Opininons of engineering status? 11

[sbozy25]

Ok, this has been eating at me for some time now, and has just come to a boil this morning. Unfortunately, ventint to my boss does me no good, so I will vent to all of you and see what you think.

I work in a small engineering/quality office. My boss is a degreed engineer with 30+ years of engineering and quality experience, as such he is a dual duty manager over engineering and quality. I am the only other degreed engineer we have. In the engineering office there is one other guy who has never taken a college course a day in his life, but has been in the department for 11 years now. Then in quality there are 2 people with manufacturing experience but no college experience.

Here is my beef, the guy I work with continually refers him self as an engineer to customers and others we work with. He had his business cards made up to say product engineer III, I believe he did this because mine say product engineer II and he wanted to apear to rank above me. Granted he has 11 years of experience, but I have a very strong 4 year accredited degree, as well as 2 years automotive experience, 1 year pressure vessel design, and now 1.5 years here. I have seen the sallary sheets for our department and I make 20k+ more than him and have better bennifits and vacation. Also, when our boss is out, I am his proxy to step in as department manager.

This morning we had a big confrontation because our boss is gone for a week and he put a sign on his door that manufacturing was to see me if they had any issues. Well this "engineer" blew up at me and got all mad about how he is left out of everything. I politely tried to explain to him that just knowing algebra, and plugging numbers into excel does not make you an engiener, but that just made him mad.

Am I wrong in my view? I mean I view an engineer as someone who has put in the grueling time in university, and has the degree to support it. Quality has the same issue, but only 1 of them refer to them selves as an engineer, the other calls her self a technician. I personally think he should call him self an engineering technician, or perhaps engineering estimator (since that is all he does)

Am I off base?

 

[plasgears]

Take heart. My worst job was in automotive, ISO9000 qualified. The engineering staff from the top down was a quality type acting as Chief Engr, and his two lieutenants were HS grads with some experience with drafting and quality processes. Their titles were Sr Proj Engr.

The folly of this setup was proven during a cost reduction program in which our supplier went to China for cost reduced acetal [not qaulified source] and then the product line suffered from extensive infant mortality. More than a few heads rolled, many of them innocent advocates of not going to China. The company was sold, and I hope the truth was exposed to the new owners.

Depart from those infernal organizations where engineers are not respected, and they are supervised by trained monkeys.

 

[satchmo]

Unfortunately, my experience has been that those "infernal organizations" plasgears mentioned are far more typical than the ones that respect engineering.

Your situation is not uncommon.

 

[ctopher]

sbozy25,
I don't think you were out of line. My approach would be to let him get mad, stay cool, do my job. Write down everything when the boss is out, try to always have witnesses around.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 2.0
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)

 

[KENAT]

Sbozy, in my opinion you are wrong.

If you'd tried that algebra line with/around me I'd have had trouble not decking you there and then. In fact if you'd pulled that line on some of the non degreed 'engineers' I've worked with and I found out about it I'd have had trouble not decking you.

I have my bachelors of engineering (not a 4 year, a 3 year cause we pull our finger out and don't waste time in the UK;-) I jest, I jest) but don't believe that alone makes me better than everyone without.

I've mentioned in previous threads that some of the best engineers I've worked with didn't have a bachelors and weren't chartered/PE.

Some of the worst Engineers I've worked with were Masters/chartered/PE.

I've also worked with lousy Engineer wannabes that didn’t have the knowledge/skill/experience/intelligence etc to be mentioned in the same breath as what I consider true engineers. Which, at least in your opinion, is the category this guy seems to fall in.

Your conduct was unprofessional, though if in the heat of the moment understandable. You probably should have told him to bring if up with your boss when he got back.

Assuming you're in the US exempt (or equivalent) then whether he gets to be called an engineer is up to your boss. It's little if any of your business, if you have real concerns over it misleading customers or something take it up with your boss but after this blow up you may not have a leg to stand on.

You will in your career meet a lot of people that for one reason or another are difficult to work with, learn to deal. If he'd had a degree and acted like this what would you have done/said?

I still have trouble with this sometimes, I told my boss he could do whatever the **** he wanted with something just last week when I got really frustrated. This was unprofessional to say the least, and not a smart move in anyone’s book!


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[lownox]

I would argue that higher education is necessary before being dubbed an "engineer". But, I would also argue that a 4 year degree isn't necessary.

Don't let the idiot get to you. It sounds like he is very insecure about the very thing that is bugging you about him.

Hang in there and throw him a curve ball whenever you think he needs a reality check. LOL.

 

[satchmo]

On my first job, fresh out of college, I was titled "Designer". Me and some other new hires got a little bent out of shape about it, because we had our degrees hanging on the wall, and couldn't have "Engineer" on our business cards. Some long timers with only drafting experience had been promoted to become "Engineers".

But CSD27 is right. It's one of those things you cannot change. Kenat makes a good point also. I have learned alot in my career from people less education than I have but more common sense.

 

[ctopher]

Also, the title "Engineer" has different meanings at different companies, countries and disciplines.

Chris
SolidWorks/PDMWorks 08 2.0
AutoCAD 06/08
ctopher's home (updated 10-07-07)

 

[DWHA]

I would refer to "Things you wish you could say to your work colleagues." In the language and grammer forum.

 

[csd72]

A Humorous take:

"Dont argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience every time."

 

[Lion06]

I would tend to agree with lownox. I don't think a 4 yr degree is necessary to be an engineer. I am talking in practicality now, not legality. Obviously there are a ton or requirements to be an engineer per state regulations, but in order to have a good engineering fundamental background, I don't think you need 4 yrs of colllege. I think you could easily get rid of the arts/humanities classes still be a competent engineer. I know I don't ever use my Latin American History class notes to perform engineering work.

 

[IRstuff]

Frankly, the OP reads like a temper tantrum. Even outside of engineering, we have all sorts of "unqualified" people in positions of power or running things. That's life; you need to get over it.

There seems to be an undercurrent of inferiority complex. Titles, and degrees are simply labels applied. Skills and experience are what count. This guy might well be an idiot, but he might be the owner's idiot relative and he might be your boss tomorrow; I've had worse as general managers. Again, that's life; you either get along or move along.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[vc66]

csd72- I have that on my cubicle wall, appended to include...

"Also, don't argue with me, I'll drag you down to the floor and beat you with a bat..."

In jest, of course...

V

 

[Twoballcane]

I do feel that there is a big distinction between designer (with out engineering degree) and engineer. And I also feel (from experience) that a designer can not do engineering work, but engineers can do designer work. To be a designer, one has to be intimate with the hardware and thus knows how to "design" new hardware from past experience. You really don't need an engineering degree for this. However, to do engineering work, you have to understand how to do analysis in heat transfer, vibration, shock, static...etc (from a Mech Engr point of view) in order to spot potential problems and find solutions for those problems. If the Engineers spend enough time with the hardware, just like the designer, s/he too can design new hardware and because of his Engineering Degree background can do better than a designer because at the same time designing knows where the potential problems may exist and the find solutions. A designer with out an Engineering Degree can not do this.

With this said I do agree with what the OP feels. I have in the past worked with vendors who call them selves engineers, but when things go wrong and I ask them if they did a heat transfer study or a vib study and I wanted to see the numbers, I get the “oh I don’t know how to do that” and I would say “well this is college lever stuff you should know how to do this” and they would say “well I do not have my engineering degree” and I would say “then how did you design this with out knowing your boundaries?” and the with a perplex look he said “well … this is what we did in the past”. Wow that hurt.


Tobalcane
"If you avoid failure, you also avoid success."

 

[KENAT]

Twoballcane, I can't remember if you were the person I had this debate with before but...

I've worked with non degreed Engineers who could do the analysis you refer to. The Chief Stress Engineer at my place in the UK (Aerospace/Defense) didn't have an Engineering degree but had forgotten more about stress analysis than I ever learnt at school. There have been one or two others with similar status.

As such in my experience you are incorrect.

By the way sbozy, take a look at your previous post

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=194341

and reconsider what you said.


KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[GregLocock]

"I would agree that unless you have a four year degree then you are not an engineer. "

Ooer then I'd better go and start driving trains because I am not fit to be in such august company.





Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[KENAT]

Refering to bachelors as a 4 year degree is a pet peeve of mine too Greg. I got mine in 3 in the UK as I believe did you.

Out of interest my wife got her bachelors in the US in 3 years while working more or less full time, it wasn't Engineering though.

KENAT, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...

 

[IRstuff]

That's just ethnocentrism at work. Americans, like myself, are mostly clueless about how education systems in other countries work. Not even sure if we know how it works in the US. Some people seem surprised to find out that they can get a bachelors degree in less than 5 years.

Of course, there was some guy who was a super-senior my freshman year and he didn't actually graduate until I did, 4 years later. Supposedly, Introduction to Complex Variables took him about 5 yrs to get a passing grade.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[SomptingGuy]

The 3yr/4yr and bachelors/masters issue is worst when you cross the pond. I got the impression "over there" that a bachelors in the US is wider ranging, with less engineering content than a bachelors in the UK. So although 4 years have been spent at Uni, less than 3 years worth of pure engineering education has been received. Hence the need for a masters to be employable.

This makes education levels impossible to compare between the two countries.

I might be wrong though...

- Steve

 

[SomptingGuy]

My last post may seem to suggest British engineers are better educated that their American counterparts. It wasn't the intention. To clarify, this is the typical experience most engineers of my generation have had:

- Up to 16 you study 8-10 diverse subjects.

- At 16 you are forced to decide your path in life by choosing 3 subjects (possibly 4 if you have enough stamina). You then get to study them and nothing else for the next two years. Most engineers would pick Maths, Physics and Chemistry. This is one of the most intense parts of a future engineer's education (specially if you opt for "double maths").

- You choose an engineering degree, the university you can get into depends on the grades you made in the 3 chosen subjects.

- From day one at university, nothing but engineering subjects are taught. If you've chosen a 4 year course you may get some business & management classes. There is no concept of a "major".

Many educationalists in the UK think this is far too narrow and unnatural and constantly campaign for a wider education. But for now that's the way it is and the reason we only need a three year course.


- Steve

 

[GregLocock]

Yes, that's exactly the system I went through.

It might be fun to find my old class schedule from uni, roughly speaking it was 16-20 hours per week of lectures, 8-20 hours of labs (often the latter), and 2 hours of 2 on 1 tutorials. Plus report writing and projects and the homework for each tutorial.

That was pretty slack compared with A levels, where the terms were longer, and I had 3 hours of (admittedly fairly straightforward) homework or revision per night, on top of a usual schoolday.


Cheers

Greg Locock

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