What needs to be improved in the Engineering Profession? 7

[dporte17]

To follow up on a discussion that was going on in the Ethics forum, the question came out of what needs to be improved in the profession. buzzp and I were disagreeing about the value of licensing and it boiled down to different methods to improve the profession, but before we can get into the specifics of the how, one needs to ask what needs to be improved?

So as a group, what do we want to see improved in the profession? Do wages need to be improved overall? What about public perception of engineering, does that need to be a focus? What about supply of engineers? Are there too many, not enough? What about protection of roles, does the role of the professional engineer vs. the role of the engineering technologist need to be better delineated?

If you respond, do you have any suggestions on how to achieve the improvement that you are proposing?

I think every country/region will have its own unique issues, but I'm sure some common themes will begin to emerge. Perhaps if we are all talking about the same issues we can make some headway on a global scale.

Dave

 

[franzh]

My two cents worth:
Engineering students select colleges and studies based on current markets and what they perceive as a future demand. Engineers who graduate are recruited based on current market demands at the time of graduation. See the influx of EE's now, primarily due to the semiconductor market. 20 years ago, it was ME's for the transportation industry. In 5 years, when the current crop of engineers graduate, the market will be open to engineers in the discipline d'jour, and if that particular discipline is over-covered, the relative value of the engineer drops, along with their salary. For example, when Microsoft offered the MCSE certification, the implied message was that you would command top dollar, but recently, for an entry level position, 4 out of 6 persons had the MCSE cert, and the one hired did not have it, they had certification in an area specifically required for that position.
So, what do we do to attract the engineering students? Good question. What do we do to keep the current level of engineers, along with competitive (careful, that one word is dangerous!) salaries?
Franz

 

[buzzp]

The biggest concern I have with engineering is the publics perception of what an engineer is and does. With a better perception, higher wages should follow. I believe the 'supply and demand' of engineers generally takes care of itself although it may be four years behind (freshman in college look at what fields new graduate engineers are being hired in and what they are being paid as well as how many new grads are being hired).
So to address my biggest concern, the publics perception, I think we as engineers, need to get more involved with the public (not contractors or companies but the real public- school kids, career fairs, science fairs, etc.). This could be mentoring science projects, talking in classrooms, etc. However, I believe the best method to increase the publics perception is to eliminate the loose usage of the term engineer. No more sanitation engineers, maintanence engineers, etc. How do you do this? Without creating more government oversight it will be difficult. The term engineer, we know from other threads, can not be used (for the publics purposes) unless your licensed. Ok this works for licensed engineers and public advertisement but what about the HR people that want to call the janitors, sanitation engineers? How can they be discouraged from doing this? The only thing that comes to mind (not considering any government involvement) is some national advertising campaign illustrating what an engineer does. Maybe not bashing the jobs that use the term 'engineer' but should not but just illustrating the many careers an engineer may be involved with, consultants and others. Who would pay for this? There are many organizations, specific to the discipline, that could band together and promote such a campaign. Some others are general engineers, such as NSPE.
Just some thoughts.

 

[davefitz]

In my opinion, the role of the engineer in the US can be enhanced by providing more media coverage of what an engineer does , what benefits society has obtained as a result of the engineering profession, and most importantly, how it has served as a near guaranteed path to a good middle class life for most graduates. This last item is relevant not only to immigrants from 3rd world countries, but also to kids in rural USA who have absolutely no other employment option to low wage jobs or military service.

 

[CajunCenturion]

I think the first thing that must be done is to stop using the term engineer when it doesn't apply.

Sanitation Engineer?
Domestic Engineer?
and don't get me started on the paper certifications like the MCSE.

Until we, no not we, until the public at large recogonizes that none of these folks are engineers, then there is very little chance of changing the perception.

 

[profengmen]

I don't think I'm insecure enough to care at all what anyone else thinks or understands about Engineering. It's a job, another career out of many.

I don't have a problem with my salary either, nor do I have a problem with respect.

So I vote to do nothing.

 

[moltenmetal]

Be careful wishing for more public promotion of engineering as a profession and career- you might succeed, and attract yet more engineers to an already over-crowded profession! Increased supply doesn't increase salaries and respect- quite the opposite is true.

I know that's not true in all jurisdictions, but it's definitely true here in Canada. The rate at which engineers enter the workforce every year has increased in Canada from about 7,700 per year in 1991 to about 25,600 per year in 2001: a more than 3-fold increase in supply in a decade in which our economy and labour market has grown by only about 20%. Have a look at

http://www.geocities.com/martinsmoltenmetal/index.htm

if you want to see the figures for yourself. Needless to say, we have a glut of engineers in our marketplace, and both recent graduates and recent immigrants are having an extraordinarly hard time to find employment suitable to their education and experience. Lots of foreign-trained engineers are driving taxis, and it's not because Canada is unwelcoming toward newcomers. Excessive supply disproportionately hurts people at the start of their practice in Canada, as well as putting downward pressure on salaries and working conditions.

If you're a prospective engineering immigrant to Canada, I beg you to reconsider- like many who have gone before you, you may regret your decision later. Don't believe the popular myth about "Canada having a general shortage of skilled workers"- it's not true of all professions, doubly untrue for engineering, and even moreso untrue for the major cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver where the vast majority of immigrant engineers choose to settle.

What DOES increase respect for engineers? Licensure, backed up by tough enforcement, for all engineers doing work of consequence to the health and safety of the public and their property. Licensure is in the interest of both engineers AND the public, who need to be protected from the consequences of shoddy engineering. It's the only way for our profession to avoid becoming a mere commodity. Ultimately, effective licensure and enforcement is the key difference between we engineers and the other senior professions of medicine and law- and the reason that both doctors and lawyers make FAR more money than engineers in Canada.

 

[Tobalcane]

Dave, great post.

<< What about public perception of engineering, does that need to be a focus?>>

I feel that it has to come down to the definition or credentials needed for the role or title of Engineer. What I have seen on many post and that it is prevalent in England, is that the title of Engineer is frivolously used by companies or individuals. When this happens, it brings the title Engineer down pervasively. The engineering field may seem flooded with people who call them selves’ engineers but do not hold an accredited engineering degree. That is why there are so many reports indicating that there will be a shortage of engineers in the years to come, the report meant accredited engineering degree holders not people who came through the ranks or received certificates from software application companies. In my opinion, the minimum credential for the title of engineer should be a college accredited engineering degree. Once it is realized that not anybody can call them selves an engineer, the perception of becoming an engineer will be aspiring.

Go Mechanical Engineering
Tobalcane

 

[PBroad]

as a reply to CajunC.. on the MCSE story Microsoft is taking hits on this as an illegal designation.. but we do need more to speak out. Business led by MBA's like "smart talk" but industry is begining to realise that engineers who ask "how" are better than managers who ask "why", but unless this info is printed over and over it will continue to be ignored.

Canada NewsWire Portfolio E-Mail

ORDRE DES INGENIEURS DU QUEBEC

Transmitted by Canada NewsWire on : April 7, 2004 10:58
The Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec satisfied by the Quebec Court judgment: Microsoft Canada has contravened the Québec Professional Code
MONTREAL, April 7 /CNW Telbec/ - In a judgment dated April 5, 2004,
Justice Claude Millette of the Court of Québec accepted the arguments of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec in its penal proceedings against Microsoft Canada. The OIQ had charged Microsoft Canada for knowingly causing a person
who is not a member of the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, by authorization or encouragement, to use the title of engineer, thereby committing an offense under section 188.1 of the Professional Code, R.S.Q., c. C-26.
The dispute dates back to 2001. After pressure had been applied by groups that included the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, Microsoft Corporation announced in May 2001 its intention to stop using the term engineer in Canada in the title Microsoft Certified System Engineers - MCSE. However, in July 2002, Microsoft Canada reversed its position and notified the 35,000 people it had certified in Canada that they could "continue to use the title engineer as part of the title Microsoft Certified System Engineer." In response, the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec issued a press release denouncing Microsoft Canada's action.
As part of its campaign against unlawful practice, specifically the unlawful use of the title of engineer, the OIQ then began the inquiry that led to these penal proceedings.
As Gaétan Lefebvre, Eng., President of the OIQ noted, "the OIQ is very satisfied with the Court judgment, which confirms that the title engineer, alone or with descriptors, is reserved by the Engineers Act exclusively for our members. Combating the unlawful use of the title at its source is one of the ways preferred by the OIQ to ensure application of the Engineers Act and the Professional Code. Both laws are entirely unambiguous and the OIQ has the responsibility of ensuring their application as part of its mission to protect the public."
Parallel to its proceedings against Microsoft Canada, the OIQ is also continuing to oppose the unlawful use of the engineer title by individuals who are not members of the OIQ, in accordance with section 22 of the Engineers Act
and section 32 of the Professional Code. To date, a number of persons using the title "systems engineer" have been charged by the OIQ, and all have been found guilty. The OIQ president concluded: "When the OIQ learns of people who
violate the Engineers Act by not being registered on the roll of members, we file penal proceedings against them. They are not authorized to use the title engineer, which is strictly reserved for OIQ members."
Founded in 1920, the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec consists of more than 48,000 professionals in every field of engineering except forest engineering. The title engineer designates any member of the OIQ who has a permit to practice and thus the exclusive right to perform professional acts. The role of the OIQ is to supervise the practice of engineering, in order to ensure the quality of the services rendered by its members and the protection of the public.

For further information: Danielle Frank, ARP, communications advisor, Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, (514) 845-6141 or 1 (800) 461-6141, ext. 111;
Source: Daniel Boismenu, Director, Communications and Public Affairs, Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec, (514) 845-6141 or 1 (800) 461-6141, ext. 106/

 

[electroEng]

I agree with many posters here that the misuse of the title "engineer" is a big issue, especially where the industrial exemption applies. When one examines how other professions effectively control the use of their titles, it is easy to see the situation we engineers currently face is a symptom of a "sick" licensure system. Fix the licensure system and the title misuse will eventually go away.


ElectroEng

 

[BJC]

In the USA it amount to political power.
what buildings, projects, equipment, consumer goods etc. Require a professional engineer? Ans- Not very many.
What federal or state jobs require union electricans, carpenters etc. -Lots of them.
How many engineering PACs or other organizations do you know of that lobby or inform goverment officials and lawmakers of the role of engineers and good engineering in buildings, projects, equipment et. - not many.
Same question for labor unions, - Lots.

the solution is to decide what we want ( right after we decide who "we" is ) and go after it. Not in the newspapers or on TV, colleges but through you local congressman.

 

[rbcoulter]

I agree with BJC.

One thing that prevents engineers from gaining political power is fragmentation. There is not a significant engineering society that encompasses all the disciplines -- like the AMA for doctors and the ABA for lawyers. As a result each discipline fends for itself. I believe the civil engineers have it best in the US since the licensing laws are oriented more toward structural issues.

Other "old guard" engineering societies in the US, IMO, don't represent the true interests of the working engineer but instead seem to cater to employers of engineers and engineering educators. It is they who spew out the nonsense of an "engineering shortage" even in the face of government statistics (from the DOL) to the contrary.

 

[dporte17]

First, thanks all for your input.

So far there have been a couple of different issues raised, but I think it is safe to say that the perception of the profession by the public is the biggest issue so far. Essentially that raising the status is the first step, and other issues can be addressed, or will address themselves after that. The one caveat to that is the point raised by moltenmetal that if we only effect supply side then we may produce a negative effect, as is being seen in some areas. So I will separate the two issues of improving demand for engineers and raising the public’s perception of engineers. Some of the suggestions on how to do this:

Improving demand:
-Advertising/awareness programs to educate the public of the benefits of “real” engineers and the contributions they make.
-Support efforts such as the ongoing issue with Microsoft regarding the MSCE.
-Overall we lacking political will to effect change. Need to voice concerns to politicians that represent us. Have to voice common concerns to gain influence and attack from many avenues (personal letters, professional organizations, etc…)
-“Old guard” engineering organizations do not promote engineers well. Need to push them to effect change.
-Generally work to try reduce/eliminate the loose usage of the term “engineer”.

Improving overall perception of the profession:
-Speak out more as a group to effect change. Make sure there are no opportunities lost. Is there some articles in newspapers that leaders in the local engineering organizations can respond to in order to emphasize the position of the organizations
-Promote the profession in public, such as talking in schools and younger people coming up.
-Push local organizations to enforce standards, specifically education. This one is debatable as some organizations can award a licence without the education, but that becomes a minor point. Essentially just enforce the standards that exist.

Does anyone have examples of what is going on in their area? I know in Ontario there is a program where P.Engs are partnered with a classroom and they go in and talk and do things with the kids to promote engineering. I’ve heard great things about the program. We also have a new advocacy group separate from the regulatory body. To date there have been question about the organization’s effectiveness, but they are making starting to gain momentum. Any other examples of what is being done? Maybe they can be copied elsewhere.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[GregLocock]

I now it is a bit late. Here's my take

1) Stop teaching engineering as a lowest common denominator course. It is an academically difficult discipline, get used to it.

2) Ensure that all engineering graduates have appropriate industrial experience before graduating.

3) Stop giving out honorary degrees in engineering, and honorary memberships in engineering societies.

4) Encourage all academics higher than lecturers to work full time in industry for at least 5 years. The alternative if they won't is that they have to wear a pointy hat with a big D on it at all times.

5) Chop out some of the maths from engineering degrees

6) Throw the academics and the employers out of the engineering institutions (at leats in the UK). Their aims and those of the Members are in total opposition.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[electroEng]

"Throw the academics and the employers out of the engineering institutions (at leats in the UK)...."


This isn't going to happen. After-all, these institutions are built by academics for academics. Employer groups usually have their own industry associations too.

A more effective approach for individual engineers would be to form a separate organization that truly represents the interests of working engineers.


ElectroEng

 

[mloew]

Greg,

If the engineering curriculum reduces the amount of math taught, how will any engineer be able to master Hamiltonians? I think there was too little math that engineering student could easily apply. Math for the sake of math is what was wasteful in my education.


Best regards,

Matthew Ian Loew
"I don't grow up. In me is the small child of my early days" -- M.C. Escher

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[GregLocock]

You and me need to worry about Hamiltonians.

I'd guess 90% of engineers don't use any of the maths they learnt after the first year of university - is it really worth spending that much time forcing everyone to learn stuff that only 10% will use? I don't think the ridiculous amount of maths I had to do really made me a better engineer, it just absorbed time that would be far better spent doing the other subjects better.

Also it puts perfectly good engineers off, and loads the results in favour of the more academically inclined. I have been told that an engineering course in Australia contains so much maths that only 1 extra year of study is needed to get a maths degree. I don't believe it, quite.

Maybe I'll start another thread on this, it's a bit O/T

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[2dye4]

At the risk of massive retaliation I offer the following

Advanced math is applicable in even the most mundane chores
if you have the time for analysis.

Math is the logic that binds all of the things we have learned in engineering school together.

There is no doubt that advanced math is not absolutely
required for many of todays fast paced, short sighted
management trends.

It is up to you my friend to find the applications for
math and then see the rewards for practical problems
done well.

If no one knows there is a better way then how do we improve??

 

[GregLocock]

Let's pursue maths in the new thread

Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

It seems to me that most of the postings run along a couple of lines. Protection of the title "Engineer" and the qualifications needed to become an "Engineer"

So how do you protect the title of "Engineer"

Define the title(s). Perhaps different levels to denote licensure such as "(discipline) Engineer" and "Professional (discipline) Engineer"
Note the exceptions (if any), like train engineer or flight engineer.
Give the lawyers a field day by enacting various levels of legislation and litigation to enforce usage.

Determine Qualifications needed.

Academic (with global recognition)
Work experience or apprenticeship path.
Reciprocity agreements in the absence of global recognition.
Certificate Program for regional requirements and/or additional qualification attainment.

Improve public perception of the profession.

Is this needed? Has a survey been done as to how the public considers engineers and the profession compared to other professions. Individually we all have thoughts on the matter but I have never seen results from any study.

My two cents.