Please Define Engineer?

Someone who can make and mend stuff.
It certainly has nothing to do with any certificate or other piece of paper.

Del

Hmmmm, That make my Mum a 'garment engineer' !
But maybe I'll just go along with that .

Del

At least in the State of Texas in the USA the "legal" definition of an engineer has everything to do with certificates and other pieces of paper...

In Texas, you can not legally offer your services to the public, and call yourself an engineer unless you have certain certificates and other pieces of paper...

What happens if you are an engineer in a subject that does not provide a certificate as such and is predominantly based on experience in that field?

Just interested.

You can carry on doing what you do, but you cannot call yourself an engineer. A perfect example is sound or broadcast "engineers" the guys that run the sound board at a concert or a show or run cameras. For the most part these are guys with a 2 year tech degree or less, mostly just experience, and they certainly do not have a professional engineers license. As a result they cannot legally call themselves sound engineers, or put that title on a business card or advertising. But they can call themselves audio professionals, or sound specialists, or sound technicians, and do exactly the same work..

I have a PE license in Texas, and I do sound occasionally, so I can call myself a "sound engineer".

I am sorry but if that rule stands in Texas than I would not be very happy there.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering with extra curricular merits as well. I have worked in printing most of my working career and therefor called myself a print engineer but that does not exist. In Texas I could not do that? I cannot see the sense in having to use my "real" certificate as my title but than work in another field as a "specialist" or something. I am afraid it does not always work like that but I do agree that it is an area that needs better governing so that mechanics cannot call themselves engineers.

Maybe one of those unsolvable problems when you are in between.

It is this way across most of the US. There is a provision, that if you only do work in your company, in other words if you don't offer services to the public at large, then you can use the title engineer without restriction.

But if you offer services on the open market to the public, in most states in the US you must have a PE license.

When I was young, and had not met the experience requirements for licensing, I was doing vibration work on a consulting basis. My business card said "Vibration Specialist." When I got my license, my title on my business card changed to "Vibration Engineer." My degree is in mechanical engineering, but my competency was in vibration. You would be welcome to call yourself print engineer, as long as you were licensed.

But since you went to school in Europe, and Euro schools are generally not US accredited, you would not qualify for a license anyway... ( now you will be really unhappy with us here in the USA).

I'm an EE in Texas, and carry no licenses. I've done consumer, military and space electronic design - a PE is of zero benefit to that kind of work. If I was doing HVAC, or any kind of public works, I'd need the PE to get a job.

I think licenses are a requirement when adherence to codes is needed. For instance, I'd never hire an unlicensed (or un-bonded) plumber, electrician or A/C man. And I wouldn't want my tax dollars spent on architects or civil engineers who weren't licensed.

But, personally - a PE has no benefit for me.

bhankiii,

Do you have advance degrees such as MS?

did not see it on your bio.

I've always felt degrees are no more than tools.

Its only as good as the person who knows how to apply or use them.

phoenix911

Yes, I have an MSEE. I got it because I wasn't satisfied with the amount of knowledge I received with my BSEE. A degree is not a tool - it's just a piece of paper. Knowledge is the tool. I've worked with engineers who are degreed, but useless, and those who are extremely useful, but have no degrees.

When I hire someone, I do look at degrees, since earning a degree in electrical engineering does require a certain amount of rigor and effort, but it's the technical work history that's the most important to my decision.

blankiii,

"I got it because I wasn't satisfied with the amount of knowledge I received with my BSEE."

I was somewhat the same with Mechanical, but I felt that getting a background in the electronics and controls disciplines would be beneficial to me and it was.

"Knowledge is the tool."

Stand corrected.

phoenix911

However, the title electrical engineer in most states is practice protected, thus the use and practice of electrical engineering as a professional, not directly in the meploy of other but contracted to provide service, is illegal. If it is like California both title protection and practice protection are specifically written into the Code of Regulations, and use of the title could get you fined. However, these are specific to very narrow deifned titles, e.g. Civil Engineer, Professional Engineer, or Registered Engineer. Additionally, the State Boards rarely enforce these requirements unless you were practicing in specifically in a practice protected field, like design of public works, and only when the board receives complaints.

The outcome of any ruling that is too rigid, is useless. This is why we used to have common sense and this is also why we are in so much shit right now.

Bureaucratic Muppet's ruling the world can come to no good.

Yes - there are a lot of licensed electrical engineers out there, just not many who design electronics for a living.

Electronics is not protected generally, so it is a common practice to have a title of electronics engineer. Plus if you are in the employ of a manufacturer the title has no meaning since you are not defined under the professional engineering codes, except where you may meet the practice definitions, then you must have a license (or someone must have a license). These license requirements Date back to pre-WW II at least. As a matter of facter there were other title protected engineering fields that you could receive a license in in the 1950's and 1960's that are now non-existent. The enforcement and application of the law has actually become more amenable to non-licensure since the 1950's. Very few people ever get fined now for practice or use of title in professional serice now, it is actually more common for a Civil Engineer to get fined for practice of Land Surveying, than anyone to get fined for practice or title in all other protected engineering fields.

You can not call yourself a Registered Engineer, a Professional Engineer, or any Title or Practice Protected Engineering title, e.g. Civil Engineer, in any formal documents or records. This is common to all states in some form, though some title protected fields are practice protected in some states and not others (Mechanical, Civil, and Electrical are always Practice Protected). Additionally, in the 3 or more practice protected fields you can not practice as a professional with out a license, or a licensed professional supervising the work product. So for example, in California, Chemical Engineer is a Title Protected field, so unless i am licensed i can not perform services for a client using the title of chemical engineer, but i can perform the same services under another title. However, in mechanical, Electrical or Civil (especially Civil), since they are practice protected, I can not offer any services in these fields that are defined in law or use the title without a license (or someone willing to stamp the product with their license and take on the liabilities).

Steve, in Europe anyone can call themselves an engineer and they do!!!

Even a car mechanic is often referred to as an engineer... Its been a bone of contention for many decades now... But as a lot of engineers qualified, chartered etc... haven't a degree, its very difficult to define exactly...

I sure as hell don't want to have to pay a beauracratic institution to give me a certificate which isn't going to be used...

Most of the brilliant engineers I've worked with (some not so brilliant!!) have been self taught, so a paper certificate is outside their grasp!

John.

When I posted my reply, that is exactly what I was thinking as well.

Thanks for wording my thoughts so well.

I do have a degree but not exactly in what I am doing right now. I would fall of the boat with this one I am afraid and no need for it. Like you said some brilliant engineers.....

Even Einstein did not like school. And that is a fact

"Il Dottore" - in Italy they called me that!

I think Engineers are those who detest the politicians(Scoundrels!) and money manipulators fondly liking themselves to be called Economists

mm

A car mechanic is referred to as an engineer because that is what he is. It doesn't mean all engineers are car mechanics. Most of them would be useless. Is Lewis Hamilton's car mechanic an engineer? Engineering is a spectrum like all inherited disorders. An engineer is someone who loves solving problems.

Simon

Look at it this way, every coin has two sides....or maybe three....or is it a cylinder? Speaking about coin, what pays better. The paper or experience! The question is what would you rather have when looking for a new job. We must be careful though, I heard those Imagineering guys are really sensitive.

>>>>Someone who can make and mend stuff.<<<< Isn't someone who mends stuff called a re-engineer. :-)

So dentist, doctors, therapists, auto mechanics and the cook at the local taco bell would qualify by this definition?

I like the thesaurus definition, create, a creative individual, even Del mum.

Regards JD.

jdretired,

I would've liked to see performance included in there then I would have rated yours a good answer.

If I recall, CR4 had a discussion about engineers back in 2005, became quite heated debated.

phoenix911

Perhaps a bit light hearted? I think that engineering is an art, and as such ranges over a wide field, recognition comes in many forms, academic and from ones peers. My experience is that academics try to restrict it use to themselves, self regulation of standards, some thing not restricted to engineers. But I think it is a general word that they have tried to claim as there own, its a word that is prefixed with ones involvement in the field, whether that be practical or academic. There is also the other side of the coin, the publics need to to assess the competence of those whose advice they seek, this is normally provided by the institutions to which they belong, be it a trade, personal experience or academic, its that bit extra attached to engineer that sets them apart. And I think the public at large realises that, A Mechanical Eng, Electrical Eng, Marine Eng, Civil Eng.......... etc.

Regards JD.

jhretired,

I agree with you jdretired, an engineer has to be creatively resourceful with limited resources, I added that they also not only produce but their engineered products has to perform.

I am saying this from having hired engineers that had a very impressive and pretty portfolio, problem was their equipment look very good, but it barely could function. ie "they produced, but they could not preform"

Its a legal saying. carries quite a bit of weight.

phoenix911

Engineer - n., one who engineers.

I believe the rub comes when what is engineered can affect the public health and safety. A professional engineer that is responsible for say, designing a bridge requires liability insurance. Try getting this without the proper "paper on the wall".

By saying that, the insurance companies and attorneys actually define engineers.

An engineer is an individual who laboriously takes the most complex path to find the most elegantly simple solution to a problem.

THE ENGINEER POEM We lay down the rolling roads, and rut down all their trees. And if the order ever came we'd forge the raging seas. And when they need to sleep awhile, we put them up a town. And build all their bridges so the infantry won't drown. We get them over rivers and across mountain streams. Do everything but tuck them in and wish them pleasant dreams. And when the going gets really rough, and bombs burst in their ears, a whole Division is apt to pray for God to..

SEND IN THE ENGINEERS

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

The Whistling Engineer.

DOWN thro the Neosho valley There runs an engineer, With an arm that's strong and steady, And a heart that knows no fear; And when his train approaches The town where his sweet-heart dwells, He gives a loud, long whistle, And thus his presence tells. It may be in the morning, As through his gates of gold, The King of Day advances, And scatters wealth untold; On the fresh, free air it cometh To every listening ear, The long, long, long, shrill whistle Of the loving engineer. Perchance it is at midnight, When darkness like a pall, With many a wild, weird phantom, Has settled over all; The stillness then is broken, And the startled atmosphere Rings out with the loud, long whistle Of the loving engineer. No matter where the maiden, And whether eve or morn, The sound of that long whistle Is like the bugle horn Of a gallant Alpine lover; It fills her heart with cheer, And, listening to its echoes, Cries "There's my engineer." May many years of "running" Come to lover and to maid, May they never need a "wrecker," And never run "down grade;" And when these two together Approach the other sphere, May it be with the long, glad whistle Of the loving engineer.

^__J. M. Cavaness.

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

Engineering is not merely knowing and being knowledgeable, like a walking encyclopedia; engineering is not merely analysis; engineering is not merely the possession of the capacity to get elegant solutions to non-existent engineering problems; engineering is practicing the art of the organized forcing of technological change... Engineers operate at the interface between science and society...

Dean Gordon Brown

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

Engineering is a great profession. There is the satisfaction of watching a figment of the imagination emerge through the aid of science to a plan on paper. Then it moves to realisation in stone or metal or energy. Then it brings homes to men or women. Then it elevates the standard of living and adds to the comforts of life. This is the engineer's high privilege.

Herbert Hoover

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

The ideal engineer is a composite ... He is not a scientist, he is not a mathematician, he is not a sociologist or a writer; but he may use the knowledge and techniques of any or all of these disciplines in solving engineering problems.

N. W. Dougherty

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

AN ENGINEER'S VALENTINE POEM : I was alone and all was dark, Beneath me and above
My life was full of volts and amps
But not the spark of love
But now that you are here with me
My heart is overjoyed,
You turn the square of my heart ,
Into a sinusoid.

You load things from my memory,
Onto my systems bus.
My life was once assembly code,
Now its C++.

I love the way you solder things,
My circuits you can fix.
The voltage across your diode is,
much more than just point six.
With your amps and resistors, You have built my integrator. I cannot survive without you, You are my function generator. You have charged my life, Increased my gain and made my maths discreet. And now I'll end my poem,

Control,Alt and Delete.

An engineering degree - The majority of people in industry agree that they're worthless, but like to pretend they've got one anyway. ffej

worthless? I don't know anyone in my industry (electronics design) who would agree with that assessment.

You know me!
The ones I've met straight out of university didn't know which end of the soldering iron to pick up.
Mind a lot of the guys who taught me were ex armed forces when electronics was in it's infancy and no-one cared about degrees. Great old school guys (my Dad & Father in Law included)

Del

My Dad was an Air Force electronic tech, specializing in radar. When he got out the first thing he did was use his GI bill to get his electrical engineering degree...

One of my best friends in grad school could pass any test with flying colors, but he (literally) didn't know how to forward-bias a diode. he went on to get his PhD and teaches now.

When I hire a new-grad, I look for someone who is either a hobbyist, or who went to a school that required a lot of hands-on lab work. Sadly, that's getting harder to find.

I agree about the old school ex-army techs. Those guys could do anything. I don't think they learn as much in the forces these days, since so much of the technology is repaired by switching out boxes.

To strictly answer your question, goto websters online dictionary and type in engineer

What makes an engineer? Demonstratable mastery of their skills and knowledge within their claimed engineering profession. All those diplomas and certificates are just indicators that those people "should" be proficient enough to function as engineers, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak.

One can go to uni straight from school and obtain a degree in ones desired profession

OR

In some other countries, if you have enough money, you can "buy" your degree.

In both cases this is a piece of paper, BUT if one does not have the practical experience in that said profession, in my mind one is not an engineer.

In most goverment departments, unfortunately you need that piece of paper and that of course is why you get "all these would bees' if they could bees'" that like to throw their weight around when they get a little bit of power. This is where most of them get promoted to their level of incompetence.

I may be wrong in my thoughts, but I have a little thing about "academia" with no practical experience in most facets of engineering.

I am therefore I exist.

No no no ...shurely that makes you an Philosphomer? Not and Engimineer?

Engineer = Engine + er, where e = energized & r = robust,

i.e Engineer is defined as "Engine Energized and Robust", which means a machine that shall still working forever. That is exactly the engineer.

An engineer is someone who can make a simple problem complicated

See chainsaw break discussion for current example .

"An engineer is someone who can make a simple problem complicated"

Do you think so? It is a new definition.

My definition at post #27 was derived just for fun.

Thanks for starting this thread Garthh,

When I talk to young people I meet I always advise them "get the degree!" I can count in real dollars what it has cost me over the course of my career because I did not do so. An yet I have no qualms about calling myself a manufacturing engineer. I take my customers through the process of developing the idea in their head into a real product that they can sell with confidence. The parts of the process that I can do myself, I do. The parts that I am not qualified to deal with I pass on to others who are.

It is a mixed bag. I have worked with some really brilliant engineers for whom I have the greatest respect. I would have to include in that mix some of the commentators on this forum whose ranges of knowledge are nothing short of amazing. Yet I have also worked with mechanical and manufacturing engineers who couldn't tell aluminum from stainless. I have lost count of how many engineers to whom I have had to explain basic concepts of dimensioning and tolerencing.

Is a degree important? Yes. Is it a definitive limitation? No.

Not so! Haven't you heard VIAGRA, and that other stuff? Just as steel can be recycled so can rusty old men, sometimes. Then they just end up in a landfill.

Toomuchfun

Drives a choo-choo of course.

Attached is a reasonable, relatively simple explanation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer

Some companies use the word loosely upon promotion of technicians who have earned it. Some just use it. I beleive that anyone could be called an engineer unless of course he is required to sign-off on some officially binding document or other which makes him responsible for the stated subject or matter. In my company all engineers are engineers whether ou have a degree or not. All are experts in their respective areas. We have Quality Engineers and CQE's, I do the same work they do, but I'm called a tech simply because I only have an associates degree in engineering and a BBA in Information Systems. Soon I'll become a CQE, then maybe I'll get to be called an engineer.

Some large corporations I know use the title to give an air of skill and comptetance to their marketing personnel, in the hopes it gives these persons an edge in dealing with public agnecy contracts adminstrators (these are the people who hate RFQs that require only meetings with a committee of technical reviewers, and inclusion of project the staff has worked on directly, and that staff describe their roles on these project explicitly).

Some companies use the word loosely upon promotion of technicians who have earned it

Many years ago a "Technicians Course" started in South Australia, this was a diploma course and the idea being was to create a person who could work and communicate between those on the "shop floor" and management (which among others, comprised engineers).

In theory, the idea was very good, however the Department of Further Education, a government education department, stuffed everything up in large lumps. All the lecturers they brought in were ACADEMICS. and right from the start the whole lot was a shambles, all you got was a second rate academic, but mind you in some cases a few turned out better than their lectures.

another topic:

What is the different among engineer, technician and worker?

Some experienced worker can do job as same as engineer does. and sometimes, an engineer may not solute problem in practice as do as experience owrkers.

My answer is worker hasnt got as many math knowledge as engineer. though they have knowledge as much as engineer in some field. say electric...

for example, they can modify and repair motor or transformer more better than engineeer do but they cannt design them,

correct?

among

I certainly agree with Steve about the PE license. Here in the US, "mavericks" like me can't offer services to the public; I don't have the necessary ABET BS and didn't have the chance (or maybe didn't try hard enough to have it?) to work under a PE long enough to qualify that way.

But, my rule is that you are what you do. If you engineer, you're an engineer. If you purchase, you're a purchasing agent. If you draft, you're a drafter. etc.

I'd like to see an examination available to qualify for something like "Approved Practical Engineer" in the US where those who have the knowledge/skills but not the diploma could practice at some level (certainly not designing bridges, but at a lesser level).

SME offers such a certification.

Yeah, that's what I have in mind. How do we get it expanded to other fields?

Hi Garth

There are many all over the world, who think that a mere Engineering Degree is "passport to becoming an engineer". True, the "degree" is a socially acceptable exposition of the initial training we have undergone, at some time in our early life (normally within the age of 25?). The writer has many friends in India, who did not even have formal education above the Matriculation/ Class X level (The High School), but they have transformed into excellent engineers and Technical Entrepreneurs, successfully manging their own enterprises (employing many highly qualified engineers, Phd's and Scientists).

Over the years (now having 37 years of Engineering and Industry experience), the writer had observed that we may not define who an engineers is, but we could define the FUNCTIONS of an ENGINEER:

The engineer's function is to conceive ideas, design, device, construct, operate, manage and attempt to solve the problems related to the material demands of the society. To do this, the engineer draws on the laws and concepts of Science, as defined by scientists; on the material, energy and manpower resources available; and on a vast storehouse of Knowledge and historical experiences. The extent to which he/ she draws on the laws of nature depends on the extent to which the scientists have come up with experimentally verified facts and concepts; the extent to which the engineer draws on the materials, energy and manpower resources depends on the way society looks at the accomplishments, and also on the way the various socio-political-environmental situations warrant; and the extent to which he/ she draws on the storehouse of knowledge depends on Education, Good Commercial Practice and various Empirical studies and records.

On the yardstick of what is aforementioned, a Carpenter is as much an Engineer as the latest IT Engineers are. A most important aspect that should differentiate an Engineer and Non-Engineer is that a TRUE Engineer would have at some point, in any problem-solving, total involvement in conceiving ideas, devising and designing. In the ultimate analyses, it is the ENGINEER who directly involves in transcending and transforming the material demands of the society

pvhramani

First of all, I am likely going to insult some people here, so I'll apologize for that up front.

If we take the degree out of the definition of engineer, what does that leave? The term engineer should in my mind convey in and of itself a certain level of education and qualification. If I go to the doctor's office and get seen by Doctor Jones, the fact that he goes by the title doctor implies a certain level of qualification, training, and licensing. I may and very often do get highly competent medical advice and assistance from nurses, emergency medical techs, physicians assistants, etc, but those people cannot legally and do not call themselves doctors, or physicians (at least in the US).

If I go to the law offices and take on the services of a lawyer, my expectation is someone with a law degree, and who has passed the bar. A law clerk may well be able to give me fine legal advice, but they are not lawyers, and at least in the US cannot call themselves lawyers.

So why is it any different for engineers? I propose that the definition of an engineer must include at the very least a basic engineering degree from a recognized school, and I would also propose that like doctors and lawyers that licensing should be a requirement to practice. Especially when that practice can endanger the public (bridges, buildings, trains, chemical plants, refineries, oil terminals, power plants, etc).

In response to some of the comments about degreed engineers with no practical knowledge, I have seen plenty of technicians and mechanics modify equipment resulting in people getting hurt or equipment being damaged, because they did not understand the engineering principles.

I know that for most engineers, the last time they did a rigorous math problem was final exams for their degree, but if I am working with high voltage, or pumps or piping transporting hydrocarbon, or poisonous gas, or dangerous levels of hydraulic pressure, or steam, I want the problem reviewed by someone with at least the degree, definitely the experience, and maybe even a license.

Again I am sorry, but the definition of engineer has to included at the very least an engineering degree. And I disagree completely with those on this thread that maintain that an engineering degree does not make you an engineer. I agree that an engineering degree does not make you competent, but does not having an engineering degree make you competent? Hardly. Competence is a separate issue.

-Steven M. Schultheis P.E.(Texas, 1989), BSME 1984, Category 4 Certified Vibration Engineer per ISO 18436-2.

I am sure as a PE you must realize that educational experience is reviewed in lieu of work experience, it is a equivalent work experience substitution used to evaluate qualification to sit for a PE exam. So you do not need any education to qualify for the licensing exam and hold a license as a PE. This is also true for Attorneys also. You could obtain a license from the Bar without any formal law degree, solely on the basis of work experience fulfilling the requirements. Of course the licensing exams require that you have professional references, licensed in the State you are applying, attest that you worked at a professional level and to your work skills and experience. Additionally, you must have employer references for all employment during the period that will verify your employment at a professioanl level, you can not consider non-professional work, i.e. technician, etc..

However, it is relatively rare that someone takes a exam without some formal degree in a related field that may not strictly qualify under state requirements, i.e. someone holding a physics degree would not qualify for educational experience to take the ME or EE exams even through they may have a more substantive education for the field.

You are exactly right, and so let me rephrase my point, either a degree in engineering or a professional engineers license (charter, PEng, etc depending on country) should be a fundamental part of the definition of engineer.

Steve,

I'm not insulted and I'm one of the people who are "left out in the cold" by the PE requirements. As I said earlier, I really would like for there to be a qualifying exam for a "Practical Engineer" in much the same way we have Physician's Assistants, Nurse Practitioners, and Licensed Practical Nurses. But, I do not advocate getting rid of the ABET BS requirement in general. There is a coherent body of knowledge gained by participating in that BS program that is extremely hard to duplicate otherwise.

I've worked with engineers from countries that have no such standards (I won't name the countries for fear of a flame war) and they scared the hell out of me.

BTW, I can stir up a tempest in a teapot also by noting that my BS was in Physics, and IMHO, most (MOST, I said MOST) Physics majors should not be allowed near an engineering job. A graduate of a two year drafting or technology course is, again IMHO, much better prepared to enter engineering work.

The flip side of that is that during my time at Southwest Research, I worked with a bunch of physicists in the pulsation group that were top notch at fufulling the function of engineer, and had the equivalent professional education to anyone with a engineering degree. I think phyisics crosses over a good bit, engineers are really doing applied physics. Just happens I worked in the Applied Physics division at SwRI..

Oops, gotta get a clone of that neuron so I have one on hand all the time. I meant to say BS in Physics are generally not qualified... Master's and Doctorates are usually different.

Hmm, I am not sure what you mean by left out in the cold by the PE requirements. As I indicated, there is no education requirement, education just counts towards an equivalence of work experience. So if you have the work experience and licensed people who can attest to your qualifications and skill, you may be able to take the exam. If you do not have the work experience and skill. There are millions of specialized technician certicates out there. To follow your analogy of nurses, engineering technicians and inspectors are the engineering equivalent of Nurses and such (without the education). There are hundreds of certifications utilized for technicians and inspectors, from special inspector, plan checkers, haz waste certs, wastewater op and water op certs, etc.. There is no license that will indicate a technician or inspector is equivalent to an engineer, much like there is no license that indicates a nurse is equivalent to a MD.

As far as ABET goes, it is a good program to keep the educational standards up in colleges run by Doctors of Business Administration, Public Administration, etc.. It draws the line in the sand as to how poor a program can be and still achieve the minimum expectations for an engineer. I think it would be a good system to utilize in all collegiate programs actually. The down side is that a standardize program to meet a national standard costs some universities more per student than less standardized programs like teaching, nursing, liberal arts and business programs. So many administrators consider such programs a waste of funding, and have tried, even in major California Universities, to down size these programs on the basis of a lack of cost effectiveness. And, these schools can not become non-ABET, because no one would attend (Plus I am not sure the State would allow it as the State Board might complain). One State University i have been reading about had the Dean of Engineering retire over the University presidents decision to get rid of the College of Engineering, and move a couple computer programs like CSC to the College of Science and Math (literally dropping CE, ME, EE, CM, and Geomatics outright). However, the university could afford to retain the same president who allowed the situation to develop the lead to three incompetant female coaches whose jobs were in jeopardy already to sue and win in excess of $50 million for sexual discrimination (one of these women was fired well before the lawsuit for using pain medication that she took from a player who it was prescribed for, she should have had criminal charges brought against her, as any other person might have for such an act). Maybe we need to stop cutting corners on the educational standards, and start cutting corners on the administration, athletics, non-academic special interest programs.

A little of topic, but of course then our society could probably afford to change the current trend to place higher value on someone for dating Hugh Hefner (which is not very unique), appearing on a mid afternoon talk show or reality TV, or being a spoiled 3 rd generation heiress than receiving a PhD, DE or an MD. It actually seems like many people want to pay these people for just being as innane as possible. I wonder if the person they booted off American Idol or that pussycat dolls show this week will earn more over the next 5 years than last years Noble Laureates in Physics. what does that say about how our society values education, intelligence and knowledge?

Well, let me lay it out for you. First, I live in PA; I could have moved to one of the several states that had less stringent requirements, but the places I would have considered living in had requirements substantially the same as PA.

My BS is a non-ABET degree. That is considered "no degree".

I would have needed 12 years of qualifying experience, 4 before taking the Fundamentals of Engineering exam and 8 thereafter. The fly in the ointment is that those 12 years must be under the supervision of a PE or equivalent and they must show a progression of duties and responsibilities. I could have just made the FE exam if I had been paying attention (I wasn't - I thought good jobs would last forever), but then big steel went bust and we all scrambled for a living for several years. I delivered papers, made furniture, and taught trade school till I got an engineering job again. But this one was not under a PE and there was no way to show equivalence. By the time that job went away and I wound up under a PE, I was way too long in the tooth to start my twelve year cycle and I was now a senior designer and couldn't show steady progression anymore.

So, I missed the boat. About half my fault and half the local economy (and I always had the option to dump my wife and move away to a qualifying job). So, I'm not crying in my beer. I've made an adequate living as an employee engineer and (later) designer. But, I've got a heck of a lot of experience and knowledge now and I would welcome the chance to have had some sort of acknowledgement of that. You see, Steve is right; I can't even legally put engineer on my business card. Without a job as an engineer, I can't call myself one, and that's a pain in the butt.

Whatta you mean by all that? My Phis. Ed. teacher, Mr. Ford

certainly could not drive a train, but he knew which way to go around the track. We had a lot of state champion affleates at Hidden Heights High! He practilly engineered em, all by himself, and he certainly knew the difference between ducks and seniors. Even though they quack a lot alike. By the time I read your whole post, I was so confused about what an Engineer should and should not be, that I didn't know if it was my turn to throw the spear, you know that pointed thing that you are not supposed to use to hurt the other team, or go pole vault, you know use the long pole to jump over the flat bar with and hope you didn't hurt your butt if you missed the saw dust pit with. By the way, Mr. Ford had a degree and a lot of citations to go along with it.

He did so much good with so little with students that he should be recognized as a physical engineer.

Toomuchfun

However, some physics programs will develop persons better qualified than legally qualified engineers. Keep in mind that Civil Engineers are legally qualified to perform almost any engineering service, they have the broadest allowed field of practice. Civil Engineers can attest to the qualification of any other engineering field to sit for a PE exam. In many cases i think i would rather have a Physics major with a concentration in electronics or electro-optic making electronic control system design decisions than a civil engineer. Though most reputable Civil Engineers will defer such decisions to a subconsulting electrical engineer (and make sure there is sufficient budget for consultations by the electrical engineer). You might be surprised at how well physics majors perform on the PE exam, since the math and mechanics are relatively rudimentary for them, though they lack specific knowledge about materials. On the other hand the math and mechanics is actually pretty complicated for many engineering majors, and they have much more knowledge about the behavior of specific materials, related factors of safety and so forth (or at least which books to turn to and find the information rapidly). Keep in mind that electrical engineering represents the generally highest academic skill level attainable in math and science for any engineering major, some engineering majors just need intro physics, chem and calculus to graduate.

Since you asked. My experience has been that a lot of BSMEs and BSEEs don't know enough to pour water out of a boot with the directions printed on the heel. I've even run across a few PEs like that. But, overall, if I really, really wanted a workable power distribution system in a building, I'd go to a PE in EE. And, if I wanted a person to design fluid flow systems, I'd go to an ME and wouldn't care about the PE. Notice that I didn't say BSME, just ME. Once I'm out of the PE areas, I prefer engineers with loads of practical experience, even those without degrees, provided they've been trained on-the-job.

And I know of very few recent BS Physics graduates with a lick of common sense (sorry about that - there are some but not many). Thirty years ago, there were a lot. Now they all want to do string theory and standard model calculations. That's of no use to me.

As to your idea that a BSCE can do all other engineering, where in the world did you get that idea. Find me a BSCE who can tell me what a second-order tetrahedron is good for and I'll rethink my ideas. CEs are OK, but they have their area just as do ChemEs, MEs, EEs, etc. One of the marks of a professional is that he doesn't practice outside his area of knowledge.

Take your best shot, Griddley.

The idea of a PE in CE doing all other facets of engineering is not my own. That is a legal standard. Many states consder Licensed CEs as catch alls for all facets of engineering, this is why they are the only professionals allowed to attest to the qualification of any engineering applicant for a PE license, and only CEs can attest to the skills of a CE (by the way only CEs and EE can attest to EEs skills to sit for exam, and CEs and MEs for MEs, and for title protected practice protected licensed engineers and those licensed in that title can attest to the applicants skill). So in many field situations involving municipal electrical control systems (frequently built in conjunction with infrastructure projects) CEs sometimes make the decisions in the field (though this can be unwise in my estimation).

I have no reason to doubt you, but this surprises me. If indeed a CE is considered qualified to design electrical systems, I have been mistaken in my high opinion of PEs. Oh well, not the first time I've been mistaken; in 1980 I investigated FAX machines and reported back to my company that they would never catch on.

Well, I am not sure qualified is exactly the correct way to put it. They are allowed by law to provide nearly any professional engineering service they feel they are capable of providing at the industry standard of practice. However, there is the requirement that the CE only provide services in those components he is capable and qualified to provide at the standard of practice. Though this is an ambiguous catch all statement that is nearly unenforceable, and the CE makes the decision if he is qualified to provide said services (unless something goes wrong and it gets press, then the state board will very likely want to review the issue). It is comparable to saying you can do anything as long as you are capable of doing it as well as, or better than, the lowest 20% of everyone else in the industry, and you get to decide if you are capable.

Steve,

I am indirectly responsible for this thread due to comments shared with Garthh on a previous thread. I do not find your comments insulting, and in fact for the most part I agree with you. There are many obvious safety reasons why in many disciplines an engineering degree should be a necessity. I can also understand why anyone who has earned a degree, or degrees, certifications, or licences would not wish to have their accomplishments diluted by people who have not earned the right, let alone do work for which they are not qualified. No, Steve you do not insult me, but here is where we disagree. In my experience, competence is everything.

I have been pondering for a couple of days about how to express this. It is for me a very personal issue. Often in the past I have seen this job description. Wanted: Person able to design tooling and fixtures, program CNC machinery, troubleshoot production issues, manage manufacturing facility, oversee and train manufacturing personnel, provide liaison between customers and manufacturing, manage quality assurance and purchasing, etc. Must have BSME and 5 years of experience. Now, show me someone with a BSME and 5 years of experience who can do that job. I can, have, and do do that job. Competently. Without a degree.

When I encounter mechanical engineers, even with masters degrees in manufacturing engineering and they don't know investment casting from sand casting, injection molding from rotational molding, thermoplastic from thermoset, aluminum from stainless, who design aircraft and weapon system parts but have almost no understanding of datum planes, who misuse true-positional tolerances, and have no idea the effects of thermal expansion on parts or assemblies, but I am supposed to look up to their degree regardless of their lack of competence, I get a bit touchy. In fact I have been shocked to learn from numerous engineer friends what they DID NOT learn in school. When asked where they expected to learn, their answer is "on the job". Great.

Machinist, mold maker, tool and die maker, programmer, design for manufacture consultant, industrial designer, manufacturing manager, quote estimator, QC manager, certified welder, fabricator, are all things that I do, yet not one is a complete description. I call it manufacturing engineering. You may call it what you like.

I could no more begin to do your job, any more than I would try to build a bridge, a road, or design an electronic circuit. No one with any sense expects to be credited with abilities that they don't have. No one should ever claim a degree, certification, or licence that they do not have. From my perspective it should not bother you to acknowledge someone who describes themselves with a word that best describes who they are. Everyone would like to be respected for the abilities that they do have. In short: knowledge + competence = respect.

Gary, re paragraph 3..............I mentioned earlier that there are unfortunately those "engineers" who are academics.........have NO "hands on" experience..............all comes back to that piece of paper, which could possibly be put to better use.

In my discipline of Marine Engineering, one had to be a fitter and turner in a heavy industry, before you studied Marine Engineering and to progress through the ranks to become a Chief Engineer, it took many years of sea time, study and examinations, both written and oral. Unfortunately, today some of these requirements are being watered down.................because it's too hard. All ME tickets have to be re-validated every 5 years. Not mentioning any countries by name, if you have enough money you can "purchase" your degree.

Some years ago when teaching the Mechanical Technicians Certificate (a diploma course in Mech. Eng.), if the students hadn't known all those points mentioned, I would have felt that I had not carried out my job in a competent manner.

In my work I usually end up working with mechanical engineers. It is my experience that those who have had hobbies when they were young whether it be fixing cars or motorcycles, or radios, or working with an adult doing some kind of mechanical or construction work, end up being better engineers.

I worked with a very bright young engineer once who had no such childhood experience. He designed a mechanism operated by a small electric motor. I had machined all of the parts for this mechanism, and so was very familiar with what he wanted to do. When the motor came in, he was very excited to try it out. I took one look at it and said, "it won't work, it doesn't have enough power". "It will work" he says, "I've done all the calculations". It didn't work. How did I know? I had spent 3 years as an adolescent racing slot cars and trying to get as much power as possible out of little electric motors. As I said, this guy was very bright, and he became a good engineer after getting some experience.

I have encountered many similar situations and I think it may have a lot to do with what school they go to. I know schools like MIT, Stanford, and Cal Poly provide hands on experience. There are others that don't and it shows up in the end result.

It is my understanding that mechanical engineering students are not required to learn dimensioning and tolerencing. The problem with this is that they are then expected as engineers to go out and produce drawings which will then be used for manufacture. Purchase orders are issued against the unchecked drawings which then become contracts. There are many ways that this can become very ugly. I have worked with drawings from nearly every aerospace company in this country and this is a common problem. My brother recently retired from aerospace configuration management and when we get together the horror stories can go on for hours.

Wow, my small alma mater included in a select list with Stanford and MIT, that doesn't happen too often.

Even in the Mechanical Technicians Certificate (Diploma) students did a couple of years of Engineering Drawing and in theirt final year they had an engineering project to complete..........with all the drawings...........dimensioned and correctly toleranced.

I worked with numerous graduates from a major US university which I will not name out of courtesy to to my friends who went there, a couple of whom were under my supervision. They had almost no training in dimensioning and tolerencing, ANSI standards, etc.. Issues arose when drawings were not dimensioned to constrain parts to be made within the required limits. The company had to pay for bad parts, that were to print. I had to add drawing checker to my list of duties.

To me this is not a reflection on the young engineers. These guys were great. They could learn anything, and fast. It was just a bit disappointing to hear that they were only taught theory and expected to learn everything else on the job. That means that wherever they go, someone at their job has to teach them, and it is not always a more senior engineer.

garyceng,

I have experience the same, only that when they apply themselves to real world problem, they tend to get overwhelmed of the chaos,

It seems it takes them awhile to adjust (if they adjust from solve problems that was laid out in a text book where there sometimes are just one solution to actual problems where there can be a number of solutions, or none at all. They tend to freeze up.

Which you related to with your comment;

only taught theory

And these are people that can have 10 years experience after college.

Well my friends it certainly looks like little old Australia has something over the little old US of A.

The mind boggles to think that when students are taught in a Certificate or Degree subject in Engineering that they do nothing on Engineering drawing.

SURELY....... if one has anything to do with engineering, they should be able to read engineering drawings, and spare parts manuals, etc.

That's not universal, MOBI. A few really good, but not prestigious, schools do require drafting skills. But it's generally true. Equally bad, IMHO, many of those that do teach Engineering Drawing do not teach 3D modelling as part of that. The US education system has jumped the tracks when it comes to practical skills.

Hi TVP45,

Yes it's a great pity when these educationalists can't see the wood for the trees or I could put it more succinctly "they don't know their arsehole from their elbow.

Well it comes down to priorities. Since CADD is not perceived in academic circles as highly complicated requiring an advanced education to attain at a passable level of skill, they just assume you can learn it on your own in the course of preparing deliverables to meet class requirements if needed. As it stands a BS degree has a maximum limit to the number of units a school can force a student to take. This causes a common problem in math and physical science that they are forcing 1 years of coursework into 1 quarter, because they can not teach more units and the general education degree requirements add some other social program every few years, like so many units of arts, history, ethnic studies, sociology, literature, etc.. I believe the limit for a BS is about 201 quarter units (surprisingly, a BA only requires about 150 units, i wonder why colleges find a liberal art program for school teachers more cost effective than an engineeringor chemistry program). To require a course in drafting would mean dropping some standard required engineering coursework or one of the 2 or 3 elective engineering course relating to the students specialty. The programs try to graduate students capable of handling the higher more involved engineering problems, sicne their are other programs to graduate technicians to handle the issues such as drafting, clerical, water sampling and so forth (and I do recognize that draftsmen always think theirs is a highly evolved technical skill, as do water sampler, inspectors, administrative assistants, etc.). So, in the end, to gain one skill set you must give up another. What would that skill lost be, Structural analysis I, Water Resources, Concrete design? I kind of feel safer knowing the design was analyzed properly, than giving that up to make sure the drawings can be done by the engineer with no dependance a draftsmen to be responsible know what a component should look like on a drawing.

Surprisingly all the design skills are used on the licensing exam, even land surveying and seismic are exam skills that are not taught specifically, but no drafting is included on the licensing exam. so you may get some adverse feed back from the State Boards and ABET if you replace a design component with a drafting component, especially if the EIT exam pass rate declines significantly for your schools program. Besides, it doesn't matter how well something is drafted, contractors just skim drawings anyways and always try to build what they have built in the past or complain when they have to change practice to build what was drawn. Consequently you end up making modifications to the design in the field anyways during construction to accomodate unidentified site conditions and the limitations of the low bidders capabilities and skills.

Maybe what they should do is increase the standard, much like some of the Western States are considering, to a minimum of a MS to receive a license. However, no graduate program I have seen ever requires drafting skills, they usually get involved in the advanced engineering aspects of whichever specialty is chosen. Maybe we should just hire qualified technicians who have a technicians degree and some sort of certification to demonstrate a skill level. Then if they have some skill they could translate the numbers derived by an engineer into some visual representation of the object.

I appreciate what you are saying and think it might be more applicable to Civil Engineering than to other fields. I cannot imagine how an engineer would design an explosion-proof casting, for example, without being able to marry theoretical calculation, practical foundry experience, and extensive CAD skill. I don't know how an engineer could even do any analysis on a complicated drawing/model without a high level of drafting skill.

But, I am grown old and cranky. Some days I think of Bob Pease as "Mr. Sunshine".

In all honestly, I deal with many different engineers, and it seems like only those who are about 40 or younger have any experience in any form of CAD. Most principle and managing engineers (Mechanical, Electrical, or Civil) have no experience in CAD, they draw rough hand sketched with a lot of note describing what they think an object or structure and related components should look like, and where things are located. It is the responsibility of the Technician to interpret these rough hand drawn sketches and notes into a drawing. I believe that if you research this, you will find that younger engineers have much more expereince than the majority of older engineers in CADD. My experience with CADD is self taught, as it has been needed many times to communicate a concept from a principle into a way to draw something to a CADD. I found that it was easier for me to draw something in CADD and hand that to the Technician to incorporate into drawings, than try to explain how structues work to the technician and hope he can figure out how to draw it. When you look back historically you might see that this is more of a "in my day we walked 10 miles through 50 feet of snow every day uphill to and from school from sun up to sunset" kind of reflection, and very few older engineers actually have any experience with CADD or have ever used it. There actually is little or no need to know anything about CADD to design anything. You are designing the shapes and sizes of materials to provide the necessary strength or other physical property, you don't need to know how a draftsman draws these things, the draftsmen should know how to draw them.

I would have to agree though that experience is necessary in the production/manufacturing to make sure what you design is reasonably simple enough for the relatively unskilled production/manufacturing/construction labor force to build/manufacturer it with the equipment and experience they have to draw upon. Keeping in mind that experiences derived from such activities tend to be repetitive productions, so they always want to build something very similar to what they have built before, since they have no experiences to draw upon for something too dramatically different. I once heard a general contractor complaining about the reinforcement in a slab & foundation, "when he was young they never put steel in these things and they are still standing, so why do they keep changing the building codes, if he wanted to have to learn something new all the time he would have went to school and become and engineer". He was complaining because he failed a reinforcement inspection and fixing it was delaying his project schedule, and he felt that fixing it to within specifications and code was not gonna have any appreciable effect on the end product. This is a good example of why you do not make dramatic changes for construction/manufacture, it took this guy years to learn a relatively simple skill set, and engineers in his opinion keep trying to change it. Since he didn't understand the reason for the design, he didn't take the time and effort to construct it in accordance with the requirements for tolerances and such, and he felt that end product would be good enough. Thus you always attempt to design to the level of experience you expect of the manufacturer's or contractor's labor force that will be utilized on the project. Admittedly this is not something limited to unskilled labor, surprisingly, many older engineers have the same response about learning new PM procedures, CADD, new contract requirements, etc.. It just seems to take the engineers a little longer to reach that plateau where they think they are done with having to learn all this new ancillary stuff to do their jobs effectively. At some point everyone will begin to believe they have reached that stage where they do not need to learn anything new.

Well, it's all in how you look at it and study it.

Depending on how my arthritis, sciatica, and prostate feel, I'm either older than dirt or else just a senior. And I know CAD very well and, in the last ten years, I've become quite proficient in 3D CAD as well. I learned most of this on my own inititiative and on my own time and at my own expense. I did that because I couldn't do my kind of electromechanical design without it and because I enjoy learning new things.

I worked last year as a contract Design Draftsman in a company with a lot of "white coat and tie" engineers, many with advanced degrees and PE licenses. On one particular project, I was modeling a flywheel (yes, they calculated and designed it) and I pointed out that it would break and noted where it would break. It probably took me about ten minutes to figure that out since I had could run a quick frequency response to see that it had a resonance maximum near a machined corner (which had too small a fillet), calculate that the rim would run about 0.95 of the speed of sound, and read the finishing note that somebody had put anodizing on this aluminum flywheel (which typically leads to stress crack initiiation). When I pointed out all this to the engineer in charge, I was told to "stick to drafting". So, a very expensive flywheel broke (just a crazy coincidence that it happened where I said it would), the project was delayed, and I was moved off that job.

But, life goes on. My simple skill set of FEA was trumped by titles.

Forum Thread: Please Define Engineer How about; "because I enjoy learning new things."?

Not perfect, but not far off.

Simon

My hope is to be like the old bachelor (a cousin by marriage) I knew in Virginia who quit his job after working 75 years for the same employer. He said he liked it OK, but he wanted to go out west while he was still young enough to try something new.

My brother quoted to me a great saying. "Do you have ten years of experience, or one year of experience ten times?"

And these are people that can have 10 years experience after college.

...........and they can pick up a lot of bad work habits in those ten years................ not to say that you cannot pick up a lot of bad habits during one's education.

We have a saying that kinda applies here and with other posts, and it goes something like this.

He who can't do..............teach.

along with that, another saying.

Do as I say, not as I do.

He who can't do..............teach.

Unfortunately phoenix..........you are correct in a lot of cases, I have seen a hell of a lot of that, even those in senior positions...............and as teachers they make good butchers.

One case I saw,was a lecturer in fitting and machining was doing his lesson preparation........he looked at his watch and asked "I have a digital watch can you tell me which way is clockwise and which way is anti-clockwise?" My answer was far from sympathetic. That is only one.......but by the same token there were some very good teachers.

Probably the only reason that I took up teaching was about 9 months before I payed off I fell down 3 or 4 rungs of a steep ladder and ended up rupturing 2 discs, this certainly has had a detrimental effect on my physical capabilities.

I, surely, don't mean to hijack this tread, but I have a question that I think is relevant to the subject of discussion. Does anyone know if the inspector that signed off on the structural crane that fell in NYC is certified as an engineer? If not, it seems that it should be a requirement of the position. Thanks.