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

[Ken Leung]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

Phil,
Just because you do engineering work does not make you an engineer, Calling yourself an engineer gives others the wrong impression of your capabilities.

Indulge me for a second as I draw the example of becoming a doctor.

Becoming a doctor take many years. It is a long, arduous, expensive process that can only be accomplished with great dedication. Without going into full details let's take a look at the major obstacles:

1. High School -> college applications
2. College, pre-Med major -> Med school application/interview, MCAT
3. Medical school -> USMLE (part 1 taken in the 2nd year, part 2 taken in the 4th year)
4. Residency (internship) -> USMLE (part 3 taken in the first year of residency)
5. Medical License approved by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education.

Boy, just looking at the list give me a chill on my back. Also makes me pray my kids won't want to be a doctor...

It takes years of dedication for someone to become a doctor, in addition to the numerous tests and application processes. If some students come up to me and say, "I know how to cure a cold, I am a doctor now!", I would say, "Sorry kid, you have a long way to go."

Granted, human lives are at stake if you become a doctor, but isn't it the same for engineers? Depending on what our professions are, we may be responsible in building an apartment building, a car, a bridge, a satellite, a tank, or a computer. Many of our accomplishments involve protecting/improving human lives just like doctors. If we screw up, lives can be at stake.

I've always believed to gain a title, you have to earn it. Being an engineer tell us and the rest of the world that you've gone through the hardship to become one. It shows your dedication and expertise in the field you are in.

Does becoming an engineer means you know all there is to know about being one? No. Learning is a life long journey. There is never a point where you say, "I know enough. I don't need to learn anymore." There are times when you will be the first person to encounter a problem never faced by any human beings before. Do you call yourself an engineer after you know everything about that problem?

Becoming an engineer is a process. In the continuum between wanting to be one and finally becoming one is a point when we gain the title. A point that cannot be solely defined by how much you know, how smart you are, or how much experience you have.

Perhaps it can only be defined by the following incident:

During your engineering school, a spark suddenly lit off in your head, and you gain an epiphany of the grant scheme of engineering, it might be an equation or a philosophy, that enables you to solve any problems you may encounter in the future. Maybe that’s when people gain the invisible light bulb on top of their head. Or maybe that’s when your glasses reach a certain thickness .

Or maybe the truth is, during engineering school, you’ve memorized enough equation, finished enough labs, passed enough tests, read enough books, and understood enough theories when you finally:

1. Understood what it takes to become an engineer,
2. Learn enough from school to start your own journey of learning and enlightenment,
3. Gained enough tools under your belt to get you started in the industry of your choice.

In order words, maybe you become an engineer when you no longer have to be babysitted any more…


Or maybe there is a Wiseman on top of a mountain, and every year you climb the mountain and ask him, “Am I an engineer yet?” and he says “No.” and you go back to school and visit him every year until he finally says “Yes.” Fortunately, there are a lot of "Wiseman" in this forum already, so there's no need to climb any mountains anymore.

[sciguy125]

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

This could be harmful to teams who need a firm and accurate answer from a knowledgeable source. Although many students know the correct answer, the first one to post may not be right. Anyone who posts here with a question directed at a engineer should get an engineer's response.

That's what I was going for. If someone is seeking professional advice, non-professionals should either say nothing or make it clear that they aren't professionals.

I do some photography and, on occasion, people talk to me about it. To Average Joe, the equipment I carry around looks pro. I say that I am a photographer. If they start asking questions about professional photographers, I make it clear that it's just a hobby for me. While being a pro photographer doesn't come with the same responsibility as a pro engineer or doctor, there is some training involved. Actually, I think that being a good pro photographer (or many other forms of art) may require a creativity that can't be taught. I'm sure that they would also take offense to amateurs posing as pros as the engineers here seem to be.

My point is that I don't see any problem with people calling themselves engineers as long as they are not posing as professionals when professional advice is sought.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

My point is that I don't see any problem with people calling themselves engineers as long as they are not posing as professionals when professional advice is sought.

Isn't that confusing? That is like a favorite saying in our business... When an individual is giving a medical opinion and someone asks "Are you a doctor?" the answer is "No, but I play one on TV!". There is no way to know when a person's signature is "engineer" whether they are practicing engineers or not. I would prefer the signature to be student/robot engineer or simply robot engineer or student engineer. Any of these titles will garner my respect for your point of view. Signing engineer when you are a student leaves me with a much different opinion when I find that you are in fact a student giving engineering responses. I would think that other students would be more in awe of a student or robot engineer that answers accurately and like myself would hold a vastly different opinion of someone who signs "engineer" but is not and gives an inaccurate response to a desperate team who is looking for immediate help.

[JVN]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

My point is that I don't see any problem with people calling themselves engineers as long as they are not posing as professionals when professional advice is sought.

But...
To call yourself an engineer, you imply professionalism that isn't there and your words carry that implied credibility that comes with the title. Especially when there is no opportunity for a disclaimer.

The example that Al mentioned is an example of this: the 8th grader who's words have more weight simply because he refers to himself as an "engineer" in his title.

The argument could be made of course... that everyone should just make their own judgments and ignore any supposed, possibly self-granted "titles".
(Nah! )


Personal note to my father:
Talk to me in four years.

[sciguy125]

Originally Posted by JVN

To call yourself an engineer, you imply professionalism that isn't there and your words carry that implied credibility that comes with the title.

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure if I'm willing to concede my position just yet.

Originally Posted by JVN

The argument could be made of course... that everyone should just make their own judgments and ignore any supposed, possibly self-granted "titles".
(Nah! )

I'm not trying to make a case for my above comment, but people should always scrutinize information no matter where it comes from. Everyone is liable to make mistakes. The fact that I've seen an episode of Modern Marvels titled "Engineering Disasters 16" shows that even professionals aren't immune. You also can't expect people to know everything. I'm sure that for years to come, science teachers will teach that the Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, but they're wrong.

[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.

[Richard Wallace]

Most of what I believe on the subject of 'who is an engineer' was well covered by others in this thread, many months ago.

I have been an engineer in training for about thirty years now. Timeline:

1972-1976 HS nerd in South Carolina (when nerds weren't cool)
1976-1977 freshman at Furman University (where there was no engineering department)
1977-1983 co-op student at Georgia Tech (during this period I worked as a 'co-op student engineer' for a total of 27 months)
1983 Bachelor of Electrical Engineering, Georgia Tech
1983-1985 member of technical staff, TRW Defense Systems, Redondo Beach (never mind what I did during this period)
1985-1990 graduate student at Georgia Tech (during this period I taught classes in electromagnetism and electric machinery, completed an NSF-funded research project under direction of my thesis advisor, and published three articles in refereed engineering journals)
1990 Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Georgia Tech
1991-1995 Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of Missouri (during this period I taught classes in electric machinery and power electronics, co-directed a research center in power electronics, and advised and supervised eleven graduate students through their MS degrees)
1995-2006 Chief Engineer, Emerson Motor Technologies (during this period I have originated, managed, and reviewed the electrical and mechanical design of new electronically controlled motor products for a variety of applications, including several for automotive components; I have also been an engineering mentor for FRC teams in 1996-1997 and 2002-2006)

Along this path I've encountered many difficult problems, and more often than not, my attempts to solve those problems have forced me to learn things about engineering that I didn't know before.

As Al wrote earlier in this thread,

Originally Posted by Al Skierkiewicz

... a person who loves what they are doing never has to work a day in their life.

I have yet to work a day as an engineer.

[Brian C]

WOW!

An interesting exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

I have mixed feelings on this subject. While I most definitely feel that you are not an engineer without a degree and society, as a whole recognizes this as well.

I also have to say that in my experience, some of the best engineers/designers I have ever known do not have degrees. While these folks are not working as professional engineers they do have the "know how" and the ability to apply it to do whatever is required to improve a process or make something better. (and safely too I might add)

I guess my true feelings are this: The best engineers are people that can combine common sense and education and apply both to their work. Education without common sense is like a load of books on the back of a mule.

Oh, and don't forget, Dean never actually graduated from his college (WPI) with an engineering degree. Yes, I know that he has received honorary degrees but technically those don't count.

I'm not looking to bash anyone or anything here, just want to offer another point of view. Sometimes an open mind is the most important thing you can have.

[tcj103]

I agree, book smarts only get you so far.

As for me, BS in Aerospace Engineering, minor in Engineering Mechanics, from Penn State.

But my work is more software related, but on a fly by wire flight control system on a rotorcraft. While I don't do code directly, I work at the system integration level, looking at logic diagrams and addressing software/hardware integration.

Basically this means we have a computer flying the airplane, and the software that does that and detects faults is in my area, along with the components and how they perform. Failures are logged, and troubleshooting performed.

I've awlways had the aviation bug, was a pilot for 15 years, and always enjoyed playing with machines and computers. As a mentor, FIRST has always been a source of inspiration for me, since you see results so quickly. I constantly remind the students of what they're learning.

Ted

[MrForbes]

I have a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. Mechanical things always interested me....I recall fixing the transmission in a toy Jeep I had when I was about 7 years old, and when I was a little kid I always used to (and still do) stare intently at junk cars I see when driving around. My brothers got into electronics when I was about 10, I did a bit too, but never really understood the magic of transistors...instead I preferred to build model cars. When I was 14 I took apart the engine in an old car we had, and rebuilt it. All through high school I worked on the neighbor's cars, from minor stuff to engine and transmission overhauls, and did an engine swap in my truck when I was a senior. Since I had always been good at math and science, it seemed natural to go into engineering school after high school...and I had part time jobs at a salvage yard, then a transmission shop, to help pay my way.

After I graduated I ended up working at Ft Huachuca as an "electronics engineer", which involved a lot more paperwork than engineering (although I did get to have fun travelling around getting the SATCOM equipment working). When I finally got promoted to first level management, it became not fun at all, so I quit (my wife is also an engineer, and supports us). Since then I've worked on cars and raised the kids...and the only work I've done that approaches "real" engineering in that time, has been helping the robot team design and build a robot this year!

As a side note, my brothers both dropped out of engineering school before completing their degrees, and both are very knowledgeable and skilled electrical engineers--I call them that even though they don't have the paper, they really do know what they're doing, math and theory and all.