When is an electrical engineer not an engineer?

[ajawamnet]

Oh, and Bob Widlar- no degree. If he were alive, we’d have to put him in jail for engineering without a permission slip.

Yea - my man:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Widlar
He did have a degree tho... UofCO

Me? Not so much - I dropped out of high school. At the time, I was doing state variable filter designs for non-destructive testing and some of the first CGA crap for the then-new IBM-PC. It helped take Opus One out of bankruptcy, by allowing the projector TV's to get all 16 colors as well as allow the local monitor to run at the same time.

Not having a degree hasn't stopped me. I've designed over 3,500 PCB's. Got three patents for stuff I started and did all the hardware for, designed a major part of the hardware that won the Perry Award for Precision Munitions, and a bunch of other silly things.

My son, on the other hand, is going for his PhD right now. He was published as an undergrad and presented at major conferences. He is using academia for the right reasons.

Me? I'd love to go to school. But for the right reasons.

I've told this story before -I just had a kid in my lab that we hired - from VATECH no less. Top of his ME class. I happened to have a mic stand adapter hangin' out on the bench.

Told him it was a weird internal thread - 5/8-27 - that I had to single point on a lathe.

"How do you make threads?" he asks...

At first I thought he was joking.... nope. When I asked other new hire ME's they too said they were never taught the various methods of thread making...

Another story involves getting what seems to be one of the first patents on the wireless IoT - https://www.google.com/patents/US6208266

So turns out that we initially end up using one of the more prestigious IP firms in Pittsburgh - they had an office in the glass tower in Market Square. So they send these two IP lawyers over to our dinky ass lab - one's an electrical and the other chemical (I have no idea why). A patent atty has to have an undergrad in the engineering discipline he will be prosecuting.

We were talking about various protocols and line code used by devices and I had some hardware simulations running with a scope attached. I flipped to a different protocol and mentioned ..." ok set the V/Div for 5..."

Kid looks at me like he's lost...

"Dude - where'd you go for your undergrad?"

"Brown..." he stammers...

"Let me guess - you partied all the way thru that..."

"uhhh....."

Hmmm.

So we get our first action back - I didn't get to see the draft of the patent and the independent and dependent claims. Turns out the chemical guy wrote them and tried to patent the fact that electrical circuits need electricity to operate, and also tried to claim a switch as novel.

I freaked at my co-founder "WTF, Over?"

My CTO steps in.... "... look we're near Boston now [we'd moved] and lets see who we can get to run this patent thru. Find a guy - Chris Gagne - that somehow saved our ass. He wrote a really tight Detailed description and did the best he could with the claims. Ended up with Nixon Peabody walking the filing thru... god, what a PIA patents are.

So yea - education can go either way. My son mentioned that the term education has been so deluded that people in his one field of study don't really use it anymore.

I recall the school my wife went to... I was smoking a joint with the owner's kid and he mentioned after taking a huge toke, "... yea, we get these MILF's in here since they get guaranteed gov't loans, so we get paid no matter what... here take a hit"

"No, thanks... I'll pass.."

"What makes an expert isn't so much what they know,
It's that they've done similar things so many times wrong
They know what not to do"

So I prefer the term "Tenacious Idiot" to engineer...

 

[SIY]

He did have a degree tho... UofCO

Mea culpa, he did indeed, thanks for the correction.

No PE certification, though.

 

[mansr]

"What makes an expert isn't so much what they know,
It's that they've done similar things so many times wrong
They know what not to do"

"An expert is a person who has made every possible mistake in a very narrow field."

 

[Shadrach]

It doesn't make sense for any other profession if done this way. Imagine the riots in the streets if all of a sudden no doctor could call themselves a doctor if they had to join an association and pass more tests. It is the retroactive thing that is the concern here and the fact that we already have "Professional Engineers" with those requirements.

I don't know enough about what were or weren't the requirements to call oneself an Engineer in the US before this legislation to put forward a knowledgeable viewpoint.
My opinion is, taking your example of doctors, is that they would grumble a bit then take the tests and join the required association, assuming the legislation got passed. The professions are not noted for street rioting.
Behind all the subjective views and general indignation is a principle. The principle is I believe that in order to sign off projects, products, whatever as an engineer, some outside body should ensure that that person is qualified to do this. The, I think my mate who is an awfully clever chap can do it, doesn't really apply a standard, or any guarantee of competency.
I read on this forum in your reviews amirm for example, you complaining of the CE certification sometimes being slapped on a piece of equipment by the manufacturer when in your opinion the product is unsafe in one respect, or another. The idea is I believe in the US is that you send this unit to a company that has Engineers (?) who are licensed to issue such certification. At some point post engineering degrees and various institutes this requirement was introduced. I don't recall any rioting.
All these subjective views are all very interesting but somewhere a standard needs to be applied. This applies to all professions. What that standard should be and for what conditions and at what cost are debatable issues.
I wonder if the registration mentioned in the OP didn't cost any money if people would feel differently about it.
Despite all the hot air about personal freedoms and the first amendment, or whatever we live in a world where like it or not, standards are applied. It's sort of part of science. This seems to me to be just one more.
My view is the institutions are in general a complete rip off. It's not that they exist that's the problem, it's that they take financial advantage of the fact you have to have the particular document they issue to practice whatever the discipline. I don't have an objection to further examination either, but my view is it should not cost the applicant.

 

[DonH56]

Did Bob Widlar actually get a degree? I have a vague memory of it coming up long ago in one of the dinosaur's meetings and Jim Williams or Bob Pease saying he went but never completed the degree? I do not know; I did not work with them.

 

[Twitch54]

I have two sons, both engineers, both with their PE's , yet neither of them is qualified or licensed to operate a locomotive. Therefore there are times when an engineer is not an engineer .............

 

[NTomokawa]

Imagine the riots in the streets if all of a sudden no doctor could call themselves a doctor if they had to join an association and pass more tests.

And yet that is exactly how it is here in Quebec.

http://www.cmq.org/page/en/exercice-illegal-medecine.aspx (in English this time!)

Indeed, the Quebec Professional Code stipulates that (emphasis mine):

No person shall claim in any manner to be an advocate, notary, physician, dentist, pharmacist, optometrist, veterinary surgeon, agrologist, architect, engineer, land-surveyor, forest engineer, chemist, chartered accountant, radiology technologist, denturologist, dispensing optician, chiropractor, hearing-aid acoustician, podiatrist, nurse, acupuncturist, bailiff, midwife or geologist, or use one of the above titles or any other title or abbreviation which may lead to the belief that he is one, or engage in a professional activity reserved to the members of a professional order, claim to have the right to do so or act in such a way as to lead to the belief that he is authorized to do so, unless he holds a valid, appropriate permit and is entered on the roll of the order empowered to issue the permit, unless it is allowed by law.

 

[scott wurcer]

Did Bob Widlar actually get a degree? I have a vague memory of it coming up long ago in one of the dinosaur's meetings and Jim Williams or Bob Pease saying he went but never completed the degree? I do not know; I did not work with them.

Are you getting mixed up with Bob Dobkin? I know it bothered him, Jim and the two Bob's at the original dinosaur parties at Jim's house rather unforgettable.

 

[SIY]

And yet that is exactly how it is here in Quebec.

http://www.cmq.org/page/en/exercice-illegal-medecine.aspx (in English this time!)

Indeed, the Quebec Professional Code stipulates that (emphasis mine):

Ok, so I’d need to go on the dole. No chemistry for me! No acoustics! No electronics!

 

[DonH56]

Are you getting mixed up with Bob Dobkin? I know it bothered him, Jim and the two Bob's at the original dinosaur parties at Jim's house rather unforgettable.

Quite possibly, it was a long time ago, and my stint at Linear was brief (caught in the 2001 crash). But, I think it was at some dive after one of the IEEE conferences, not at Jim's place, that I overheard the back and forth. I wasn't around those luminaries much.

 

[mansr]

And yet that is exactly how it is here in Quebec.

http://www.cmq.org/page/en/exercice-illegal-medecine.aspx (in English this time!)

Indeed, the Quebec Professional Code stipulates that (emphasis mine):

Since that list includes both chiropractor and acupuncturist, why not snake oil monger?

 

[amirm]

Behind all the subjective views and general indignation is a principle. The principle is I believe that in order to sign off projects, products, whatever as an engineer, some outside body should ensure that that person is qualified to do this.

There is no such process in most companies for engineers. In most companies it is a group effort and sign off if there is one, occurs at higher up. Engineers who don't know they are doing are found out when they screw up their task, are given poor reviews/notices and then walked out.

Now, if you are bidding on electrical work for some commercial/government project, yes, that is why they hire PEs (Professional Engineers). The bulk of people we call engineers never do such work. So no one has business trying to equate them and burden them with costs, regulations, etc.

And if I am going to go and hire one-man engineering company for electronic design, I would put no value whatsoever for their PE certification. That doesn't tell me a thing about whether they know how to design something or not.

Bureaucrats have confused the two types of engineers/engineering work and creating a mess here.

 

[NTomokawa]

why not snake oil monger?

Hold on while I petition the Provincial government to add that to the list of protected professions. I'll even start the Quebec Order of Snake Oil Peddlers!

 

[blueone]

There is no such process in most companies for engineers. In most companies it is a group effort and sign off if there is one, occurs at higher up. Engineers who don't know they are doing are found out when they screw up their task, are given poor reviews/notices and then walked out.

Having worked for several companies in the general field of computer engineering, this is exactly my experience of how the process works. I will add that many large companies now have committees of senior engineers who approve the promotion of more junior engineers into the senior ranks. I've seen widely varying results from approval committees, some having too much cliquish behavior and politics, some depending too much on loosely correlated metrics (e.g. how many invention disclosures they've filed), while others are awesome and interview experts in the candidate's field. Nonetheless, it's really all about results and mostly not about degrees or certifications in the corporate world. It didn't used to be like that. I remember years ago at one company I worked for you couldn't hold certain positions without a masters or PhD, regardless of your previous results.

The consulting industry is different. To convince clients their people are qualified, these companies like to see as many initials as possible after a consultants name. Totally understandable.

 

[Grattle]

Civil engineer turned software dev. Wish I could get my PE in Software Engineering.

 

[Vovgan]

Engineers who don't know they are doing are found out when they screw up their task, are given poor reviews/notices and then walked out.

I quite agree and Milton Friedman (Nobel prize winning economist) made a very persuasive case why all mandatory certifications, including for MDs, should be abolished.

Now, if you are bidding on electrical work for some commercial/government project, yes, that is why they hire PEs (Professional Engineers). The bulk of people we call engin

Even here the track record etc of a particular company is more important than certificates of their individual employees. When I was working as a real estate developer I hired architectural bureaus based on their proposed designs, track record, price etc. I never looked at their professional certificates. However I did make sure that they had a professional indemnity insurance from an insurance company on good footing. In the end they did attach their certificates to the agreement, but only because they had to (legal requirement), not because I wanted them.

 

[JJB70]

I think people tend to view the world through the perspective of their own experience, for obvious reasons and I doubt any of of are any different.

There are plenty of roles where a named individual has to sign off on something and sign a certificate or apply their unique identifier to take responsibility that a design meets certain requirements, that something is safe, that a particular task has been satisfactorily completed etc etc. These roles tend to require an identifiable individual to be on the documentation.

There are lots of roles where individuals have to have documented evidence of having been assessed and found competent to undertake a particular role, for example in electricity generation and transmission, ships engineers, nuclear reactor operators, certain welders, various safety critical roles in railways etc etc. And there are good reasons for this, because these aren't roles where the consequences of a screw up are a case of an embarrassing produce failure or a lot of warranty returns but could be catastrophic with loss of life.

To me the question is not about whether competency of safety critical roles should be assured, but how. I don't think general PE (or CEng here) tells you anything about competence to perform a particular role. However that is not the same as decrying mandatory competency assurance for safety critical tasks. It's interesting that in engineering some of the earliest examples of risk management and certification were basically market driven as investors and insurers wanted some sort of evidence they were buying into an acceptable risk, hence the formation of organisations like Lloyd's Register of Shipping over 250 years ago as a private society which pre-dated equivalent shipping legislation.

I see a similar issue with attitudes to education. A degree doesn't tell you anything about a persons competence to do a particular job, it just indicates a level of learning. But, a good level of learning is important in providing good underpinning knowledge. There are a lot of people in the work place that know what to do, industry also needs people who understand why people do those things. To be clear, people can develop that learning outside of formal education via other means (self education using books and the web, experiential learning etc) but whether they do this formally or via self learning I'd hope nobody would question the value of learning. One of the ironies of this particular thread is that in the UK anyway the ECUK exams and CEng registration actually gave those without formal educational qualifications a route to having their self learning formally recognised if they want it to (and if they don't then that wasn't a problem).

 

[JJB70]

Even here the track record etc of a particular company is more important than certificates of their individual employees. When I was working as a real estate developer I hired architectural bureaus based on their proposed designs, track record, price etc. I never looked at their professional certificates. However I did make sure that they had a professional indemnity insurance from an insurance company on good footing. In the end they did attach their certificates to the agreement, but only because they had to (legal requirement), not because I wanted them.

But in a way this kind of demonstrates why this is a bit of a circular argument because even if you don't put any value on certificates you did want them to have professional indemnity insurance which pretty much amounts to the same thing since the insurers will have required some evidence before providing cover.

 

[Vovgan]

But in a way this kind of demonstrates why this is a bit of a circular argument because even if you don't put any value on certificates you did want them to have professional indemnity insurance which pretty much amounts to the same thing since the insurers will have required some evidence before providing cover.

No, the argument is not circular. Two key points:

1) Insurance company that works in a particular field (be it architecture, construction, mortgages etc) can develop better expertise and thus be more efficient at managing risks than a single developer/builder/home buyer etc, simply by the virtue of the scale required to be an effective insurance company. If such company, using big data or whatever, discovers that it does not really need to check certifications because other variables fully explain the risks - why should the government force it to continue to do so?
2) It is much better to have the guy who pays the money (insurer/developer) decide what he needs in order to optimize his own risks/benefits, rather than having somebody outside of the transaction (legislators) decide what they must comply to.

Mandatory certification for both MDs and professional engineers alike is also a form of trade union where those who already invested in their education/certification impose a significant entry barrier on those who have not.

My point is not against certification of course but against it being mandatory: if there is a market demand for certification, it will survive.

 

[SIY]

2) It is much better to have the guy who pays the money (insurer/developer) decide what he needs in order to optimize his own risks/benefits, rather than having somebody outside of the transaction (legislators) decide what they must comply to.

My point is not against certification of course but against it being mandatory: if there is a market demand for certification, it will survive.

This x10,000. Anyone who understands engineering (but is careful not to call it that, lest the weight of the boot of the State come down upon one's neck) will recognize the analogies to feedback and control systems. Sowell's "Knowledge and Decisions" explains this (IMO) brilliantly.