Engineering w/o school 8

[sr20ser]

Here is the situation that I am in. I worked for the company I am at now about two years ago. I started at the bottom, material handler, and worked my way up to being a "Laser Technician". I was laid off, and called back about a year later. I am now the "Production Engineer" and do all the CAD work and all the programming for the lasers at our company. I have not had any schooling in this area, I went to a welding school.

What's the opinion on getting hired at another company for engineering. Is exerience worth anything without a degree?
-Tim

 

[HgTX]

Back to the tangent...

Engineering I am sorry to say is not a narrow field. Engineering is to me, as most, is a broad range of tasks.

Not to engineers it isn't, and that's the audience you're addressing here. There are quite a few threads about how not holding to a strict definition of "engineer" (licensure a separate question) cheapens the entire profession. Using "engineer" with a straight face to refer to anything that involves either physical tinkering or dishing out advice is insulting to those of us who did go through all the education and training.

It's very rare to see "doctor" used for someone who doesn't hold a doctorate in something; even though nurses and physician assistants perform similar tasks, no one calls them "doctor" except in error. The distinction between "paralegal" and "lawyer" is well-established. And yet when engineers want the same kind of recognition of their profession, we're getting our panties in a bunch, making a big deal of nothing, whatever.

Skilled techs probably feel the same way when secretaries get referred to as "administrative technicians".

Hg

 

[MRM]

sr20ser,
My direct answer (opinion) to your initial question would be this; I wouldn't expect to have any other company take your experience as seriously as if you had the appropriate degree and licensure to go along with it. There could be exceptions to that though. If you know someone at another company well, they might be able to get you into a similar type of job as you're performing now, I suppose. Otherwise, it will be tough. You seem to be a bright person based on your achievements. You should think about pursuing a degree and licensure. I think you'll find it's well worth it.

HgTX,
Good points! I like the way our company assigns job titles. If you're a licensed engineer, you have the word "engineer" with a PE after your name. If you're a recent graduate on the track to becoming a licensed engineer, you also get the word "engineer" with EIT after your name. Field personnel are called "civil engineering technicians," or “environmental engineering technicians.” Incidentally, I hear both are sufficient to impress members of the opposite sex. They seem happy with it, they get to have the word "engineering" as an adjective, and it is certainly more accurate than calling them field engineers. We've got some degreed personnel that are not engineers, but rather are referred to as "scientists." That's ok, but it gets me wondering what constitutes a "scientist" and whether or not they actually are one. I've got a buddy who's a machinist and both he and his employer actually refer to his title as a "machinist" which is also accurate. I agree that using the title "engineer" for everyone who feels like it does, sadly, cheapen the title. There's no reason it shouldn't be on par with titles of "doctor" and "lawyer" as you said.

 

[FalsePrecision]

Now, something comes to mind..
"Don't throw your pearls to swine"

 

[weh3]

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I propose the following:

engine, n.: a device or machine designed to accomplish a particular pupose. E.g., the term "engines of war" is used for catapults, etc., from Roman times.

engineer, n.: one whose function is to design devices, machines, or systems for a particular purpose, according to principles learned through experience with heavy or mathematical reference to theory.

technician, n.: one whose function is to operate specialized equipment, according to principles learned largely through experience and training with cursory or non-mathematical reference to theory.

professional engineer, n.: one who by perseverence through specified rites of passage has demonstrated the ability to execute care in making calculations related to engineering. The purpose of the EIT and PE exams is to show that these calculations can be made correctly under pressure and time constraints.

The military makes a distinction between officer and enlisted that is similar to that between engineer and technician. It is primarily the distinction between a generalist with a broad education and a specialist with a specialized education. Each has a part to play in getting things done.

Unfortunately, the ethical and contractual aspects of engineering, not to mention the business side, are entirely ignored by the undergraduate curricula. You have to learn those on the job, but it seems that many expect someone to become an expert in them immediately on passing that PE exam.

Will-I-Am

 

[weh3]

And I forgot to include that much of what engineers do has had much of the fundamental engineering done already. E.g., "engineering" a system out of the Square D catalog, but how many millions of man-hours have gone into making the catalog in the first place, or into getting the UL labels on the stuff you buy from it.

Is this enginnering? Regardless, it is what most engineers do, electricals, anyway--piecing together systems out of pre-engineered components.

Will-I-Am

 

[rhodie]

weh3:

Then what you are saying is that all a Chef does is throw together pre-gourmet components to make 5 star entrees.

 

[weh3]

A cook, perhaps. A chef can certainly cook, but a chef is primarily a manager, and I am not speaking of management.

A chef who is chef to a king may spend spend his time making up new dishes, as it were in R&D, but a restaurant, a revenue-generating enterprise, has to live off pre-engineered dishes. The phrases "cookbook design" and "reinventing the wheel" come to mind--thank you for the analogy.

Will-I-Am

 

[BobPE]

weh3:

I would modify your defination of professional engineer:

A person that can legally dispense engineering adivce to any member of the public.

It is not a rite of passage, it does not guarantee that anyone will make error free calculations, and has nothing to do with performing under pressure or time constraints.

I would also add that pretty much everything true engineers do has had no fundumental engineering done, that is why they are doing it in the first place. Picking stuff out of a catalog is not engineering, knowing why you are picking stuff out of a catalog most likely is unless it is maintenance.


Bob

 

[IRstuff]

In additional to knowing why to pick a part, it's also knowing how to put the parts together to efficiently solve a technical problem.

Why are Widlar and Wilson associated with their respective current mirrors? After all, they simply mixed existing transistors and resistors into absurdly simple circuits. The total transistor and resistor component counts on either circuit barely exceeds 10. Yet, nearly 4 decades after they completed their designs, students and engineers are still studying those circuits.

Jobs and Wozniak, Hewlett and Packard all picked components out of catalogs and created entire industries.

TTFN

 

[weh3]

The professional engineer has indeed endured certain rites of passage--proofs to his peers that he can function in the required capacity. No one said anything about error-free calculations, only a reasonable standard of care.

I maintain that the main concern of the engineer is economics and not technology. Technology is important, but it is secondary to economics. The three elements of a project--scope, schedule, budget--are all economic considerations that the engineer must make decisions about. Engineering something out of a catalog is no different. No engineering project ever got shot down only because it was technically not do-able, but projects die everyday for lack of funding.

I also belive that most engineers desire the technology to be foremost, which accounts for the typical engineer's continual frustration with management (a la Dilbert). Management understands the primacy of economics. Someone wrote in a related forum that at some point you have to shoot the engineer and start production. Hey, I are one, so I understand.

Someone who is continually going back to first principles, and who lacks one or more of the above listed constraints, especially scope, is a scientist, not an engineer. However, even a scientist will begin by studying the relevant literature to find out what has gone before.

I suppose that I am distinguishing between engineering for revenue generation and engineering for invention or R&D. I am a consultant whose clients don't want brilliant innovations; they want tried-and-true technologies for a given scope, schedule, and budget. There are engineers developing those technologies, but even they rely on previous engineering to put a system together, standing on the backs of giants, as it were.

Cordially,
William

 

[bimr]

You are wasting your time.

If you want to be an engineer, you have to invest the necessary resources to be able to obtain a license to work legally.

If you do not obtain the proper license, you will be a sweat shop worker hired by a firm that is going to pay you substandard wages for illegally working without a license.

Ask yourself the question, will your insurance provider allow you to go to an unlicensed medical professional to save money? Is it acceptable to go to court with an unlicensed lawyer? Is it legal to give haircuts in your state without a license? Even mortgage brokers are now required to have a licensed in this state. Name a line of work where you can work without qualifications.

If you have read this far and want to read more, further discussion is in this posting.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=116661&page=1

 

[ewh]

bimr,
I don't understand why you against calling someone with an engineering degree an "engineer". It's one thing not having the degree, but another entirely to look down an someone with a degree as not being able to competently practice engineering. The world is a big place, and doesn't solely revolve around those who are licensed.
I understand the importance of licensure, but is it necessary when developing a new software program? Or figuring out how to get a better tv picture?
There are many fields in which a degreed engineer can work without being licensed and still be considered a real engineer.

 

[amazingmg]

I don't understand why you against calling someone with an engineering degree an "engineer".

Gee, could it be because he is licensed?

Heheh.

 

[IRstuff]

Is it acceptable to go to court with an unlicensed lawyer?

Of course, it is. There is ABSOLUTELY no law that says that you need a lawyer to represent you. Many famous cases, including Milosevic's are based on self-representation.


Our CEO makes decisions affecting billions of dollars of transactions and thousands of employees, but he's not licensed as a CEO ;-)

TTFN

 

[amazingmg]

If you do not obtain the proper license, you will be a sweat shop worker hired by a firm that is going to pay you substandard wages for illegally working without a license.

Well, this certainly isn't true of Electrical Engineers IMHO. Out of all the EE's I know, only a few bother to get their PE and that is only because they are the primary qualifiers for a business. You must have a PE in order to use the term "Engineering" in the company name. Other than that....shrug.

 

[BobPE]

is there a CEO license IRstuff? I don't believe I have ever seen such a thing.

The lawyer analogy is kinda week I would agree. A person cannot engineer for themselves without being licensed, so I guess that shows a loophole in the licensure of lawyers.

An engineer without a license only really exists in the exempt world and that is ok. The drawback is, anyone in the exempt world, engineering degree or not, can be called or call themselves an engineer. I think that is the point that is always trying to be made and that is why I am for the restricted use of "engineer."

I always ask for licensed people when I use a service that requires a license. I just can't imagine going to a doctor that has no license....or even a car dealer or real estate broker for that matter.

Bob

 

[svanels]

If you do not obtain the proper license, you will be a sweat shop worker hired by a firm that is going to pay you substandard wages for illegally working without a license.

You need also a license to cut someones hair?

And still complaining about bussiness going off-shore?

Steven van Els
SAvanEls@cq-link.sr

 

[FalsePrecision]

I think you are geeting confussed about certification vs. licensure. You may need a "license" to cut hair, but it is really "certification" ( I wouldn't want to get my hair cut my some one unqualified, but it probably won't kill me). On the other hand, you certainly need a business license to open a barber shop.

 

[jsummerfield]

A recent thread may add somehting to the PE comments above. Some states permit someone with an engineering degree to use the title "Graduate Engineer" or Engineering Graduate".

http://eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=116661&page=1

John

 

[FalsePrecision]

The issue of lawyers being licensed is simple: if you hire a non-lawyer person (perhaps a legal technician), that is not allowed. That would cause a drastic drop in lawyer revenues. If you represent yourself, that is allowed because 1) It won't be a danger to the public 2) The opposing lawyer will rip you to shreds, much to the amusement of the Judge.