When is an electrical engineer not an engineer?

[Berwhale]

When I did my apprenticeship here in the UK there were 3 courses.
One led to being an engineer and included qualification to degree or Higher national Diploma.
The second led to being a skilled technician and included the qualification of Higher National Certificate.
The third led to being a craftsman and included study to a Ordinary National Certificate.
Nowadays the qualifications have changed and far more people do a University course not affiliated with an employer (around 7x as many people get a degree today than in 1970)
Whatever qualifications there is a tendency for anybody outside the engineering industry to refer to anybody associated with it as an engineer, whether they are working on a production line or designing a Nuclear Fusion Reactor, so engineer is a pretty meaningless word here IMO.

Thanks Frank, you have reminded me that I have an HNC in Microprocessor Systems (which was taught in the EE department of my college).

 

[Berwhale]

There was a somewhat similar case in Oregon, and fortunately, reason prevailed -- the Oregon Board lost.
https://reason.com/2019/01/02/judge-confirms-that-oregon-engineer-has/

Crikey! Who'd want to be an Engineer in Oregon...

"The board investigated a Portland city commissioner in 2014 for publishing a campaign pamphlet that mentioned his background as an "environmental engineer"—even though the commissioner had a bachelor's degree in environmental and civil engineering from Cornell University, had a master's degree from MIT's School of Civil Engineering, and was a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. The board spent more than a year investigating the commissioner's background before voting to issue an official "warning" against using the word engineer incorrectly."

 

[Shadrach]

Hmmm, I worked hard to obtain my degrees. I'm not overly keen on those who describe themselves as engineers who don't have the qualifications.
I don't think anyone would want an unqualified surgeon operating on them because they had carved up a couple of cats on their kitchen table.
I feel the same about an engineer, or more so in my case, scientist.
Yes the institute membership stuff can be a bit of a racket. It's what it is. All other professions have a similar arrangement.
Having the relevant degree and consequently the relevant institutes blessing (for a nominal fee) won't make you a good anything. There are good and not so good in every endeavor and every discipline.

 

[SIY]

Yes the institute membership stuff can be a bit of a racket. It's what it is. All other professions have a similar arrangement.

The day I need a government-approved license to be a scientist is the day I quit being a scientist.

 

[JJB70]

Certifications are, for whatever reasons, very poor predictors of actual skill and competence. If anything, it is a negative indicator. A skilled individual will find work regardless, meaning that those with the greatest incentive to obtain a certification are the mildly incompetent, for whom it may boost their chances with silly companies whose hiring policies require it.

For safety critical things, it makes more sense to mandate inspection/testing of the actual produced object rather than pretending that a person possessing a particular piece of paper is infallible.

I suppose it varies by industry (engineering covers an especially diverse range of professions, skills, trades, roles, processes etc, many of which share nothing in common beyond sharing the word engineer/engineering) but in my own fields I say exactly the opposite of what you write.

Certification is not just about education certificates issued by educational establishments, it also encompasses certification issued by regulators, employers, certifying bodies etc and which are about establishing competence to do particular jobs. In the fields I've worked you don't work without the necessary competency certification. And in some roles earnings potential is highly dependent on the level of certification held. For example, in the energy and nuclear sectors coded welders can almost name their price if they have the right ticket for welding some of the more difficult ultra-high strength materials and also capable of doing it quickly and passing the NDE (I have issued a PO for £5,000 to do a single weld, and that was well over ten years ago, because there were vanishingly few people capable of doing weld repairs on large turbine blades with a track record for quick work and passing the radiography and other NDE checks).

Inspecting a product during production is only one part of a much bigger process (and in some cases, inspection and verification need quite a high skill set, for a while I did torsional vibration analysis of shaft lines as part of the certification of ship propulsion systems and I suspect few people on the street would be able to do it without significant training and learning some maths), a lot of the risk is in operating assets. To me it is entirely sensible that nuclear reactor operators, to take perhaps an extreme example, are required to go through a rigorous competency assessment and hold appropriate authorisation/certification.

 

[DDF]

Hmmm, I worked hard to obtain my degrees. I'm not overly keen on those who describe themselves as engineers who don't have the qualifications.

Two sides to this coin. Analogy would be a chiropractor calling himself "Doctor". My first did but was anti-vax and insisted I give my never met (by him) 6 month old spinal adjustments. Nut job who would have had his license revoked if a real doctor.

OTOH I had a coworker who was one of the most effective designers I ever worked with, with great leadership skills (trust, organized, forward thinking, team player making everyone else better...). Not a titled "engineer" (is a technologist), so his director held him back on salary and promotion year after year, on that ground alone. I understand why an accomplished designer not formally accredited may want to co-op the term.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I get the idea of competence or not. I've been involved with gov't contracting and you'll pretty much need a PE to get work. I've worked with some who I wouldn't let change the oil on my car. I've basically designed some of their stuff to save their butts. Other engineers are just terrific just what an engineer should be.

I've a friend who designed medical equipment and that is another area in the USA where you'll have to have a PE to get work.

I've also worked with a couple of degreed engineers who were trying to get their PE, and couldn't pass the exams. Quite thankfully if you'd known them, despite their degree they were wholly incompetent. One is now working as a florist. The other was "promoted" to management. Society gained on the florist and will pay a heavy cost for the manager of engineering projects.

 

[Shadrach]

Two sides to this coin. Analogy would be a chiropractor calling himself "Doctor". My first did but was anti-vax and insisted I give my never met (by him) 6 month old spinal adjustments. Nut job who would have had his license revoked if a real doctor.

OTOH I had a coworker who was one of the most effective designers I ever worked with, with great leadership skills (trust, organized, forward thinking, team player making everyone else better...). Not a titled "engineer" (is a technologist), so his director held him back on salary and promotion year after year, on that ground alone. I understand why an accomplished designer not formally accredited may want to co-op the term.

I don't agree that there are two sides. Like it or not society has set a standard. If you can't attain that standard then you can't wear the badge, in simple terms.
In effect you earn the right to call yourself and engineer, lawyer, doctor, whatever. Yes the system needs considerable adjustment and some avenues that will get you in, such as honory degrees etc, need closing and others that would enable others, for example those who cannot afford institute membership or who cannot transfer equivalent qualifications, need opening.
This says nothing about whether one is any good at what one does.

 

[SIY]

I don't agree that there are two sides. Like it or not society has set a standard.

No, government set the “standard” in response to lobbying and payoffs by a cartel.

By this standard, Bob Widlar, Barrie Gilbert, Jim Williams, Bob Pease, Scott Wurcer, Bob Cordell, et al cannot call themselves engineers.

 

[JJB70]

I hit a glass ceiling in electricity generation. I was employed on the basis of experience and having a merchant navy chief engineer certificate and HND in marine engineering (steam turbine plant, gas turbines etc are pretty much the same in ships as in power plants, albeit smaller, and the electricity generating sector used to rely on marine engineers coming ashore) but reached a position where to go any further I had to have a degree as that was the policy of my employer. Whether their policy was right or wrong was irrelevant as it was what it was, it's like the fable of King Cnut and the tide. So I self funded a degree and did it in my spare time. Unfortunately, as I graduated the financial position of my employer went tango uniform, but as luck would have it the combination of my practical experience at sea and in power generation combined with then getting a degree seemed to be open a door and I went to work for an organisation called Lloyd's Register which was a splendid job. Did getting a degree, followed by registration as CEng (and none of the roles I've had actually required CEng registration) make me any more clever, or grant me special wisdom? No. But I did learn a lot during my degree course and I certainly took an awful lot from it. Later still I did an MSc, and again although I wouldn't say doing a master's made me a clever clogs or granted me any special insights it'd be silly to deny the value of the learning I took from it.
Inverse snobbery in trying to deride formal education is no more helpful or valid than snobbery in the other direction and not appreciating the skills of skilled craftspeople and self learning.

 

[DDF]

No, government set the “standard” in response to lobbying and payoffs by a cartel.

Fresh out of school with my EE degree, I asked my first manager if it was worth obtaining the province's official designation, P.Eng. "Only good thing about it is the quarterly newsletter showing who was thrown out".

No benefit to it in the private sector. Public sector is often in a** covering mode ("no one's ever been fired for buying IBM"... well Phoenix pay system aside...) and gov't consultants often benefit from it but it makes 0 difference in end result.

 

[Shadrach]

No, government set the “standard” in response to lobbying and payoffs by a cartel.

By this standard, Bob Widlar, Barrie Gilbert, Jim Williams, Bob Pease, Scott Wurcer, Bob Cordell, et al cannot call themselves engineers.

Really? Is this some conspiracy theory I know nothing about?
I don't know how it all works in the USA. In the UK and most of Europe you do the courses, get your degree at whatever level and apply for institute registration. The conditions for registration do vary from institute to institute but the system is reasonably transparent.
I would be fascinated to read why anyone thinks that a person can call himself/herself a doctor for example without having the correct qualifications.
Would you accept a doctor who had never studied the subject and didn't have the papers to prove they were qualified?
It has taken a long time to get engineers accepted as 'proffesional' people in the UK and Europe. Now it seems everyone who can turn a screw is an engineer. What did I do all those years study for if all I need to do is say I am?

 

[mansr]

Inverse snobbery in trying to deride formal education is no more helpful or valid than snobbery in the other direction and not appreciating the skills of skilled craftspeople and self learning.

Formal education is a splendid way to acquire knowledge quickly. I studied at an engineering university (KTH, EE), and I strongly recommend for anyone with such interests to do the same. That doesn't mean someone who took a different route can't be at least as skilled and knowledgeable. In fact, skill largely comes from experience, and education can't give you that, although primed with relevant knowledge, experience may translate into skill at a higher rate.

My issue is mainly with non-educational certifications based around an annual membership fee. These are, in my view, nothing but a racket designed to protect the members from competition.

When the consequences of a mistake are dire and irreversible (e.g. death from a botched surgery), careful vetting of the practitioner makes sense, as does a means of preventing an incompetent individual from causing further harm. In my line of work, a mistake may delay a product by a few weeks and incur a moderate cost. If I made too many such mistakes, I'd soon be looking for other work with a ruined reputation. This is an area where "the market" tends to sort things out without the need for (government) regulation.

 

[DDF]

Inverse snobbery in trying to deride formal education is no more helpful or valid than snobbery in the other direction and not appreciating the skills of skilled craftspeople and self learning.

No one is deriding formal education so this is a false comparison. What's being mulled is if exceptional individuals fully skilled and accomplished in their field without this deserve the right to use the title. I can see both sides: @Shadrach is right that it opens up opportunity for abuse by charlatans. OTOH, as I pointed out, allowing it for deserving experienced individuals can side step systemic caste-ism that not only hurts the individual but the organization its practiced in.

Its unclear how and when to make the distinction, and maybe that's the problem.

 

[SIY]

No one is deriding formal education so this is a false comparison. What's being mulled is if exceptional individuals fully skilled and accomplished in their field without this deserve the right to use the title. I can see both sides: @Shadrach is right that it opens up opportunity for abuse by charlatans. OTOH, as I pointed out, allowing it for deserving experienced individuals can side step systemic caste-ism that not only hurts the individual but the organization its practiced in.

Its unclear how and when to make the distinction, and maybe that's the problem.

This isn’t about competence or degrees or whatever. This is about a private organization that has bribed itself into a position of being able to decide who is and who isn’t allowed to call themselves an engineer or the work they do “engineering.” Look at the list of names I posted above- under Arizona law (and that of many other states), they cannot be called engineers or do engineering work because they didn’t jump through that organization’s hoops and pay the tribute money. That’s nuts.

BTW, using the “have a degree” logic, Freeman Dyson can’t be called a physicist. No PhD.

 

[SIY]

Oh, and Bob Widlar- no degree. If he were alive, we’d have to put him in jail for engineering without a permission slip.

 

[SIY]

One more thing- I’m consulting with an attorney to see if I’m breaking the law by doing audio engineering work without a permission slip from NCES.

 

[JJB70]

Formal education is a splendid way to acquire knowledge quickly. I went to an engineering university (KTH, EE), and I strongly recommend for anyone with such interests to do the same. That doesn't mean someone who took a different route can't be at least as skilled and knowledgeable. In fact, skill largely comes from experience, and education can't give you that, although primed with relevant knowledge, experience may translate into skill at a higher rate.

My issue is mainly with non-educational certifications based around an annual membership fee. These are, in my view, nothing but a racket designed to protect the members from competition.

When the consequences of a mistake are dire and irreversible (e.g. death from a botched surgery), careful vetting of the practitioner makes sense, as does a means of preventing an incompetent individual from causing further harm. In my line of work, a mistake may delay a product by a few weeks and incur a moderate cost. If I made too many such mistakes, I'd soon be looking for other work with a ruined reputation. This is an area where "the market" tends to sort things out without the need for (government) regulation.

I don't think anyone questions the value of experience and the fact that competence to do a job is not necessarily dependent upon formal education. Indeed in some fields highly skilled roles can quite often be the preserve of skilled trades people who were trained in non-academic streams such as traditional apprenticeships and who have spent years honing craft skills. For example, many people think welding is easy, I'd suggest those who do try and weld some of the ultra-high strength steels used in nuclear plants installed in a boat and then get their weld through the NDE process. The fact that most welders I've known haven't been especially well educated academically is irrelevant to the skills they had (and their earnings potential, which could be rather eye opening. Many people self learn and develop theoretical knowledge to match those with degree learning. However, whether people have been through formal academic education or are self taught or just have a natural talent doesn't alter the knowledge and skills needed to do certain jobs. In the UK the Engineering Council has routes for people from outside of the traditional educational route to obtain IEng and CEng registration if they want to do so, and it should be repeated that such registration is not necessary to work as an engineer in the UK and very few employers demand it. It is essentially a voluntary vanity thing. Having a degree, yes, many employers demand that, but in my experience relatively few engineering graduates and those with post graduate degrees bother with registration. If people don't want to join an institute and register with ECUK they are under no obligation to do so and it won't close off or even hinder a career in engineering.

On risk, some engineering roles would result in pretty dire consequences if done incompetently. Every time I signed a safety document allowing work on HV systems I was accepting responsibility that those going to work were safe from the electrical system. Those guys were completely reliant on me and my colleagues with the same authorisations understanding the system and applying appropriate isolations, earthing, locks etc to be avoid fatal electric shock. I worked in a nuclear fuels plant where the consequences of a balls up could be quite severe and with potential to still be causing problems long after I'm dead. These roles did not actually require a degree and certainly not CEng status, but they did require people to get through a rather rigorous training and authorisation process including an authorisation board and written tests. In Lloyd's Register I was signing certificates stating that ships met statutory and class rules, many of those certificates are for ships that'll probably still be sailing around for another 20 or 30 years and if they blow up or sink certificates I've issued would be very relevant to incident investigations and I would have a liability for decisions if my calculations were wrong or I had not applied rules and regulations. In such roles I am kind of at a loss as to why people would object to competency certification to try and ensure people doing the work have some idea of what they're doing.

 

[DDF]

This isn’t about competence or degrees or whatever. This is about a private organization that has bribed itself into a position of being able to decide who is and who isn’t allowed to call themselves an engineer or the work they do “engineering.” Look at the list of names I posted above- under Arizona law (and that of many other states), they cannot be called engineers or do engineering work because they didn’t jump through that organization’s hoops and pay the tribute money. That’s nuts.

BTW, using the “have a degree” logic, Freeman Dyson can’t be called a physicist. No PhD.

Please read my post more carefully. These are individuals that clearly have passed the litmus test due to their exceptionalism. It doesn't address the problem of how to define that barrier to entry. Surely because exceptional individuals exceed it isn't justification for complete malcontents, for example, to do the same. I don't hear any solutions to that forthcoming except in glaringly self evident cases (which, to make more clear, I personally agree with).

 

[SIY]

Please read my post more carefully. These are individuals that clearly have passed the litmus test due to their exceptionalism. It doesn't address the problem of how to define that barrier to entry. Surely because exceptional individuals exceed it isn't justification for complete malcontents, for example, to do the same. I don't hear any solutions to that forthcoming except in glaringly self evident cases (which, to make more clear, I personally agree with).

My reply was addressed more to the comment from Shadrach you responded to. Either way, the right answer would not be to allow cartels to use the government to force people to literally pay tribute to them.