Make 'Engineer' a protected title

sebastianlieken

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6271

This is a petition in the UK which many of you will find interesting. For those of whome who are able to sign, every little bit counts.

Engineering suffers from an image problem. People believe that engineers simply fix things, but we don't: we invent things. Unfortunately the false image is propagated by hundreds of companies out there who term repair-persons and equipment installers 'Engineers'. Engineering suffers from a lack of graduates, and at a time people are looking to manufacturing to fix the economy we need all the graduates we can get. Sadly they are put off by the false image of engineering. It is thus proposed that the title 'Engineer' is protected legally, like 'Doctor' or 'Architect'. It would be restricted to those who are professional engineers or product designers, or those who have retired from the industry.

annfield1978

what is the official line from government and engineers ireland as to why the word 'engineer' is not protected. Should we be ringing an engineer to fix a tv or dishwaster?

sebastianlieken

If Engineers Ireland or any other chartership business had any moral code, they would have endevoured to make "Engineer" a protected title already. INSTEAD, they prefer to charge people a membership, and further belittle the title "Engineer" by making Engineers subscribe to a superflous title "Chartered Engineer". Meanwhile their pockets get fuller on ridiculous membership rates.

godtabh

sebastianlieken wrote: »

If Engineers Ireland or any other chartership business had any moral code, they would have endevoured to make "Engineer" a protected title already. INSTEAD, they prefer to charge people a membership, and further belittle the title "Engineer" by making Engineers subscribe to a superflous title "Chartered Engineer". Meanwhile their pockets get fuller on ridiculous membership rates.

What a joke.

Do some research

EngineersIReland wrote:

Chartered engineer (CEng MIEI)
his is the legal title used by professional engineers

It denotes a professional, competent, professional engineer

Under an Act of the Oireachtas 1969, Engineers Ireland is the statutory awarding body in Ireland

R

eserved functions in Civil Sector largely:

Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Act 1988
Child-care Regulations (S.I. Nos. 397/1996, 398/1996, 259/1995, 550/2004)
Nursing Homes Regulations (S.I. Nos. 226/1993, 379/1993)

Before people bitch on about rates and what do I get from it etc etc do you research

chris85

godtabh wrote: »

Before people bitch on about rates and what do I get from it etc etc do you research

Sorry Engineer is still not a protected title. Chartered Engineer is protected but not many require chartered membership. Anyone can call themselves an engineer at something or other when they do not have a degree and may not be even a qualified technician. In many other countries it is protected and a respected title.

I think it should be protected but since I entered into study in 2003 I have been hearing about it becoming protected and has never happened and don't see if happening in the near future.

When I heard someone who works in a call center call themselves a "help desk engineer" I died a little inside

newmug

What should the minimum qualification level be? Level 6 = cert / diploma, level 7 = ordinary degree, level 8 = honours degree etc. At what level of qualification should you be entitled to call yourself an "engineer", if the term ever did become protected?

kenon

newmug wrote: »

What should the minimum qualification level be? Level 6 = cert / diploma, level 7 = ordinary degree, level 8 = honours degree etc. At what level of qualification should you be entitled to call yourself an "engineer", if the term ever did become protected?

I always thought you were considered a technician with a level 7 and then an engineer with a level 8.

smcgiff

Just stumbled across this thread - interesting, as someone that belongs to a profession with a similar dilemma. Likewise accountant isn't protected.

However, if the title engineer is restricted to those that invent, then I imagine it'd be a very small profession. So, I think a better definition will be required.

professore

"Sanitation engineer" - bin man

I agree it should be a protected title.

macman2010

professore wrote: »

"Sanitation engineer" - bin man

I agree it should be a protected title.

Autoglass "windscreen engineer"

I scream at the TV when i hear them say that.

stereo_steve

An engineer is someone who has completed an engineering degree accredited by Engineers Ireland. Engineers Ireland review engineering degrees set out by colleges and university's to ensure that they meet a certain standard.

Yahew

I generally agree but what was James Watt?

Darren1o1

newmug wrote: »

What should the minimum qualification level be? Level 6 = cert / diploma, level 7 = ordinary degree, level 8 = honours degree etc. At what level of qualification should you be entitled to call yourself an "engineer", if the term ever did become protected?

I believe going forward the standard to be an Engineer will be a 5yr masters program as set out by the bologna agreement. Others can do bachelors degree but would need to do equivlence programs/trainign set out by EI.

Unregistered.

Darren1o1 wrote: »

I believe going forward the standard to be an Chartered Engineer will be a 5yr masters program as set out by the bologna agreement. Others can do bachelors degree but would need to do equivlence programs/trainign set out by EI.

FYP. The problem, as I understand it, is that anybody can call themselves an Engineer. The above does nothing to change that.

Darren1o1

Unregistered. wrote: »

FYP. The problem, as I understand it, is that anybody can call themselves an Engineer. The above does nothing to change that.

FYP? I understand your, but I was showing the current framework under which a standard has been already set and could easily be translated to the professional title of Engineer. This standard brings us in line with European standards in cases where the title is protected.

thecornflake

I don't understand, surely your work should speak for you, not a title.

Some people have titles coming out of the ears and are terrible, I know some people without a "title" and yet they would be more respected than those with one.

All it does is introduce a boys club with these titles that allow the members to feel smug and exclude certain people.

dvpower

thecornflake wrote: »

I don't understand, surely your work should speak for you, not a title.

Some people have titles coming out of the ears and are terrible, I know some people without a "title" and yet they would be more respected than those with one.

All it does is introduce a boys club with these titles that allow the members to feel smug and exclude certain people.

Agreed.

I work in the software business where the term 'Software Engineer' is widely used. Many of the most skilled people I've known haven't got a degree qualification and I've come across heaps of people with software enginering qualifiations who are awful.

Maybe 'engineers' want to protect the title just to add to their own kudos?

Darren1o1

Well the debate about the title IMO is hinged on making sure someone cannot walk in off the street and design a bridge, only for it to fail. It is for protection of the responsibilities rather than the title. There are two main ways to determine if a person is qualified, via education and via observation/guidance (Maybe by an another qualified candidate). Trouble is it is very tough to quantify experience and who is good at a particular role. Through Engineers Ireland there is exams and ways you can work from being a tech through to being a chartered engineer. Sometimes, I feel Engineer should be more like an apprenticeship (or mix of school and working) rather than more so based on education.

Owyhee

Petitioning to LinkedIn could be another start.
I know of few guys advertising themselves as engineers, when they are FETAC/diploma level technicians, with very basic skills.
Clients often do not care for clarification as long as someone will sign off at the end of the day; this is driving standards down in our industry.
Any moves to clarify who is trained or experienced to carry out different levels of work is a good idea.

thecornflake

Owyhee wrote: »

Petitioning to LinkedIn could be another start.
I know of few guys advertising themselves as engineers, when they are FETAC/diploma level technicians, with very basic skills.
Clients often do not care for clarification as long as someone will sign off at the end of the day; this is driving standards down in our industry.
Any moves to clarify who is trained or experienced to carry out different levels of work is a good idea.

The employer is just as thick as they are then.

It's the employers problem for not looking at the qualifications and seeing that they are useless as an engineer. If I called myself "President" cornflake, do you think that means I would have more of a chance getting a job as american president or some hotshot European head of state ect ?

It bloody wouldn't make a difference and shouldn't make a difference, work and experience speaks far far far more than little show off gits who think that just after going to a college for four years that they have the right to a title and belittle others who have been in the business long before the titled person even knew what an engineer was.

Seems from my point of view that most graduates from any engineering courses are more concerned about their looks and how they are perceived by other people rather than getting down to work and actually trying to make a name for themselves. Looks like most that I know would rather fill out a form that they think makes them better than others and more respected even if their work and knowledge of the subject is less than an untitled person.

When did it become a show off subject and area to work in ?

thecornflake

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Well the debate about the title IMO is hinged on making sure someone cannot walk in off the street and design a bridge, only for it to fail.

Excellent point, someone could just walk in off the street and be allowed to design a bridge without any proof, however if only select people with the title "Engineer" infront of their names were allowed walk in off the strees to design it then we could all relax about the standard of work due to the almighty and respectable word infront of that persons name that we must all bow down to, be humble and admire. :rolleyes:

Unregistered.

thecornflake wrote: »

Excellent point, someone could just walk in off the street and be allowed to design a bridge without any proof, however if only select people with the title "Engineer" infront of their names were allowed walk in off the strees to design it then we could all relax about the standard of work due to the almighty and respectable word infront of that persons name that we must all bow down to, be humble and admire. :rolleyes:

Yes that's the point!!! When they have "Engineer" in front of there name due to being accredited by a governing body such as Engineers Ireland then this is exactly how it would work.

thecornflake

Unregistered. wrote: »

Yes that's the point!!! When they have "Engineer" in front of there name due to being accredited by a governing body such as Engineers Ireland then this is exactly how it would work.

But that's what a degree is, you know, the institution award you it, because it proves you must know the material.

Same with experience in the area backed up with references ect.

What the point in going through another process just to have a title that anybody could stick infront of their name anyways ?

dvpower

Unregistered. wrote: »

Yes that's the point!!! When they have "Engineer" in front of there name due to being accredited by a governing body such as Engineers Ireland then this is exactly how it would work.

When the accreditation is basically automatically granted on the basis of holding a degree then it adds little or no value whatsoever. It only acts as a barrier to entry.

In software (maybe its different for other industries) the technical environment is so fast changing that much of the stuff people learn in college is out of date in a few years. Some of the fundementals remain the same, but a much better way of determining if someone is good is to look at their experience and their references. When I'm hiring software engineers, I take very little notice of their formal qualifications.
If only accredited software engineers could work in the industry, some of the best engineers would be out of a job, as would some of the biggest names in the industry.

Darren1o1

thecornflake wrote: »

Excellent point, someone could just walk in off the street and be allowed to design a bridge without any proof, however if only select people with the title "Engineer" infront of their names were allowed walk in off the strees to design it then we could all relax about the standard of work due to the almighty and respectable word infront of that persons name that we must all bow down to, be humble and admire. :rolleyes:

It is very easy to take a snippet and be snarky. Read the rest of my post. I did not advocate for an educational or experience based approach, just someone who has been verified to have the appropriate combination of experience knowledge, be that through working your way up (like an apprenticeship type prog) or through education and exposure to problems. Regards I personally do not care once there is some regulation to make sure whoever is build brides, cars etc. That is me as a consumer.

Unregistered.

dvpower wrote: »

When the accreditation is basically automatically granted on the basis of holding a degree then it adds little or no value whatsoever. It only acts as a barrier to entry.

In software (maybe its different for other industries) the technical environment is so fast changing that much of the stuff people learn in college is out of date in a few years. Some of the fundementals remain the same, but a much better way of determining if someone is good is to look at their experience and their references. When I'm hiring software engineers, I take very little notice of their formal qualifications.
If only accredited software engineers could work in the industry, some of the best engineers would be out of a job, as would some of the biggest names in the industry.

Guys, its not given automatically. Not all courses are accredited by Engineers Ireland. Fact. They have to meet criteria set out by EI. The reason for having them accredited is so you can go anywhere in the world to somewhere were your college is not known and have an internationally recognized accreditation. Nobody is suggesting that only "accredited engineers" should be allowed work in an industry. The topic is about reserving the use of the word Engineer to accredited engineers only.

Darren1o1

Unregistered. wrote: »

Guys, its not given automatically. Not all courses are accredited by Engineers Ireland. Fact. They have to meet criteria set out by EI. The reason for having them accredited is so you can go anywhere in the world to somewhere were your college is not known and have an internationally recognized accreditation. Nobody is suggesting that only "accredited engineers" should be allowed work in an industry. The topic is about reserving the use of the word Engineer to accredited engineers only.

Great point, agreed.

Owyhee

thecornflake wrote: »

The employer is just as thick as they are then.

It's the employers problem for not looking at the qualifications and seeing that they are useless as an engineer. If I called myself "President" cornflake, do you think that means I would have more of a chance getting a job as american president or some hotshot European head of state ect ?

That is my point, often the employer is a state organisation who has tendered for a short term contract and does not have the ability or will, to dig in depth to see the credentials/ability of all or any of the proposed staff listed on a tender application.

From this standards of work can diminish and public safety can be put at risk.

Owyhee

thecornflake wrote: »

But that's what a degree is, you know, the institution award you it, because it proves you must know the material.

Same with experience in the area backed up with references ect.

What the point in going through another process just to have a title that anybody could stick infront of their name anyways ?

The point would be here that nobody could just stick the title in front of their name.
References can be fudged and difficult to prove.
A base standard routed through an institution by any combination of education or experience to demonstrate ability to carry out specific design and construction or manufacturing tasks would be no harm.

Also I get the impression that your argument of the experience taking as much precedence as training, is like many I meet who, think that they know more than an engineer on a specific job. But when unforseen problems arise, these people are in no position to “prove up” a solution to be sound. I think first for the experience only route argument to have any merit, that the person first should have a full understanding of the range and depth of subjects covered on a relevant syllabus.

itsyuranan

Protected title?