Interesting Article

[navyasw02]

I stumbled upon this article tonight about a guy who's having legal action taken against him for using Engineering in his business name without being or having a PE on staff. I also read all the pages of interesting comments regarding his situation and also the general perception of what the PE system as it stands. A lot of people seem to dislike it, but a lot of it seems like sour grapes. Any thoughts on both the guy who's getting action taken against him and the PE system?

http://machinedesign.com/article/hijacking...ion-0903?page=1

 

[benbo]

I can see both sides of this.

First, if the law states that in order to hang out a shingle as a "Professional Engineer" you need a license, I'm fine with that and you should comply. The law needs to clearly define what doing business or "practicing" as a Professional Engineer means. If they are going to make it universal they need a transition period, and it needs to be tied more closely to the curriculum at school, and pushed by the schools.

OTOH, as an electrical engineer, if somebody like Steve Wozniak wants to call himself an "engineer" I'm not going to try to make a stink about the fact that he hasn't passed the P&P exam.

As far as this guy who wrote the aritcle is concerned, it sounds like in addition to violating the letter of the law, he screwed up his design. The fact that he screwed up a design should be the more important issue, the other should be more of a slap on the wrist and a "cease and desist" at this point.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

Interesting article and both sides seem to have a case.

My view comes from my perspective: In Germany one only can call himself "Ingenieur"when receiving a "Diplom-Ingenieur" degree from an accredited school (only state schools AFAIK). without the "Dipl.-Ing." there is no engineer. There also is no P.E. equivalent (sure, some special certifications needed to work with certain things, like radiation etc.)

Now coming to the US i was surprised by the vast use of the word engineer.

1 - someone operating an "engine". Like the fire engineer on the fire truck or the train engineer

2- the ones completely made up. like "sales engineer" or "project engineer"

3 - designers that didn't complete or didn't even start an engineering program or just got an online degree. they actually do design things and have someone int he company stamp it if needed.

4 - actually licensed (PE) engineers.

My guess is, since the title engineer is so widely used in the US (and with the inflation of online colleges this will become worse) the license became important to distinguish the ones with real knowledge. Like any test, it is not perfect. and like there are bad licensed lawyers and CPAs, there are bad PEs. but the chances of getting a good medical doctor are better, if he is licensed to practice medicine than if he isn't.

It took me a year of working here till I realized the importance of getting licensed (because it doesn't exist in Germany). I don't think taking the test makes me a better person. but it will distinguish me. I just go with the flow, it is the law and i have to do it to advance. In college I didn't agree with every course I had to take, but it is part o the program. so i just sit for the exam and hope to pass.

I guess there is a point when you work in production industry that there generally is no licensing. But in that case the client doesn't hire you directly like in consulting. so the client doesn't need to figure out your credentials since the company itself is the credential. When I buy a Siemens generator or an Appli iPod, I take the brand as the credential. but when I hire XYZ consultant to design my house, I can't just rely on their good name. Especially since they design a once-a-time product.

That guy who wrote the article could have spend more time taking the test by now. sure, the test doesn't take the niches into account. but if you got an engineering education in EE, you should pass the test, even if your expertise is programming circuits, which isn't on the test. The test never will refelct real life. Real life nowadays is use of computers and programming etc. the paper test tests fundamental understanding and calculating it the old school elementary way.

Maybe the requirements to take the test should be re-thought (someone working for Apple never has a PE to vouch for the work, so they have a hard time taking the test). But whoever complains about taking the test itself, is just afraid to pass or to spend time studying. Now it is nice outside and I'm sitting here studying - but it is what it is. but I'm happy to take it and if it is just for the sake to distinguish myself. Obviously i feel I'm already a good engineer with or without license. But i also could complain about taking the GRE test to get into grad school (which is a test completely unrelated to any engineering and it still escapes me what it was for, but i sucked it up, studied and got enough scores) or complain about all silly things I had to bring for my green card. But the world won't adapt to my rules, therefore I have to adapt to the world. and the world requires such tests.

 

[navyasw02]

I can see both sides of this.
First, if the law states that in order to hang out a shingle as a "Professional Engineer" you need a license, I'm fine with that and you should comply. The law needs to clearly define what doing business or "practicing" as a Professional Engineer means. If they are going to make it universal they need a transition period, and it needs to be tied more closely to the curriculum at school, and pushed by the schools.

OTOH, as an electrical engineer, if somebody like Steve Wozniak wants to call himself an "engineer" I'm not going to try to make a stink about the fact that he hasn't passed the P&P exam.

As far as this guy who wrote the aritcle is concerned, it sounds like in addition to violating the letter of the law, he screwed up his design. The fact that he screwed up a design should be the more important issue, the other should be more of a slap on the wrist and a "cease and desist" at this point.

I agree. I was reading the comments and I couldn't understand why some people were siding with this guy. It seemed pretty clear to me that he was providing engineering services without a license. According to one poster with more info (but uncited), he supposedly got a cease and desist letter back in 1989. I think 20 years is plenty of time to correct the situation.

Regarding the overall status of the word "engineer", I dont think it's that big of a deal. Everybody is an "engineer" or "manager" these days. The trash man is a "sanitation engineer". The guy driving the truck is the "sanitation engineering manager". I think the general public knows that when they are looking for what we consider an engineer, they have to go to a real engineering company. Licensing for engineers is similar to licensing contractors, it gives the customer a piece of mind that the person they're hiring is liable to the state. Some of the comments on that article were just ridiculous. One person was crying a river over the fact that it costs hundreds of dollars to maintain a license. Yea it costs money to keep it up to date, but I hardly call 100/year a bill to cry over. Hell, the taxes on my car are more than that every year.

 

[Mike in Gastonia]

I stumbled upon this article tonight about a guy who's having legal action taken against him for using Engineering in his business name without being or having a PE on staff. I also read all the pages of interesting comments regarding his situation and also the general perception of what the PE system as it stands. A lot of people seem to dislike it, but a lot of it seems like sour grapes. Any thoughts on both the guy who's getting action taken against him and the PE system?
http://machinedesign.com/article/hijacking...ion-0903?page=1

It seems that where this guy is missing the boat, is that the industrial exemption applies when you work in industry. He keeps saying he's working for industry, which is different. He's offering his services to the public, which in this case is industry - so he and his company need to be licensed. It doesn't sound like he's got a leg to stand on to me and he's probably lucky he hasn't been turned in before now.

 

[MGX]

In the UK the fellow who hooks up your telephone line is an engineer, they're much more liberal with the term than we Americans.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

It seems that where this guy is missing the boat, is that the industrial exemption applies when you work in industry. He keeps saying he's working for industry, which is different. He's offering his services to the public, which in this case is industry - so he and his company need to be licensed. It doesn't sound like he's got a leg to stand on to me and he's probably lucky he hasn't been turned in before now.

For me it seems he just wants to prove a point under the cover to "save" all other "engineers". From my understanding it seems he runs into the risk to pay 2 of his clients $ 5,000 as settlement for fraud and might not continue his practice. Since he graduated in 1953, he sure has made enough money over his life and is ready to retire. So he would give up his business soon anyway. He still can continue calling himself "designer" or something else.

A young engineer with his career ahead of him would just take the test. I understand that at his age he doesn't want to take the test anymore. He also would have a hard time finding enough references he once worked for that are PEs.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

In the UK the fellow who hooks up your telephone line is an engineer, they're much more liberal with the term than we Americans.

I'm not much for titles, but after going to grad school and becoming a PE, I don't want to have the same title as someone with a 2-week (company-paid) training.

not that Wikipedia is the most reliable source, but this is an engineer:

An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical problems. Engineers design materials, structures, machines and systems while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, safety and cost.[1][2] The word engineer is derived from the Latin root ingenium, meaning "cleverness".[3]
Engineers are grounded in applied sciences, and are distinguished from scientists who perform research and artists who create with a focus on aesthetics.[2] The work of engineers forms the link between scientific discoveries and the applications that meet the needs of society.[1]

There is nothing the phone technician does that is part of this definition. The phone technician connects the red wire to the red tap. My cat can do that.

Here an interesting read on engineering degrees.

 

[cableguy]

I had this happen to a friend here in Texas. TBPE came after him because his Yellow Pages ad for his small computer company listed "Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer" in his ad. He had to remove the wording from his ad. I know of another company that got in trouble for having the word "Engineering" in their name, even though they were an automotive performance shop and did no "engineering" as we know it.

That said, I don't have a problem with the board for keeping the name "engineering" clean. Otherwise, the next thing you know, everyone's an "engineer" for everything...

 

[MGX]

I'm not arguing that the UK use of the word is right or wrong.

Personally I've never heard of the engineering degree until recently. Typically it would be a Bachelor/Masters of Science degree in "blank" Engineering if that means anything. The German scheme is quite convincing and makes sense.

In construction there are many people who hold the title of engineer and have never taken a basic course in rigid body mechanics or any math past basic calculus or algebra. So the PE title really does mean something since to get it there are defined hoops which one must jump through and one can say definite things about that person (ABET accredited school, references, work experience).

 

[HerrKaLeun]

In construction there are many people who hold the title of engineer and have never taken a basic course in rigid body mechanics or any math past basic calculus or algebra. So the PE title really does mean something since to get it there are defined hoops which one must jump through and one can say definite things about that person (ABET accredited school, references, work experience).

I guess since the US failed to protect the word engineer, licensing as PE is necessary. I wonder if other countries have an equivalent to PE? I assume it would be countries that have such lax standards for the word "engineer".

When I review RFPs from consultants I now pay very close attention to the resumes. they often state that the individual "attended" an engineering program (like signed up and got kicked out) or are "electrical designers" to avoid law suits. There also is a big movement to have one PE to be the lead person to attend the meetings, but the actual design is done by non-engineers.

Before I realized what was going on I would argue with the designer of a system and wonder if I don't know about engineering, or that person. but then I realized that person never attended engineering school. I learned the hard way that I shouldn't necessarily listen to someone just because they call themselves engineer. Now i specifically request in RFPs that the individuals doing the design will be listed with full resume and education and that any changes in staff need to be approved by me.

 

[MGX]

I agree, you should never listen to someone just because they are an engineer (they could be a dimwit as well as an engineer).

In construction sometimes prescriptive building codes are such that the design does not require an engineer, a technician can handle the job. However a technician should be called a technician and never an engineer lest someone get legal terms mixed up.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

I agree, you should never listen to someone just because they are an engineer (they could be a dimwit as well as an engineer).
In construction sometimes prescriptive building codes are such that the design does not require an engineer, a technician can handle the job. However a technician should be called a technician and never an engineer lest someone get legal terms mixed up.

the code prescribes minimum requirements and verification is slim. The code main purpose is to protect safety and health.

the clients concern also is from how long my roof lasts, to how comfortable and maintenance free my HVAC system is. and that is not covered by code but needs a clever design beyond code. I can build very good and very bad buildings both meeting code.

 

[navyasw02]

In the UK the fellow who hooks up your telephone line is an engineer, they're much more liberal with the term than we Americans.

I'm not much for titles, but after going to grad school and becoming a PE, I don't want to have the same title as someone with a 2-week (company-paid) training.

not that Wikipedia is the most reliable source, but this is an engineer:

An engineer is a professional practitioner of engineering, concerned with applying scientific knowledge, mathematics and ingenuity to develop solutions for technical problems. Engineers design materials, structures, machines and systems while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, safety and cost.[1][2] The word engineer is derived from the Latin root ingenium, meaning "cleverness".[3]
Engineers are grounded in applied sciences, and are distinguished from scientists who perform research and artists who create with a focus on aesthetics.[2] The work of engineers forms the link between scientific discoveries and the applications that meet the needs of society.[1]

There is nothing the phone technician does that is part of this definition. The phone technician connects the red wire to the red tap. My cat can do that.

Here an interesting read on engineering degrees.

The Engineer's degree is an interesting animal. I'm pursuing it now because it's only a few more courses and a thicker thesis than a MSME. I dont know if it will help in the future, but I figure that it couldn't hurt.

Ideally, I think the Engineer word should be reserved for engineers, but when you think about it, it's not that much different from the word doctor. When the flight attendant asks "Is there a doctor onboard this plane?", a bunch of PhD's wont really be of much use. Everybody knows the difference there, but there isnt any controversy over the specific word. In the sense of "engineer", I think NSPE is trying to trademark the word like Realtor.