Engineer
Over the last couple of weeks, I have been in touch with a lot of professional computer people. From coders to sysadmins. A common thread that seems to come up is a bit of drama around the title of "Engineer".
Now, before I start this, allow me to explain that I am not trying to be an elitist jerk. I do not want to belittle tech jobs of any sort. In fact, I considered them heavily in my decisions to come back to school. I have plenty of friends who make a decent living off of A+, MSCE, etc. certifications, and that is fine. Also, I have coder friends who also make a decent living (though I could never do their job).
The problem comes up is the "engineer" title in a job description. In recent years, a lot of jobs have had "engineer" stuck on the end of them, and to be honest, the title is bogus. Now, most of my less tactful friends will point only to the college thing. "You didn't work your ass off at engineering school like I did!" Though, the inner forum whiner in me would still point to this argument, it's really not the reason that the title of "engineer" should not be handed out willy-nilly.
According to the IEEE (the board I will have to answer to when I graduate) an engineer is defined as follows:
"The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves the interest of both the IEEE-USA and the public by providing a recognized designation by which those qualified to practice engineering may be identified. The education and experience needed for the title, Engineer, is evidenced by
* Graduation with an Engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering (or equivalent*), coupled with sufficient experience in the field in which the term, Engineer, is used; and/or
* Licensure by any jurisdiction as a Professional Engineer.
* A degree from a foreign institution (or the total education when one person holds a graduate degree in engineering but no accredited B.S. in engineering) can be evaluated through a service offered by ABET."
In the US, the title "engineer" is regulated, kind of. Professional titles such as Professional Engineer (PE), civil or mechanical engineer, are restricted, but you can tack the word "engineer" onto the end of a title without getting into trouble. Since most US engineers do not go through the trouble of becoming PE's (since their job field does not require the extra liability) the standards beyond getting a degree are sort of hazy. In other countries, such as Canada, they won't let you call yourself an engineer without going through a rigorous license process.
But, when the bridge collapses, the power goes out, when your car explodes, who is liable? Do you want a heavily accredited, highly trained specialist designing these systems? Or do you want a guy who took a correspondence course designing them? In engineering disasters, it isn't just build companies or corporate executives that end up before the judge. The PE's who signed off on the drawings are called in and face the same heat.
Those who call themselves engineers without actually being them do not have to answer to ethics rules or really be liable for the product once it leaves their desk. They most likely won't face legal heat or have their credentials taken away. It is that distinction that I believe sets us apart. Of course, when you really look at it, only a small percentage of engineers actually end up in positions where that distinction is actually relevant, but we are trained in school to be ABLE to take up that mantle, even if we choose not to.
~Locke
Now, before I start this, allow me to explain that I am not trying to be an elitist jerk. I do not want to belittle tech jobs of any sort. In fact, I considered them heavily in my decisions to come back to school. I have plenty of friends who make a decent living off of A+, MSCE, etc. certifications, and that is fine. Also, I have coder friends who also make a decent living (though I could never do their job).
The problem comes up is the "engineer" title in a job description. In recent years, a lot of jobs have had "engineer" stuck on the end of them, and to be honest, the title is bogus. Now, most of my less tactful friends will point only to the college thing. "You didn't work your ass off at engineering school like I did!" Though, the inner forum whiner in me would still point to this argument, it's really not the reason that the title of "engineer" should not be handed out willy-nilly.
According to the IEEE (the board I will have to answer to when I graduate) an engineer is defined as follows:
"The title, Engineer, and its derivatives should be reserved for those individuals whose education and experience qualify them to practice in a manner that protects public safety. Strict use of the title serves the interest of both the IEEE-USA and the public by providing a recognized designation by which those qualified to practice engineering may be identified. The education and experience needed for the title, Engineer, is evidenced by
* Graduation with an Engineering degree from an ABET/EAC accredited program of engineering (or equivalent*), coupled with sufficient experience in the field in which the term, Engineer, is used; and/or
* Licensure by any jurisdiction as a Professional Engineer.
* A degree from a foreign institution (or the total education when one person holds a graduate degree in engineering but no accredited B.S. in engineering) can be evaluated through a service offered by ABET."
In the US, the title "engineer" is regulated, kind of. Professional titles such as Professional Engineer (PE), civil or mechanical engineer, are restricted, but you can tack the word "engineer" onto the end of a title without getting into trouble. Since most US engineers do not go through the trouble of becoming PE's (since their job field does not require the extra liability) the standards beyond getting a degree are sort of hazy. In other countries, such as Canada, they won't let you call yourself an engineer without going through a rigorous license process.
But, when the bridge collapses, the power goes out, when your car explodes, who is liable? Do you want a heavily accredited, highly trained specialist designing these systems? Or do you want a guy who took a correspondence course designing them? In engineering disasters, it isn't just build companies or corporate executives that end up before the judge. The PE's who signed off on the drawings are called in and face the same heat.
Those who call themselves engineers without actually being them do not have to answer to ethics rules or really be liable for the product once it leaves their desk. They most likely won't face legal heat or have their credentials taken away. It is that distinction that I believe sets us apart. Of course, when you really look at it, only a small percentage of engineers actually end up in positions where that distinction is actually relevant, but we are trained in school to be ABLE to take up that mantle, even if we choose not to.
~Locke