<p>
[quote]
No, you may not practice engineering! You are not even legally allowed to call yourself an engineer in most states.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aibarr, that may be true for you industry but there it isn't universal that a PE/EIT bestows the title as engineer. When I was working at a big oil company, we had almost no licensed PEs at all but we still were able to design hydraulic systems.</p>
<p>I've always heard that outside of Civil you don't need a PE for the vast majority of jobs. Only where public safety is concerned do you need one. Its still beneficial to get one though because jobs requiring a PE pay more. I know that in EE and Aero it can be more beneficial to get a security clearance instead of a PE.</p>
<p>"What we really need to do is make those weeder courses aimed more towards the engineering students that are forced to take them instead of sticking them in classes with all of the people that are majoring in them."</p>
<p>The school I'm going to in the fall has an integrated yearlong introductory course that combines multivariable calculus with introductory physics with more foucs on their applications. At the end of the course, students use the physics and math that they learned and apply it to a small engineering project. Maybe more schools could try something like this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Aibarr, that may be true for you industry but there it isn't universal that a PE/EIT bestows the title as engineer. When I was working at a big oil company, we had almost no licensed PEs at all but we still were able to design hydraulic systems.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Practicing engineering and calling yourself an engineer is different. It's not illegal for you to practice engineering if a PE stamp isn't required, but you can't legally call yourself an engineer if you're not licensed. It won't hold up in a court of law. Some companies in the civil field are pretty conscious about this and make a point of not putting down someone's title as "Engineer" on their business card.</p>
<p>I've heard of company being required to remove the word "engineering" from their company name because of some issue. Enforcement isn't strict, but it's the law. </p>
<p>The following is from the Texas Board of Professional Engineers' website: "Under the Texas Engineering Practice Act, only duly licensed persons may legally perform, or offer to perform engineering services for the public. Furthermore, public works must be designed and constructed under the direct supervision of a licensed professional engineer. The terms "engineer" or "professional engineer" can only be used by persons who are currently licensed. Anyone who violates these parameters is subject to legal penalties."</p>
<p>Same thing goes for architects.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, I assume that most CEs who can't pass the PE just go into a field like construction management.
[/quote]
Nah, they usually just stick with the company, but don't get promoted. At the engineering firm that I worked for, a couple of the engineers didn't get licensed until their 40's or 50's. They just keep trying, but I think there's a limitation on how many tries you get, depending on the state. What happens when they run out of tries? I'm not sure...</p>
<p>ken285,</p>
<p>Yep, you are completely right but:</p>
<p>
[quote]
§ 1001.301. License Required
(a) A person may not engage in the practice of engineering unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter.</p>
<p>(b) Except as provided by Subsection (f), a person may not, unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter, directly or indirectly use or cause to be used as a professional, business, or commercial identification, title, name, representation, claim, asset, or means of advantage or benefit any of, or a variation or abbreviation of, the following terms:
(1) “engineer”;
(2) “professional engineer”;
(3) “licensed engineer”;
(4) “registered engineer”;
(5) “registered professional engineer”;
(6) “licensed professional engineer”; or
(7) “engineered.”
[/quote]
</p>
<p><a href="f">quote</a> Notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, a regular employee of a business entity who is engaged in engineering activities but is exempt from the licensing requirements of this chapter under Sections 1001.057 or 1001.058 is not prohibited from using the term “engineer” on a business card, cover letter, or other form of correspondence that is made available to the public if the person does not:
(1) offer to the public to perform engineering services; or
(2) use the title in any context outside the scope of the exemption in a manner that represents an ability or willingness to perform engineering services or make an engineering judgment requiring a licensed professional engineer.</p>
<p>(g) Subsection (f) does not authorize a person to use a term listed in Subsections (b)(2)-(6) or a variation or abbreviation of one of those terms.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can't use titles 2-6 but I can still call myself an engineer. </p>
<p>
[quote]
§ 1001.057. Employee of Private Corporation or Business Entity
(a) This chapter shall not be construed to apply to the activities of a private corporation or other business entity, or the activities of the full-time employees or other personnel under the direct supervision and control of the business entity, on or in connection with:
(1) reasonable modifications to existing buildings, facilities, or other fixtures to real property not accessible to the general public and which are owned, leased, or otherwise occupied by the entity; or
(2) activities related only to the research, development, design, fabrication, production, assembly, integration, or service of products manufactured by the entity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I can see yours and aibarrs point: If I am working in the public sector as a civil/structural engineer I must be licenses to practice engineering. However, these rules won't apply to the private sector.</p>
<p>What about sales engineers? You don't need a PE for that, so is that a wrong title? Should it be technical sales representative instead?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't need a PE for that, so is that a wrong title?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If the field in which they're selling equipment requires licensure, then yes, they'll need a PE to call themselves engineers. Most sales reps for products I deal with really almost need to have a PE to answer our design questions, anyhow, so it's not a big deal for them.</p>
<p>But yeah, nshah's right, I misspoke. If you're in a field that doesn't require licensure, you can call yourself an "engineer", but not any of those other terms (eg, "professional engineer", "registered engineer", "licensed engineer"). If you ARE in a field that typically requires licensure, you can't call yourself an engineer if you're not licensed.</p>
<p>Sorry 'bout that, nshah!</p>
<p>No worries aibarr,</p>
<p>in a few years you can refer to me as registere* engin**r nshah9617</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>
[quote]
registere* engin**r nshah9617
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Done and done. =)</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, many of the pre-med/science majors still have to take the same "weeder" classes that engineers do--Calculus 1-3, Physics 1-2, Chemistry and in some cases, Organic Chemistry.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For which there is usually an entirely separate track. For example, at Berkeley, there is the "easier" physics track, in other words, the physics without calculus, which is for all of the premeds, and then there is the "real" physics for all of the engineers (and physics) majors. Engineers aren't allowed to take the easier physics track. Same with math, same with OChem. For example, the "real" chemistry and chemical engineers take an entirely different (and much more extensive) sequence of OChem than do the premeds. </p>
<p>You will find a similar arrangement at most schools. The premeds can take the "real" series, but obviously most do not. </p>
<p>But, again, that's neither here nor there. The point is simply to determine whether engineering is truly a professional degree like an MD or not. If it is, then engineering should grade like the MD programs do: that is to say, almost impossible to actually fail. If it is not a professional program, fine, then engineering can grade just like the other liberal arts programs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
My point is that NO major forgives bad grades even if you abandon further studies in that major. If a pre-med or pre-law failed a Calculus class or Fluids class, med schools won't glance over it. The nature of those schools are driven primarily by GPA and therefore any faltering can be detrimental.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What you neglect is that the engineers have to take these difficult courses whether they want to or not. Other students, even premeds, don't have to take fluids. Heck, I've practically never heard of a non-engineer taking fluids. And, like I said, premeds usually do not have to take the difficult version of calculus that is reserved for the engineers. </p>
<p>Now, certainly I agree with you that you can fail in any major. But the likelihood of failing in engineering is clearly higher than in practically any other major. Why? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I agree with nshah9617, the weeder courses usually aren't even within engineering. We see questions all the time on these forums about "How do I prepare for physics/chemistry/calc/bio/organic?" I don't think I've seen anyone going "What textbook should I get for my Intro to MechE course so I can study and get a leg up on during the summer?" That's one of the biggest problems with "engineering" weeder classes; they're not even classes in engineering!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I treat them as if they are 'effectively' engineering courses, for the fact of the matter is, most of the students in those majors are engineers (as there are relatively few natural science majors compared to engineers), and the courses themselves are often times taught by professors from the engineering departments, even though they may be nominally housed in the chemistry/physics/math department. </p>
<p>However, to your question of what kinds of questions you see on these forums, I would simply attribute that to a lack of knowledge among high school students about what engineering is about. As a case in point, ChemE 140 is, hands-down, the killer weeder in Berkeley chemical engineering: something like half of the chemical engineering students will not get beyond this class (either because they flunk or they drop the course in midstream). But of course most high school seniors coming into Berkeley won't know that because they don't even know what ChemE 140 is. Heck, they don't even really know what chemical engineering is. Similarly, in CS, the killer weeder is CS 61B (Data Structures). But, again, how many high school seniors even know what that is? </p>
<p>The point is, if people had better information, they would be able to ask better questions. But they don't have that information. In fact, that goes a long way towards explaining why engineering is so difficult: people don't even know what they're really getting into before they sign up for it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the main difference between medicine/law and engineering professions are licensing. My view is that a profession differs from an occupation since a profession is bound by a set of laws and ethics. Unfortunately the PE isn't mandatory for all engineering majors (i feel it should be) but however if you want any chance of practicing medicine or law, you MUST pass a licensing exam. Maybe because enginereing has a very vague definition but it isn't illegal to practice engineering without an associated degree.</p>
<p>Also, you don't need formal schooling or a degree to become an engineer but you MUST to become a doctor/lawyer. Engineering can be picked up through experience and you can even qualify or waive the FE/PE exams if you have had X years of experience. For example, at the oil company I worked with last year, they would train you to become a "drilling engineer" as long as your major was technical. I'm not a licensed PE yet but I can still practice engineering but I can't diagnose a patient with a disease or provide legal counsel--I'm not licensed or hold the necessary degrees.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just precisely echoed some of the posts that I myself made earlier in this thread: and it all simply proves that engineering isn't really a professional degree the way that medicine is. So we are in complete agreement.</p>
<p>So if that's the case, then why should engineering be graded so much more harshly than the other liberal arts degrees? After all, if we seem to agree that engineering doesn't actually possess special status, then why is it necessary for such a difference in grading exist? If 50% of the humanities students are getting A's, then why shouldn't 50% of the engineers also get A's? Are the engineers really dumber than the humanities students? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the main reason that colleges weed out students is for limited spaces in upper division classes and for preparation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nice try, but that's largely false. Most engineering schools have plenty of available space in their upper division courses. You can take a gander at Berkeley's upper division engineering courses through the course schedule, and how many will you find that actually have all of their seats filled? Practically none. MIT, Caltech, same thing: these schools have plenty of upper division space. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Engineering is so much more difficult since it covers and demands a mastery of a wider range of topics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But does it? See my previous posts in this thread: how much do you really need to know? In the case of the most innovative branches of engineering, such as CS or computer engineering, you don't really need to know anything that is older than, say, 5 years, because anything beyond that is obsolete. Most engineering programs are chock full of topics that you don't really need to know. </p>
<p>I'll repeat one of the examples I had discussed regarding chemical engineering and specifically ChemE Thermodynamics. How many chemical engineers really understand that topic, as in they actually understand, say, the Maxwell Relations, not just in terms of doing math, but what the relations really mean? I mean, honestly, what does it actually mean for the partial derivative of temperature with respect to pressure at constant entropy to be equal to the partial of volume with respect to entropy at constant pressure, and for both of them to be equal to the double partial of enthalpy with respect to entropy and pressure? What the heck does that actually mean in plain English? To this day, I still don't know, and I don't know any other chemical engineers who know. I have shown the Maxwell Relations to numerous practicing chemical engineers who've been in the industry for decades, and I always get the same reaction: first they laugh, and then they say that they knew enough about them to pass the exam, but they never knew what they actually meant, and still don't.</p>
<p>Furthermore, they don't care. It has nothing to do with their actual jobs. Chemical engineers aren't sitting around fiddling around with all manners of partial derivatives with a pencil and paper all day long. They have actual work to do. </p>
<p>Heck, even most research engineers don't care about that stuff. For example, I will retell the story of one girl I know who graduated with high honors from Berkeley ChemE and then stayed at Berkeley to get her PhD. She was then offered to be the TA position for that thermo class, and had to turn it down because she freely admitted that she didn't understand it. This is a girl who finished her PhD in just three years. Yet even she doesn't really understand ChemE thermo.</p>
<p>So it really begs the question of why undergrads are forced to learn a topic that they will almost certainly not understand nor will they ever use. Now, granted, if you're going to be a thermo researcher, then you probably need to understand it. But how many of them are actually going to do that? For those guys, they should take the class. But why force everybody else to take it too? </p>
<p>That all gets back to my basic point, that engineering programs are filled with topics that you don't really need to know. </p>
<p>Heck, you even said it yourself (in an echo of my older posts here on this thread): you don't need an engineering degree to get a job as an engineer. I agree 110%. Yet think about what that means. That must mean that much of an engineering education is superfluous. After all, if you really needed to know what an engineering education provides, then how is it that people can get engineering jobs without engineering degrees? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, it IS possible to fail out of medical school. However, the school usually has vast resources to assign tutors and what not to help you out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Look, anything IS possible. It is also possible that the world will explode in 5 minutes via nuclear war. What we are talking about are likelihoods. We don't have half of the students in med school not finishing, as is quite common in engineering programs. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, the school usually has vast resources to assign tutors and what not to help you out.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, that's not true because it's not necessary: practically zero med students even get into such dire straits that they need such tutoring.</p>
<p>But even if you were correct, it only begs the question: why don't engineering programs do that? Why don't they offer better tutoring so that only a tiny fraction of students won't finish? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Finally, I feel as a whole that medical/law school students are more motivated to finish the degree since it is required for their profession.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And again, that begs the question raised above: why isn't an engineering degree required for the profession? Is it because you don't actually need to know what an engineering education provides in order to work as an engineer, because much of it is superfluous?</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, you may not practice engineering! You are not even legally allowed to call yourself an engineer in most states.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ha! Seems to me that a lot of employees at Intel, Cisco, HP, Dell, Apple, Motorola, Nokia, Boeing, GM, Ford, Harley Davidson, IBM, Texas Instruments, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, are all breaking the law. Maybe we should engage in some mass arrests.</p>
<p>Speaking of the above companies, I can think of several people who work at those firms who call themselves "engineers" but not only aren't professionally licensed, but don't even have engineering degrees at all. For example, I know one girl who works as a process "engineer" at Intel, yet she doesn't have an engineering degree. Her degree is in chemistry. Similarly, I know a guy who works as a manufacturing "engineer" at Dell. His degree is in physics. </p>
<p>Hence, again, it begs the question, if you don't actually need an engineering degree to get an engineering job, then why do engineering programs force you to learn their entire curricula? For example, that Intel girl has never taken classes on fluids, separations, process control, heat/mass transfer, unit operations, process design, or ChemE thermo. Yet Intel hired her as an engineer anyway, and she's done very well. She is living proof that you don't actually need to know that stuff in order to be a successful engineer. </p>
<p>
[quote]
However, these rules won't apply to the private sector.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which is where the vast majority of "engineers" actually work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is it because you don't actually need to know what an engineering education provides in order to work as an engineer, because much of it is superfluous?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've said this over and over. I use all that info; and it makes me a better engineer. It gives me a context so I'm not blindly doing my job, and I can't think of a single class that I could really do away with. The worst engineers that I've encountered are working without a contextual basis of science, and the best ones are the ones that have truly absorbed all of the classes that they took. I wouldn't want to trust those bad engineers with designing a garden shed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ha! Seems to me that a lot of employees at Intel, Cisco, HP, Dell, Apple, Motorola, Nokia, Boeing, GM, Ford, Harley Davidson, IBM, Texas Instruments, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, are all breaking the law.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I corrected myself later.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Yet Intel hired her as an engineer anyway, and she's done very well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't "process engineering" really more management than engineering?</p>
<p>Sakky,</p>
<p>I completely agree that an undergraduate engineering program is not an official profession, specifically for non-PE seeking students. My reasoning is that since there is a very broad definition of what engineering is and that there is no mandatory law-bounding certifications (and there never will be), an engineer can be anyone who spent 15 years out of high school working on cars or to a world renowned PhD Fluid mechanist. That is perfectly fine with me, I don't see my engineering degree as vocational or professional training but instead a foundation of technical skills and thinking that can apply to anything. </p>
<p>Also, I want to make that not all graduating engineers enter the "traditional" enginereering fields--some go to consulting, medical school, law school or financial industries. While we can argue that not all lawyers or med school graduates continue with their field, I bet the numbers are lower. </p>
<p>
[quote]
But the likelihood of failing in engineering is clearly higher than in practically any other major. Why?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that is pretty simple--engineering is a difficult major! Grades and professors aside, which can vary from schol to school, the engineering curriculum is much more difficult than other majors. Upper division classes combine theories and ideas from previous classes and build on them. For example, how can one understand a Thermal Fluids class if they can't understand Heat Transfer and Fluid mechanics and consequentally Calculus?</p>
<p>You are right, the majority of an engineering curriculum and ANY major/profession is often irrelevant to future jobs. In the end experience is king but I feel the reason they still teach us these topics is to nevertheless build a foundation for the future or just to prepare you for the next step of life. Look, I see a degree as just a "check mark" that proves that you are intelligent. Do you need a degre to be an engineer? No! I can study all the theory I want on pipe valves but that pipe technician who dropped out of high school will know exactly how to fix the pipe and all the specifications. However, could he design a new system or explain what would happen if we induce turbulence? Probably not, his experience hasn't exposed him to those ideas yet my education has given me a broad base to consider it.</p>
<p>Heck, look at premed majors. There is nothing in UG studies that can train you as a doctor. Whats the point of a premed major? To prepare yourself for the medical school "check marks", the MCAT. I doubt that 10 years down the line a doctor is going to need to remember an Alkane synthesis to diagnose a patient. However, the rigorous Organic course helped prepare him for the MCAT which helped prepare him for the difficulties of medical school, which helped give him a education that provided a foundation for his experience.</p>
<p>You are right, formalized education as a whole can be superfluous IF you look retrospectively at the jobs students are entering. Look, I think college is supposed to be a place where one can learn more about a subject AND themself. Most of the things we learn are "just in case". Sure, if all the computers in the world died I could theoretically use a numerical method technique to find a root--would it happen, probably not, but I COULD because I have the education. Finally, I think the most important point is that professors are here to teach and broaden our perspectives. Sure, the working ChemE might have little use with the Maxwell equations but there might have been that one guy who was intrigued by it and went on to study it further. In short, most students have no clue what they want to do with their life at age 18 and college/engineering degree gives them a wide set of options. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Most engineering schools have plenty of available space in their upper division courses
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are right but do they have the resources to RUN those upper division courses sucessfully? When I was an undergraduate, there were 6-7 professors each semster that taught Calculus or Physics. When I took my upper division class, Thermal Fluid Systems, there was only one professor and one class. Sure, they could pile in more and more students but I feel that programs might lack the resources to run these classes efficiently. Most strive to have smaller classes in order to provide more interactions which is necessary with the difficulty of the upper division topics. </p>
<p>Also, I'm not sure about your program but I found that is pretty difficult to fail an upper division class. In the weeder classes you are usually just a number and the professor hardly knows your name but in the upper division classes, I often had professors step in to assist.</p>
<p>Finally, with the medical school comparions, I think we need to look at the data and student demographic better. Medical students are typically 21-22 (adults) and while they might only have 4 or more years experience than their undergraduate engineers, they might have a much better picture on what they want to do with their life. In addition, they have been "prepared" through a GPA counting undergraduate and a rough MCAT to handle Med school. Finally, I feel there is a more stringest cost of failure--often times they are already in X years of debt and majored in Biology or something that isn't viable without a graduate degree. Heck, some of them might have long desired to be a doctor and therefore they push themselves more and more for sucesss.</p>
<p>One point that a medical school education and engineering education are too vastly different things. I feel that ANYONE can enter medical school without an undergraduate degree and places in India, you can enter right out of high school. The first two years of medical school is straight memorization and cramming. Engineering on the other hand (should) involve the comprehension of difficult topics and concepts. I bet a lot more people can memorize facts and figures than those who can think analytically. In the end I feel that most people fail out of engineering because they might not just "get" the topics or like engineerimg while in medical school, they can't handle the work load or stress.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And again, that begs the question raised above: why isn't an engineering degree required for the profession? Is it because you don't actually need to know what an engineering education provides in order to work as an engineer, because much of it is superfluous
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Should it be a requirement? I don't think so, I actually think it might be a little elitist too. Anyone can pick up engineering through experience. As I said before, I feel that engineering , in addition to practical training, provides an analytical perspective that can apply to any problem. I actually work with a guy who never got a degree but he damn knows his engineering since he's BEEN out there. If there is a problem, we both can solve it and that doesn't make him any less of an engineer than I am.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents though :-D</p>
<p>PHEW--what a long post. I think this conversation is better suited for a pub.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think this conversation is better suited for a pub.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This part I agree with. I would love a pint of Maredsous right now!</p>
<p>Beyond that, perhaps it's different with structural engineering, but I really feel that my undergrad and grad degrees trained me specifically for what I'm doing now, and gave me a broad-based introduction to continue learning everything that I have to continue learning in order to be a successful engineer.</p>
<p>Is engineering a profession? I really don't see how it could possibly differ from any other field that's considered to be a profession. Looking at my path, it's not that much different from the paths of lawyers or doctors, except that I get paid a wonderfully significant salary while I'm doing my final several years of training.</p>
<p>So, what's a profession? I turn to wiki for my answer, as I often do... </p>
<p>"The term profession refers to an occupation, vocation or high-status career,"</p>
<p>It's a fairly high-status career. What I do impresses a fair number of people, so I guess that's status-ful.</p>
<p>"...usually involving prolonged academic training, formal qualifications and membership of a professional or regulatory body."</p>
<p>Engineers are in school studying to become engineers for longer than doctors or lawyers. Like was said earlier, pre-med and pre-law degrees don't really have much to do with medicine and law. So, four years of med school, three years of law school... With the masters degree that's required for me to have gotten the job that I have now, that's 5+ years of school required for structures, studying specifically structures and the prereqs. And like I said before, I use all those classes, and they all built on one another.</p>
<p>We have formal qualifications, strictly enforced by the state, and a laundry list of things we have to do in addition to taking the PE in order to call ourselves engineers. (Something I learned that's rather interesting: In Germany, the title "engineer" is used as often as "doctor"... If you're a licensed engineer in Germany, you're referred to as Engineer So-and-so.)</p>
<p>Ethics guidelines are strictly mandated by the ASCE, and are followed by all engineers, lest they risk their licenses.</p>
<p>"...Professions involve the application of specialized knowledge of a subject, field, or science to fee-paying clientele. It is axiomatic that 'professional activity involves systematic knowledge and proficiency.'"</p>
<p>That one's covered.</p>
<p>"Professions are usually regulated by professional bodies that may set examinations of competence, act as a licensing authority for practitioners, and enforce adherence to an ethical code of practice."</p>
<p>The NCEES.</p>
<p>So... maybe the problem is that the phrase "engineer" has become overused. Perhaps that's also why licensed engineers are called "professional engineers," as opposed to, I dunno, vocational engineers who aren't licensed. So are only those with PE licenses part of the engineering profession, and the other engineers are part of a separate engineering "field"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
This part I agree with. I would love a pint of Maredsous right now!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Aibarr, if you are getting the first round I'm in! I work in downtown but I'm sure I could take a loooong lunch break at Lil Woodrows or Rice village. They should have a Guiness tap instead of a coffee machine here....</p>
<p>I agree with both aibarr and nshah. I feel that with the amount and rigor of education we have to endure, engineers do have some right to be "elitist." Nevertheless, I think its perfectly feasible that one could effectively become an engineer without going to school.</p>
<p>The problem, as someone has already mentioned, is that engineering is a ridiculously broad profession. For some people, as long as you do something "technical" you're an engineer. You can't imagine how many times I've simply opened up a computer to replace a hard-drive and have been lableled an "engineer" for that.</p>
<p>I know someone that works as a software engineer without any formal education. He is very very good at his work. But he is the first to say that he is not the best. He always emphasizes that education will open far more doors for you. There are some shortcomings of education... mainly the fact that you won't get your hands dirty as quick as someone who has been playing with circuits since they were 8, considering you never bothered with it until you got to college. But the theory and "contextual learning" (thanks aibarr) that you get with an education allows you to more easily do many things that someone else would have a harder time with.</p>
<p>Its not that education gives you an edge that another could never possibly get. Its just that, in general, you will be much better off at your work. Whether you'll get paid a lot more for it is another matter... and its something I have a bit of a beef with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But, again, that's neither here nor there. The point is simply to determine whether engineering is truly a professional degree like an MD or not. If it is, then engineering should grade like the MD programs do: that is to say, almost impossible to actually fail. If it is not a professional program, fine, then engineering can grade just like the other liberal arts programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why can't there be a third category for technical majors in undergraduate schools?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Aibarr, if you are getting the first round I'm in! I work in downtown but I'm sure I could take a loooong lunch break at Lil Woodrows or Rice village.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heck, if you're downtown, Flying Saucer is only about six blocks away! =)</p>
<p>
[quote]
I feel that with the amount and rigor of education we have to endure, engineers do have some right to be "elitist."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not even so much that we're elitist, it's that we're trying to argue that we have a right to call ourselves professionals rather than tradesmen, and we're trying to prove that we have a right to the same respect and compensation that professionals enjoy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problem, as someone has already mentioned, is that engineering is a ridiculously broad profession.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think you're on to something here, but I think that it's more that engineering has become a broad <em>term</em>. I heard someone quip a while back that they weren't their high school football team's waterboy, that they were a "water distribution engineer". It's funny, sure, but giving it a little overthought, would someone who puts band-aids on booboos jokingly call themselves a "wound care doctor"? It's odd; people won't hesitate to call themselves an "engineer" of something, but similarly claiming to be a doctor or a lawyer is really taboo.</p>
<p>Is this because we've let go of control of our title? Would stricter regulation with regard to the term "engineer" do the trick? Have the engineers who don't have to undergo licensure ruined it for those of us who do? ;)</p>
<p>And darn it, why don't I get paid more?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why can't there be a third category for technical majors in undergraduate schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why <em>should</em> there be a third category for technical majors in undergraduate schools?</p>
<p>I am juuuust about ready for that pint...! =)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Beyond that, perhaps it's different with structural engineering, but I really feel that my undergrad and grad degrees trained me specifically for what I'm doing now, and gave me a broad-based introduction to continue learning everything that I have to continue learning in order to be a successful engineer.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's entirely possible that different disciplines within engineering prepare students differently for industry. In my experience, I found that classes were closely tied to industry practices, so very rarely did I encounter useless things in my upper level civil engineering courses. It helps that I had a significant number of adjunct professors who were active, practicing engineers. They tend to focus on things you might actually find in the field, which IMO is more beneficial than highly theoretical courses. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It's odd; people won't hesitate to call themselves an "engineer" of something, but similarly claiming to be a doctor or a lawyer is really taboo.
[/quote]
Well, all doctors and many lawyers serve the general public. People use their services all the time, so if someone calls themselves a lawyer or doctor, they're opening themselves up for plenty of lawsuits. How many people in the general public ever hire an engineer in their lifetime? Not many.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why <em>should</em> there be a third category for technical majors in undergraduate schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Because, as my tour guide at WPI said, "We don't want D+ engineers building bridges."</p>