# Another Reason to Protect the "Engineer" Title



## IlPadrino (Aug 9, 2009)

I usually find Guy Kawasaki an interesting blogger, and I was surprised to see a recent entry called The World's Greatest Collection of Lies:



> To get lies, go here:
> Entrepreneurs
> 
> Engineers
> ...


Just another case of them software developers giving us Real Engineers a bad rap!


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 9, 2009)

> As a rule of thumb, all projects have at least 1,000 bugs. If your engineer tells you anything less, he's either lying or clueless. Incidentally, a liar is preferable.


^ Outstanding quote!


----------



## Dleg (Aug 9, 2009)

Yeah, that is irritating. There is a HUGE difference between software "engineers" and Real Engineers, especially in terms of those "lies" he lists.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 10, 2009)

Mmeh! It really doesn't matter does it? There will always be deuschebags like this Kawasaki yutz who hold similar viewpoints on [insert branch of] engineering, no matter what. Too, these viewpoints are very frequently held among the varied professional groups / branches as well. Here, some of you are dogpiling on with this Kawasaki dipwad (as if he speaks the gospel truth about computer engineers); in so doing disdaining these 'engineers' or whatever they are, while seemingly asserting that you (your branch or whatever) represents so-called "Real Engineering". Certainly not to quibble about whether a P.E. alone signifies what "real engineering" is or isn't, or whether computer / software engineers are real engineers. . .just saying for a given sampling of (e.g.) licensed civil engineers, there will be various clients, reviewers &amp; developers, municipal officials, surveyors, architects, etc that would hold a similar stance towards civil eng's as this Kawasaki dork does for comp eng's. I don't assume the vast realm of computer engineering is somehow dragging down the "engineer" title anyways - it gets dragged down equally well (licensed, exempted, or otherwise) by the public &amp; industry, just as doctors, lawyers, &amp; clergy do too.


----------



## -=John=- (Aug 12, 2009)

I don't think it's really fair to call traditional engineering "real" engineering. I definitely think that there is a tendancy to misuse the word "engineer" but software engineers are still applying logic/scientific knowledge in a practical sense to solve a problem. So in my view they are 'real' engineers. Anyway, that list is just silly, it sounds like the ramblings of a frustrated manager who doesn't really know how to properly manage software projects (or possibly any projects at all).

Then again I haven't even graduated yet so what do I know


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 12, 2009)

Dleg said:


> Yeah, that is irritating. There is a HUGE difference between software "engineers" and Real Engineers, especially in terms of those "lies" he lists.


QFT.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 12, 2009)

-=John=- said:


> So in my view they are 'real' engineers.


If they're not licensed by the state board, they aren't Engineers (real or imaginary). Software developers aren't Engineers.


----------



## Supe (Aug 12, 2009)

IlPadrino said:


> If they're not licensed by the state board, they aren't Engineers (real or imaginary). Software developers aren't Engineers.



No. If they're not licensed by the state board, they aren't PROFESSIONAL Engineers.


----------



## Sschell (Aug 12, 2009)

IlPadrino said:


> Software developers aren't Engineers.


:appl:


----------



## kevo_55 (Aug 12, 2009)

Supe said:


> No. If they're not licensed by the state board, they aren't PROFESSIONAL Engineers.


In many states, if you call yourself a professional engineer it means the same thing as calling yourself an engineer. They are interchangeable.

Take a look at this: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=ocamodulechunk...r&amp;csid=Eoca


----------



## McEngr (Aug 12, 2009)

kevo is right. If you look at your state government website, there is usually a reference to the engineering board's website. On that website, you'll discover that almost every state has a clause at the very beginning in regards to "definitions". An engineer is only an engineer as the government defines it. There you have it. If you call yourself an engineer, and you aren't, you can be fined in many cases. Kawasaki and many from the software development world, don't even know this exists thereby they diminish their profession.

This kawasaki guy does not know the "other" engineering professions that well, if at all.


----------



## Supe (Aug 12, 2009)

Right, but in some states, it's perfectly acceptable to do so without being licensed, so we can't exactly cover it all with a blanket statement.


----------



## Sschell (Aug 12, 2009)

^at the same time many (all?) states have a manufacturing exception which allows non-licensed to practice engineering and call them selves engineers if they work for a manufacturing company.


----------



## McEngr (Aug 12, 2009)

Supe said:


> Right, but in some states, it's perfectly acceptable to do so without being licensed, so we can't exactly cover it all with a blanket statement.


Name a state. It is rare, if nonexistent, to find one that doesn't have this definition. Do you rely on your neighbor to stamp the construction documents for the bridge that you cross to get to work every day? It's a public safety issue for most, and should be for all. I personally believe that they should better define one or the other. It isn't just an arrogance, it's a matter of public safety.

Why not call them computer scientists instead of computer engineer? Although they are performing engineering, it doesn't prove that they are qualified to do it in the sense that the government defines it.


----------



## Supe (Aug 12, 2009)

McEngr said:


> Name a state. It is rare, if nonexistent, to find one that doesn't have this definition. Do you rely on your neighbor to stamp the construction documents for the bridge that you cross to get to work every day? It's a public safety issue for most, and should be for all. I personally believe that they should better define one or the other. It isn't just an arrogance, it's a matter of public safety.
> Why not call them computer scientists instead of computer engineer? Although they are performing engineering, it doesn't prove that they are qualified to do it in the sense that the government defines it.



What SSchell said above. There are a number of exempt areas from licensure. I don't have a PE, or even taken the EIT, yet even in TX, one of the more stringent states, I could call myself a welding engineer if I saw fit being that I was directly supervised by a PE, and was only offering my services internally within a company, not to the public. Even my placard here says Welding Engineer, and my job description says Construction Engineer. Again, all my services are internally within a company, not being offered to the public. I'm not even doing any design work. As long as the work I do to ensure that the work here on this job site goes towards the completion of drawings which HAVE been approved by a PE, I'm in the clear, assuming that I don't try to represent myself as a PE to the public.

Believe me, it's not that I disagree with you, but there are a LOT of people with "Engineer" in their title who won't be seeing any jail time or lawsuits.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Aug 12, 2009)

McEngr said:


> Why not call them computer scientists instead of computer engineer?


That's what they called it when I was in college.


----------



## Dexman1349 (Aug 12, 2009)

Supe said:


> Believe me, it's not that I disagree with you, but there are a LOT of people with "Engineer" in their title who won't be seeing any jail time or lawsuits.


I think it boils down to the definition of "title." The TITLE of engineer varies from company to company, state to state, and even country to country. The PROFESSION of engineering is, I think, what the actual discussion is about. This is where I agree with the state laws regulating the PROFESSION of engineering and not the TITLE of engineering.

IMO, titles are worthless. They are simply words/letters/numbers assigned to individuals so they can feel better about their place in life and/or at work. I think they are worthless because they can be self-appointed ("I hereby appoint myself MASTER SLACKER"), or they can be modified to encourage people to apply for the job (Janitorial Engineer, Custodial Engineer, etc). Unfortunately, because so many people have assigned themselves or co-workers/employees with the TITLE of engineer, that the concept of the PROFESSION has been publicly skewed and consequently ambiguous.

I agree that we, as professional engineers (or working on becoming PS's), should work on educating our friends and family what is the difference between the TITLE and the PROFESSION so that these idiots can be publically called out as incompetent. By no means do I think this is something that big brother the government should regulate.


----------



## Sschell (Aug 12, 2009)

^ dexman = master slacker?

can someone regulate all the aliases on this website? I am getting confused!


----------



## Dexman1349 (Aug 12, 2009)

sschell_PE said:


> dexman = masterslacker?


I'm a "Slacking Engineer"


----------



## wilheldp_PE (Aug 12, 2009)

McEngr said:


> Why not call them computer scientists instead of computer engineer?


I would just like to point out the the PE exam has a section for Electrical and COMPUTER Engineering. So it is possible to be a licensed professional engineer in computer engineering. The same cannot be said for Software Engineering, although I hear they're working on it.


----------



## chaosiscash (Aug 12, 2009)

Discipline seems to have a lot to do with how this is viewed. It seems to me (and I'm no expert) that the civil and structural folks are the ones that have the biggest issues with the "you're not an engineer unless you're a PE" stuff. I would bet that mostly has to do with that in those fields, there are not a lot of career options that don't involve design for the public. Other disciplines (electrical, mech, welding, etc) are a lot more comfortable with stuff like industrial exemption because we realize that a large percentage of our colleagues work in industries that don't require licensure, and I know I for one don't believe that makes them any less of an engineer.

There is a reason when you sit for the PE that the vast majority of the folks in the room are civil. For a lot of the rest of the disciplines, the PE doesn't buy a whole lot unless you're in certain fields, such as building design. For you civil folks, there doesn't seem to be a lot of opportunities for advancement without the PE.


----------



## Sschell (Aug 12, 2009)

^ this is true... I have had my stamp for 2 years and it has not been inked yet.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 12, 2009)

Supe said:


> Right, but in some states, it's perfectly acceptable to do so without being licensed, so we can't exactly cover it all with a blanket statement.


Sure... but they aren't Real Engineers. They're posers.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 14, 2009)

^ :huh:

I'm sorry but is



> Real Engineers


 some kind of inside joke or something :dunno: ?



sschell_PE said:


> ^ this is true... I have had my stamp for 2 years and it has not been inked yet.


not even for christmas cards?


----------



## McEngr (Aug 14, 2009)

I think as long as those that disagree on this understand that it's required for those involved in public service, then we're ok. We all have performed engineering, even in our own heads without anyone knowing, but that doesn't make us an engineer by _title_.

If you believe Decartes' philosophy of "I think &lt;engineering&gt;, therefore I am &lt;engineering&gt;", then go ahead and believe it. No one's stopping you.

I don't mean to sound arrogant here. I think a congratulations is in order for those that are PEs, and those that don't have to go through the difficulty may never know the reward. There is a reward with the responsibility... and it's not just money.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 14, 2009)

^ Well said.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 14, 2009)

error_matrix said:


> I'm sorry but is some kind of inside joke or something :dunno: ?


No joke... It's just that you're not a Real Engineer if you're not licensed. You might have an engineering degree. You might be an Engineer Intern if you've passed the FE. But you're not a Real Engineer.

No different than with Real Doctors. Just because you've taken some first aid courses (maybe even gone to medical school), you're not a Doctor until you're licensed to practice medicine. Now, there are those that will call themselves a Doctor because they hold a doctorate degree... but if they do it in any sort of clinical setting, they're in trouble!

Same with attorneys, nurses, and all sorts of other professionals.


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 15, 2009)

Ok was curious was all, thought i was missing out on the chuckle. your use of the term "Real" (esp w/ TM symbol) was/is confusing.

My state's occupational code act is (thankfully) vacant of any 'trademarked definitions' or the term "Real" as a prefix anyways.


----------



## IlPadrino (Aug 15, 2009)

error_matrix said:


> Ok was curious was all, thought i was missing out on the chuckle. your use of the term "Real" (esp w/ TM symbol) was/is confusing.


Yeah... not sure why that sticks in my mind - it doesn't make much sense, but I like it. Not to be confused with Fake Engineers. Maybe I should trademark "Real Engineers"...


----------



## EM_PS (Aug 15, 2009)

Heh, all i can picture is the red &amp; white "Real" tm that is synonamous with dairy or whatever


----------



## Master slacker (Aug 17, 2009)

sschell_PE said:


> ^ dexman = master slacker?
> 
> 
> can someone regulate all the aliases on this website? I am getting confused!


Don't be draggin' my name through the mud!


----------



## Dexman1349 (Aug 17, 2009)

Master slacker said:


> Don't be draggin' my name through the mud!


Doh!!


----------

