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?
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
About change in thinking who are called engineers 10
- Thread starter 19652022
- Start date
EddyC,
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
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
What about managers who have PE's but haven't practiced engineering in years. Are they engineers? I do not mind if they call themselves that as long as they respect the people doing the engineering and don't ask, "Why does it take so long, isn't structural engineering all cookbook anyway?" This is the kind of management that makes space shuttles explode!
Not to single out QCE but this is really the point of this thread...
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.
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.
wes,
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.
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.
No. I do believe that Lowest bidder construction is a result of a government purchacing practice. People must consider purchacing a quality price ratio. 1 is ideal. Where the quality and the price balance each other out. There were thousands of years where engineers were not "liscensed" and those bridges and building are still standing.
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.
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.
GregLocock
Automotive
Eddy C
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.
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.
-
1
- #48
My son drives a GM product and it falls apart of a daily basis.
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
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
Rick or Moltenmetal,
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.
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.
![[wink]](/data/assets/smilies/wink.gif "[wink] [wink]")
The majority of individual in the US reported working in the Science and Engineering occupation have a bachelor, master or doctoral degree. However, a large numbers with only hold a high school diploma or an associate degree.
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.
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.
Cuky2000,
The same sentiment is echoed by this article in Engineering Times 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
The same sentiment is echoed by this article in Engineering Times 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
moltenmetal
Chemical
QCE: the restriction against the use of the title "engineer" is on the basis that it may confuse members of the public as to the licensure status of an individual. As we've lamented endlessly here and elsewhere, the public doesn't know what an engineer is or does, much less do they know the difference between a licensed professional engineer and someone who drives a train or operates a boiler.
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.
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.
Slugger926
Bioengineer
This link will take you to FAQ's about PE licenses for each state. It is very informative.
There is information on the use of the word "engineer" in many states on that document. Are you or your company breaking the law?
There is information on the use of the word "engineer" in many states on that document. Are you or your company breaking the law?
There is a difference between designing something and engineeing, and I see a lot of engineers satisfied with a design. I very seldom see any calcs with a check package, aside from the required stress report.
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.
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.
I do agree that the term "engineer" is applied a little too lightly these days.
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
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
-
1
- #58
liberoSimulation
Chemical
I think the difference being observed recently for the engineer is that the lack in doing or thinking practically when being in the practical area and after graduation from the university.
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
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
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- News
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question