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

[EEVblog]

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

Did I say that? No.

If it happens in the real world, that means it's OK?

Did I say that? No.

I'm stating a fact. The great thing about facts are that they are true whether or not you believe them or like them.

[xrunner]

I'm stating a fact. The great thing about facts are that they are true whether or not you believe them or like them.

Oh please.

We're not talking about the fact that people call themselves engineers for all manner of reasons. We're debating whether it's RIGHT to do so.

Come on Dave, Why are you being so obtuse here?

[EEVblog]

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'.

In Australia being an "accredited engineer" means you are certified as such by the Institute of Engineers (and there are various level of it for 2/3/4+ year qualifications). In most cases that involves having studied and completed an accredited course at an accredited institution.
If you didn't study at an accredited institution (mostly overseas) then they analyse your course on a case-by-case basis.
But it's also a little known fact that they also allow accreditation of unqualified people or those of lesser or different qualifications. But the process is much more stringent and involves detailed proposal of your work and self study history etc.
So those with their degree get instant rubber stamping to official member accreditation, and those without can still do it but have to work much harder at it.

But in this country such membership is almost never a job requirement. Although sometimes some big and/or anal companies like government or medical require you to be "eligible for membership" of the institute.

[EEVblog]

We're not talking about the fact that people call themselves engineers for all manner of reasons. We're debating whether it's RIGHT to do so.
Come on Dave, Why are you being so obtuse here?

No, I'm talking about the fact that society in general has evolved to generally not really care about the title engineer having the same level of qualification as that of doctor. I said nothing about it being right or wrong, that is simply a fact of the world we live in.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

See the argument this thread has created, and it is just a waste of time.

The only people who are going to benefit out of the "protection" of the title "Engineer" are lawyers.
As free_electron pointed out there is already a precedent for non Degree qualified engineers being titled 'Engineers'.
Don't make the world more complicated with new ridiculous laws.

ps. My boss asked me once what title I would like for my job. He said anything you like.

Good, I said, "Chief Scientist".

Unfortunately my cards ended up with just the title Engineer.

[EEVblog]

Resorting to "society" to bolster your argument is not a very strong move, IMHO. 

I am not using that to bolster any argument, because, in case you missed it, I haven't started to argue whether or not it is right or wrong yet.
In that case, I agree with Vincent, and won't bother repeating what he's said because that pretty much covers most of it.
But I'll add that in Australia I think that in practical terms the system in place already is just fine.
I support a companies right to only hire people who are accredited, and also those who don't care.
The title "engineer" itself is just so well entrenched as meaning so many things in so many areas of today's society that I think it's likely impossible to ever get it changed so that only certain qualified and/or accredited people can use it. And probably tough tits if you don't agree with that, because that's just the way it is. But good luck trying to get it changed, I support your right to try, but I just think you are wasting your time, and it will be of no value.

[xrunner]

No, I'm talking about the fact that society in general has evolved to generally not really care about the title engineer having the same level of qualification as that of doctor. I said nothing about it being right or wrong, that is simply a fact of the world we live in.

Again, we're debating whether it's right or wrong, not whether it's a fact that people call themselves all manner of titles, whether justified or not.

Using what society has "evolved" to deem right or wrong can have enormous pitfalls. You, as a critical thinker and a critic of religious nutters, should realize this.

So please address whether it's RIGHT or WRONG for a person or some consumer company to just deem themselves, for example, an Electrical Engineer, without the university credentials. Just state it outright and we'll leave it at that because we're at loggerheads. We all know what the facts are - that people do so. Focus on whether it's right or wrong now.

[EEVblog]

So please address whether it's RIGHT or WRONG for a person or some consumer company to just deem themselves, for example, an Electrical Engineer, without the university credentials. Just state it outright and we'll leave it at that because we're at loggerheads. We all know what the facts are - that people do so. Focus on whether it's right or wrong now.

Fine.
If a company hires you as an engineer, and you are hence doing the engineering work, then yes, I think it's right to use the term. You have been deemed by your peers and industry to be worthy of the title.
I also think it's right to use the term if you are a self employed EE in some proper capacity, if that's what you do for your profession, and your work has been vetted by others in the field etc. Those who chose to hire you for work make the choice if they think you are suitable or not. Yes, I realise this could potentially be open to abuse by some gullible public who can't judge that and are just going off your title, but the world generally isn't going to end. And generally speaking, the uneducated public generally don't hire engineers directly to do some complete job, you are usually hired by knowledgeable people and/or firms that have the ability to vet your work.
And as I think others have said, being degree qualified doesn't mean you are going to not make the same mistakes someone technically unqualified might make. But yes of course you'll argue that you can at least set the bar to a certain standard. Well yes, in theory, but in much of practical engineering (and I'm using referring to electronics here), in my experience having proper qualifications does not automatically equate to having any useful skills or knowledge at all. In fact I find that more often the case than not. Both sides of the fence can produce the same crap.

Should you call yourself an electrical engineer if you have the degree but have never used it or worked in the industry? No, I don't think so, you should qualify your title with "qualified" or "trained" or some other such term. I do this for my fitness qualification for example. Yes, I have a formal qualification in fitness training, but I have never actually worked in the field, nor do I have proper industry "certification" by the body (similar to engineering bodies). I have just taken the odd class here or there way back, so I don't go around calling myself a "fitness trainer" or "fitness professional" etc. I simply am a "qualified fitness trainer" if anyone asks.

If you are just dicking around as a hobbyist and you might sell a few kits or whatever, then no, you probably shouldn't be using the term.
On a side note, I don't like the term "Electrical Engineer" for an electronics engineer (which I am) because to me that has a potential association with things that I am not experienced at (like power for example). So I call myself an electronics engineer, and have always been careful ensure my employers recognise that tital instead of the more generic "electrical" title.

[Someone]

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

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.

Engineering in Australia is identical to what you described, there are post graduate requirements before holding the additional titles. And there are different categories for the different members of the engineering team, just as there are different members of a medical team.

So those with their degree get instant rubber stamping to official member accreditation, and those without can still do it but have to work much harder at it.

Not quite true, they would get graduate status. Which then requires further work experience supervised and supported by an existing member this is where the dead weights who got the degree are weeded out.

in my experience having proper qualifications does not automatically equate to having any useful skills or knowledge at all. In fact I find that more often the case than not. Both sides of the fence can produce the same crap.

Absolutely the case that all qualifications churn out dead weight, the grades for diploma qualified technicians was aimed at adding a similar second step to the process.

Should you call yourself an electrical engineer if you have the degree but have never used it or worked in the industry? No, I don't think so, you should qualify your title with "qualified" or "trained" or some other such term.

CPD ensures that only practicing people would be able to justify holding the additional title/qualification/assurance/whatever.

Its all still a waste of time for most jobs as this all flows back into getting insurance to work on high risk or high impact projects.

[EEVblog]

Not quite true, they would get graduate status. Which then requires further work experience supervised and supported by an existing member this is where the dead weights who got the degree are weeded out.

Yes, I forgot to mention the various levels.
Not uncommon to find "graduate members" simply using the (higher level) term "member" though IMO.

[EEVblog]

Using what society has "evolved" to deem right or wrong can have enormous pitfalls. You, as a critical thinker and a critic of religious nutters, should realize this.

You, also as a critic of religious nutters, should realise that the world and terms shouldn't be defined by elitist holier-than-though snobs either. Like for instance in the marriage equality debate. In many western democratic counties now, society has "evolved" and deemed that gays should have the same equality on the use of the term "marriage". Which I think there may be more similarities with what we are talking about here and you might otherwise realise.

Why, if for example (and there are countless real world examples), a world class engineering company deems an unqualified or lesser qualified person to hold the title of engineer, who are you to tell them that they aren't fully entitled to use that title?

[IntegratedValve]

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

Everywhere you find such cave man "regulations" they are a result of incompetency in general...anyway I assume we are talking here more about EE/Electronics so...this means show me your circuit man otherwise please don't show your paper.

[Corporate666]

Perhaps my proposed solution earlier of a suffix (which some countries already seem to have) would work.  Then companies can decide if the degree is necessary for the position they are hiring for. 

I will admit that it does bother me when people call themselves "engineers" when they are not, because I know first hand how extremely difficult that title is to earn.  It may also be that the abuse of the term is much more widespread in the USA than in other places.  I was not kidding about the guy I mentioned earlier. He was an extremely nice guy but extremely dim.  He was a laborer working as an assistant maintenance tech in a factory.  The guy they called when the toilet was blocked.  The company sent him to an 8 week wastewater chemistry class and he could not understand simple things like what acids and bases were and how mixing them could neutralize them. 

But he didn't really need to understand all of that.  All he needed to understand was that he took a sample of the wastewater and processed it in the test equipment, then added the quantity of the type of chemical it told him to.  He was happy to be the "Wastewater Chemical Engineer" of the company and got new business cards made, etc.

I found it a bit insulting that people stole the "engineer" term for themselves so often.  A big part of it is that it's *really* hard to get a degree, and there are far too many people who think it's not that hard and they could have one too if only.... <insert excuse>.    I really think a lot of people drastically underestimate the difficulty of a BSc. 

[AndyC_772]

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 whole point of this discussion is that the general public don't properly understand the difference between the two. They get the terms confused, and don't properly appreciate the distinction, because members of one group like to call themselves members of the other.

Changing public understanding and perception of the term 'Engineer' is exactly what making it a protected title would aim to achieve.

[vk6zgo]

For many years I have been bemused by the British habit of labelling the people we would call Technicians as "Engineers".
Equally strange,is the habit in some countries of labelling non technical Operators,as"Technicians".

I am a "Technical Officer",or at least,I did a course,passed exams,got a Certificate,& worked as such.
Before I did that,I trained to be a Technician--did courses,passed exams,got a Certificate,etc.
I also have a "Broadcast Operator's Certificate of Proficiency" granted to me by the Commonwealth of Australia in all its awesome majesty,

This last,from its title sounds like it qualifies me to be a button pusher,but no! It is at about the same technical level as the Tech Officer's qualification.-----such are the vagaries of nomenclature!
 
None of those bits of paper are required for any job anymore,but they did at the  time,& I would not have them without many hours of formal education,albeit not at Degree level.
Obviously,this also entailed a lot of home study,but I can't claim to be "self-taught"!

I just think of myself as a Tech,but in my last job,they wanted to call me an Engineer.

I said:-"Call me a Tech Officer if you want,but I'm not an Engineer,I don't have a Degree".

It didn't matter much until they needed to replace me.

Their ad (for an Engineer),brought in a flood of young Graduates who to be brutal,were useless for the job.
Really nice guys,& smart,but they would be wasting their time,& more to the point,ours!

They put it on the back burner,until I whinged a bit more about retirement,& this time they asked for a Tech/Tech Officer.
We still got a few hopeful EE Graduates,but a lot more people who might actually be able to do the job.

In most of the jobs where we had real Engineers,the boundaries were pretty much blurred as far as the type of work done by Engineers & Techs.
Either or both were at times testing equipment,designing stuff,climbing towers.or acting as an Electrician's offsider.

[EEVblog]

Changing public understanding and perception of the term 'Engineer' is exactly what making it a protected title would aim to achieve.

Because the term engineer is so entrenched across so many areas of expertise, I think the best that can be achieved is if the professional engineering bodies (i.e. IEA, IEEE etc) run awareness campaigns about the title and the benefits of only using someone with the professional accreditation. That's common in Australia with say the Master Builders Association etc and quite a few other industries. i.e. they know they can't stop the "unqualified" people calling themselves builders, but they can at least make people aware. But engineering has little to do with Joe Public, so such campaigns are simply wasted on the masses. And that's obviously one of the reason why the public has ever really cared, compared with a doctor or lawyer etc.
With engineering, it's simply not practical in any way shape or form for any government or other organisation to legislate the use of the term. Ultimately it's up the the companies employing people and the people hiring contract engineers etc to make up their own mind if that level of certification is important to them. Some industries are more controlled than others, either by real or imagined legal concerns.
Like I've said, for Australia, I can't say I've ever seen a single job ad in the last 20 years that has mandated that one must be a member of the IEA. Many ads sets minimum education levels for a role, but IME they are almost always flexible in that regard. But I've heard this varies greatly from country to country.

[AndyC_772]

But engineering has little to do with Joe Public, so such campaigns are simply wasted on the masses. And that's obviously one of the reason why the public has ever really cared, compared with a doctor or lawyer etc.

I think that's where some of the most damaging confusion comes in, though.

If my cable box starts freezing up, my service provider will inevitably offer to send round an "engineer" to look at the problem.

But I don't want an Engineer. I don't need a guy with a scope and a JTAG debugger to come round and spend the next few days performing a full forensic teardown and analysis of my box. It's highly unlikely that the design of the box is the problem.

What I want is a visit from a suitably qualified and experienced Technician - someone who will recognise the symptoms and be able to quickly tell whether the problem is bad blocks on my hard disc, an upstream problem with the service in my area, or water having leaked into the cable itself.

[KJDS]

If "Engineers" want better appreciation from society in general, they'd be better off communicating their achievements than moaning about the actions of others.

By the way, the term lawyer isn't protected in the UK.

[G7PSK]

The Oxford dictionary defines an engineer as "a person who designs,builds or maintains engines machines or structures.
a person qualified in a branch of engineering especially as a professional".

 In the UK the word engineer has become associated to a large extent with grease monkeys which is why when you go to one of the main car franchises all of the mechanics are labeled "technician" in order to create the idea that their service personnel are of a higher grade than your average back street garage.

If degreed "engineers want to set themselves above above the rest they should either become chartered  or put their qualification after their name, ie. Phd. Msc Ba. or what ever this is already protected and quite frankly protecting the word engineer is trying to put the cat back in to the bag 200o years after it was let out.

A Dr.MD becomes plain mister when they become a surgeon A vet is a Dr.Vm. so an electrical engineer is Dr.EE. or whatever. why the fuss about a word that already is in so common a usage that most people think of train drivers car mechanics and TV techs. etc. You can reserve the word but you wopnt change all those years of perception so use your correct qualifications on your cards etc.

You can become a lawyer in the UK by apprenticeship as well as university. 

 
 

[EEVblog]

The Oxford dictionary defines an engineer as "a person who designs,builds or maintains engines machines or structures.
a person qualified in a branch of engineering especially as a professional".

Not that it matter a rats arse (actually it could if it went to court), but for fun, the Australian Macquarie definition of Engineer is:
1. a person professionally qualified in the design, construction, and use of engines or machines.
2. someone who manages a ships engines
3. a member of the armed forces trained in engineering work
4. a skillful manager
5. to plan, construct, or manage as an engineer
6. to arrange, manage, or carry through by skillful or artful contrivance

So in Australia the term could potentially be legally used by anyone who actually does a form of engineering work, qualified or not, based on at least 3 of those definitions.

[jucole]

A few years ago in my non EE day job I was working with a designer from Disney on a project;  and on her business card was the job title "Imagineer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_Imagineering

[madires]

We got a strong protection of titles achieved by education in Germany. It's not just the title it's also the qualification tied to the title for some business areas. For craftsmen for example the are two levels. If you want to become a carpenter first you'll be some kind of trainee for 3 years with 3 days at work and two days in school. Of course there's a final exam. If you pass that you're an assistent carpenter, but may not run you own carpenter's workshop. To run you own workshop you have to become a master carpenter, i.e. more school and exams. There's an exception for assistent carpenters which worked for x years already and they can apply for an exception status to run their own workshop (happens very rarely). That method ensures that woodwork as a business is performed by a qualified carpenter and not anyone who thinks he can do the job. It's the same for electricians, mechanics, butchers and what have you.

The German version of engineer "Ingenieur" is a little bit more complex :-) Until the 1970s one could become an "Ingenieur (grad.)" at a special engineering school. After that we had just the academic title "Dipl.-Ing. (<type of university>)", whith "FH" for an unsiversity of applied sciences or "TH" for a technical university and so on. One could spend some time more at the university and write a theses to become a "Dr.-Ing.". With Bologna that changed into B.Eng and M.Eng (which aren't really a matching replacement). Someone with one of the engineering degrees above may say that he is an "Ingenieur", but nobody else. But with English job titles that protection is circumvented, like sales engineer or network engineer. An assistent carpenter could work as a network engineer and may put that job title on his business card :-)

I think the goal of protecting the title "engineer" in the UK is to mitigate the erosion of it's usage.

[xrunner]

You, also as a critic of religious nutters, should realise that the world and terms shouldn't be defined by elitist holier-than-though snobs either.

Getting a degree from an accredited university, which certifies a level of education in a specific subject, has nothing to do with "elitist holier-than-though snobs". As I've said before, a college education is more than just learning what circuits do and how to program an FPGA. A university educated engineer has a well rounded education that consists of many things - history, art, literature, and other electives. This gives that person much more to leverage in their life than a tinkerer that knows just electronics. You just can't compare the two and expect to be taken seriously.

Like for instance in the marriage equality debate. In many western democratic counties now, society has "evolved" and deemed that gays should have the same equality on the use of the term "marriage". Which I think there may be more similarities with what we are talking about here and you might otherwise realise.

I don't think that has anything whatsoever to do with it. One is an objective standard for an area of education, the other just has to do with whether two people in love can get a license to f*ck each other with benefits.

Why, if for example (and there are countless real world examples), a world class engineering company deems an unqualified or lesser qualified person to hold the title of engineer, who are you to tell them that they aren't fully entitled to use that title?

Who are they to deem themselves qualified to bestow such a title on a person? What are the standards used? Who sets them? What companies can set them? What if one company uses one standard and another uses a lesser standard? You're just using the argument that if a company does something you agree with it's right. What if another company doesn't call the same qualified person an "engineer"? Now you have a dilemma on your hands. Are they or aren't they an engineer? Ah f*ck it - everybody's an engineer if that's what they want to be called! You see the problems with all that I hope. No, I suspect you don't.

You're acting just like the snobs you claim to hate in this thread, so I am assuming you have a degree? Dave - do you have a university degree? Just curious.

Some of this reminds me of the job interview in Woody Allen's Take the Money and Run. Just FF to 7:00



P.S - I'm a doctor today, because, well, I think I'm qualified to be called one.

[G7PSK]

The real reason that there is a campaign to get a legal protection of the term engineer is nothing to do with engineering. It is to do with money or more precisely if you have control over the name and you can only use it if you have joined a society (no doubt at great expense). There are many such types of organisations now I get several mail shots a month about joining one or another, if you join they give you the right to use certain letters and or logo's on your stationary business forms etc, most of these all you have to do is pay up nothing more no qualifications required, some of these clubs allow any one already in that line of work to continue on grandfather rights but any body joining after a certain date would need a qualification very often one handed out by the said organisation on the answer of half a dozen questions the most important one being what is your credit card number.

If you go back to the roots of the word engineer you would have to be the builder of catapults and other war machines and the digger of ditches.   

[free_electron]

I just realised this whole discussion is no sense... As it has been solved long ago.

Here is why

Engineering is a PROFESSION. Somone who has this job is thus an engineer.
Somone who explicitly studied for that field holds an MSEE or a BSEE (or their equivalents for mecahnial, aerospace, whatever) . so there are your academic credentials : those are 'engineering degrees'

If someone applies for a JOB of engineer and is hired, his PROFESSION becomes 'engineer'. So on his business card he can write 'engineer'.

If the employer asks for his credentials one can say
- I have an msee degree
- I have a bsee degree
- My name is steve wozniak, i engineered the apple computer.(or other examples of stuff you actually did. Those are your credentials)

The guy having an msee or bsee can put those titles in front of the word 'engineer' on his business card. He can even leave the word engineer off, as it is redundant.
The guy that works as an engineer but doesnt have the 'ribbon' can't use msee or bsee.

Fair and simple. Problem solved.

Msee and bsee are titles used worldwide.

I would never call myself an msee or bsee as that is not what i AM (i don't have that title. Title as in sir, lord , etc...). I will call myself an engineer though as that is what i DO.