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.

 

[EngJW]

I graduated in 1975 and the PE exam was offered way back then. It was recommended for civil engineers and ones who planned on becoming consultants. It was not a requirement for graduation and not a requirement to get a job. So it is not my duty now unless I want to design a bridge.

Like the rug doctors, we have a Dr. Feelgood on the local radio station. I don't think the AMA is making an issue over it.

 

[BobPE]

IRstuff:

There are laws regarding "engineer" and we do enforce them. What we are attempting to say here is, do your homework if you are an engineer, and go for the PE, why not?

EngJW:

I would have thought you read these posts a bit more. You need a PE to design ANYTHING that is not for your industry exempt company. And this goes for most states. Just because you may have received some poor advice early on, learn from what we are saying here...You point about the bridge is the most common misconception I hear...Hearing it makes me chuckle, it shows ignorance, along with all the other 80% of engineers not licensed, to the licensure laws on the books...

Bob

 

[EngJW]

Sorry about the bridge. Maybe I was thinking of a stadium. But to design a valve train for a racing engine or a controller for a cnc machine, or even to be a member of the Society of Automotive Engineers, I don't think so.

 

[BobPE]

EngJW:

Don't guess, read the laws for your state or the state you wish to provide services in. It is all there...and many of your questions will be answered.

Bob

 

[EddyC]

EngJW,

Your Dr. Feelgood most likely doesn't put "M.D." after his name.

Why don't you just get licensed so that you can call yourself a Professional Engineer? That way no one has to guess beforehand about whether you are in reality a drafter, a designer, a machinist or who knows what? Because that's what you might be when you don't have a license. And I've met numerous people who fit that description.

 

[kchayfie]

I met someone last night who said her job was 'designer'. She worked for a company commissioned by my friend who works in public relations and from their conversation, I assume she's a graphic designer. Given that magazines and newspapers refer to people like Vera Wang and Stella McCartney as designers as well, I think its fair to say that 'designer' is a very general term. There are many times and places where you are asked about your job title or what you do for a living and in many cases "engineer" will generate fewer misconceptions than "designer" and will not lead to an unlicenced engineer doing work he should be licenced for. Surely its better that the type of work is understood as long as the person who signs the bottom line has the piece of paper to say he's competent? Unless we want to create a new word to describe the unlicenced folk...

 

[ctopher]

When someone ask's me what I do, I tell him/her I'm a Mechanical Designer. Most of the time the next question is "What is that!?". Then I explain as if I'm a "Mechanical Engineer". Then it is understood.

Chris
Sr. Mechanical Designer, CAD
SolidWorks 05 SP3.1 / PDMWorks 05
ctopher's home site (updated 06-21-05)

FAQ559-1100
FAQ559-716

 

[EddyC]

kchayfie,

Engineering licensing laws have been around since the 1930s in the USA. Although they are not perfect, they serve a useful and noble purpose. I have met quite a few people engaging in unlicensed practice of engineering. Most of these folks are nice people who are from 3rd world countries and have no idea that what they are doing is wrong. I want to report them, but my employer will retaliate against me if I do. Engineering Licensure is about determining minimum competence BEFORE you hire someone. If you hire an unlicensed engineer, you will end up determining minimum competence AFTER you hire them. Which would you prefer?

 

[BobPE]

kchafie:

I agree that casual conversation will most likely not hurt anyone. It is an individuals responsibility to draw their own line, and suffer what consequences their decisions may bring.

My worst case example of how out of control things are is a time I was in court, providing expert testimony on an engineering related matter. An expert "engineer" was called to chalange my opinion and the lawyers on the side I was on let that person testify. At the conclusion of the testimony, they asked for the persons license number as they had not givien it in their opening. The person was not an engineer which scocked and angered many people. The judge asked the person on what authority they were speaking and the reply was, well I engineered the structure we are here today to discuss....the judge asked if it was the same structure that he is being lead to believe failed because of incorrect engineering practices...Yes it was...

The judge handled the individual who was eventually fined. The case went to the people I was working with. The point is that this is a common misconception, and people that practice illegally often have not a single clue that they are in the wrong....Thankfully in this case, no one was hurt.

I preach often and will continue to preach at every opportunity to get engineers licensed to stop this insanity. It is our profession, not industries, not governments, not consultants and certainly not charlatans.....If we don't step up to take control of it, then who will???

Bob

 

[patdaly]

BobPE, You totally MISS the point. There WAS a bridge, constructed by laypeople. There WILL be a bridge, constructed by laypeople. The point is, in the zeal to "regulate" public safety, there are projects which suffer because of idiotic regulations. In a perfect world, we all would love to spend 5 grand for an Engineering study, have stamped plans, and feel wonderful that this podunk pedestrian bridge is "safe". In the real world, people will hang it together without money.
As for me, I clean forgot where the park even is anymore, the sign of substandard intelligence I suppose.

EddyC,
Obviously the rules book dictates things such as bar placement, sizes and wall thickness, and this is a good thing. However, the rules cannot, due to the widely varying body styles dictate exact placement. This is where experience, and being able to determine where the loads will be placed in that event that differentiate us from the lay person. The question is, does it require a PE to build a safe car?

Sorry people, each camp will continue to promote their agenda, but it is a bit silly to promote the requirement of a PE for anything produced, especially when the vast majority of goods is increasingly coming from China....... I wonder if the lawn sprinkler I just bought at Kmart was signed off by a PE?

 

[BobPE]

patdaly:

Nope, I got the point....you come across crystal clear...

Bob

 

[EddyC]

patdaly,

I'm not necessarily advocating that racing cars be designed by PEs only, but most of the design rules were not created by engineers (degreed or licensed). Most of the racers that I have met do things by trial & error. They certainly don't have the capacity to figure out what is going to happen before they do it (and this is what engineering is all about).

If a product is sold in the USA the people of the USA certainly have the right, if they so desire, to have that product be designed by US state licensed PEs. I personally don't trust much coming out of an authoritarian regime.

 

[haggis]

BobPE

I assure you that I am not making a misinformed assumption about a group of people. I have worked for over 20 years with these particular individuals and know first hand what their capabilities are in respect to engineering. A “supervisor”, two levels above my immediate, was a student here and is now entitled Superintendent of Manufacturing Engineering. He got there because of his managerial talent not his technical abilities.

The point I was trying to make is that they can, if they so desired, go into private practice and although they had the ability to attain a Batchelor’s degree, become PE’s and for the following 20 years do nothing but manage, in this instance, is the public being protected by licensure.?

They may be within the law, but quite frankly none of them in all good conscience, should even consider patdaly’s wooden footbridge. You may think dangerous was too strong a term but public safety is a huge factor in this debate as I'm sure you'll agree. I have tremendous faith in professionals, when I fly, I don't give it a second thought. I trust the guys up front know what they are doing. When I enter a building or drive on a highway overpass I have the same regard for the PE's but would hope that the right ones were involved in the design.

 

[BJC]

EddyC
Engineering laws have been around longer than that. Engineering laws acturally started for land surveyors. They didn't have anything to do with public safety. They had all to do with MONEY. People demanded good surveyors because they didn't want to loose part of their land or PAY for land and find out someone else had a claim to it. Money, not safety was the motive. As things progressed other people wanted to assure things didn't blow up or otherwise fail and cost them money. Insurance companies were the force behind this.
Registering all engineers would be useless. I made a previous reference to a Dr Suess story that would illistrate what would happen. As soon as all engineers were PEs some would want to be "more equal". We might have life safety qualifed PEs. So then your certificate and business card could say PELS or something like that.

My advise to youg engineers is to get registered and the reason is MONEY. Even though itls irrevalnet to your present employer some day you may be looking for a job and the potential employeer will be impressed engough to favor you over canidate who don't have one. I have seen it happen many times. IF your kids have bad habits (habits like living in a house, wearing shoes, eating etc,) that need supporting then get it. It's good insurance. Many people who hire engineers don't know what they do but they know that PE means your a certified smart person.

EOT for me, it's been fun, some people should take theirselves to seriously.

 

[haggis]

I have stated in my previous postings that I agree licensure in the public sector is a must. However, I also think that it is loosely regulated. For example, if a PE is in the mechanical field and decides he wants he wants to be structural or civil, I would think that going through EIT again with an appropriate firm would be prudent before going private.

Using airline pilots as an example, a 737 Captain becomes First Officer again in 777's.

If I were a PE, I would advocate that. As I said in my previous post, I trust the guys up front are well trained just as I hope the PE's were when I go to the 50th floor.

 

[IRstuff]

Patdaly's example is prima facie evidence of what would happen if all engineers were PEs. Pat thinks he's fully qualified to engineer a public structure. Maybe he is, maybe not he's not.

On the other hand, the others that he refers to, having no expertise whatsoever, will most likely duplicate the prior design, which had stood the test of time, if nothing else.

Much of the cachet of a PE is the application specific experience and knowledge about what and when to overdesign and what factors are critical for a sound design.

Unless a PE has the equivalent of a surgeon's 7-yr residency and board certification, would you really trust any licensed CE to design a structurally sound structure? Right now, licensed CEs presumably have that equivalency, due to the nature of the existing PE process.

If all engineers were required to be PEs, any CE would most likely get some sort of grandfathering or accelerated processing to speed up licensing. Unless the PE laws are radically changed, that CE would be presumably allowed to take on Patdaly's bridge, for better or worse...

TTFN

 

[BobPE]

IRsruff:

What is a CE?

And the engineers do have the equivalent of residency, its the 4 year EIT process, that is why the application is sometimes the hardest part of taking the PE for some.


BJC:

Licensure laws were finally started after a tank collapse in Bosten that killed several people and destroyed the down town economy. The tank was holing molasses and it failed due to several factors, all pertaining to engineering. This was the start of a fix by the public for us practicing and mandated the current training and licensure system we see and use today. The PE is always subject to change and wouldn't it be exciting to be a part of that? Change is good and who knows what we would do once we all got the PE? But I am sure it would be good, we are good people for the most part by default in my book. the bad apples get picked out using the law...

Bob

 

[patdaly]

IRstuff, let me make this perfectly clear, I, in no way hold myself qualified to engineer a public structure. If I wished to become "qualified", I would get a PE. The simple fact is, I have no wish to do anything other than engineer I.S. glass bottle making machinery, the same thing I have specialized in for the past 28 years.
Now, the question remains, is a 20 foot pedestrian bridge more, or less safe with sound engineering principals applied? It is quite a stretch on your part to suppose that the previous design had stood the test of time, based upon no information. I thought a PE was supposed to not make assumptions?

In any case, I have made my case clear, you have made yours clear, and hopefully we can have a nice long truce, at least long enough for me to pass from this earth, for I wish not to live in a society where innovation is constrained by the need for risk to be legislated out.

 

[BobPE]

patdaly:

If legislation = saving people from harm, even from errant design of a bottle making machine, then so be it....

I do not find that the PE restricts innovation, rather the contrary, the PE stimulates free thinking based on one being responsible for putting their ideas forward to a public that needs them.

I find industry (and not industry exempt) to be stifling in that we PE's typically do not seek patents for our ideas and industry freely snaps them up and patents them making them for the most part un-workable relics in very little time.

Bob

 

[EngJW]

I spent ten years with an aircraft company. None of the engineers were PE's. However, the FAA would designate certain people who had to sign off on any project, even minor engineering changes. They had to know all the regulations that applied to the product.

Never once did I see anyone do anything questionable. We could cut costs and use parts that weren't quite to print, but we could never do anything that would affect safety of flight. Many of us were pilots and would not hesitate to get in a plane using our products.