Twitter Chat: What Does it Mean to Be an Engineer?

"...8-9pm EST on March 18."

You mean DST. ?

"4. Technology professionals, meaning holding a degree in a recognized engineering specialty from an accredited facility. Does not include "Domestic Engineer", "Sanitation Services Engineer", "Locomotive Engineer", or other glorified equipment operator titles."

I agree with all of your other three points, but what do you do with the person who got his education by doing, and via mentor-volunteers, as well as military tech schools, and then went on to "engineer" (by the standards you applied in your answer #1) for 41 years of an engineering career? But no college degree, and only occasionally college level courses, taken because I

a) had the opportunity and the time

b) figured that college was the quickest and easiest way to learn THAT subject (Calculus, notably)

I was hired, paid, listed, (and sold to the customer, while I was a contractor for a major Military Projects Engineering firm) as an engineer. Software, hardware, test, development, others I forgot, but all forms of engineering which I did daily for 41 years before I retired.

But no "holding a degree in a recognized engineering specialty from an accredited facility".

I also tutor Science Fair competition (real tests developed and run by middle and high school students) and have served in the Commonwealth of Virginia (USA) as a Science Fair Competition Judge (Physics) for 25+ years (I forget when exactly I started Judging).

Obviously, engineering was being done before engineering schools existed (i.e. the Egyptians, Romans, etc.). Also, engineering continues to change and evolve as new knowledge and technologies develop. Few engineers now rely on slide rules for computation. There are individuals, though rare, who can gain engineering ability through experience and self education (Leonardo Di Vinci for one). However, in general I would still reserve the title of "engineer" for graduates of accredited engineering schools or those who have taken and passed a professional engineer exam and been licensed. You can't call yourself an MD or a lawyer because you have a good knowledge of medicine or law. Only certain categories of engineering require a license and those usually involve a risk to the public of injury or death if the engineer is incompetent.You have to be a graduate of an accredited engineering school and serve an appropriate period in the practice of engineering to apply for the license. I would expect that you usually worked under the supervision of a graduate engineer.

Seldom worked under the direction of anyone. Most of the time I was given a problem to solve, by whatever means. And I did. I asked a lot of questions, and most of the time the answer at which I arrived was met by "Wow, I never would have thought of that". I'm not convinced, nor even inclined to believe that I'm smarter than all, or even a majority, of the people with whom I worked. Many of us were former military, having received training in trade schools (military "A" and "C" schools, for those familiar with the US military schools grading system) and then having been put in places where if we didn't fix/build/create it, the job wouldn't get done, and lives could easily be lost (USS Pueblo comes to mind, with the fact that we didn't get them help when they needed it. I don't know what the exact failure was, but a failure it was, nonetheless). When we needed a tuning capacitor in Japan, which was not available, we made one, from materials collected from the galley (kitchen, to you non-navy types), and our officers, who by-and-large, on that post, were NOT engineering types, were amazed that could even be done. Our boss, who was a Navy Warrant (WO-3, if I remember correctly), who had been one of us before taking his commission, just smiled and said, of course they can, they are Navy Crypto Techs, Maintenance.

When I left the Navy, NONE of my supervisors were ever even allowed to enter the premises where I worked, because NONE of them ever held the high clearances necessary. I had those clearances from the time I was 19 years old, and had been in the Navy only a year, and continued to hold the clearances, and serve the people whose work needed them, for the next 30+ years of my career, both in and out of the Navy.

It is NOT necessary to have a degreed engineer supervise everything a conscientious engineer does. If an engineer is careful in all aspects of their work, and KNOWS WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW, and learns that information, or gets help with it, a degree is a waste of paper. I knew many great engineers with degrees, to whom I owe, and gave, great respect. I also know many like the glorified Realtors with whom I was saddled too often.

Sometimes an engineer is just someone who engineers solutions to problems. And if I had $10 (allowing for inflation) for every time my project lead or PM said "Can you do that? I didn't even know if could work that way!" I'd be a rich man.

Engineers engineer. They don't spend all their time worrying about who has what degree from what school. And a good engineer will show his or her quality by their work, their intellect, their effort, their care and attention to detail. NOT by how many degreed engineers think they are good engineers.

All of that said, NOTE, I did not say no one should pursue an engineering degree. Around the world we seem to have come to the conclusion that if you aren't formally trained, you can't know a topic. Bull. Many of us learn better, and more effectively, by doing. And I've had many instructors in all subjects who clearly never DID what they taught, or THEY WOULD HAVE SEEN THE ERRORS IN THE CURRICULUM. Instead, most of them failed those of us who were practicing engineering, because we didn't agree with their bad or outdated practices.

You hit a hot topic, with your look-down-the-nose-and-sneer about having to be supervised by a degreed engineer. I've seen too many worthless degree-chasers (in the military we'd call them ring-knockers. Ring a bell, anyone?) and too many good engineers who learned it by doing.

But, if it makes you happy, keep your stinking title. And I'll go on designing and building what pleases me and gets the job done. I've lived with the gibes of insecure diploma chasers all my professional life. And it was a good life, nonetheless.

I like the quotes around the word real in the original post. I worked with real engineers and "real" engineers (both holders of actual degrees and certificates) for years. Many were surprised to find I did not have a college degree, especially since I could do the work and they liked the work I did. (To be fair, I had more college level credit than many of them, just no degree.)

I eventually got a degree. As far I can tell, the only people who want to know about it are Human Resources types. Everybody else wants to know what you've done and what you will do.

You are taking this the wrong way, no personal insult was given or intended. You may be an excellent intelligent analyst/problem solver. You may have worked with engineers who could do the book work but could not apply it to the real world. I am not belittling you or your abilities. In fact I applaud you for your achievements, self-motivation and accomplishments. I too went into engineering because I loved taking things apart to see how they worked and then put them back together. I wanted to figure out how to solve problems and fix things. I have experienced the same things as you, engineers who could not envision practical ways to do things and could not translate theoretical knowledge into practical applications. I too worked for the military and held high security clearances. All that means is I had a clean record and most people liked me or at least didn't have enough of a grudge to give me a bad reference. Nothing to do with my engineering competence. Maybe I had the advantage over you of a chance to go to Auburn University and major in Aerospace Engineering. It was four years of hard work and study. I paid my own way with some help from my family, but mostly by working and being very frugal with my money - no partying. My position on the title of "engineer" is not based on prestige or to look down on people. I'm no better than any one else because I'm an engineer, but I did do the work required to earn the degree from an accredited engineering institution. That
quickly establishes a certain level of achievement and credibility. If I say i am self-educated and have real world knowledge I doubt that I will get past the HR office.That's what the title of "engineer" gets you - quick credibility.

Thanks. I'm off the high-horse. I didn't shoot it, just put it away rode-hard, and still lathered. And I won't hesitate to agree with both of you, that the degree helps get you past HR. OTOH, I got past HR numerous times in my career, and the last three companies for whom I worked (one an Agency of the US DOD, the other two civilian) selected me over several other applicants precisely because I did have experience, instead of ONLY a degree. And I still tell my students they need to apply themselves to a degree program, because regardless of how I feel about it (And I think I made THAT clear, anyway!) a degree at the least makes it easier to find good work. Especially if you don't have experience. Again, OTOH, I believe we rely way too much on "credentialling" to determine value without giving a potential employee even a look. And I believe that has led to Academic Arrogance on the part of the Educators, so that they believe with all of their being, that they are in the better place as educators, than are even the students they turn out to DO what they can only TEACH.

And the courses I did take were almost invariably (There was one VERY notable exception) taught by people who clearly did not have any idea how to do it, nor how the real world does it. Yet more than one had the arrogance to tell us, when more than half the class were at that time employed as engineers in the field, that only he knew "how it was done" and he wouldn't tolerate hearing about any other ideas than his own.

It all leaves a very bad taste, especially when someone suggests that I cannot do the job I did successfully for 41 years, and don't deserve the title I held, solely because I didn't get the ring, join the frat, and buy the myth.

Glad there are no hard feelings. I try not to piss people off if possible and I prefer not to argue if there is acceptable middle ground. In this day and age it's hard to get the chance and the time to show what you know and can competently do. Engineering covers a wide spectrum of specialized knowledge and many (most) non-engineers can't really appreciate what's involved. Thermodynamics, high-speed aerodynamics and high frequency RF can get really hairy and are not easily self-taught. I am familiar with the "those who can do, and those who can't teach" syndrome. The bottom line though is that getting a job as an engineer usually is going to require a degree and anyone can claim to be an engineer. It bugs me that people want to apply the title of "engineer" to any task that involves a mechanical operation. Just call it what it is or even label the position as engineering technician, but don't dilute the title that people have put in four or more years of hard work, study and money by saying by the power vested in me I am an engineer. (by the way, I was not a frat boy - no time or money)

41 years experience at the pointy end and a compendium of credibility maintenance miracles makes you very qualified.

41 years ago there would not have been a formal education path for you to start on to become what you are now or to know that which you have taught yourself. You studied your own curriculum and passed admirably.

Was a time when going to a higher institute of learning was called "reading". You don't need a college to do your own reading. Formal studies are guided reading mostly.

A degree and 3 to 5 glorious years of experience is what lands a full time job these days.

Yeah, qualifying cliques just make the job easier for HR.

Neither Thomas Edison nor Nikola Tesla (just for example) graduated from university and were not "engineers" by your definition...

Invented anything good, lately?

Recognition from a qualifying clique of clique qualified clique members.....is no guarantee.

You can be part of a clique and still be clueless as those outside the clique get on with reality.

I hear you and feel for you.

Yep. Been there. Don't usually bother to answer "what school did you graduate from" because most questioners either a) know me already, and thus have an opinion of me, so what school I went to teaches them nothing worth knowing, or b) don't already have an opinion of me, cause the don't know me, and knowing what school I came from is nowhere near as useful as knowing what I actually can DO, which they will only learn by knowing me, since I'm not going to waste time on credentialing myself.

I ran into a man with whom I used to work, one of those who has a Doctorate, and needs to insert himself into the chain of management so that all papers and plans require his signature. Apparently THAT is his function in life (Doctorates take a lot of time and money, but THAT surely doesn't seem like a productive application of all that effort. Maybe I'm missing something?) because he surely was of no value to our agency that I was ever able to see.

I'm retired from the Agency, and had taken a part time job at a Big Box Hardware and Lumber store (To be left unnamed. This isn't an advertisement.) because that particular store is one in which I liked to hang around on my off time when I was still working full-time. I loved working there, and loved both my coworkers (And management in THAT store WERE coworkers. You would find the store manager sweeping the floor, if there were a spill that needed cleanup and wasn't hazardous, thus requiring someone trained in Hazmat cleanup.) and the customers. I ran into the Doctorate there and spoke to him, and almost the first words he spoke were to the effect of "so you were my subordinate, and retired, look where you have to work now". Bad assumptions, from a worse than useless egghead who thought his degree made him useful and a good person, I guess. Anyway, it cemented my view of the bad side of the educational process today.

To be certain, there are many educated and wonderful people. My wife and I are friends with a couple who have more degrees than most thermometers, but no one would know it until they get them to (b)ragging on each other, and then it becomes obvious. He is a lawyer, with a Doctorate in Law. He is also an accomplished concert pianist, and a composer of his own music, as well as an excellent Bass vocalist (I sing with him and have enjoyed his concerts many times, so I have first hand evidence. Thankfully, I DON'T firsthand evidence of his legal skills.). His wife is an engineer, with a Masters in some field, as well as a housewife, Mother of three boys, and a homeschooler. She was a Mensa member at the age of 13, and is/was not impressed.

But you wouldn't know any of that about either of them without actually SEEING them do what they do. Or getting them to talk about each other.

I love, respect and admire them.

But I'd do that with, or without, any knowledge of their education.

Personally, I was in the Nerds-that-no-one-but-nerds-like group in my school, and loved the kids I hung out with. We blew stuff up, re-designed our car engines, studied electronic theory, math, chemistry, physics, computers, clocks, rockets, and you name what all else together. And collectively built nearly everything in the list before we got done.

And blew stuff up. That was the most fun part, for me. Sometimes on purpose, and sometimes by accident, but always "WAAAYYYY COOOLL"! The local police didn't all like us, but most knew we were well-intentioned, anyway. Some asked for our advice.

Being a nerd, NOT part of the self-authentication clique, wasn't a bad thing. But it did require calluses on the parts of the ego that wanted the validation of a strangers.

Well said and I agree with all of it.

Two memories from my engineering work come to mind.

The first occurred when I was employed as a contractor to the Federal Government, primarily the US-DOD, during a "dry period" when not many contracts were forthcoming. Many of our senior "Engineers" (The quotes are because they, in reality, didn't engineer, or design, anything, but managed the work of a lot of those of us who did. And all of them had advanced degrees in some form of engineering, which, unfortunately, was all the qualification the government needed to declare that our company should use them to manage) left the company, for parts unspecified. Those of us who engineered because we couldn't think of anything we'd rather do, even if it MIGHT pay more, stayed, and "engineered on" with whatever clean-up projects we could find to stay occupied. Later, after the well started producing contracts again, some came back, to the same or better positions they had left. I asked several one day in conversation where they had gone. To a body (7 of them in the group) they had gone to various Real Estate companies as Agents. I was astounded, believing that no one engineered, even in management, if they didn't LOVE engineering (I knew when I was 9 years old that I wanted to be an engineer, because of a HAM radio operator who started teaching several of us about radio. I loved it, and never wanted to do anything other than design and build "stuff"), and asked them how they could be happy as Real Estate Agents, when they could have stayed in engineering, as we did. Their answer was simple: It's where the money is.

In my opinion, no degree could ever make them engineers.

The second memory is an observation from Isaac Asimov, whom most, if not all of us know from his days as author, educator, thinker, Scientist. Extraordinary man who wrote both fiction (Science fiction, primarily) and Layperson's guides to science. he commented that it is much harder to write fiction, that to write the truth in science, because fiction has to be believable.

Never truer words spoken, concerning game design, or even user interfaces. If it is TOO WEIRD, no one will ever bother to use it, no matter how well it works. If it DOESN'T feel good, NO ONE will do it!

And that is a truth REAL Engineers will keep in mind at all times, so that the final product is actually REAL-WORLD useful, as opposed to the kludges that laboratory science solutions provide.

Thank you.

While most people detest being defined by their 'job,' Engineering is't a 'job' so much as it is a PASSION, a primal, burning NEED to 'make stuff.'

I'm not going to call anyone out here, but for the engineers who own Game consoles, I'm wondering how many picked up one or more of the LittleBigPlanet titles for their PS3/PS4. And how many picked up a PS3/PS4 specifically so they COULD play LittleBigPlanet and have fun building things without having to worry about how much the project would eat into their reserves of RealCashMoney.

Or if not LittleBigPlanet, they have some other construction, or city-building, or crafting, or simulation game. There has to be a reason why there are so many Minecraft clones out there.

Most of the Engineers I know played with games such as "Lincoln Logs", "Erector Sets", "Chemistry sets", "Legos", etc. and dissassembled and reassembeld everything they got their hands on! We started "programming" things long before computers were an everyday item.

I still have my Lego collection,but there is something rather ... satisfying about being able to make some wonderfully complex device, and then being able to make 30-50 duplicates to play with, all without cutting into my lunch budget.

Lego of my Lego

Thanks to all who commented in this discussion. Lots of great thoughts here!

If you're interested, you can read a transcript of the Twitter chat.

This was a fun way to share opinions from the CR4 community with other people. Look for another one of these in a few weeks!

I just looked over the transcript, and saw all four of my answers in the twitter-chat.

Wow, I feel so honored that they were good enough to post, and a bit embarrassed that my 'social engineering' rand went out as well. That response was, to turn a phrase, 'not my finest hour.' I try to not by judgmental of other people⁽¹⁾, and that comment was rather 'judgy.'

Notes:

1. I don't judge PEOPLE, I do judge IDEAS and PROPOSALS. If it looks like I'm making an ad hominem attack, re-read it, you will generally find I am arguing against an unsafe practice, or against an unqualified person trying to do a complex safety-related design⁽²⁾. The apparent 'personal attack' is merely a 'warning display,' meant to impress on the person the danger they are being to themselves and others.
2. There is one example here of me making an ad hominum attack in reaction to an ad hominum attack done on me. I apologized for it, tried to defuse it with a humbling, self-effacing joke, and bowed out of that thread. I had broken my own rule about conversations: 'don't talk about religion or politics,' and things predictably got very ugly very fast, so fast I was drown in deeper before I realized what was happening. The closest I'll get to a religious or political conversation is asking who you like better, Elvis, or The Beatles⁽³⁾.
3. Although I have a feeling that the answers to that question will overlay rather nicely along certain red/blue demographic lines in the US.
   

"Although I have a feeling that the answers to that question will overlay rather nicely along certain red/blue demographic lines in the US."

Maybe a poor assumption. I don't know about others, but I'm extremely conservative, and I like both, about equally. The early Beatles, and almost all of Elvis, I like. I still try to find them in the original, since I don't much like any of the "covers" I keep running into today.

Unless you meant only Conservatives would like them, and would like them both. But in that case, which lines were you talking about?

My theory is that, statistically, you will find Elvis more popular than the Beatles in 'red' areas of the country, and the Beatles more popular than Elvis in 'blue' areas. I'm not saying that Urbanites hate Elvis, or that Southerners don't 'get' the Fab Four, just a general leaning of the needle one way or another. I may be completely wrong, and the trend does not show up with enough significance to overcome the statistical noise in the signal.

But, it WOULD be an interesting theory to test out, even if it's ultimately meaningless.

75% of statistics are made up

The other 35% are mathematical errors.

LIKE!

"baseball is 90% mental: the other half is physical" Y Berra