US state trying to control who can call themselves an engineer. Again..

[tggzzz]

The degree thing is a great hiring screen when you have far more candidates than positions to fill.  Cuts the management workload to an acceptable level.  But only has good correlation to performance, not perfect.  One of my best hires had a degree in abstract mathematics.  But had work experience analyzing acoustic data for petroleum geologists and very strong recommendations from both that employer and his professors.  Turned out to be a superstar systems engineer and assembly coder.   And have worked with three non-degreed engineers that did fine.  Two were among the best around and the other was well above average.   So there are four great opportunities that wouldn't get through the front door of an outfit that did degree screening.   

At one of the zany and excellent places I worked, a group of us once got together in the pub after work. We mused whether, if we had been on the interview panel, we would have employed a couple of the engineers around the place. They were seriously innovative and excellent and pleasant enough, but also odd. We liked to think we would have have hired them, but we weren't sure.

There are ways around these problems.  Apprenticeships, conditional or temporary employment and other similar try before you buy approaches.  But in many corporate environments there is no way to fund these things.

Here that is because of job mobility. Employers don't want to train staff from school because then another company will snap them up. Doesn't seem to occur to them that offering a good job and a good wage would often be sufficient to keep staff.

Another problem here is that there used to be universities and polytechnics, but 30 years ago polytechnics rebranded as universities. Universities were principally academic, polytechnics were biassed towards the practical "vocational" skills. That was excellent, because different people need different kinds of tuition for different purposes.

I've never heard a justifiable reason for the rebranding. I suspect academic envy/jealousy was a significant part of it.

[IanB]

There are ways around these problems.  Apprenticeships, conditional or temporary employment and other similar try before you buy approaches.  But in many corporate environments there is no way to fund these things.

One thing we successfully do is run an annual competition for university students where they are given a project specification and a set of goals to accomplish using our software. The winner gets the opportunity of an internship with us and often that internship has turned into a full-time hire. We've gained some very good people that way.

This obviously is for new hires at the start of their career. Hiring experienced people for us (at least in the product team I'm part of) can be a challenge. The applicant pool is too small, and it can be really hard to find candidates with the specialized experience and expertise we might be looking for.

[thm_w]

When starting your education, you swear one local variation of the Engineering Oath, similar to the Hippocratic Oath. It's been going on on my university for the past ~300 years. It's a subtle difference.
One of the biggest learning experience as an engineer is understanding that you don't know jack shit about most things. And consequently, you don't accept jobs that you don't know jack shit about.

So then charge $5 to take an oath. Its not what these agencies want, and it won't make much difference either way anyway.

The biggest issue with people without formal education is that they accept jobs/tasks that they don't understand enough, and they don't say "I'm not qualified to do this".

But this isn't (primarily) about formal education, its about a protected title *beyond* that formal education. Do you have the equivalent of PE in your country?

The analogy is valid, and uses a neutral arena to highlight the differences.

Its not a valid analogy as nurse is and should be a protected class, technician you say yourself should not be.
Engineer should be the same as Accountant, and then if you want CPA/ACCA/etc on top of that, you get certified for that.

This is why certifications exist (UL, CSA, FCC, etc.), use those to qualify the safety of products instead of titles.

Such certificates are frequently no more than self-declarations by people who may or may not be sufficiently expert.

Incorrect, CSA and UL are not self declarations. You are thinking of CE.
https://www.tuvsud.com/en-us/services/testing/product-safety
https://code-authorities.ul.com/about/code-authority-faqs/

Merely having a specific education should be insufficient. Demonstrable performance out in the real world is also necessary. That's what "Chartered Engineer" requires.

Exactly, keep your chartered engineer title as protected, leave "engineer" for the rest of us to use.

[Psi]

Yes, I have no issue with adding a word in front of engineer and protecting it as a whole. That's totally fine.
Chartered Engineer / Registered Engineer  / Certified Engineer (depending on country).

[tggzzz]

The analogy is valid, and uses a neutral arena to highlight the differences.

Its not a valid analogy as nurse is and should be a protected class, technician you say yourself should not be.

Please indicate where I have said that.

Engineer should be the same as Accountant, and then if you want CPA/ACCA/etc on top of that, you get certified for that.

Engineer should be as protected a title as doctor.

Chartered engineer is protected to some extent, but not as strongly as architect.

[Psi]

If the word engineer becomes protected you then have to decide who, currently working in the industry, loses their right to use it. Do they need a University engineering degree, what about polytech or technical school engineering degree, etc..
Whatever rules you use you instantly lock a percentage of the market out of their current jobs based on the degree they got 30 years ago. Most of them will be doing legitimate engineers work. A percentage of them will be more knowledgeable due to age/experience than others who can use the word .
It just becomes a clusterf#@k when you try to change the meaning of a word after the fact.

Unless you change the word only for people born after X date, but that is just silly.

[tggzzz]

If the word engineer becomes protected you then have to decide who, currently working in the industry, loses their right to use it. Do they need a University engineering degree, what about polytech or technical school engineering degree, etc..
Whatever rules you use you instantly lock a percentage of the market out of their current jobs based on the degree they got 30 years ago. Most of them will be doing legitimate engineers work. A percentage of them will be more knowledgeable and skilled than people who can use the word due to age/experience.
It just becomes a clusterf#@k when you try to change the meaning of a word after the fact.

Unless you change the word only for people born after X date, but that is just silly.

There's some validity in that, but it has happened in the distant past.

Grandfather clauses are a common technique with such issues.

More importantly, the precise title doesn't matter, what matters is the association between the title and characteristics required for activities. "Chartered Engineer" would be a reasonable alternative title.

[thm_w]

Its not a valid analogy as nurse is and should be a protected class, technician you say yourself should not be.

Please indicate where I have said that.

Its implied, you said "non-engineer" = technician. Are you saying now then that "technician" as well needs to be a protected title? And you must register and pay fees to maintain that title?

Engineer should be the same as Accountant, and then if you want CPA/ACCA/etc on top of that, you get certified for that.

Engineer should be as protected a title as doctor.

Chartered engineer is protected to some extent, but not as strongly as architect.

What percent of Doctors will never directly affect a patients health? Less than 5%? Maybe even 0%.
What percent of engineers will never directly affect or be in control of anyones health, 90%? 95%?

Its odd to equate the two, just because "well something could go wrong". Its true of almost any profession.
and again, the certifications are there to prove product safety where relevant, I don't want a title to trump actual safety certification and testing.

IEEEs take is at least somewhat reasonable: https://ieeeusa.org/assets/public-policy/positions/workforce/EngineerTitle1122.pdf

Generally, the public interprets the term, “Engineer,” more broadly than is represented by the protected titles. The public uses the term, “Engineer,” to mean a person who has acquired special knowledge and ability in the use of mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, and the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design.

[Analog Kid]

"Chartered Engineer" would be a reasonable alternative title.

Just for the sake of clarity, I don't think that title exists in the U.S.

We have licensed (and bonded) engineers; would that be the equivalent?

[thm_w]

"Chartered Engineer" would be a reasonable alternative title.

Just for the sake of clarity, I don't think that title exists in the U.S.

We have licensed (and bonded) engineers; would that be the equivalent?

Professional engineer in USA (aka licensed), is probably closer to UK Incorporated Engineer (IEng), bachelors level.
Chartered engineer is a step above, requiring Masters degree levels, with some workarounds.
Same idea though yes.

[free_electron]

Engineering is typically field specific. you can't use a civil engineer specialized in building bridges to design an integrated circuit... so this will need waaaay more tweaking and subclassing.

What about positions like "Staff Engineer" ? or Application Engineer ?
What about equivalence (every 4 years on-the job counts towards 1 year academic)

There's a difference between an "honorary title" and a "function title". You can regulate the honorary one. The functional ? more difficult.
One does not always preclude and/or require the other, but it may.

In europe the honorary title (signifying you completed an academic course) is typically made by putting Ir on Ing before ones name ( just like Phd or Dr)
But even without that honorary title you can be employed in an engineering function and this have a function title "engineer" but you can't use Ir or Ing.

[tggzzz]

Its not a valid analogy as nurse is and should be a protected class, technician you say yourself should not be.

Please indicate where I have said that.

Its implied, you said "non-engineer" = technician. Are you saying now then that "technician" as well needs to be a protected title? And you must register and pay fees to maintain that title?

And there you have correctly identified your mistake.

Where technicians can get things badly wrong (e.g. electric wiring installations), there is already a  range of mandatory certifications. And that's the way it should be. (There are also escape clauses for situations which ought not imperil people and property)

Engineer should be the same as Accountant, and then if you want CPA/ACCA/etc on top of that, you get certified for that.

Engineer should be as protected a title as doctor.

Chartered engineer is protected to some extent, but not as strongly as architect.

What percent of Doctors will never directly affect a patients health? Less than 5%? Maybe even 0%.
What percent of engineers will never directly affect or be in control of anyones health, 90%? 95%?

Change "health" to "well being", consider all forms of life-changing events (e.g. financial ruin, imprisonment), and your argument collapses. If you doubt cases, you haven't been paying attention to risks in general, and previous events in the UK in particular.

Its odd to equate the two, just because "well something could go wrong". Its true of almost any profession.
and again, the certifications are there to prove product safety where relevant, I don't want a title to trump actual safety certification and testing.

There are many products on the market that are dangerous or offer dangerous advice.

Generally, the public interprets the term, “Engineer,” more broadly than is represented by the protected titles. The public uses the term, “Engineer,” to mean a person who has acquired special knowledge and ability in the use of mathematical, physical and engineering sciences, and the principles and methods of engineering analysis and design.

Maybe in your country.

Here engineer is the term for somebody who mends your motorbike, installs thermal lagging or telephones, or services your boiler. Very different, very unhelpful, very misleading.

[soldar]

The British Post Office scandal was made 1000x worse by a lack of any proper police/government investigation into the complaints.
It was a management failure and government failure way more than a software failure.

I would argue that forcing them to only hire registered/qualified software engineers is trying to solve the problem zoomed in way to far on the trigger of the issue instead of why the bug caused such a huge problem for so long. Had it been solved rapidly the software bug wouldn't have caused much of an issue at all.

There should be a government department that investigates and prosecutes companies who have issues and don't fix them, or only fixes the issue on a case by case basis.  When a company has an ongoing issue that they could fix but don't the legal liability should fall on directors/upper management personally i.e. it should pierce the corporate veil.  There too much of an incentive to not fix issues when the harm only effects others and not the company itself.  So having this sort of failure pierce the corporate veil makes sense.

I totally agree that

The British Post Office scandal was made 1000x worse by a lack of any proper police/government investigation into the complaints.
It was a management failure and government failure way more than a software failure.

Totally.

[tggzzz]

The British Post Office scandal was made 1000x worse by a lack of any proper police/government investigation into the complaints.
It was a management failure and government failure way more than a software failure.

I would argue that forcing them to only hire registered/qualified software engineers is trying to solve the problem zoomed in way to far on the trigger of the issue instead of why the bug caused such a huge problem for so long. Had it been solved rapidly the software bug wouldn't have caused much of an issue at all.

There should be a government department that investigates and prosecutes companies who have issues and don't fix them, or only fixes the issue on a case by case basis.  When a company has an ongoing issue that they could fix but don't the legal liability should fall on directors/upper management personally i.e. it should pierce the corporate veil.  There too much of an incentive to not fix issues when the harm only effects others and not the company itself.  So having this sort of failure pierce the corporate veil makes sense.

I totally agree that

The British Post Office scandal was made 1000x worse by a lack of any proper police/government investigation into the complaints.
It was a management failure and government failure way more than a software failure.

Totally.

Yes, that is clearly correct.

However the root cause was a grossly deficient architecture, possibly resulting from a deficient specification. When a civil engineer or architect is presented with a deficient/dangerous specification, they are supposed to notice that, inform the client, and not build something dangerous. The system should have been an accountancy-style ledger where each entry is write-only and cannot be changed. When, not if, mistakes have to be rectified, the original entry is left untouched and a new "counter entry" is entered into the ledger. (No doubt you have occasionally seen such things in your own bank/savings/credit card/etc statements.) However the system implemented was a database-style system, where entries could be changed in ways that were not immediately visible.

Should the engineer be expected to spot deficient specifications and architectures. Yes, and they should refuse to work on them. I have done just that on a couple of occasions, by recommending a "no bid" response.

Should that be part of the curriculum? Yes, IMHO. Professor Eric Laithwaite at Imperial College used to set exams where one question was easy and sufficient get you a pass mark, one was more challenging and could get you a good degree, and one could not be answered adequately in the time available. He expected his undergraduate engineers to be able to determine which questions to avoid. If they couldn't, they wouldn't make good engineers anyway. I doubt he would be allowed to do that now, more's the pity..

[soldar]

Yes, that is clearly correct.

However the root cause was a grossly deficient architecture, possibly resulting from a deficient specification. When a civil engineer or architect is presented with a deficient/dangerous specification, they are supposed to notice that, inform the client, and not build something dangerous. The system should have been an accountancy-style ledger where each entry is write-only and cannot be changed. When, not if, mistakes have to be rectified, the original entry is left untouched and a new "counter entry" is entered into the ledger. (No doubt you have occasionally seen such things in your own bank/savings/credit card/etc statements.) However the system implemented was a database-style system, where entries could be changed in ways that were not immediately visible.

Should the engineer be expected to spot deficient specifications and architectures. Yes, and they should refuse to work on them. I have done just that on a couple of occasions, by recommending a "no bid" response.

Should that be part of the curriculum? Yes, IMHO. Professor Eric Laithwaite at Imperial College used to set exams where one question was easy and sufficient get you a pass mark, one was more challenging and could get you a good degree, and one could not be answered adequately in the time available. He expected his undergraduate engineers to be able to determine which questions to avoid. If they couldn't, they wouldn't make good engineers anyway. I doubt he would be allowed to do that now, more's the pity..

Has it been shown that lack of credentials of the engineers in Fujitsu and in the PO was the root cause?

Because I do not think it was shown and, in any case, I do not think it would have made a whole lot of difference.

[tggzzz]

Yes, that is clearly correct.

However the root cause was a grossly deficient architecture, possibly resulting from a deficient specification. When a civil engineer or architect is presented with a deficient/dangerous specification, they are supposed to notice that, inform the client, and not build something dangerous. The system should have been an accountancy-style ledger where each entry is write-only and cannot be changed. When, not if, mistakes have to be rectified, the original entry is left untouched and a new "counter entry" is entered into the ledger. (No doubt you have occasionally seen such things in your own bank/savings/credit card/etc statements.) However the system implemented was a database-style system, where entries could be changed in ways that were not immediately visible.

Should the engineer be expected to spot deficient specifications and architectures. Yes, and they should refuse to work on them. I have done just that on a couple of occasions, by recommending a "no bid" response.

Should that be part of the curriculum? Yes, IMHO. Professor Eric Laithwaite at Imperial College used to set exams where one question was easy and sufficient get you a pass mark, one was more challenging and could get you a good degree, and one could not be answered adequately in the time available. He expected his undergraduate engineers to be able to determine which questions to avoid. If they couldn't, they wouldn't make good engineers anyway. I doubt he would be allowed to do that now, more's the pity..

Has it been shown that lack of credentials of the engineers in Fujitsu and in the PO was the root cause?

Because I do not think it was shown and, in any case, I do not think it would have made a whole lot of difference.

A reasonable question. I don't know.

However in the UK there is a traditional disregard of engineering expertise, with engineers being equated to grease monkeys that put lagging on pipes and install telephones. I'm going to show naked prejudices here, but that's partly due to gross ignorance and partly due to the class structure with its associated attitudes.

To turn the contrast up to make the point, engineers are regarded as inferior, and the aristocracy is regarded as superior. Good breeding (as with horses and cattle) is regarded as more important than knowledge and skill.

CP Snow's "The Two Cultures" is as true now as it was in 1959.

[iMo]

My former colleagues from US and UK told me (I got it many times actually) that "..in the US you may call yourself as you wish and nobody cares..", and in the UK "..an engineer refers to a man driving a steam locomotive..". 
Hopefully I remember that correctly.. 

[tggzzz]

My former colleagues from US and UK told me (I got it many times actually) that "..in the US you may call yourself as you wish and nobody cares..", and in the UK "..an engineer refers to a man driving a steam locomotive..". 
Hopefully I remember that correctly.. 

I think you have swapped the two countries, but I may be mistaken.

Neither way is good.

[m k]

Locally we used to have a clear hierarchy.
Practical side was mechanic->technician->engineer, theoretical side still is candidate->master->doctor.
Engineer and master are sort of a pair, medical is an exception, only two levels there, doctor or not, 'not' is a candidate with master level education.
For doctorate you need a dissertation, except a medical doctor who is doctor, after dissertation a doctor of medical science.
Doctor thing is simple because we have a different word for it.

Now practical side has combined technician and engineer and quality is closer to lower part, skill set is also narrower.
But it's still an education level with a title.

Title used to be important, now it's not even a guarantee of education.

[soldar]

A reasonable question. I don't know.

However in the UK there is a traditional disregard of engineering expertise, with engineers being equated to grease monkeys that put lagging on pipes and install telephones. I'm going to show naked prejudices here, but that's partly due to gross ignorance and partly due to the class structure with its associated attitudes.

To turn the contrast up to make the point, engineers are regarded as inferior, and the aristocracy is regarded as superior. Good breeding (as with horses and cattle) is regarded as more important than knowledge and skill.

CP Snow's "The Two Cultures" is as true now as it was in 1959.

I know exactly what you mean and I think it is very true ... up to a point  and the opposite is also true.

I agree about the class structure but I think it is not a universal thing but rather a few "high class" people thinking they are better ... while others really don't care much about them.

At the same time, and for centuries now, UK was pioneering the modern world with the industrial revolution. And specially the Scots.

So UK was a very open culture for developing and investing in new technologies. The landed gentry were gently left by the side while the great new companies were the ones making lots of money. And having lots of money makes anyone respectable in any culture. Money is the universal language.

All in all I think UK values science and engineering quite a bit more than most countries.

And the whole class thing, well, that's another topic altogether but I would dare say it has it's good things and its advantages and I don't think it really has a negative effect on science and engineering.

[tggzzz]

A reasonable question. I don't know.

However in the UK there is a traditional disregard of engineering expertise, with engineers being equated to grease monkeys that put lagging on pipes and install telephones. I'm going to show naked prejudices here, but that's partly due to gross ignorance and partly due to the class structure with its associated attitudes.

To turn the contrast up to make the point, engineers are regarded as inferior, and the aristocracy is regarded as superior. Good breeding (as with horses and cattle) is regarded as more important than knowledge and skill.

CP Snow's "The Two Cultures" is as true now as it was in 1959.

I know exactly what you mean and I think it is very true ... up to a point  and the opposite is also true.

I agree about the class structure but I think it is not a universal thing but rather a few "high class" people thinking they are better ... while others really don't care much about them.

At the same time, and for centuries now, UK was pioneering the modern world with the industrial revolution. And specially the Scots.

So UK was a very open culture for developing and investing in new technologies. The landed gentry were gently left by the side while the great new companies were the ones making lots of money. And having lots of money makes anyone respectable in any culture. Money is the universal language.

All in all I think UK values science and engineering quite a bit more than most countries.

And the whole class thing, well, that's another topic altogether but I would dare say it has it's good things and its advantages and I don't think it really has a negative effect on science and engineering.

We more or less agree.

In my experience the extremely competent/intelligent people, the people who have been "blue-blooded" or extremely rich for many generations are all easy to deal with pleasant people. They know their characteristics, are comfortable with them, and don't feel the need to flaunt what themselves in front of others. Contrariwise, those who have recently gained wealth or position (i.e. the "nouveau riche" / new money) are often unpleasant people who like to flaunt their wealth/position, often by denigrating other people.

As for a culture valuing engineering, that varies over time. I've long been looking for some solid theory to explain that; the best I've found is from Thomas Piketty. His thesis is widely respected and lauded. He concentrates on the significance of the proportion of wealth in a society gained by:

• doing things, e.g. working or creating or building
• owning things, e.g. renting houses, land, lending your money

His widely-respected thesis, backed by exhaustive analysis of many countries since the industrial revolution, is that money tends to gravitate to those that already have money. While people believe they can become richer by working, a country is stable. When they no longer believe that (because too much money is in the hands of too few people and they abuse that), then the country becomes unstable and revolutions occur.
https://theconversation.com/is-inequality-a-natural-phenomenon-thomas-piketty-argues-it-isnt-and-proposes-a-way-forward-240325

In the UK "doing things" was dominant in the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century. Since then "owning things" has become dominant", and engineering has suffered.

[SiliconWizard]

I think the "doing vs. owning" paradigm explains pretty well how human societies operate.

What seems almost inevitable is the fact people gaining wealth through doing eventually switch to the "owning" mode due to their wealth having reached a level enough for that. It's like the path of least resistance. What follows is that whatever a society is composed of, it always tends to the wealth getting concentrated in a few owning hands.

Things can turn around when some kind of "revolution" happens, but then the cycle will just repeat.

[tggzzz]

I think the "doing vs. owning" paradigm explains pretty well how human societies operate.

What seems almost inevitable is the fact people gaining wealth through doing eventually switch to the "owning" mode due to their wealth having reached a level enough for that. It's like the path of least resistance. What follows is that whatever a society is composed of, it always tends to the wealth getting concentrated in a few owning hands.

Things can turn around when some kind of "revolution" happens, but then the cycle will just repeat.

Yup.

Most usefully, Piketty goes beyond that and indicates conditions that have "caused" and "cured" revolutions - and almost certainly will again.

[coppercone2]

to me its pretty clear, if you own too much, you start to rent (on Piketty)

will this title require a subscription service for renewals?

and eventually a professional service falls into the hands of a buffoon bureaucrat which makes the titles it grants worthless. slum lord characteristics

"their professionals, they can afford to pay me"

and you can never bust them for it, they just say they are accumulating for some 'incidental' or future event that will require a vast sum of money to beat and that things are completely reasonable, when you notice the intense wealth.  "war chest". Yeah its all gonna get liquidated one day to help you out. The 'reserve' that is horded will be do hard to access and un-liquid during this theoretical event (which is probobly made up anyway) that things will be over before the accountants figure out how to even sell it even if they don't flee to switzerland or musk biosphere 3 

[soldar]

I think the "doing vs. owning" paradigm explains pretty well how human societies operate.

What seems almost inevitable is the fact people gaining wealth through doing eventually switch to the "owning" mode due to their wealth having reached a level enough for that. It's like the path of least resistance. What follows is that whatever a society is composed of, it always tends to the wealth getting concentrated in a few owning hands.

Things can turn around when some kind of "revolution" happens, but then the cycle will just repeat.

Well, that is one purpose of property taxes, and the principal one IMHO. It does not matter how much you own, if the state taxes property at 2.5% then in 40 years it's taken it all. So If you have property and want to keep it then you better make sure it is earning you more than what you pay in taxes and that way the property is generating wealth and economic activity.

There are many rich families who in few generations lost it all and there are many people who started out from nothing and became rich.

It is easy to say I would be rich if only my father had been rich but I do not think this is entirely true. You just have to see how many people win the lottery and a few short years later are back to nothing.

There are people who own some real estate properties and live off the rentals they collect and many others are jealous and think it is unfair but the truth is that managing rental properties is a full time job and that anyone who inherits a few rental properties and does not manage them correctly will soon be not the owner of a few rental properties.

On the other hand western European countries (generalizing much here) do have a serious problem with inequality getting worse. It is a complex problem and not solved by just saying "give them more".

The world is becoming more and more complex. A laborer with no training who could earn a living doing basic physical work, say, unloading lorries, today there is no place for such people because unloading lorries requires training, how to use a forklift, a license to use forklifts. a course and a license to handle foodstuffs with a forklift, etc.

Also we have become more complacent and less hard working. There has been a deep cultural change. From promises like "blood, tears, toil and sweat" we have gone to "Netflix, travel in Asia, Tik tok and Aliexpress".  We are not the same culture any more.

If today someone ordered the light brigade to charge most would start asking questions, why? , are you sure? , Why not the heavy brigade? , Can't we wait until after breakfast? , OK then, you go ahead and I'll catch up later, etc.

As Mr Dylan said, the times, they have changed.