Protect the status of "Engineer" in the UK 4

[djroseman]

Hi,

A petition has been set up on the 10 Downing Street website to protect the status of Engineer in the UK. Today, car mechanics, plumbers and electricians are know known as “engineers” which is seriously eroding the status of our profession.

If you are a UK professional engineer, then please go to

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Engineer-Status/

and sign the petition

Thanks
Dave Roseman

 

[KENAT]

This is already the subject of thread731-180126

 

[WGJ]

Done that. A couple of weeks or so ago. I am also a member of the Engineering Integrity Society (UK) and I had an email via them as well, suggesting engineers should sign up.
It's a good cause and about time there was an official differentiation.

By the way - ever tried explaining to people like car insurance companies what you do for a living?

I was describing myself as 'an engineer' for several years until I found that I was being classified by my insurer as a motor mechanic and having my policy loaded as a result. They said I was in the motor trade' apparently.
I am in automotive design.

Now I describe myself as draftsman or designer, they seem to understand that one. I did try Chartered Engineer, but that 'did not compute' as they say.

"Computer says, No"

Bill

 

[SomptingGuy]

Re car insurance companies...

I used to work in the NVH department of a consulting engineering firm. I described myself as an "Acoustic consulant" whenever asked. Computer said "yes".

 

[civilperson]

What is a NVH department?

 

[SomptingGuy]

Sorry, "Noise, Vibration and Harshness". The artistic side of automotive engineering.

 

[corus]

I think people here have already provided the answer to gaining status for their profession, and that's to drop the word engineer completely from their job title.

What's needed are more management consultants to think up job titles, such as Human Resource instead of Personnel for example. Working in research I think I'd go for the title of Imagineer, but then I dream a lot too.

corus

 

[prost]

I am going to guess that 'charter engineer' is something like Professional Engineer in the US.

Is this any different than a person practicing medicine without a degree? Some of us have probably known nurses who would have been good doctors if they had gone to med. school. Public safety demands that doctors graduate from med. school and pass a practical exam to be licensed. How is this any different than the argument over who is an engineer and who isn't? Engineers can and do affect public safety all the time; should there be minimum standards of competence or not? Maybe you can remember a person who was a great 'engineer' but without a degree; how many such people have you met like that? I would dare say that I've met a lot more good to great engineers who do have the degree than don't have the degree. I wouldn't discount the observations of anyone who seemed to have good engineering but doesn't a degree, but I surely wouldn't let that person sign off on any construction drawing (which is primarily what prof. engineers seem to do in the US).

 

[Ashereng]

prost,

I agree with your line of arguement. We need to have a definition of what it takes to use the title "Engineer". Then, if you want to use it, then you have to meet the requirements. If you are good enough, but don't go through the steps, then you don't get to use the title.

In the medical field, to be called a doctor, you need a degree in medicine, and admission into the college of physicians. If you don't, then you can't call yourself a doctor. Period. We probably all know of some "mid-wife" who delivers baby better and more natural and what have you than most wet behind the ear MD. Guess what? She is still not called a doctor, and the MD is.

It should be the same in engineering. Have a set of requirements. Enforce the use of the title. Period.

My 2 penneth worth.

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[KENAT]

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.

 

[Ashereng]

Just for my information, what is/are the current requirement(s) to call oneself "Engineer" in the UK?

And, are these enforced?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[GregLocock]

You have to be able to breathe.

I've never heard of any corpses being charged with falsely claiming to be an engineer.



Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[KENAT]

Ashereng, unless things have changed since I moved to the states in 2003, there are no real requirements.

At my last place in the UK most of us were 'Engineers' whether we'd got degrees or gone the apprenticeship route.

I'm also not saying everyone with an Engineering apprenticeship is equivalent to someone with an Engineering degree, but from what I saw quite a few of them were, especially those whos apprenticeships had been back in the 60's & 70's.

 

[prost]

KENAT: in that case, the person signing off the airworthiness certs. is qualified through specialized training in instruction, right? Therefore this person is certified by a 'governing legal authority.' I dare say very few people calling themselves 'engineer' have such instruction nor have been certified by the governing legal authority for whatever industry they are working.

We have problems in the US with non PEs (professional engineers) signing off on construction documents, or calling themselves silly things like 'sanitary engineer' when they really just toss garbage cans in the truck (a noble and necessary profession to be sure, but doesn't require an 4 yr. degree to do well, does it?). What's to stop anyone from doing this? Nothing (at least in Missouri)! The professional registration board that annoints PEs has no way whatsoever of levying fines or prison sentences, so as far as I can tell, has no way of enforcing a 'cease and desist' order.

Because the gov't has no way to enforce the law regarding professional registration, the profession itself is greatly devalued, IMO. This of course allows MBAs that couldn't design a bolt to turn engineers into commodities like sheet metal, which allows them to ship your engineering job someplace else. Because you appear to be downplaying the doctor analogy, it seems to me you are arguing there should be no minimum standard whatsoever for anyone to call her/himself 'engineer.' Why waste time sending anyone to college to study engineering if there is no ticket of admission so to speak?

The reason there is no 'chartering' of aerospace engineers is almost all aeros work for someone else, so that you get the standard 'industrial exemption' being invoked. The law has a loophole big enough to fly A-380s through it.

 

[hydromech]

For too long now the term 'engineer' and indeed the status of engineers has been allowed to drop to a level where, in some cases, the term engineer is used in the same sentence and context as the phrase 'Mcjob'.

Toilet cleaners are called sanitary engineers, rubbish collectors are called waste disposal engineers.

The fact of the matter is that the world as we know it and all the things that make us comfortable have been designed and perfected by 'engineers'.

Doctors and nurses and consultants and surgeons are able to the do the great job that they do because of engineers. Heart by-pass operations and brain surgery would not be possible without several pieces of 'engineered' hardware.

Civilisation has been allowed to moved forward because of engineers. Diseases that killed hundreds of thousands of people have been halted by enginering inventions such as sewerage systems, some of which are still in use in London 100 years after they were built. Globalisation is possible, but only because it has been engineered.

Everything we all do all day has been engineered in some way. Nothing happens by accident.


Now, on the subject of the value of the term engineer when used with 'chartered' or 'professional', I'm in the middle I suppose.

I have seen post graduates in engineering management with absolutely no idea of what to do, I have also worked with several post graduates who are outstanding engineers.

I have worked with people with no qualifications to speak of but can design and build fantastic 'things'.

Good engineers are born, they cannot be made.

It is not fair that good engineers are downgraded because they were not allowed access to higher education. As it is not fair that engineers who have invested 6-8 years of their life in obtaining a particular status are classed along side people who mop floors for a living.

I dont have a degree, but I have been given the chance to get one and I am going to go for it. It won't make me a better engineer but it will make give me a sense of acomplishment. Acomplishment is what I seek most in engineering.

Adrian

 

[prost]

What engineers aren't allowed access to higher education? Is it difficult to get a degree? Of course! Should it be? I would say 'yes', it does not serve the public interest for an engineering certification of some sort (B.S.E., P.E. etc.) to become so easy so that anyone can get one. Some people just aren't suited for engineering, and though I don't agree that good engineers are born and cannot be made, I still think not everyone should become an engineer, and that there has to be some sort of screening process.

In the theatre, you say 'break a leg' to wish a performer luck. What about wishing you luck in your engineering studies? "May the exam questions be just what you studied the night before; may your calculator never run out of battery juice, and may your diploma be well earned!" Good luck and godspeed in your engineering studies!

 

[KENAT]

KENAT: in that case, the person signing off the airworthiness certs. is qualified through specialized training in instruction, right?

Not exactly, I think it was based on experience. He essentialy had a letter from the government saying he was an approved signatory. I think there was meant to be a central list somewhere with the government but with the massive reorganizations in Defence during the 90's the system started to fail.

Historically some people in the UK were effectively "not allowed access to higher education" this was for a number of reasons including but not limited to:

Education System (11 plus/grammer v secondary modern schools)
Financial
Class System

While a lot of the people affected are probably nearing retirement, if not already retired/pushing up daises, many are still around in industry.

As for the 'Aerospace Engineers not being real Engineers' isn't that the point, they don't need to be PE so there isn't even a PE category. However if you introduce a rule saying "you have to be a PE to use the title Engineer" you're then saying Aerospace Engineers aren't Engineers. In the UK there is the equivalent of PE for aerospace Engineers although it's not mandatory as far as I'm aware.

Because you appear to be downplaying the doctor analogy, it seems to me you are arguing there should be no minimum standard whatsoever for anyone to call her/himself 'engineer.' Why waste time sending anyone to college to study engineering if there is no ticket of admission so to speak

Umm, did you miss my penultimate paragraph of my 3/20 post, or perhaps the penultimate paragraph of my second 3/14 post?

I agree whole heartedly with the principle that there should be some minimum standard to use the title ‘Engineer’, I just disagree with the standards that have been proposed.

 

[corus]

I'll have to correct you on your comment about access to higher education KENAT. As I came from a working class background, brought up in social/council housing, there was no bar for me going to higher education in the early 70s. In fact all my brothers went to University. Maybe you're talking about pre-war, I don't know.

corus

 

[SomptingGuy]

I think KENAT has a point about the old 11-plus issue. I never took it (went to a comprehensive), but if you failed that one exam you were basically consigned to the educational scrapheap.

 

[KENAT]

Corus, I may be talking about pre Gulf war but not that far back.

Maybe I'm overestimating the impact based on the views of the likes of my father (not yet retired) and some of the older guys I've worked with.

Perhaps "not allowed" is too strong but from what I understand it was difficult for some and there just wasn't the expectation for many people that they'd go to university.

For instance my sisters are less than 10 years older than me, they didn’t' do quite as well academically at school but none the less there was no expectation they'd even go the VI forme, (last 2 years of high school for those not familiar with the education system where I grew up) let alone onto university. If I recall correctly for their graduating class going onto further/higher education was the exception not the norm.

By the time I graduated from the same school this expectation was reversed, if you didn't go on to further/higher education you were the anomaly.

Maybe these instances are the anomaly, or maybe you’re the anomaly I don’t know.

I do know that even by the time I went to University, amongst the students I knew I was one of the only ones from a relatively low income, working class background. Most were from middle or even upper class backgrounds, may just have been the university I went to or the people I spent time with but it was my experience.