Attention engineers...What type are you and why?

[sciguy125]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Somebody is always right and somebody is always wrong in all subjects wherein there exist opposing viewpoints.

I'm tempted to go after this one. I'm too busy watching the Stargate Atlantis marathon to write up a long post though.

[Christina]

As a recently graduated college student, I must say that I hadn't considered myself to be an engineer until I was actually graduated. I had never said I was an engineer while I was a student and I have definitely done engineering things before May 20th. The first time I said I was an engineer was last month and it felt weird being able to say that I am, in fact, an engineer. I feel that having the title of engineer is something that is earned through college and a degree. It's an accomplishment and I feel that it is a testament to your achievements. I understand that there are many things I don't know how to do even though I am an engineer. But college isn't just about learning how to engineer. It may seem that the knowledge you possess is enough to be called an engineer...but there is more to it. It's the process of learning how to learn that college gives you that also goes along with the title. It's not just about doing engineering things, but the way to think about problems, how to attack them, how to explain them, how to teach them, and so on and so forth that makes you an engineer.

Also, the way I've seen it is: when you put your job title down on your taxes, you put "student" when you're in school and "engineer" once you graduate. That pretty much summed it up for me.

Just my $0.02.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Christina

I feel that having the title of engineer is something that is earned through college and a degree. It's an accomplishment and I feel that it is a testament to your achievements.

I feel exactly the same way. I have been working for the past year as a "Co-Op Software Engineer." I waited until I graduated and got a full time engineering job before I listed myself as an Engineer on Chief Delphi. Quite honestly, it's borderline disrespectful to all the true Engineers everywhere to call yourself an engineer if you're only a high school or college student. I'm going to agree with Roger on what he previously said, just because you engineer does not grant you the title Engineer.

[John Wanninger]

Although I'm a degreed mechanical engineer, I'm pretty much a mongrel, because it's fun (ok, maybe not like jvn's fun job but..) I've been working for a small engineering/mfg company, Titan Inc. since 1987. I get to design and program production test stands and special machines, primarily for the off-highway, truck and fluid power industries(we do Harley too!). It's a great job, and I get to wear a lot of hats (mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic design plus writing software, from concept to debug/runoff/update). Almost every project we do is a new 'animal', plus I get to learn about all the components, sub-assemblies, systems or vehicles our systems test or assemble. I'm especially proud of the fact that, except for some heat treating, and large machine frames, almost everything is done in-house. Best thing about it though is the people I get to work with.
[/TITAN commercial]

[Ken Leung]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

It looks like we’ve stalemated again. We’re just running around in circles because everyone views the world in their own way and everyone wants to use certain words in certain ways. Even if we find a way to standardize our definitions, people still aren’t willing to drop their own perceptions of the world.

In this thread, we can’t agree on whether an engineer is someone who engineers, or someone who holds an engineering degree. Which came first? The engineer or the engineering degree?

You know, I spent a lot of time today trying to write a long post to argue, but I thought better of it and decided to drop the whole thing. Oh well.

I just want to point out that I don’t think it is a stalemate, not even close. A majority of the Engineers in this thread are expressing a consistent view toward the title “Engineer”, and that’s enough to convince me (and I think most of the readers) who is right and who is wrong. If you continue to stick by your position, that’s your right and we can’t do anything about that. Just don’t expect us to feel responsible to educate you further about this.

Frankly, I think that it should be hard for someone to become an Engineer. It should be so tough that it take us years of learning, thinking, studying, and practicing before we become a good Engineer. I think it should be so hard that when we finally earn the degree and title it is going to be sweet.

Because anything else will degrade the integrity and prestige so many Engineers worked so hard to put into the title. Because anything else will confuse people to think that anyone can be an Engineer, when in fact the title “Engineer” only belong to those who spent years and years practicing the philosophy of Engineering and proved to the world that he/she really is a great Engineer. Because anything else will compromise the standard, and that standard is the only thing that guarantees the quality and dedication of an Engineer. Because that’s the pride of a true Engineer, and I wouldn’t work so hard if it means anything less.

This program is about inspiration. Especially, inspiration through interaction with the mentors. Mentors like Al, Andy, Dave are trying very hard to share their views with us, views full of experience and truth, things many of us don’t have. So, for god’s sake, learn from them already! If I can smack you on the head, I will, because this is a chance of a life time, and you can argue or you can listen.

Good luck ;-).

[mechanicalbrain]

Originally Posted by Ken Leung

I just want to point out that I don’t think it is a stalemate, not even close. A majority of the Engineers in this thread are expressing a consistent view toward the title “Engineer”, and that’s enough to convince me (and I think most of the readers) who is right and who is wrong. If you continue to stick by your position, that’s your right and we can’t do anything about that. Just don’t expect us to feel responsible to educate you further about this.

Frankly, I think that it should be hard for someone to become an Engineer. It should be so tough that it take us years of learning, thinking, studying, and practicing before we become a good Engineer. I think it should be so hard that when we finally earn the degree and title it is going to be sweet.

Because anything else will degrade the integrity and prestige so many Engineers worked so hard to put into the title. Because anything else will confuse people to think that anyone can be an Engineer, when in fact the title “Engineer” only belong to those who spent years and years practicing the philosophy of Engineering and proved to the world that he/she really is a great Engineer. Because anything else will compromise the standard, and that standard is the only thing that guarantees the quality and dedication of an Engineer. Because that’s the pride of a true Engineer, and I wouldn’t work so hard if it means anything less.

This program is about inspiration. Especially, inspiration through interaction with the mentors. Mentors like Al, Andy, Dave are trying very hard to share their views with us, views full of experience and truth, things many of us don’t have. So, for god’s sake, learn from them already! If I can smack you on the head, I will, because this is a chance of a life time, and you can argue or you can listen.

Good luck ;-).

I don't think he or I ever questioned any of that. I know for me I agrree but I think you can not get a degree in engineering and still qualify everything you just said. Essentially a degree isn't the only way to become an engineer just the only way to become a legal one.

[Philip W.]

Originally Posted by Ken Leung

I just want to point out that I don’t think it is a stalemate, not even close. A majority of the Engineers in this thread are expressing a consistent view toward the title “Engineer”, and that’s enough to convince me (and I think most of the readers) who is right and who is wrong.

There is no right or wrong, it is only wrong to think that there is either. To be technical, we're all wrong according to the dictionary, but of course, our personal opinions will override the definition from that book. Threads like this one has become are only displays of our opinions, and to not be considerate of that in the ChiefDelphi community is actually quite disappointing. This has already been mentioned, but I'm sure the high school student that called himself an engineer didn't mean to offend the professional engineers that worked hard to earn that title and should be forgiven (if you haven't yet already). His view on the title of Engineer was different from the general opinion, and by everyone else expressing their views probably has changed his.

Originally Posted by Ken Leung

Because anything else will degrade the integrity and prestige so many Engineers worked so hard to put into the title. Because anything else will confuse people to think that anyone can be an Engineer, when in fact the title “Engineer” only belong to those who spent years and years practicing the philosophy of Engineering and proved to the world that he/she really is a great Engineer. Because anything else will compromise the standard, and that standard is the only thing that guarantees the quality and dedication of an Engineer. Because that’s the pride of a true Engineer, and I wouldn’t work so hard if it means anything less.

According to this, the only ones with the right to call themselves an engineer are great engineers with "years and years of practising the philosophy of engineering", and that the recent engineering major graduates that immediately changed their CD "Team Role" to Engineer are wrong. To deprive engineers that are lesser than great of their title, I believe, is wrong. As for the standard of engineers, that duty belongs to the colleges, they accept potential engineers and shape them into professional engineers.

Originally Posted by Ken Leung

Frankly, I think that it should be hard for someone to become an Engineer. It should be so tough that it take us years of learning, thinking, studying, and practicing before we become a good Engineer. I think it should be so hard that when we finally earn the degree and title it is going to be sweet.

Let's face it, not everyone will work the hardest to become an engineer. If someone graduated from JoeSchmoe College in an engineering major, that person has technically earned the title of Engineer even if little effort was put into it. Now, you may be thinking "HAH! Of course not! That person can't call them self an Engineer." Are you? Take a second to think.

- - -

If that's the case, your criteria of the title Engineer includes one's character, probably that an engineer must be hard-working, creative, and extremely passionate of the field. It sure is my criteria that I judge upon, but when I do call someone an engineer from this criteria, I don't mean it absolutely seriously. This system of mine doesn't apply only to engineers, but simply any profession. If I see a high school student (or anyone) passionate, skilled in a field, and bound to be successful in the field, I will call them that profession, whether it be doctor, lawyer, or writer. Keep in mind, I do this with a very informal attitude. Are the people I title real engineers, doctors, and etc? Nope, but I'll continue to use this system as a confidence/determination booster and it's fun (for lack of a better phrase). In no way do I mean to offend those who have worked hard to earn the respective professional title.

Here goes it. I am in the eleventh grade, and I am an Engineer. I love constructing things, I love to design, I love to succeed, and I love FIRST. I am an engineer by character, but in no way am I a professional engineer, I have at least 6 years ahead of me until I earn that illustrious title.

[sciguy125]

I'd like to make one final post before I retire from the discussion. I'm not trying to argue anything else, I just want to clarify my position.

I haven't been arguing that people that hold engineering degrees didn't work hard, or that they should not be respected, but rather that a degree isn't what makes you an engineer. I remind you of the question I posed earlier: Which came first, the engineer or the engineering degree? Gates droped out of college. Does that mean that he wasn't an engineer (I don't want to argue that a programmer isn't an engineer, if that's what you're thinking...just go with me for a second)? What about the engineers that were around before there were engineering degrees? Is it the degree that makes the engineer? Or is it that the engineer seeks the engineering degree?

(By making the following comments I am in no way trying to deemphasize the achievements that are also represented in the pieces of paper.) An engineering degree is a piece of paper that tells the state that you are an engineer. I don't see why you need a piece of paper to tell you that you are an engineer. Take a marriage certificate for example. It tells the state that you are married and that you can be held responsible for all the responsibilites that come with the title. Do you need a piece of paper to tell you and your spouse that you are married? I thought marriage was about making a commitment to be there for each other. If two (maybe more - I don't want to argue this point though) people say that they are married, but don't have this special piece of paper, I will respect their marriage as any other. What if they have a religious ceremony (or whatever their religion requires) but don't bother to get a state certificate? If they made the commitment to each other, I don't see why they need state approval. While they are not legally married (and thus don't get the legal benefits that come with the title), aren't they still married?

I feel that engineering is the same way. If you uphold the "philosophy" of "engineering", why do you need a piece of paper to say that you are an engineer? I'm not saying that you should have the same respect as a degree holder (they worked hard for that), but why can't you say that you are an engineer?

(In the following statments, I am not trying to hide or ignore the inherent dangers that come with the situation. I am also not saying that this specific situation is plausible or even a good idea. I just want to pose a thought experiment.) Let's say that you find yourself a doctor. He treats you of your ailments and you feel great afterwards. You later find that he does not hold a medical degree. Will that make you lose your trust in him? He did his job as a "doctor", didn't he? If you feel better, he obviously did a good job of it too. Does he really need the special piece of paper to say he is a doctor if he can do his job?

Again, I am trying to say that you don't need to have a degree to be an engineer. You may need a degree to be a professional engineer (as in an a person who works as an engineer, not necessarily a person with PE certification), but an engineer is someone who engineers. A person who programs is a programmer. A person who cooks is a chef. A person who takes pictures is a photographer. A person who delivers mail is a mail carrier. A person who engineers is an engineer. Unless you hold proper training/certification (or whatever else your field requires), however, you are not a professional in the field.

I'd like to sit here and refine myself a little more, but this library computer is going to kick me off in a few mintues and I have class soon. I hope that I have made myself clear in what I have been able to say in the last hour though.

I understand what all of you are trying to tell me, but I don't completely agree. I don't expect you to agree with me either, just understand where I am coming from. I ask you one final time to wrap up my points: Which came first? The engineer or the engineering degree?

[Ken Leung]

Originally Posted by Philip W.

Here goes it. I am in the eleventh grade, and I am an Engineer. I love constructing things, I love to design, I love to succeed, and I love FIRST. I am an engineer by character, but in no way am I a professional engineer, I have at least 6 years ahead of me until I earn that illustrious title.

Nope, sorry. But good luck becoming a true Engineer ;-).

Originally Posted by sciguy125

I ask you one final time to wrap up my points: Which came first? The engineer or the engineering degree?

To this question, I will have to say, you will need both of them in this society.

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

Let's say that you find yourself a doctor. He treats you of your ailments and you feel great afterwards. You later find that he does not hold a medical degree. Will that make you lose your trust in him?

ABSOLUTELY!!!

Does he really need the special piece of paper to say he is a doctor if he can do his job?

He most certainly does.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Hello,
I would like to point out that students (including engineering majors in post high school education) frequently decide to change their field of study to something other than engineering. So as you have pointed out, you wish to study to be an engineer but the path has not been completed.
To point back to Ken's post, it is hard to become an engineer, very hard. It is hard whether you attend U of I, Bradley, MIT or Berkley( add the Alma Mater of your choice). The curriculum's are driven by the need for trained individuals with the tools needed to accomplish the tasks and be creative. Even a painter needs brushes and paint and an understanding of how to mix them into colors before he can put anything on canvas.
To quote a famous movie line..."Of course it's hard. If it wasn't hard everyone would be doing it. It is the hard that makes it great." (Tom Hanks, A League of Their Own) That is why engineers want you to become an engineer. It is hard so not everyone can do it, but we know you can do it. It is great and that is why we want you to be part of it.

[Ken Leung]

I've been regretting it ever since I posted my last reply in this thread. In all the talks about inspiration and tolerance I let my emotions got better of me. I think we should let the argument end here and that's the end of that. There are only two more things I want to mention.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the Engineers in this thread have been through a lot, and their view is one full of experiences that you and I have not had a chance to have. While your own experience have convinced you otherwise, I urge you to keep your mind open and not let what you know limit who you will be. Learning from the scientific method, our theories are only as good as the data we collect. If we continue to keep our eyes open and recognize when new data comes in, then our theories will only be more precise and beneficial. So, who knows. You might change your mind later when you've seen enough. Either way, I encourage you to challenge your own believes as often as you can, and only accept them after putting them through the harshest test you can think of. Because that’s the best way to learn and grow.

The other thing is, there is no name, no title, no test result, no degree, no action, no skill that can truly define who an engineer really is. But you will recognize one when you see one. It is in this kind of dilemma when I truly recognize how limiting words are. The more important thing is the idea behind the name "Engineer", and that's where I think we differ. While you have your version of what an Engineer is, so do others in this thread.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I am more inclined to agree with others who think becoming an Engineer should be hard, not because it makes the name more important, but because it is a better image to show to the students in FIRST. They should know that it should be hard to become an Engineer, that you can't just learn one skill, pass one test, or finish one course and become one. They should want to earn it, and push hard to achieve the title, instead of thinking they became one just because they joined FIRST and built a robot. Because when and only when that happen will they work so hard that they are guaranteed to become a great Engineer one day. Because that's the kind of Engineers our world really needs.


Anyway... I think we should point the discussion toward a more positive direction, so, let's go back to the original topic. While we are at it, I want to start another thread to discuss more about Engineering (While I have some free time to do so). It just feels so good when I am learning ;-).

[VEN]

I want to become and aeronautics engineer. Maybe in the Canadian Air Force.

[Ken Leung]

[It's graduation day from Thomas Kuhn, the structure of scientific revolutions!]

Ever since this debate last year, I've given a lot of thought into this topic. Part of it is because even until now, I felt I was arguing for my position irrationally, from emotional responds more than anything else. I've regret that position as soon as I pressed the "submit" button, and I've been looking for a more rational answer since then.

I've finally found part of the answers from a book that talks about the nature of science and scientific practioners. I will attempt to shed some light on this discussion from that perspective, a perspective entirely different from the ones we've used.

I will let you be the judge of whether that perspective is justified or not.

Quoted from the text of "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn:

"In this essay, 'normal science' means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community acknowledge for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.

These achievements I shall henceforth refer to as 'paradigms'. By choosing it, I meant to suggest that some accepted examples of actual scientific practice- examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation that together- provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research. These are traditions which the historian describes under such rubrics as 'Copernican astronomy', Newtonian dynamics', and so on.

The study of paradigms, including many that are far more specialized than those named illustratively above, is what mainly prepares the student for membership in the particular scientific community with which he will late practice. Because he there joins men who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models, his subsequent practice will seldom evoke overt disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigm are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.

Science students accept theories on the authority of teacher and text, not because of evidence. What alternatives have they, or what competence? The applications given in texts are not there as evidence but because learning them is part of learning the paradigm at the base of current practice.

No natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection, evaluation, and criticism."

If you buy the picture describe by Kuhn that scientists work together as a communities governed by 'paradigms', or bodies of theory, law, application, and instrumentations that provide models from which spring the traditions of scientific research, then perhaps it make sense that an Engineer have to receive a degree before they can officially become an Engineer.

Engineers work together as a community very much like scientists, in the sense that we also practice Engineering on shared paradigms, and are committed to the same rules and standards for that practice.

The shared commitment is a good thing because we don't have to waste time discussing the fundamentals. It's also good thing because we don't have to waste time arguing the definitions of things like "energy", "power", "current", "heat", and we can spend more time in the articulation of paradigms and trying to bring facts and theories closer and closer to agreements.

And in order to become a part of this community, students of engineering have to study these community governing paradigms, and particularly, the examples provide by the textbooks, because they allow us to learn the paradigm at the base of current practice. In engineering school, we learn which engineering theories are used to describe which part of the real world, we learn about how these theories are applied to real life by studying various applications, and we learn about the kind of instruments that have given us these theories and applications.

Ultimately, in engineering schools, we learn the standards that engineers base their practice on.


In other words, we have to go through all that because engineering schools provide us with the means to join the engineering community, not in title, but by teaching us shared standards and practices currently employed by that community. We go through engineering school because it also gives us access to the paradigm that currently governs the same engineering community, because once we are all on the same page, at least in terms of practice, standards, philosophy, or beliefs, we can go right into the profession of engineering and continue the work started by engineers who came before us.

We need an Engineer degree, or a piece of paper as some of you call it, because it proves that we've gone through the process of learning from institutions the shared standards, practices, philosophies, beliefs, and most importantly, the shared paradigms that the community is using.


Yes, it is true that you could learn about engineering without ever going to school. You could even learn the methods, applications, and solutions without ever though through school and getting a degree.

But, I would argue that if you don't go through engineering school to get a degree, you are missing out on chances to:

1. learn the complete standards and practices of the community of engineering,
2. learn to communicate effectively in the language employed by the engineering community,
3. learn about engineering effectively when other people, whether they are engineering students or teachers, challenge you and your knowledge and you challenge them back, and in the process, learn to apply and articulate the knowledge you gained about engineering,

I would also argue that going through engineering school also give you access to place you otherwise wouldn't have access to, such as
1. the academic environment, where new generations of engineers are being trained,
2. the higher researches not just in the field of engineering, but also in the field of science, mathematics, among other things (Philosophy, psychology, etc),
3. and in general, the community of students, faculty, and professionals who strive succeed in the academic environment.


Granted, you can learn about engineering, even how to become an engineer without ever going to school and getting a degree. Ultimately, you will be the one tp decide what you want out of life. You don't have to get an engineering degree, or become part of the community of engineers, to do what engineers do.

But considering Engineering is a practice of a community, there are many reasons that compels you to go through school, and get that engineering degree.


I can't justify any ultimate reason why you must get an engineering degree, so I will leave you with this final thought by repeating what Kuhn said earlier:

" The study of paradigms, including many that are far more specialized than those named illustratively above, is what mainly prepares the student for membership in the particular scientific community with which he will late practice. Because he there joins men who learned the bases of their field from the same concrete models, his subsequent practice will seldom evoke overt disagreement over fundamentals. Men whose research is based on shared paradigm are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition."

and this quote that keep coming up in my mind as I thought about this:

"No man is an island, entirely of itself…" - John Donne

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Sometimes, for old times sake, I go back and read those controversial threads. I noticed this one had replies today, and as I read it, I thought again about the question of what Engineers do.

Like Ken, my thoughts since I first read this thread have changed. Last time I read it, I chose not to bother replying, because it was a war zone that had deviated from topic. After applying to college, being accepted to a few excellent Biomedical Engineering programs, and reading this again, I realize the significance of the certificate, the time put into researching the solution to the problem, and how easy and wrong it is to just say "oh, I've done this already..." when it's truly not the case.

With that said...any Biomedical Engineers out there want to share their stories? Not Biomedical Engineering majors (unless you just want to give class advice, that rocks too), not HS students that plan to major in Biomedical Engineering, but the people who inspired me to choose this major though I'll be attending graduate school for Medical practice.