories or appraisals or, and consultations or reports on machinery, structures, works, plants, mines, mineral deposits, processes, transportation systems, transmission systems, and communication systems or any other part thereof;" '), our definition of illegal practice are is fairly specific: "...uses verbally or otherwise the title of professional engineer or any abbreviation of such title, or any name, title, description or designation that may LEAD ANY PERSON TO BELIEVE that such person is a professional engineer..." [caps mine]
In fact, I just noticed in the Summer edition of our Engineering Mag. that a man in Ontario has been fined $56,250 for misrepresenting himself as a professional engineer.
On the other hand, it probably all boils down to the availability of money to fight the constant incursions into our professional name. A few cautionary tales (like the guy in Ontario), and some well-directed legal letters are what we have in our arsenals. Although our provincial Association is strong with over 4,300 registered, our pockets are not bottomless.
Sustainable, Solar, Environmental, and Structural Engineering: Appropriate technologies for a planet in stress.
RE: Do U agree
In other words, you get what you pay for. It seems to me more and more often that people have no clue what it means to have an engineering degree, and in this day and age of garbage in garbage out computer programs to do the engineering for lay people, they look at us as an unessary evil.
Its a tough world out there, and I think we need to show the merits of our degrees every chance we get.
BobPE
RE: Do U agree
Truth be told, I could train a high school kid to do input into Caesar, that's not what the engineering is. The engineering is being able to see the results of a run and, first, judge whether or not the results even make sense, and second, determine what are the proper adjustments to produce a system that satisfies all the requirements, from equipment loads, code requirements, and accessibility/operability.
And again, you can make random changes to the model and eventually come up with something that "works". Being and engineer means knowing what kinds of changes "work" in the model vs. what can be achieved in reality, and making changes that are as simple as possible, vs. generating a Rube Goldberg machine.
Edward L. Klein
Pipe Stress Engineer
Houston, Texas
All opinions expressed here are my own and not my company's.
RE: Do U agree
A fool will answer "Yes" or "no" or "I don't know".
An engineer answers with something convoluted, such as
1. Your term “engineer” refers to professional engineers rather than the proliferation of trades and quasi-professions currently claiming some connection to engineering.
2. You imply that "P.Eng's" and "fools" are equally effective (ie. “fools” can produce the same
effect as “P.Eng’s”, all-be-it at twice the cost).
3. "P.Eng's" are thrifty, economical and innovative, at least to the extent of being twice as
efficient as "fools" . This is reminiscent of that seventies sitcom, The Beverly Hillbillies, and
Jethro Beaudeen's concept of higher math (ie. naught times naught is naught, . . .naught times
two is naught, naught times . . . ). I think Jethro only wanted to become a street car conductor or
a brain surgeon, so I doubt he could be representative of the “engineer” in your question. In any case, the point is that two times a fool's productive effort ain't much to crow about.
4. “P.Eng’s” and “fools” are mutually exclusive (ie. “P.Eng’s” cannot be “fools” and “fools” can’t
be “P.Eng’s”.) This, unfortunately is not the case in my experience. “P.Eng’s” are not immune
from foolishness, especially when they step outside their area of competency.
5. “P.Eng’s” who are NOT twice as efficient as a “fool” are somehow unethical. I note that my own ethical code requires me to express opinions on engineering matters 'only on the basis of adequate knowledge, competence and honest conviction'. If being a “fool” means incompetence, then it is accurate to say “P.Eng’s” are unethical if they are “fools”.
get the point? , I won't "snipet" the others.
RE: Do U agree
If I grasp chubPE's point, it appears that anyone answering "yes", "no", or "I don't know" to rjh03's query, might be a fool. This implies that the only remaining response (ie. to say nothing) should be the domain of engineers.
Francis Bacon might have disagreed when he penned "Silence is the virtue of fools."
Mark Twain however, seems to agree . . ."It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
Winston Churchill gives hope to all us foolish (and presumably garrulous PE's, P.Eng's CE's etc.) when he cast the deciding vote: "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes."
On a less tongue-in-cheek notion, what's wrong with convoluted answers?
There is an inference here that everything is simple, and straight forward or otherwise black & white.
It may be normal for the average person to reduce complex issues to simple explanations, but I've found most engineers like to look under the hood, turn a thing upside down, have a good look at something before performing analysis and formulating conclusions. Surely nothing in engineering can be more complex than ethics.
Regards,
RE: Do U agree
So I guess I don't agree?
RE: Do U agree
I suppose the point is that ethics is confusing to most. The only proven way to stay ahead of ethical problems is to constantly question and examine things from a lot of different points of view. Presumably, that's why we are all on this forum. Also, it doesn't hurt to maintain a certain wit or sense of humor either when you're ruminating on a problem.
Regards,
RE: Do U agree
RE: Do U agree
The Japanese have a saying which loosely translated says:
Engineers make the money and lawyers divide that money up into smaller and smaller portions
RE: Do U agree
Engineering, Engineer, Professional. Most of the posts in this forum are only a play of words.
The only ones I agree with are if anyone misrepresents themselves as being a Licenced member of a Professional or Regulatory Body or Association, or by having a Masters in Engineering when in fact they dropped out of high school, then by all means jail them.
Lets not get our knickers in a twist about using the word "engineer". Lots of people use this term and are in no way trying to mislead anyone into believing they are Licenced Professional Engineers.
Am I, in legal or juristictional terms, a Professional Engineer? No. I am however, an Engineering professional by virtue of having 41 years expierience in conveying systems and special purpose machinery. The 41 years encompass the 16 year old "hands on" apprentice, draftsman and then designer or as one post put it, "promoted draftsman".
The title of Mechanical Designer suits me but if I brainchild a piece of machinery which is unique in performing it's fuction, if I choose to do so, I feel I am entitled to say I "Engineered" it.
Another post states something about "not even having attended a regognized School of Engineering". Wake up graduates, when you graduate you know nothing about real world Engineering and I suggest you investigate a crash course on reality.
In contradiction to the beliefs of many Engineers, another post describes "engineering" by the following:
While the definition of "engineering" in our provincial Act is broad (' "engineering means the science and art of designing, investigating, supervising the construction, maintenance or operation of, making specifications, inventories or appraisals of, and consultations or inventories or appraisals or, and consultations or reports on machinery, structures, works, plants, mines, mineral deposits, processes, transportation systems, transmission systems, and communication systems or any other part thereof;" '), our definition of illegal practice are is fairly specific: "...uses verbally or otherwise the title of professional engineer or any abbreviation of such title, or any name, title, description or designation that may LEAD ANY PERSON TO BELIEVE that such person is a professional engineer..."
I think this makes the use of the word "engineer" and the "Illegal" use quite clear.
Sorry if I have came across as being uppity, but for the new grads, I wish you all well, leave the snob factor behind in the hallowed halls, keep your feet on the ground and your head out of the clouds and maybe you can learn a lot from old timers like me. As for the older ones whom I suspect wrote some of these insulting posts, well, what can one say?
RE: Do U agree
I think the point I am trying to make is, that there are respectable professions using the word "Engineer" as part of their title, but they do not claim to be capable of or involved in any way, in the design or construction of Public Works projects, public transportation, public utilities, or any public facilities. They also do not represent themselves as a Professional Engineer. In the US we do have the freedom to use a public domain word in any way that does not mislead the public. I think intent is the deciding factor.
All due respect to "Professional Engineers" but contrary to the belief of many posting here we do not own this word.
Irrespective of anyones views on unions; I don't think an organization with the size and recognition of the IUOE or AFL-CIO would intentionally violate local, state, national laws.
Wishing All A Great and Productive 2004
ietech
RE: Do U agree
As a footnote to my previous post, and aimed primarily at those "engineers" who think one is substandard if not University educated, I also from time to time design structures or reinforced concrete work where machinery has to be supported or placed at sub floor level.
In theses instances, I do have the drawings reviewed and sealed by a Professional Structural Engineer.
Am I overstepping my bounds in a design capacity? The fact that a P.E. seals these drawings and ultimately assumes responsability, I think answers the question.
There are Professional Engineers out there who refuse to seal someone elses work and I can only think of two reasons why. 1. There is not enough money in it or 2. they can't swallow the fact that there are good experienced people out there that can't claim membership in alumni or fraternity.
Getting off topic a little, but maybe it proves a point. One of the worlds greatest pilots, if in fact not the greatest, was never admitted to the space program because his bars were of blue cloth and not gold. You know who I mean, the Hill Billy from West Virginia...Brigadier General Chuck Yaeger
RE: Do U agree
When a PE stamps a drawing, he is assuming personal liability for that drawing. That liability generally includes both the risk of civil suits and criminal charges. I would stamp someone else's work only if the reward adequately compensated me for the risk and if I spent the time required to properly evaluate that risk.
I certainly accept that there are good, experienced people out there without a PE or even an engineering degree, but a design that has a reasonable potential to do harm carries a potential penalty that far exceeds the $500-600 you can charge to stamp a drawing. I ain't going to jail (or even losing my license) for $500.
David