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

[Dave Flowerday]

Originally Posted by Astronouth7303

If I were an employer, I would hire the guy with a degree. But how much of it can be self-taught and/or mentored? I have 0 formal schooling in what I do, but as a software engineer I am capable and becoming more so every day. I may not measure up to the guy with a PhD in Computer Science, but I'm doing pretty well, I think.

Well, it looks like you've taken some heat for this quote. Whether or not you agree with the other responses, many of us mentors on these forums who have earned degrees in engineering (me: BSE, Computer Engineering, University of Michigan) do get offended when we see students call themselves engineers. I thought I'd give you my personal reasons for why I feel that high school students are not engineers, with a heavy emphasis on the software engineering perspective.

Software engineering is an interesting field because almost anyone with a PC at home can learn some of the skills required by it. Students interested in software engineering can sit at home, learn programming languages, write code, and perhaps even release products to others, with little more than a $1000 computer that most people probably already have anyway. Contrast this to mechanical engineering where you can probably design a part at home on your PC but it's much more difficult (and expensive) to actually produce that part or sell it to others. I noticed this theme in college quite a bit: even in our freshman computer engineering courses we were writing real programs, compiling, and testing them. Most other disciplines were primarily working with equations and story problems for the first year or two. This is both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. What this means is that the world of software is very tinkerer and hobbiest friendly, because the cost of entry is so low. This causes a lot of people who know how to tinker with computers and how to program to think they are software engineers, but they're not.

I know this is getting long already, but I have a little more to say, so bear with me. There is a distinct difference between a software engineer and a programmer. I've seen people in many places (even on ChiefDelphi) claim that people who write software for a living are not engineers because programming is really not an engineering discipline. At first, I'm offended. When I think about it for a second, though, I realize I mostly agree. Programming is not necessarily an engineering discipline, but it can be.

The reason that I do not hesitate to call myself a software engineer is simple: our software development process is just like any other engineering discipline. When we are ready to create a new software product, we do not just start hacking on code (like many programming hobbiests do). We start by gathering customer requirements. We break these customer requriements down into various product requirements. We break those requirements down into software subsystem requirements. And we keep going until we have requirements that tell us exactly what each piece of software needs to do. Once that's done, we move into an architecture phase. Architecture is where you determine which functions or classes will be used and what they will do (or, "How do I effectively organize my code to implement the stated requirements?"). Next is design, where you add more detail to the architecture. Arguments for each function & method are determined, class attributes are determined, etc. Only after all that is any code written. Many software engineering projects run for months or even years before anyone even begins to write any code. Then, after the code is written, there's lots of testing. We do unit tests (which is just testing the piece of software we wrote), integration tests (verify that your stuff still works when combined with other people's stuff), box test (verifying that the entire product does what it's supposed to do), and system test (verifying that every product in the system works correctly with all the other products).

This software development process is (I believe) very similar to the processes used in other forms of engineering. And, even in college they didn't really do a great job of teaching us all of that. It was only after I started my job that I really learned what "software engineering" (versus programming) was all about. I probably only spend 10% of my time as a software engineer actually writing code. The majority of my time is all the other stuff I mentioned, which is also the stuff that 99% of the hobbiest and moonlight programmers usually don't know anything about. If you do happen to follow all those steps when you develop your projects, then great: you're definitely ahead of the game, and it will benefit you. But I can tell you that most companies like Motorola are not going to hire someone to write software without a formal degree, because it's pretty difficult to verify someone's abilities like that. At least when they hire someone with a degree the odds are better (though still not 100%) that they will know what they are doing.

Bottom line: hobbiests, hackers, and tinkerers can fiddle with something and make it work. Engineers are people who engineer solutions to problems.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Well, it looks like you've taken some heat for this quote. Whether or not you agree with the other responses, many of us mentors on these forums who have earned degrees in engineering (me: BSE, Computer Engineering, University of Michigan) do get offended when we see students call themselves engineers. I thought I'd give you my personal reasons for why I feel that high school students are not engineers, with a heavy emphasis on the software engineering perspective.

Software engineering is an interesting field because almost anyone with a PC at home can learn some of the skills required by it. Students interested in software engineering can sit at home, learn programming languages, write code, and perhaps even release products to others, with little more than a $1000 computer that most people probably already have anyway. Contrast this to mechanical engineering where you can probably design a part at home on your PC but it's much more difficult (and expensive) to actually produce that part or sell it to others. I noticed this theme in college quite a bit: even in our freshman computer engineering courses we were writing real programs, compiling, and testing them. Most other disciplines were primarily working with equations and story problems for the first year or two. This is both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. What this means is that the world of software is very tinkerer and hobbiest friendly, because the cost of entry is so low. This causes a lot of people who know how to tinker with computers and how to program to think they are software engineers, but they're not.

I know this is getting long already, but I have a little more to say, so bear with me. There is a distinct difference between a software engineer and a programmer. I've seen people in many places (even on ChiefDelphi) claim that people who write software for a living are not engineers because programming is really not an engineering discipline. At first, I'm offended. When I think about it for a second, though, I realize I mostly agree. Programming is not necessarily an engineering discipline, but it can be.

The reason that I do not hesitate to call myself a software engineer is simple: our software development process is just like any other engineering discipline. When we are ready to create a new software product, we do not just start hacking on code (like many programming hobbiests do). We start by gathering customer requirements. We break these customer requriements down into various product requirements. We break those requirements down into software subsystem requirements. And we keep going until we have requirements that tell us exactly what each piece of software needs to do. Once that's done, we move into an architecture phase. Architecture is where you determine which functions or classes will be used and what they will do (or, "How do I effectively organize my code to implement the stated requirements?"). Next is design, where you add more detail to the architecture. Arguments for each function & method are determined, class attributes are determined, etc. Only after all that is any code written. Many software engineering projects run for months or even years before anyone even begins to write any code. Then, after the code is written, there's lots of testing. We do unit tests (which is just testing the piece of software we wrote), integration tests (verify that your stuff still works when combined with other people's stuff), box test (verifying that the entire product does what it's supposed to do), and system test (verifying that every product in the system works correctly with all the other products).

This software development process is (I believe) very similar to the processes used in other forms of engineering. And, even in college they didn't really do a great job of teaching us all of that. It was only after I started my job that I really learned what "software engineering" (versus programming) was all about. I probably only spend 10% of my time as a software engineer actually writing code. The majority of my time is all the other stuff I mentioned, which is also the stuff that 99% of the hobbiest and moonlight programmers usually don't know anything about. If you do happen to follow all those steps when you develop your projects, then great: you're definitely ahead of the game, and it will benefit you. But I can tell you that most companies like Motorola are not going to hire someone to write software without a formal degree, because it's pretty difficult to verify someone's abilities like that. At least when they hire someone with a degree the odds are better (though still not 100%) that they will know what they are doing.

Bottom line: hobbiests, hackers, and tinkerers can fiddle with something and make it work. Engineers are people who engineer solutions to problems.

So, to sum it all up, if I'm correct, the guy who writes the code for the robot is a programmer, but the guy who writes the code for the program that the robot programmer uses is a software engineer. They don't just make it work; they make it work with efficiency.

As for being called an engineer without a degree, etc, lets put it this way. If you can place a band-aid over a cut, it doesn’t make you a doctor. If you plug in your new computer and get it running, you are not an electrician, and if you build a PVC instrument you aren’t a plumber Why? Because while you can USE the tools for the job and CREATE something, you don't have the fundamental principals down. You need to know about the human body, current, and water flow (respectfully) to ever START to master those professions. And just because you build a robot for 6 weeks and fix it for 3-6 days a year doesn’t mean you are an engineer. You can design the robot and build it, but you still don't know the principals behind it.

[petek]

Originally Posted by Dave Flowerday

Engineers are people who engineer solutions to problems.

I have to go along with Dave's definition. Is it really all that important how one acquires the knowledge needed to engineer solutions, as long as the problem gets solved?

As for me, I'm:
a) Electronics technologist by degree (AAS in Electronics, Delaware Tech, eons ago);
b) Sr. Project Manager by title (which means squat, but sounds nice);
c) A mix of electrical, mechanical and chemical engineer by job function (which still doesn't mean I'm a real engineer);
d) Responsible for coming up with technical solutions to real problems encountered in drug discovery every day. I lead a small group of engineers and technicians, and am the only one in the company who can do electro-mechanical design engineering and project management.

Okay, I don't have a BS degree, and I don't claim to be able to do a lot of the more technical aspects of engineering, but I have a pretty good track record of developing effective solutions to real problems. In my current job I replaced a person with an MS in mechanical engineering - a fellow who, in my opinion, never produced a single effective solution to anyone's problem in the eight years I knew him. So who is the "engineer" here?

As to why I am doing what I do: I get to work with a bunch of very talented scientists, learn new things every day, work with leading-edge laboratory automation and analytical instrumentation, occasionally get to invent something, and get paid for it! Besides solving problems, I get a lot of satisfaction from helping the people in my group develop their skills and expand their capabilities.

Right now I'm working on projects to:
- automate testing of drug candidates in an assay which models the human gut;
- manage a project to build an instrument which can dispense 500 nanoliter droplets (too small to see) at 80 drops per second with better than 7% accuracy in a dispensed sample population of over 60,000 drops;
- replicate a robotic work cell (which my group developed) that separates really nasty (very acidic) organic solutions containing high value chemicals in solution.

How much more fun could a person have?!

[Max Lobovsky]

Petek, that is exactly the kind of job I'd like. Dealing with a wide range of technical fields and coming up with original solutions. Actually, it sounds a lot like what a lot of people do as part of FIRST. Because it is like a small version of the real engineering world, people can work on much more complete systems and don't have to stay in their specific field. I think you are really lucky to have a job that gives you so much freedom.

[petek]

Originally Posted by Max Lobovsky

I think you are really lucky to have a job that gives you so much freedom.

How right you are, Max! And luck certainly played its part a few times for me to get where I am now without a BS! That, and hard work, determination not to settle for the easy path and believing what I was once told: "you aren't given responsibility - you have to earn it". Okay, some are given it, but it sure means a lot more when you know you've earned it!

For those who think the kind of work I described sounds interesting, my advise is go for the BS degree, take extra credits in chemistry, biochemistry and (especially) physics, and while you're there see if you can get work maintaining their lab equipment and assisting in labs. Then, look for internships and jobs at scientific equipment manufacturers, biotech, small pharmaceutical or biomedical companies. Once upon a time there were a lot of lab engineering jobs in big pharmaceutical and chemical co's, but these days they've closed or outsourced most of it.

Another area, which doesn't usually pay as well but is rewarding in other ways, is agrotech. Sometimes called "working on the farm", for an engineer this means working with molecular biologists, botanists and biochemists to develop less invasive pesticides, stronger crops and assure that there will be enough food to go around 50 years from now. You may get more fresh air on the job, too!

Be forewarned that few lab engineering jobs are "9 to 5" (9-10 hrs a day is pretty typical), and that many scientist-run organizations don't understand (or value) engineering as much as "real" science (meaning chemistry and biology).

[patrickrd]

I think that to be an engineer, you need to have gone through an accredited four-year college program. I consider myself an engineer, my job title says so. I am a very, very young engineer. I do not yet have a lot of experience. But I've been through an engineering program. Engineering programs in college are rigorous. You learn a lot of things in a short amount of time. You absolutely can not get everything out of a book. One of the most important things I got out of my engineering program is the importance of actually being an engineer. You ask "What does that mean?" A bad calculation can equate to losses of lives. Inaccurately communicating something as a fact can do the same. Even though I am young, I have gone through an engineering program, I recognize the importance of what I am doing, and know when to ask for help and when I can handle something on my own.

The bottom line is that I feel engineering is a very powerful profession. Because of the nature of the work and the ramifications of what engineers do, it's got to be taken seriously and carried out carefully. I took a Science & Technology course where technology is referred to as a golem, or a bumbling giant. Huge. Powerful. Growing. The giant is capable of accomplishing great things, or great distruction. I feel engineers are the ones who sit at the steering wheel, controlling the giant.