Titles: Engineer vs. Designer 25

[haggis]

This has been beaten to death in the past but let's get some opinions.

Of course it makes perfect sense as to whether some of us have to be degreed or licensed depending on what field of endeavor we enter. But…..Let’s all get over the title thing as to whether one is entitled to call him/herself an engineer rather than a designer. As long as nobody misrepresents themselves as being degreed or licensed and practicing as such when in fact they are not. True, some jurisdictions have already reserved the title “engineer” solely for those who are licensed and it is wrong.

The American Medical Association have not yet objected to the terms lawn doctor or tree surgeon simply because these people are not implying they have a degree or a license.

At the end of the day if we’ve designed something that is of benefit to our way of life and done so in a safe and responsible manner, we can choose to say if we wish, we engineered it. Degreed, licensed or otherwise, we have all earned it and the number of years I have spent in the engineering community, I still find that we learn from each other constantly.

 

[Heckler]

Bob - there was nothing to catch. BJC response just triggered some longterm memory from a past employer.

 

[IRstuff]

I design and specify sensors for weapons platforms.

If I offered my services to the general public, not being a PE would be the very least of my worries.

If I were a PE, it would probably be as a EE, which would make me more dangerous to the public, since I've never done any EE related to public safety and wouldn't know where to begin.

I think that making every engineer a PE completely destroys the ONE discriminant that any customer has for picking someone who is required to maintain public safety. If all engineers were PEs, then any PE could offer his services to the public, regardless of any other qualifications. After a few years and many disasters, someone would realize that and a whole new category of engineer would need to be created, and this cycle of debate would continue onward.

The current laws require that the public safety be maintained through the use of registered and licensed professional engineers. Making all engineers completely dilutes the pools and nullifies the intent of the PE laws, by allowing PEs who would normally have zero public interaction and public safety responsibility to offer their services to the public. The end result will be lots of lawsuits and increased liability insurance premiums, causing either a massive shortage of engineers or an effort to create a separate tier of PEs that are the only ones allowed to offer their services to the public, based on a set number of years of apprenticeship to an "master" PE. Sound like the current system?

TTFN

 

[BobPE]

IRStuff:

No that does not sound like the current system. Your "public" may be other weapons manufaturers that you may want to consult to for a profit and share your skills. If you don't have a PE, that is something you cannot do in most states...That is the problem. I just don't see how advincing the profession would cause its collapse.

Bob

 

[EddyC]

IRStuff,

Lets say that I want to put up a building. I then go shopping for a design professional. I take out an ad stating that I need engineering services. I get a series of proposals from numerous individuals and companies. How do I evaluate their credentials? They produce a diploma. How do I know if the school they attended is a good one? They produce a resume stating their work experiences. How do I know that any of it is for real? They could have their buddies as contacts & references. Suppose that I am crooked and don't care if they do a design that endangers the building occupants? This is why the PE system exists. If you are a PE, then you will have a license number that I can look up on the internet. I don't have to weed through a bunch of material to evaluate your credentials, the state already did that when they issued the license.

 

[EngJW]

I think with posts such as those by BJC we are getting closer to the point. To design an engine, transmission, and many types of machine it requires engineers of several disciplines such as design, stress, vibrations, metallurgy. In most cases a PE is not required. Those people in my opinion, provided they have the appropriate education and experience, are just as much an engineer as any PE and are entitled to refer to themselves as an engineer. They CANNOT pass themselves off as a PE or whatever other term you want to call it, and they would not be able to work on any projects where a PE is required by law.

If what you all are saying is true in NJ, then in NJ are there no companies that have manufacturing and quality engineers? If there are, do they get penalized for telling their next door neighbor that they are an engineer? I am not talking about an engineer calling himself a Professional Engineer or whatever and submitting a bid to design a new bridge.

 

[BobPE]

Of course there are exempt positions in NJ...the industrial and governmental exemptions spread across all the states. In the industrial exemption world, there are no qualifications to call oneself an engineer. It's like a cancer that eats away at our profession in my opinion....

EngJW:

You can tell your coworker in the industry where you are woking on those motors that you are an engineer, but you cannot tell your neighbor...You just don't get to decide if you are an engineer outside of the industrial exemption when the state has laws covering engineers usage....

Bob

 

[IRstuff]

My point is that if ALL engineers were PEs, without some OTHER credentials issued by some authority, you would have ZERO means of determining whether any engineer is really qualified AT ALL.

All ranking systems are based on some sort of pyramidal method. By making all engineers PEs, you effectively eliminate any semblance of ranking.

TTFN

 

[BobPE]

IRstuff:

OK, let me see if I understand you correctly... you are assuming that the public cannot determine qualifications of engineers then? I guess I come off on the side that the public is very intellegent in understanding the process that they put in place...and can determine a good or qualified engineer from a bad or unqualified engineer for a particualr project.


You know my opinion about the PE for all...it is a worthy goal...and if all engineers had a PE we would be a powerful force....for good I may add....

Bob

 

[BJC]

IRstuff
If all engineers had PEs we would be like "Sneetches on the Beaches". When we all had gold stars some would have to have red or platinum and so on.

 

[EddyC]

The engineering profession is like a sine wave. Some of the workers are towards the top, others towards the bottom. The PE process removes those that are near the bottom, in the interests of protecting society. Some of the folks that are entering the engineering profession in the USA have immigrated from other countries. How do I know that they are real engineers? Its not too difficult to have someone create a phony diploma in a 3rd world country in another language. What you have in the engineering profession in the USA are 2 camps in conflict:

a) Those who want a legally defined critera for determining who is an engineer.

b) Those who want no critera determined by anyone other than themselves.

a was created by engineers, society & government.
b was created by employers & companies.

 

[BobPE]

BJC...in my book, engineers could do what ever they wanted to after they got the PE...if you are into stars, great....I am into profits since being a PE pays my bills...who knows what other PE's would get into.....

Bob

 

[haggis]

Quick question for BobPE

You advocate that everyone in engineering positions doing engineering work be PE's whether or not they are in industry. I have already agreed that where public safety is concerned that a PE is a must. No question about it,and I would think that most of your oponents here are of the same opinion.

However,do you think that non degreed people, depending on experience, recommendations from PE supervisors and a lengthy interview with the licensing board should get a license? Or is it no degree, no PE.

 

[BobPE]

haggis:

I would let the states decide how to incorporate those non-degreed people during the first stages of getting everyone on board. Some states, like PA, let a person sit for the EIT and PE with 12 years progressivley responsible engineering work upon documenting such work, no degree needed. Now that is not to say that all will pass the exams and I would not advocate waivers or changing the exams.

I have a very rigid opinion today because of confusion the industrial exemption causes. I would change that opinion as we make steps forward or backward...

Bob

 

[haggis]

BobPE

You're quote "I would not advocate waivers or changing the exams."

Agreed. Strange...I'm agreeing with you more and more these days

haggis

 

[IRstuff]

If people were as smart as claimed, why the big fuss about pseudo-engineers? And why the big fuss about whether there is an industrial exemption? An industrial exempt engineer is, by law, not allowed to offer his services to the general public. That is as it should be. I have no doubt that many of the posters on this site would have passed a PE exam upon graduation, but, they're barely capable of engineering their way out of the proverbial wet paper bag. Do you really want these guys to offer their "engineering" services to the general public?

And frankly, the answer is the typical customer is NOT smart enough, otherwise, you won't have building or structure collapses due to insufficient engineering.

Even MY customers, who are highly specialized in their fields are often ignorant about desired and required performance for weapon systems that have been in production for 20 yrs.

TTFN

 

[Ron]

Haggis....the fact that you seem to want to call yourself or allow others to call themselves "Engineers" when in fact they are "Designers" implies that YOU look upon the term "Engineer" as having more impact or credibility. That is exactly why it is often a reserved term by law in the US, so as to prevent those who do not possess the qualifications from misleading the public by using a term with a high degree of credibility.

Granted, you might have the best intentions and public interest at heart when you design something. But what about the guy down the street who thinks he's just as good but doesn't really have a clue? That's what licensing is all about....it provides a demonstration of competence to practice at a level of defined standards. Since you are not licensed, you have nothing to lose other than perhaps your self-respect if something goes awry. A licensed engineer can lose his license and thus his livelihood with mistakes and that is one reason licensed engineers are a bit more careful about their designs and their responsibility for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public. If you design something and it fails, you have only a civil penalty to pay, and then only if you are successfully sued. A licensed engineer has both the civil penalty and statutory (criminal) penalty if he is found to be negligent in his duty.

BobPE is exactly right and that is not self-righteous, sanctimonious BS....it is the law in almost all states of the US. To dilute the profession in the manner you are promoting is not good for the profession or the public.

If that's self-righteous and sanctimonious in your view, then so be it.

 

[ScottyUK]

I've refrained from posting until now because being in England I'm not directly affected by the PE / non-PE debate. But to those who would like to lift some of the restrictions on use of the title 'engineer', have a look at where it will lead you. The UK law, to its eternal shame, does not regulate use of the title 'engineer', and the effect is that everyone from social workers to the TV repair man describes themselves as 'engineers'. The term is now virtually meaningless in the UK.

Be careful what you wish for.



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!

 

[GregLocock]

But in practice does it cause the supposed problem? Are train drivers in the UK busy designing suspension bridges? Sanitation engineers designing industrial boilers?

Of course not.

Engineers in the UK face several problems, but pseudo engineers working on big projects like this really doesn't seem to be one of them.







Cheers

Greg Locock

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

 

[EddyC]

I have met quite a few designers, technicians and construction managers over the last few years who deliberately use the "engineer" title to mislead the general public into doing things that are wrong. Some of these folks have even testified before planning/zoning boards as expert witnesses. I warned a couple of them that they could find themselves in trouble one day if they continue to use the "engineer" title to describe themselves. They are the reason why there are licensing laws and laws that protect the use of the term "engineer". I don't think that you'll find any of those folks on this forum.

 

[ScottyUK]

Greg,

How about over-promoted technicians using the title 'engineer' signing off electrical drawings for construction without understanding what they are checking?

Over-promoted draftsmen using the title 'engineer' signing off steam pipe design calculations?

Hazardous area designs being approved by people untrained and unqualified to do so?

Seen 'em, tried to stop 'em, been told to keep the peace by management. Thankfully it won't be me going to Coroner's Court to explain it.

The above problems are a mix of examples from the construction and maintenance worlds. Remember the Flixborough disaster? Things haven't moved on as far as they should have.



----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!