When is an electrical engineer not an engineer?

[mansr]

I don't think anyone questions the value of experience and the fact that competence to do a job is not necessarily dependent upon formal education. Indeed in some fields highly skilled roles can quite often be the preserve of skilled trades people who were trained in non-academic streams such as traditional apprenticeships and who have spent years honing craft skills. For example, many people think welding is easy, I'd suggest those who do try and weld some of the ultra-high strength steels used in nuclear plants installed in a boat and then get their weld through the NDE process. The fact that most welders I've known haven't been especially well educated academically is irrelevant to the skills they had (and their earnings potential, which could be rather eye opening. Many people self learn and develop theoretical knowledge to match those with degree learning. However, whether people have been through formal academic education or are self taught or just have a natural talent doesn't alter the knowledge and skills needed to do certain jobs. In the UK the Engineering Council has routes for people from outside of the traditional educational route to obtain IEng and CEng registration if they want to do so, and it should be repeated that such registration is not necessary to work as an engineer in the UK and very few employers demand it. It is essentially a voluntary vanity thing. Having a degree, yes, many employers demand that, but in my experience relatively few engineering graduates and those with post graduate degrees bother with registration. If people don't want to join an institute and register with ECUK they are under no obligation to do so and it won't close off or even hinder a career in engineering.

On risk, some engineering roles would result in pretty dire consequences if done incompetently. Every time I signed a safety document allowing work on HV systems I was accepting responsibility that those going to work were safe from the electrical system. Those guys were completely reliant on me and my colleagues with the same authorisations understanding the system and applying appropriate isolations, earthing, locks etc to be avoid fatal electric shock. I worked in a nuclear fuels plant where the consequences of a balls up could be quite severe and with potential to still be causing problems long after I'm dead. These roles did not actually require a degree and certainly not CEng status, but they did require people to get through a rather rigorous training and authorisation process including an authorisation board and written tests. In Lloyd's Register I was signing certificates stating that ships met statutory and class rules, many of those certificates are for ships that'll probably still be sailing around for another 20 or 30 years and if they blow up or sink certificates I've issued would be very relevant to incident investigations and I would have a liability for decisions if my calculations were wrong or I had not applied rules and regulations. In such roles I am kind of at a loss as to why people would object to competency certification to try and ensure people doing the work have some idea of what they're doing.

I think we are mostly in agreement. The system as it is today seems to work adequately. From time to time, opinions are voiced for stricter regulations, including compulsory memberships in various organisations with the associated fees. This is where I object since I can't see how such changes would in any way be an improvement over what we have at present in terms of quality of work.

 

[Wombat]

There seem to be some chips on shoulders being displayed.

Boeing is enjoying the rewards of market-driven poor practices. VW and kin with diesel standards noncompliance. There really is no intelligence or accountability in 'the market' but rather a free-for-all of sorts by mainly economics amateurs chasing money. Think GFC.

 

[RayDunzl]

Think GFC.

I'm thinking GFC but don't come up with anything.

What is GFC?

 

[amirm]

I would be fascinated to read why anyone thinks that a person can call himself/herself a doctor for example without having the correct qualifications.
Would you accept a doctor who had never studied the subject and didn't have the papers to prove they were qualified?

The issue here is that it is after the fact. Engineering titles have been used by millions of people with no requirement up to now. To all of a sudden make a mandate is problematic. Doctors did not face the same. They had to go to school, intern, pass tests, etc. The analogy here is to say to doctors they can't call themselves doctors unless they joined some association and passed a test.

 

[amirm]

By the way, I heard about this from Dave Jones about the same issue in Victoria/Australia:

 

[AnalogDE]

Unlicensed EE here working in circuit design.
I never needed to get a PE license because I’ve never done gov’t work. I think if you’ve gone to a 4 year engineering school you can call yourself an engineer. It bugs me when non-engineer types have Engineer in their job titles. I think it’s more of just a feel good title to make employees feel special or something. But if you didn’t bust your ass in engineering school it should be against the law to call yourself an engineer. Just my take

 

[Wombat]

I'm thinking GFC but don't come up with anything.

What is GFC?

GFC

 

[RayDunzl]

Oh...

https://www.slideshare.net/guestd5ab54/the-subprime-primer

 

[Tks]

Eventually my business cards said "Engineer".

I considered it an honorary title, and didn't complain.

Given the nature and qualtiy of work performed, it was never an issue.

Except once, where I had to be an Engineer, and work directly with Engineers, and report to an Engineer (from India, no less, can't remember his name), and it really sucked.

Worked for NEC, we put machines into the labs for WilTel in The Woodlands, They offered me a job after a while, doing what I was already doing, tending the NEC lab machines, interfacing with the Network Management Software group (they were wasting money building mainframes out of NeXT pizza boxes. One guy had to write the entire TCP/IP stack from scratch to make them all talk to themselves)

WorldCom bought WilTel, then after a year or two the Tulsa-based (actually Owasso, Oklahoma*) tentacles reached into the Advanced Technology Group where I had a nice floor-to-ceiling shaded windowed corner cubicle right next to the door that overlooked the pond and garden and my parking space:

Ray?
Yeah?
Need you in Tulsa Monday.
Why?
Because you report to me now.
I do?
Yes.
Hmm... Ok.
-Takes earliest Monday morning flight to Tulsa, drives to Owasso. Finds the place.
I'm here.
You're late. The meeting is over.
Uh, yeah.
Do this shit work.
Ok.
Fly back Friday evening,
Repeat for too many weeks.
Call NEC in Dallas.
Hey Phil.
You ready to come home?
Yeah.
Ok, I'll start the paperwork.

*Owasso is an Osage Indian word meaning "Turn Around" or "End of the Trail." The "End of the Trail" painting is our official symbol or logo of Owasso.



https://earth.google.com/web/@36.25...50882993d,35y,179.94836258h,70.09531227t,360r

Not long after that WorldCom folded up in an accounting scandal.

Bernie is still in jail.

Name: BERNARD J EBBERS
Register Number: 56022-054
Age: 78
Race: White
Sex: Male
Release Date: 07/04/2028
Located At: FMC Fort Worth

Hold on..

People get sent to prison for that? Or did the paradigm's shift get apparent after 2008 that this wasn't going to be happening much anymore (aside from Madoff to seemingly appease the public)..

 

[RayDunzl]

Except once, where I had to be an Engineer, and work directly with Engineers, and report to an Engineer (from India, no less, can't remember his name), and it really sucked.

Found him...

https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/key/tWj9U2pBBnFOZN

At the ATG, he was our enemy.

Promoted Frame Relay whereas we did ATM.

Anyone remember either of those solutions?

 

[Shadrach]

The issue here is that it is after the fact. Engineering titles have been used by millions of people with no requirement up to now. To all of a sudden make a mandate is problematic. Doctors did not face the same. They had to go to school, intern, pass tests, etc. The analogy here is to say to doctors they can't call themselves doctors unless they joined some association and passed a test.

I don't know how it is in the US but in the UK and much of Europe you can't call yourself a doctor unless you had passed some tests and registered with the relevant body.
Doctors did face the same; it was a long time ago though.
Engineers were for many years looked down on by the then professions; something about having to use ones hands on occasions. There were no University courses and academic bodies regulating what was and what wasn't an engineer. When I was a young man Engineering was still considered in many ways a second class academic pursuit. Germany and later Japan helped change this.
I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with having to reach a certain standard to obtain a title. Just about every discipline has such standards.
I don't call myself an architect because I've designed a couple of dwellings. I don't call myself a vet because I attend to the health needs of the chickens I look after. I may well and have on occasions considered myself better informed with more experience than some vets regarding chicken health but it doesn't make me a vet. If I want to call myself a vet then I need to take the relevant exams and register with the relevant body.
The current trend to call anyone who has any technical knowledge (some it seems don't even need that) an engineer, devalues the discipline overall.
It was hard enough to get academia to acknowledge that Engineering was any kind of profession in the first place, to devalue it further by assigning engineer to anything remotely technical is a backward step imo.
I've worked with many highly competent technicians for example who knew more and did more than some of the Engineers above them. The simple fact is these people were Technicians until such time as they qualified as an Engineer.

 

[JJB70]

I think engineers need to be careful, as if you look at the etymology of the word engineer then the current usage desired by engineering institutes etc isn't the same as older meanings of the word. If professional engineers are happy to change the meaning of the word then you can't really complain if the word evolves further (and in the UK at least engineer is not a legally protected term, nobody breaks any laws by calling themselves an engineer).

I think the case cited in the OP is plainly absurd and an example of a heavy handed application of law which simply undermines and discredits what the action is purportedly trying to protect in my view. I do understand why engineers get annoyed by the word being applied to anything and everything but equally I really don't agree with bullying tactics and trying to apply an ex-post facto definition to such a widely used term. What I do support is legally protecting titles such as PEng and CEng, if someone advertises themselves as a CEng then they should be legally mandated to actually be registered in that capacity as otherwise they are claiming a credential they do not have. But that is very different from trying to build a moat around the word "engineer".

 

[JJB70]

I think we are mostly in agreement. The system as it is today seems to work adequately. From time to time, opinions are voiced for stricter regulations, including compulsory memberships in various organisations with the associated fees. This is where I object since I can't see how such changes would in any way be an improvement over what we have at present in terms of quality of work.

I think we have a good balance here. Engineer is not a protected word, and there is no legal requirement to be registered with ECUK to be an engineer or work in engineering, but there are legal requirements regarding competency assurance for certain safety critical industry's and roles. I certainly don't support trying to mandate registration or institute membership nor restricting the word of "engineer" to those registered as CEng or IEng.

 

[Berwhale]

I don't know how it is in the US but in the UK and much of Europe you can't call yourself a doctor unless you had passed some tests and registered with the relevant body.
Doctors did face the same; it was a long time ago though.
Engineers were for many years looked down on by the then professions; something about having to use ones hands on occasions. There were no University courses and academic bodies regulating what was and what wasn't an engineer. When I was a young man Engineering was still considered in many ways a second class academic pursuit. Germany and later Japan helped change this.
I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with having to reach a certain standard to obtain a title. Just about every discipline has such standards.
I don't call myself an architect because I've designed a couple of dwellings. I don't call myself a vet because I attend to the health needs of the chickens I look after. I may well and have on occasions considered myself better informed with more experience than some vets regarding chicken health but it doesn't make me a vet. If I want to call myself a vet then I need to take the relevant exams and register with the relevant body.
The current trend to call anyone who has any technical knowledge (some it seems don't even need that) an engineer, devalues the discipline overall.
It was hard enough to get academia to acknowledge that Engineering was any kind of profession in the first place, to devalue it further by assigning engineer to anything remotely technical is a backward step imo.
I've worked with many highly competent technicians for example who knew more and did more than some of the Engineers above them. The simple fact is these people were Technicians until such time as they qualified as an Engineer.

I think the core issue here is that the term 'engineer' is, rightly or wrongly, used interchangeably with other terms such as mechanic and technician by the general public.

My understanding is that a professional Engineering institutions' role is to protect the profession. One way of achieving this is to alter the public perception of Engineering and elevate the term to the same protected status as Doctor or Lawyer in the public eye (let's call this the 'Carrot' approach).

Another way of achieving this goal is to pursue individuals who are deemed to be using the term 'Engineer' for financial or other gain without the necessary competence or training (let's call this the 'Stick' approach).

The problem with the 'Stick' approach is that it pits an institution against an individual. This approach will always be open to criticism of unfairness and heavy handedness by the institution (i.e. big guy vs the little guy). This criticism can take this form of negative reporting and unfavorable views of the institution - as evidenced by the articles linked to above and some of the comments here. Ultimately, this approach degrades the institution and defeats the original purpose of protecting the profession.

I wonder how long some of these 'Stick' obsessed institutions would last if the government requirement for membership was removed? It seems obviously to me that similar institutions adopting the 'Carrot' approach (or a balanced mix of both approaches) would fare much better.

 

[Shadrach]

I certainly don't support trying to mandate registration or institute membership nor restricting the word of "engineer" to those registered as CEng or IEng.

I do.
SIY in an earlier post mentions he will be seeking the advice of an attorney regrading whether or not he is going to get sent to jail if he advertises himself as an Engineer. I expect he will want that attorney to have passed the relevant exams which rightly or wrongly demonstrate a certain level of competency. If on the other hand he isn't bothered whether the attorney is qualified or not, I would be happy to act on his behalf for an exorbitant fee.

Engineer is not a protected word, and there is no legal requirement to be registered with ECUK to be an engineer

Yet there are for many other professions. Why should engineering be any different? So we think engineering is of lesser importance than medicine or law for examples?
Do we want a society where anyone can describe themselves and advertise themselves as anything they fancy being for the day?
I think I'll call myself an attorney for a few weeks. All those years spent studying and taking exams, fulfilling project obligations and paying institution fees completely wasted. It was hard enough to get the profession of Engineer recognized. For years we got paid considerably less than other professions because engineering wasn't seen as a 'proper' discipline.
I'm going to change my title from my current title (Bucket Boy according to the chickens) to Attorney and see if I can make more money than I do and did.

 

[Shadrach]

I think the core issue here is that the term 'engineer' is, rightly or wrongly, used interchangeably with other terms such as mechanic and technician by the general public.

My understanding is that a professional Engineering institutions' role is to protect the profession. One way of achieving this is to alter the public perception of Engineering and elevate the term to the same protected status as Doctor or Lawyer in the public eye (let's call this the 'Carrot' approach).

Another way of achieving this goal is to pursue individuals who are deemed to be using the term 'Engineer' for financial or other gain without the necessary competence or training (let's call this the 'Stick' approach).

The problem with the 'Stick' approach is that it pits an institution against an individual. This approach will always be open to criticism of unfairness and heavy handedness by the institution (i.e. big guy vs the little guy). This criticism can take this form of negative reporting and unfavorable views of the institution - as evidenced by the articles linked to above and some of the comments here. Ultimately, this approach degrades the institution and defeats the original purpose of protecting the profession.

I wonder how long some of these 'Stick' obsessed institutions would last if the government requirement for membership was removed? It seems obviously to me that similar institutions adopting the 'Carrot' approach (or a balanced mix of both approaches) would fare much better.

I agree with most of this. There is I think a cultural problem at the base of some of these arguments. It seems that in the USA there is a high degree of resistance to state interference/regulation in the individuals choices. This is less so in the UK and Europe.
I'm not argueing that the institution system isn't in need of adjustment, this includes the exorbitant fees some charge and the difficulty of obtaining registration through over avenues that demonstrate competence. What I'm not in favour of is scrapping the system or letting people ignore the requirements because of a subjective assessment of their, or others capabilities or views on personal freedom.
I find it a bit ironic that ASR is all about science, standards and objective assessment yet over a term such as Engineer, subjectivity rules.
There are lots of other grades that can be used. What is wrong with being a Technician or Tradesman (incidentally indentured tradesmen was common in the UK and once again one had to reach a certain standard for many industries to accept you into that catagory with the appropriate wage benefits)
I'm interested in rewarding people for the efforts and commitment they make in pursuit of a particular standard of exclllence, much like ASR is in favour of rewarding manufacturers who produce competently designed and better performing products.
I must confess, I don't really understand the arguments put forward against restricting the use of the term Engineer. They seem rooted in some sense of personal freedom rather than logic.

 

[SIY]

I do.
SIY in an earlier post mentions he will be seeking the advice of an attorney regrading whether or not he is going to get sent to jail if he advertises himself as an Engineer.

No, that's not what I said. I do not advertise myself as an engineer nor have ever claimed to be one. My worry is breaking the law by practicing engineering by doing work in audio test and measurement for pay (which I do) or running a group of engineers and doing chemical and manufacturing engineering for a living- see the Oregon case for an example where no claim of a PE or other trademarked certification was done but the poor guy was put through legal hell by doing an engineering analysis without a paid permission slip from the cartel.

Calling yourself a PE or the equivalent without the certification is fraud. But practicing engineering and referring to yourself as an engineer is a different matter.

 

[Shadrach]

No, that's not what I said. I do not advertise myself as an engineer nor have ever claimed to be one. My worry is breaking the law by practicing engineering by doing work in audio test and measurement for pay (which I do) or running a group of engineers and doing chemical and manufacturing engineering for a living- see the Oregon case for an example where no claim of a PE or other trademarked certification was done but the poor guy was put through legal hell by doing an engineering analysis without a paid permission slip from the cartel.

Calling yourself a PE or the equivalent without the certification is fraud. But practicing engineering and referring to yourself as an engineer is a different matter.

My apologies. I did misrepresent your meaning.

 

[JJB70]

I do.
SIY in an earlier post mentions he will be seeking the advice of an attorney regrading whether or not he is going to get sent to jail if he advertises himself as an Engineer. I expect he will want that attorney to have passed the relevant exams which rightly or wrongly demonstrate a certain level of competency. If on the other hand he isn't bothered whether the attorney is qualified or not, I would be happy to act on his behalf for an exorbitant fee.

Yet there are for many other professions. Why should engineering be any different? So we think engineering is of lesser importance than medicine or law for examples?
Do we want a society where anyone can describe themselves and advertise themselves as anything they fancy being for the day?
I think I'll call myself an attorney for a few weeks. All those years spent studying and taking exams, fulfilling project obligations and paying institution fees completely wasted. It was hard enough to get the profession of Engineer recognized. For years we got paid considerably less than other professions because engineering wasn't seen as a 'proper' discipline.
I'm going to change my title from my current title (Bucket Boy according to the chickens) to Attorney and see if I can make more money than I do and did.

You are conflating educational attainment with competence. An educational certificate doesn't really tell you anything about whether a person is competent to do a particular job. Hence why I would object to mandatory registration or trying to make it illegal for anyone outside a club to describe themselves as an engineer, but I do support mandatory competence certification for safety critical roles. The two concepts are not synonymous.

One of the problems is to say what an engineer is, this may not sit well with professional institutions but the meaning they would like to impose is just one definition for a word which pre-dates formal engineering education, engineering institutions and almost all of the disciplines now making a claim on the word. What right has any profession to grab a word for themselves which was in use long before their own profession or trade was imagined?

I think it stems from professional insecurity in some quarters and resentment at not being paid as much as people would like (although, at the risk of sounding vulgar I've never had any complaints about my salary in any of the roles I've done). Why should people who have been working as engineers, often holding relevant degrees, post graduate degrees and other tertiary educational credentials, or holding certificates of competency/authorisation be viewed as second class individuals because they see no value in joining an institution? Not one role I've had required registration with the exception of a single consulting job I did for the Royal Canadian Navy on behalf of my employer when the Canadian navy asked for CEng registration in lieu of Canadian PEng. On the other hand, all of my roles prior to my current one demanded that I pass competency assessments and hold appropriate certificates of competence/authorisation (and a degree or CEng registration was not accepted as alternative). I'm a Fellow of two institutions and actually see some value in my fellowship of one of them but in all honesty I understand why so few engineers bother as beyond a little bit of professional vanity I see no value whatsoever in one of them (the only reason I stay is a residual sense of loyalty to an individual in the body). If institutions want to attract members they need to look at being of some value to their members beyond the obvious one of being necessary for ECUK membership, it's not much of a secret that they're all terrified at the thought of direct registration with ECUK as they'd lose most of their members overnight. If the only reason to join is because it's a mandatory requirement to be registered with ECUK (which is entirely non-mandatory to be an engineer) then I'd suggest the institutions really need to look at themselves and what they offer to the profession and their members.

 

[Berwhale]

I find it a bit ironic that ASR is all about science, standards and objective assessment yet over a term such as Engineer, subjectivity rules.

My view is that numerical measurements are based on a formal axiomatic system which is internally consistent and therefore objective. Natural languages are not based on formal axiomatic systems and their terms will always be open to subjective interpretation.