Petition to protect the title "Engineer" in the UK...

[c4757p]

By the way, engineers have killed more people than either doctors or lawyers, albeit by design. Even hear of the fission atomic bomb? By design it killed a whole lot of people. Yay engineers!

Nitpicking and semantics... it was meant to! That wasn't an accident.

Tell you what, how about this.

Call yourself a self-taught engineer (if your have no degree), likewise call yourself a self-taught lawyer and a self-taught doctor if they have no degrees. That way you can distinguish your awesome mental abilities for all to see, and it sets you apart from the degreed people.

If you agree to adding "self-taught" in from of all three of these terms (if indeed any are self-taught), we'll call it a day.

I mostly agree, but I would make a huge exception for the "School of Hard Knocks". If you have years of experience working as a "self-taught" engineer, you're an engineer. For the first few years you're just a "self-taught engineer", but there comes a point where what you learned from work experience greatly outweighs what you learned from education, and I'd say that at that point, educational qualifiers no longer matter a rat's ass.

[Corporate666]

I don't think you quite get the point I was making with the analogy. But regardless, there is an issue that non-degreed people will be even more looked down upon than they already are - and that is already a significant amount.

I do get your point, I just don't particularly agree with it.  I think that when you argue one side of this, you also illustrate the other side.  For example, you argue that there are people who can do the job but would not be able to use the title, and that having the title does not mean one can do the job.  Ok, fine... but that also means that not being able to use the title doesn't mean one can't do the job. 

And what of the people who are doing equivalent level work? It's too easy to say that "refuse engineer" or "sewage engineer" are misusing the term - that's not the point I'm interested in. What about the people that don't have degrees but have the ability?

Well, those people are doing work equivalent to engineers, but aren't engineers.  My sister is a midwife.  She does work equivalent to doctors sometimes - giving injections, delivering babies, prescribing medications.  But that doesn't make her a doctor. 

I know a guy who owns a machine shop and does a lot of engineerING, but he's not an engineer.  He calls himself one, but while he has a good depth of knowledge in one area, he lacks breadth.  When I was in university (for mechanical engineering), we had to take a whole lot of courses like statics and dynamics and materials courses.   The guy I know who calls himself an engineer knows a lot about machining and manufacturing, but doesn't know what Young's modulus is or how to calculate the loads at various points on a bridge span.  So he's not an engineer because he doesn't have the education to be one, despite knowing a lot (even more than most engineers) about his specific area of expertise.


I think that if someone has all of the skills and knowledge of a real engineer, then getting the degree would be trivial.  If one feels the degree is not important to the work, that's fine - and then not using the title would really have no effect.

[EEVblog]

Call yourself a self-taught engineer (if your have no degree), likewise call yourself a self-taught lawyer and a self-taught doctor if they have no degrees.

What if the person has no qualifications but has been hired as a professional engineer by a company and they take the "risk" of giving them the title and responsibility? That is not that uncommon, why?, because as  IntegratedValve said, engineering designs almost never go from one engineers hand to the market without others being involved and checked.
And BTW, here in Australia, the individual can still be held legally responsible for design decisions made by them, working for a company does not protect you. Neither does any bit of paper. When the brown stuff hits the fan, it's all about showing if "best industry practice" was used.

[Corporate666]

The fact is, doctors and lawyers are flying solo most of the time. They have a much greater responsibility on a personal level than any engineer. It's not difficult to understand.

I actually don't think that's true at all.

There is a misconception that doctors are above reproach, but they make mistakes *all the time*, and often those mistakes do cost lives and often get covered up.  There are also not many doctors who are blazing new trails in medical treatment.  It's a very flowchart-like career.  If A, then B.  If B, then C, etc.  They need to know what they are doing and the ramifications of it, but doctors generally are not creating treatments as much as administering them.

As for lawyers, I completely disagree that they fly solo most of the time.  I can't think of many other fields where there is less innovation and "making your own ideas" than in the field of law.  It's all about precedents and interpretations which do not happen from lawyers, but from other judges in other cases.  From my experience, 99% of what lawyers do is just regurgitating other arguments made elsewhere.  There is a huge amount of knowledge of the law required, but an engineer has a much greater responsibility, IMO.  A badly engineered product pushed to market can have soaring costs that are unretreivable.  At least with law, there is always an appeal process and multiple levels of review before anything really serious happens.

[mtdoc]

The title Doctor is not protected (at least in the US) and neither should the term engineer IMHO.

A few points of fact:

Lots of people in the US call themselves doctors: PhDs, chiropractors, podiatrists, dentists, optometrists, vetrinarians, naturopaths, Osteopathss and M.Ds. Some practice medicine, some don't.

To practice medicine it  is not the title doctor that counts it's the education and licensure - which involves extensive supervised training, a series of examinations and regular documented continuing education and re-examination.

There are other "mid level" providers (not doctors) with much less training who also practice medicine - physician assistants and nurse practicioners- with varied levels of limitations on scope of practice and required MD supervision, depending on the state.

So - the "doctor" and practice of medicine versus "engineer" and practice of engineering analogy really does not hold up to scrutiny on many levels.

[xrunner]

Well I'm in the man cave so I'll try to make breif responses, but no novels ...

Nitpicking and semantics... it was meant to! That wasn't an accident.

And I said "by design" didn't I? 

Hello Dave.  Let me take this opportunity to thank you for the forum

What if the person has no qualifications but has been hired as a professional engineer by a company and they take the "risk" of giving them the title and responsibility? That is not that uncommon, why?,

Let me edit your question and see what you think of the change -

"What if the person has no qualifications but has been hired as a professional doctor by a company and they take the "risk" of giving them the title and responsibility? That is not that uncommon, why?,"

[c4757p]

Nitpicking and semantics... it was meant to! That wasn't an accident.

And I said "by design" didn't I? 

Yep, you did. It was technically correct but not really relevant...

[xrunner]

Yep, you did. It was technically correct but not really relevant...

Yea your right, but I need as many posts as I can to catch up to you, the "Super Contributor". 

[c4757p]

But why are we all hung up over the term "engineer"? 

How about a self-taught geologist? Can they simply call themselves a "Geologist" if they feel like they know enough?

Or a self-taught physicist? Or a self-taught chemist?

I don't completely agree with you, but I certainly see your point here. I think it is perfectly possible for somebody to be a self-taught engineer, geologist, physicist, chemist, or whatever, and I don't think they should be denied the title when they worked as hard or harder to get to the very same point.

I do not think that professional titles are something a person should be able to bestow upon themselves. I do, however, think that experience working in a field of engineering should be more than proof enough that someone is an engineer. If people respect my opinion as a geologist and I know what I'm talking about, then I am a geologist, no matter who taught me. I think it should be safe to call a self-taught engineering-worker an "engineer" without having to qualify it, as long as they actually are one and have prior work to back it up.

The idea that I can just call myself something and I should be considered that is silly. The idea that I can only receive the title through an approved means is equally silly.

And the title is important to many people. Maybe titles are meaningless to some people, but others want to be able to recognized for the hard work they have done to at least a level equal to those who have done it through more traditional means. And nobody wants to have to have an asterisk next to their name.

[Fsck]

Yep, you did. It was technically correct but not really relevant...

Yea your right, but I need as many posts as I can to catch up to you, the "Super Contributor". 

we all do.

in theory, the "system" (/deep sarcastic voice) should stop a person from making mistakes, or end them after making a really big one

[xrunner]

But why are we all hung up over the term "engineer"? 

How about a self-taught geologist? Can they simply call themselves a "Geologist" if they feel like they know enough?

Or a self-taught physicist? Or a self-taught chemist?

Where the f*ck does it end?

That's my problem with all this mess - who gets to decide what their "professional" title is - themselves, or an unbiased institution who's responsibility is to make sure a certain level of education is imparted to graduates?

I love you all by the way. 

[EEVblog]

Let me edit your question and see what you think of the change -
"What if the person has no qualifications but has been hired as a professional doctor by a company and they take the "risk" of giving them the title and responsibility? That is not that uncommon, why?,"

Straw man.
One happens in the real world, the other doesn't. Big difference. So your edited question is simply pointless and invalid.

[xrunner]

One happens in the real world, the other doesn't.

So, if something happens in the real world, that means it's right? If it happens in the real world, that means it's OK?

Surely you don't want to follow that line of reasoning.

Please say you aren't going there.

[EEVblog]

That's my problem with all this mess - who gets to decide what their "professional" title is

Society does.
Society draws much harder lines on things like doctors, but does not not really bother for engineers in many instances.
It also legally comes down to fraud. It would be legally also fraudulent to call yourself an engineer and fake qualifications etc then it would a doctor. But if you don't fake those qualifciations, then it's not nearly as bad.
Once again, society has determined that people expect and demand that doctors have the appropriate qualifications. Also electricans, or builders etc. But the same is not as true for electronics design engineers.

[c4757p]

*insert post here*

Dammit, I'm pretty sure I clicked "reply", not "modify", but my response replaced my last comment...

But why are we all hung up over the term "engineer"? 

How about a self-taught geologist? Can they simply call themselves a "Geologist" if they feel like they know enough?

Or a self-taught physicist? Or a self-taught chemist?

I don't completely agree with you, but I certainly see your point here. I think it is perfectly possible for somebody to be a self-taught engineer, geologist, physicist, chemist, or whatever, and I don't think they should be denied the title when they worked as hard or harder to get to the very same point.

I do not think that professional titles are something a person should be able to bestow upon themselves. I do, however, think that experience working in a field of engineering should be more than proof enough that someone is an engineer. If people respect my opinion as a geologist and I know what I'm talking about, then I am a geologist, no matter who taught me. I think it should be safe to call a self-taught engineering-worker an "engineer" without having to qualify it, as long as they actually are one and have prior work to back it up.

The idea that I can just call myself something and I should be considered that is silly. The idea that I can only receive the title through an approved means is equally silly.

And the title is important to many people. Maybe titles are meaningless to some people, but others want to be able to recognized for the hard work they have done to at least a level equal to those who have done it through more traditional means. And nobody wants to have to have an asterisk next to their name.

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi group,

Canada is one of the places where using the title engineer is protected. Protecting the title 'engineer' is fine, but the way the government handled it is terrible.

They gave the authority to police the use of the title 'Professional Engineer' to various provincial groups. In Ontario the group is the PEO, Professional Engineers of Ontario.

They police the use of the term 'Engineer' for fear that it might be confused with the term 'Professional Engineer'. To use the title Engineer you have to be a member of their organisation. For an annual fee of $248.60 you can use the title.

This is after you have paid the application fee and the examination fees. A full list of their fees can be found here:

http://www.peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/21891/la_id/1.htm

Here is a section from the Professional Engineers Act:

Offence, use of term “professional engineer”, etc.

(2)  Every person who is not a holder of a licence or a temporary licence and who,

(a) uses the title “professional engineer” or “ingénieur” or an abbreviation or variation thereof as an occupational or business designation;

(a.1) uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;

(b) uses a term, title or description that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering; or

(c) uses a seal that will lead to the belief that the person is a professional engineer,

is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable for the first offence to a fine of not more than $10,000 and for each subsequent offence to a fine of not more than $25,000. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28, s. 40 (2); 2001, c. 9, Sched. B, s. 11 (59).

Onus of proof

(2.1)  In a proceeding for an alleged contravention of clause (2) (a.1), the burden of proving that the use of the title or abbreviation will not lead to the belief referred to is on the defendant, unless the defendant’s use of the title or abbreviation is authorized or required by an Act or regulation. 2001, c. 9, Sched. B, s. 11 (60).



For some disciplines structural and civil engineering, they do pursue people who falsify their status.

Choose wisely...

Jay_Diddy_B

[c4757p]

They police the use of the term 'Engineer' for fear that it might be confused with the term 'Professional Engineer'. To use the title Engineer you have to be a member of their organisation. For an annual fee of $248.60 you can use the title.

This is just retarded. The whole reason to create a new term, "Professional Engineer", is to avoid spoiling a perfectly good English word. Then they go and spoil it anyway, to keep it from being spoilt. Morons...

[xrunner]

Once again, society has determined that people expect and demand that doctors have the appropriate qualifications. Also electricans, or builders etc. But the same is not as true for electronics design engineers.

So? That doesn't make it right or prudent. Society has determined many f*cked up things were OK, but we now don't approve of them - such as slavery or lack of civil rights and so on.

Society is very a poor indicator of what is logical and correct. So I stand by my assertion that if you think that any poor slob that thinks they can call themselves an engineer, or geologist, or doctor, or fill-in-the-blank ______ just because they feel they know enough, or because Joe Bob's company calls them that, then you are on very shaky logical ground. Resorting to "society" to bolster your argument is not a very strong move, IMHO. 

[free_electron]

They needn't earn it, since they already have the ability.

People are granted degrees for a reason -

The big question is :

Is 'engineer' an academic title or is it a profession ?

if you want to make it an academic title , fine for me. but then you will have to invent a profession title as well so people who are doing the work can be labeled as well.

[free_electron]

Because it's not allowed.

Why?

Why is it not allowed for lawyers and doctors? Come on, come on, how is it logically different?

for doctors it's simple : you simply can't experiment enough to get the required know-how. you'd be killing people. Before you get to play with living beings you;d better have your skill set verified.

You can in electronics. just blow up enough parts and you will get there. killing parts only costs money. you can learn by doing. if you burn some parts .so be it.
not so with being a doctor. i think it's appendicitis, let me take your brain out and see what happens...

for lawyers : just read enough law books. it will become self evident if you are good at it or not. if you are bad at it you may get sued ...

[pickle9000]

The big question is :

Is 'engineer' an academic title or is it a profession ?

In Canada it is someone to blame when things go wrong.

[c4757p]

In the United States, we call those "scientists" or "Mexicans".

[xrunner]

for doctors it's simple : you simply can't experiment enough to get the required know-how. you'd be killing people. Before you get to play with living beings you;d better have your skill set verified.

And before you design bridges that could fail and cost lives you'd better have your skill set verified ... 

People, this is easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Your counter arguments simply are not logically holding water. This is like trying to argue religion is bullshit to a believer - it isn't a very good use of my time (believe me I know).  Go ahead and call yourselves engineers or geologists or whatever-the-f*ck you think you are, there's not much I can do about it anyway. 


Anyway - I have a Monday Night football game to watch. 

[free_electron]

i suggest the creation of a new title and a profession

the 'profession' engineer is reserved for someone who works in engineering : the creation of new things and solving of problems by direct applied science.
someone who has been schooled specifically for this work and has completed an academic curriculum and passed the set criteria is an 'accredited engineer'.

There you go. problem solved.

I can keep calling myself an engineer so it is obvious what i do as a profession, and the guys that have the gold ribbon paper can put 'accredited engineer ' on their business card so people know they went to school.

So engineer becomes a profession and 'acreddited engineer' an honorary title.
( oh and please : block universities form handing out honorary titles. there's a real stinker... those guys never even did the coursework and get the title. talk about watering down ... )

[Rufus]

I still don't see what's so difficult to understand about the fact that an Engineer's work is just plain different to a Technician's. Not necessarily "better", "harder", or "superior" in some way - just not the same.

By your definition of the meaning of Engineer and Technician which the general public in the UK don't share.

The petition and idea is silly. While the situation isn't ideal trying to change the meaning of words by legislation will fail, never mind the can of worms involved trying to come up with a precise legal definition of that meaning.