Maui
Materials
- Mar 5, 2003
- 1,950
Dick Oliver at BAE is now weighing in on the debate about who should and should not be allowed to use the title of engineer in their job description:
Britain's Misuse Of The Title "Engineer" Is Detrimental To Profession, BAE Chief Says.
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (3/1) reported on Dick Olver, the chairman of BAE, who said in a recent interview, "Britain suffers from a language problem in that the word 'engineer' is applied to a lot of different people who do a range of jobs. ... Professional engineers need to take ownership of the brand and keep it for themselves." The ability for those of "limited technical qualifications" to call themselves engineers, according to Olver, "makes it more difficult to attract people to study engineering at university and enter the profession."
You can read the article here:
Mr. Oliver seems to have a vested interest in making the distinction between professional engineer and technician because a large proportion of his work force consists of chartered or professional engineers. This is one of the few examples that I have come across where a chairman actually has made a public statement about this subject. Mr. Oliver proposes that professional engineers should "take ownership of the brand and keep it for themselves"? The laws are already written clearly to make this distinction in the United States. Is this not the case in the UK?
Maui
Britain's Misuse Of The Title "Engineer" Is Detrimental To Profession, BAE Chief Says.
The Daily Telegraph (UK) (3/1) reported on Dick Olver, the chairman of BAE, who said in a recent interview, "Britain suffers from a language problem in that the word 'engineer' is applied to a lot of different people who do a range of jobs. ... Professional engineers need to take ownership of the brand and keep it for themselves." The ability for those of "limited technical qualifications" to call themselves engineers, according to Olver, "makes it more difficult to attract people to study engineering at university and enter the profession."
You can read the article here:
Mr. Oliver seems to have a vested interest in making the distinction between professional engineer and technician because a large proportion of his work force consists of chartered or professional engineers. This is one of the few examples that I have come across where a chairman actually has made a public statement about this subject. Mr. Oliver proposes that professional engineers should "take ownership of the brand and keep it for themselves"? The laws are already written clearly to make this distinction in the United States. Is this not the case in the UK?
Maui
