I didn't say that everything other than engineering is cake, in fact I know it isn't for having taken some classes in the math and phys departments (incl. an intro to quantum mech class). Physicists and other scientists are very capable people but their training is not the same as engineers. Scientists are taught how to discover, engineers are taught how to create using what scientists discover and that is the fundamental difference. I, as an engineering student, wouldn't be able to tell you how the specifics of physicists used MOSFET to come up with the funky equations that we use for them; by the same token, I don't know too many physicists that would take these equations and desing an amplifier for my stereo.
This is not a rant about engineers being better than others, it is about how by putting "engineer" in your anyone and everyone's title, you deminish my training as an engineer. Think of it this one, how would you feel if business majors started adding "physicists" to titles left, right, and center because it made them feel good.
ErmanC excellent post, that pretty much covers why it bothers me
. Although, I didn't know that the ring tradition existed in the US (although I do know the significance of the ring).
if it will make you feel better, during my next annual review i will try to talk my boss into creating a new position (at the next higher pay grade) for me, Field Systems Administrator or Field Systems Architect (oh, that might piss off the Architects
)
it will be Win Win , i'll get paid more and i won't be an engineer anymore
it will be Win Win , i'll get paid more and i won't be an engineer anymore
Like a Custodial Engineer?
Naah.. Don't let that bother you. What bothers me is that some people get paid more money for a job that they really don't know about.
Naah.. Don't let that bother you. What bothers me is that some people get paid more money for a job that they really don't know about.
so.. I have an engineering degree but never took a exams to be a PE (I don't even remember what the exams are but they are not needed for anything in my field).. does that mean I am not an engineer??
In a legal sense, yes. It means that you are not able to sign off on construction designs and such. Plus, if I recall correctly, you cannot advertise yourself as an engineer without a PE license.
that fine and all.. but there are a LOT of engineering fields apart from civil & mech engineering. When I graduated from school, I only knew one engineer who needed a PE desigination for their field and that was for civil engineering.
For most other engineerings, people couldn't give 2 sh*ts if you are a PE or not.
I'm in school for a civil engineer and a PE is acquired once you get a few years experience working under a PE and pass a state test. This is for Michigan. Not sure about the other states but I agree with the original poster. Their are too many people calling themselves engineers.
All you really need to become an engineer is to wear those Levi's Engineered Jeans!
Damn, those 3 years in engineering school for me wasted when all I needed was a pair of jeans.
Damn, those 3 years in engineering school for me wasted when all I needed was a pair of jeans.
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
When I was interviewing technicians for our group, any that referred to themselves as engineers (all had 2 yr degrees or less) had a huge strike against them.
Anyone who has busted their ass through 4-5 years of a grueling curriculum to become an engineer should be bothered by it - it's irritating to see all that trivialized when a guy with no degree and works at radio shack calls themselves an engineer.
Anyone who has busted their ass through 4-5 years of a grueling curriculum to become an engineer should be bothered by it - it's irritating to see all that trivialized when a guy with no degree and works at radio shack calls themselves an engineer.
george is gettin upset!
it aggrivates me greatly. especially the clowns who take 2 vb classes at a JC and call themselves software engineers.
if you can understand and apply greens theorem and stokes theorem, then i won't hate on you for using 'engineer' in your job description.
it aggrivates me greatly. especially the clowns who take 2 vb classes at a JC and call themselves software engineers.
if you can understand and apply greens theorem and stokes theorem, then i won't hate on you for using 'engineer' in your job description.
Do you have a problem with people doing a Software Engineering course, calling themselves a Software Engineer?
Mani
Diamond Member
- Aug 9, 2001
- 4,808
- 1
- 0
What sets engineering apart as applied science is that it is both conceptually difficult as well as workload intensive. I have friends that I went to school with who majored in quantum physics and while their coursework was conceptually advanced, their deliverables were few. One was able to complete their degree in 3 years - that is not even theroretically possible for our engineering program.
I was told once in an interview by a Fortune 50 company that just having made it through the Engineering program at my school spoke volumes to them about what I would be capable of doing for them. That says a lot about what it takes to be an engineer. Meanwhile my quantum physicist friends are still out of a job.
thats too general of a question. 99% of the "software engineers" i've met are the equivalent to the quacks of the medical field. If you can pioneer a revolutionary algorithm( for instance, the gentleman who invented the bubble search ), make good optimizations to your code at the assembly level, maybe write your own libraries, then I wouldn't look down on you for calling yourself an engineer ( I still wouldn't call you one )
John Carmack is a good example of somebody I wouldn't mind refering to themselves as a software "engineer", but still, "really f-n good programmer" is a lot more descriptive and suitable.
So then anyone who's taken a couple of calc classes is an engineer?
I'm a Software Engineering minor and I'm still kinda split on it... Software engineering is OK in my book, because you have the same responsibilities as other engineers (eg you design software for a nuclear power plant that fails and the whole thing blows).
Yup, I get bothered when someone calls themselves an engineer when they don't have an engineering degree. However, once you get that degree, anyone can call themselves an engineer, having taken the professional exam or not. There are many engineering students who don't need to take the exam, but they still went through the same 4-6 years of crap: got raped by their professors, almost always max out their credit hours, pulled an all nighter starting Friday evening, repeated several difficult classes 2 times and even 3, was kept out of med or law school, passionately wants to pound the idiot who said college is the best years of your life...you get the idea (does it sound like I'm speaking from experience?); so yes, engineering degree = engineer.
What is nice to know, however, is that people with only a bachelor in engineering command more respect (or should be able to) than anyone else with a bachelor's. If I'm an employer, and I'm just looking for people who can think analytically and logically, I wouldn't question anyone holding an engineering bachelor's degree, but would definitely demand more proof of intelligence if the next guy was a business or arts major.
What is nice to know, however, is that people with only a bachelor in engineering command more respect (or should be able to) than anyone else with a bachelor's. If I'm an employer, and I'm just looking for people who can think analytically and logically, I wouldn't question anyone holding an engineering bachelor's degree, but would definitely demand more proof of intelligence if the next guy was a business or arts major.
You just missed the whole point. Engineers are getting annoyed that their title is being hijacked and being placed on irrelevant things, such as "software engineering." Granted, you can make a case saying that computer science is engineering, but you can also make a case saying it's not. Software "engineering" is fundamentally programming, and like someone said within the first few posts, programmers don't want to be called programmers so they place their profession in higher esteem and call it "software engineer."
ManSnake
Diamond Member
- Oct 26, 2000
- 4,749
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: Mani
What sets engineering apart as applied science is that it is both conceptually difficult as well as workload intensive. I have friends that I went to school with who majored in quantum physics and while their coursework was conceptually advanced, their deliverables were few. One was able to complete their degree in 3 years - that is not even theroretically possible for our engineering program.
I was told once in an interview by a Fortune 50 company that just having made it through the Engineering program at my school spoke volumes to them about what I would be capable of doing for them. That says a lot about what it takes to be an engineer. Meanwhile my quantum physicist friends are still out of a job.
You physics friend is probably looking at the wrong places for jobs. Engineering by definition is applied science. Many tasks that an engineer can do, a sicentist can do as well. Take physics for example (btw I am not a physics major, I have a BS in EE and CS), there are two types, theoretical and experimental. At our company (a big aerospace firm), our R&D (note Research and Development) department, many of our top engineers have phd in physics, etc.
When we want new entry-level folks to do testing for our ICP, we look for CS/CE/EE majors. Their title would be: Engineer Asc.
Don't look down on others just because you think engineering is harder than other areas of discipline!
So then anyone who's taken a couple of calc classes is an engineer?
the application of multivariable calculus is usually where engineering curriculums split from everything else, (exception: physics / math, but most of those guys have what it takes to be called an engineer, imo)
Originally posted by: ManSnake
Originally posted by: Mani
What sets engineering apart as applied science is that it is both conceptually difficult as well as workload intensive. I have friends that I went to school with who majored in quantum physics and while their coursework was conceptually advanced, their deliverables were few. One was able to complete their degree in 3 years - that is not even theroretically possible for our engineering program.
I was told once in an interview by a Fortune 50 company that just having made it through the Engineering program at my school spoke volumes to them about what I would be capable of doing for them. That says a lot about what it takes to be an engineer. Meanwhile my quantum physicist friends are still out of a job.
You physics friend is probably looking at the wrong places for jobs. Engineering by definition is applied science. Many tasks that an engineer can do, a sicentist can do as well. Take physics for example (btw I am not a physics major, I have a BS in EE and CS), there are two types, theoretical and experimental. At our company (a big aerospace firm), our R&D (note Research and Development) department, many of our top engineers have phd in physics, etc.
When we want new entry-level folks to do testing for our ICP, we look for CS/CE/EE majors. Their title would be: Engineer Asc.
Don't look down on others just because you think engineering is harder than other areas of discipline!
IMHO, once you get an MS or a PhD the "Engineering" title means little since the lines between engineers and physicists blur at that point. Anyone who has a graduate degree in almost any science, applied or not from a good school is qualified. I was referring mostly to all the IT people that use the term "engineer". Everyone knows that a "Landscape Maintenance Engineer" is actually a gardener but make some one a "Field Systems Engineer" (sorry FoBot, again nothing personal) and all of a sudden people who aren't engineers aren't so sure any more if that person has af ormal engineering training.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter