So the old comparison of doctors to engineers again, some thoughts.
In the UK from what I recall of my medic friends the progression went something like: Graduate Medical School and you are a doctor. You get to use the title doctor.
Enter the profession as a Junior House Officer (JHO), under fairly close supervision.
After (if I recall correctly) one year as a Junior House Officer you become a Senior House Officer (SHO) with gradually less supervision. I believe there may be exams involved but can’t recall.
After the appropriate amount of time and exams, and having chosen a specialization you continue to become a registrar.
Eventually after enough experience and I believe more exams you get to become a Consultant.
I can’t remember where GPs fall in this, I don’t think most of them are the equivalent of consultants but I’m not sure.
All of the above categories are Doctors, they all get to use the title Doctor (except consultant surgeons who if I recall correctly go back to being Mr/Mrs etc).
Are they all equal, no. Obviously if you have a complex problem you’ll need a registrar or consultant. For less serious/complex concerns an SHO or even JHO is probably adequate. However, as I understand it, a JHO is every bit as much a doctor as a consultant, and equally entitled to use the title ‘Doctor’.
If you have a complex/special enough engineering problem then maybe you need a Chartered Engineer. Obviously only those who have earned chartered status should be allowed to call them selves Chartered Engineers. It may well even make sense to require a Chartered Engineer to approve certain things, such as plans for buildings above a certain size etc.
I used to thing that being CEng was kind of equivalent to reaching the post of consultant. As such I used to think that having an Engineering degree and working in the field of Engineering entitled me to use the term Engineer. Back in the UK I was also a member of the appropriate industry body, RAeS in my case, in the US there isn’t even the equivalent of Chartered in the Aerospace Sector. Does this mean there aren’t actually any Aerospace Engineers in the US?
Then there’s also the issue that historically taking an engineering degree wasn’t the only (or even most common) way to become an "Engineer" (at least in UK), not so long ago many if not most engineers came up through some kind of apprenticeship. I worked with many (the majority) engineers who were in this category back in the UK. In fact early in my career I even got asked why I took the degree route and not the apprenticeship route. Many of these people are quite capable of doing the same job as someone with a degree, for instance the chief stress Engineer at my last place in the UK, with similar level of education. It’s not like comparing Nurses to Doctors. Seems unreasonable to introduce a rule now, when he’s well in his fifties, that unless he becomes chartered he can no longer call himself an engineer.
As I’ve said before I agree that letting every Tom, Dick or Harry call themselves Engineers does down play the Profession. However, I don’t think arbitrary rules like “only Chartered Engineers can be called Engineers” or “only those with Engineering Degrees can be called Engineers” are the answer.
Oh and Prost, the Chief Stress guy I mentioned was an approved signatory for "Certificates of Design", essentially air worthiness certificates which I would guess in the aerospace world is the equivalent of signing off on construction drawings. I was a lot happier with him signing them than I would have been with about half the chartered guys I worked with.
.
