Make 'Engineer' a protected title

godtabh

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Trouble is it is very tough to quantify experience and who is good at a particular role.

No its not. Look at any of the competence and/or behavioral based assessments that many companies use these days and you can very easily quantify experience or expected experience at certain levels.

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Through Engineers Ireland there is exams and ways you can work from being a tech through to being a chartered engineer.

There is no exams. There is an experience report and a competence based interview.

Darren1o1

godtabh wrote: »

No its not. Look at any of the competence and/or behavioral based assessments that many companies use these days and you can very easily quantify experience or expected experience at certain levels.

Very easy to say being in large multinational company e.g. Stryker. Coming from a SME background this is not strictly true. Through an institution which accredits by any combination of education or experience to demonstrate ability in a particular field would negate the need for an employer without prior experience or interaction with the profession to hire a competent engineer.

godtabh wrote: »

There is no exams. There is an experience report and a competence based interview.

As I have been made aware, there will be as part of the bologna agreement reforms, since as EI members will need to be trained of Master equivalent in training. I will reference literature when i find some. Also, another reference for examination occuring in the broad terms is in ASME (FE and PE). Along the way through CPD there are many exams.

godtabh

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Very easy to say being in large multinational company e.g. Stryker. Coming from a SME background this is not strictly true. Through an institution which accredits by any combination of education or experience to demonstrate ability in a particular field would negate the need for an employer without prior experience or interaction with the profession to hire a competent engineer.

Competence assessments are not just the tool of large multi-nationals. I work in a company of less than 30 staff and we do it. I've seen it adopted by smaller companies.

It works but for it to deliver true value it needs to be linked to business needs to actually deliver value.

Darren1o1 wrote: »

As I have been made aware, there will be as part of the bologna agreement reforms, since as EI members will need to be trained of Master equivalent in training. I will reference literature when i find some. Also, another reference for examination occuring in the broad terms is in ASME (FE and PE). Along the way through CPD there are many exams.

If you graduate post 2013 you will need a masters to become a CEng. This brings us in line with the rest of the EU.

EI will not (as far as I am aware) have "examinations" to become a chartered engineer. It will be still based on a practice report and interview. The one change they have made to the process is the introduction of minimum CPD in advance of your report/interview.

This I believe is the one of the public steps in the road to the protection of engineer. Minimum/mandatory CPD is common in many industries that are protected such as doctors and accountants.

There was a paper I read on the 7 corner stones of what a "profession" is. Doctors and accountants gave 5/6/7 of the corner stones. Engineers Ireland only have about 4. I must try and dig that out.

chris85

I think the standard should be level 8. Below level 8 EI should have accreditation bands for varying levels skills but in terms of protected titles I think level 8 is the base level that should be required.

thecornflake

chris85 wrote: »

I think the standard should be level 8. Below level 8 EI should have accreditation bands for varying levels skills but in terms of protected titles I think level 8 is the base level that should be required.

What about the grade of the degree , 1.1 , 2.1 ect ?

What about someone with decades of experience but no degree ? Can they not have the all mighty title "ENGINEER".

People can call themselves what they want, at the end of the day its the work and results that separate the men from the posers.

Owyhee

thecornflake wrote: »

What about the grade of the degree , 1.1 , 2.1 ect ?

What about someone with decades of experience but no degree ? Can they not have the all mighty title "ENGINEER".

People can call themselves what they want, at the end of the day its the work and results that separate the men from the posers.

I already addressed this for you.. on page 2.

thecornflake

Owyhee wrote: »

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.

Firstly if employers are not ar**d checking any candidates results, qualification or experience then it is an employer problem not a title issue. If anything introducing the title would make the situation worse.

There is already a standard that has been set up, multiple infact. Courses undertaken by students prove their knowledge of the subject through their awarded degree which should cover both practical and theoretical (again up to the employer to check) aspects of engineering.

Experience would also demonstrate how suited a person is to a specific task.

The idea of introducing another stage via the title will merely only highlight who has an honors degree, which is obvious if the employer were to look at the transcripts ect provided. Thus it is useless except for making people feel good and smug about their image.

Owyhee

Its not about as you say; feeling good and smug, the all mighty title "ENGINEER", or the posers.
Its about something completly different, but you seem to have your own agenda , so please carry on. :rolleyes:

thecornflake

Owyhee wrote: »

Its not about as you say; feeling good and smug, the all mighty title "ENGINEER", or the posers.
Its about something completly different, but you seem to have your own agenda , so please carry on. :rolleyes:

No, I just can't see how it would actually help due to the fact that qualifications and experience speak for themselves. As for the title, whats to stop people using it anyways even if they shouldn't ? Surely it would only serve to make the title even more attractive to be abused by people ?

Owyhee

thecornflake wrote: »

No, I just can't see how it would actually help due to the fact that qualifications and experience speak for themselves. As for the title, whats to stop people using it anyways even if they shouldn't ? Surely it would only serve to make the title even more attractive to be abused by people ?

The title would be just linked to an online registrar for validation. Simple.;)

thecornflake

Owyhee wrote: »

The title would be just linked to an online registrar for validation. Simple.;)

But degrees are too, and a lot of referees and other qualifications are. So I just can't see the benefit apart from adding more red tape that won't prove or disprove anything the employer should have already known.

Unregistered.

thecornflake wrote: »

Owyhee wrote: »

The title would be just linked to an online registrar for validation. Simple.;)

But degrees are too, and a lot of referees and other qualifications are. So I just can't see the benefit apart from adding more red tape that won't prove or disprove anything the employer should have already known.

Would you go to a GP who decides to call themselves a "Doctor" because of the wealth of experience they have practicing medicine dispite no formal qualification or accreditation that says they possess a level of competency and responsibility???

That is what the thread is about. It's not about having boasting rights or feeling mightier-than-thou. Get that out of your head.

thecornflake

Unregistered. wrote: »

Would you go to a GP who decides to call themselves a "Doctor" because of the wealth of experience they have practicing medicine dispite no formal qualification or accreditation that says they possess a level of competency and responsibility???

That is what the thread is about. It's not about having boasting rights or feeling mightier-than-thou. Get that out of your head.

That's what I am against too. Sorry if I haven't been clear. I am totally 100% against people calling themselves engineers (or doctors in the above example) if they do not have the correct qualifications. Now there are some situations where a person can medically help you even if they don't have qualifications , for example a lot of people that are trained in Africa via charities, they would not be doctors but would have the skills to help people or ordinary people who perhaps know CPR.

My point is that the qualifications of engineers and their experience should speak for them, not a title. At the end of the day it is the work and is the results IMHO that defines if a person an engineer or not.

Unregistered.

Well the thread is about protecting the title for those who have been accredited. It gives a gaurantee of sorts to the competency of an individual. Obviously we are not speaking about an employers view on this or how much it's considered along with an engineer's experience.

chris85

Unregistered. wrote: »

Well the thread is about protecting the title for those who have been accredited. It gives a gaurantee of sorts to the competency of an individual. Obviously we are not speaking about an employers view on this or how much it's considered along with an engineer's experience.

Agree on this.

The employers view is not really an issue as employers will hire based on qualifications and that's grand. This is about the public and their perception and expectation from someone who calls them self an Engineer.

Its protected and respected elsewhere. Should be here.

thecornflake

chris85 wrote: »

Agree on this.

The employers view is not really an issue as employers will hire based on qualifications and that's grand. This is about the public and their perception and expectation from someone who calls them self an Engineer.

Its protected and respected elsewhere. Should be here.

Again perception, others views on how the engineer looks. A title is not going to make people think that someone is qualified to do anything, it's just a word. I never go on peoples titles, I always look at their work ect, which is how the general public would also.

Unregistered.

thecornflake wrote: »

A title is not going to make people think that someone is qualified to do anything, it's just a word.

Again, "Doctor", "Professor" both imply a level of competency.

thecornflake

Unregistered. wrote: »

Again, "Doctor", "Professor" both imply a level of competency.

So then get a PhD, that's what those titles are for, but I know a few people who have a PhD, again I would go by someones work rather than title. As far as I am concerned a title doesn't mean that much. The title engineer is different to the title Doctor or Professor (plus any sap who uses the title Doctor or Professor in anything but an extremely formal situation is a clown and usually not liked by people).

Most of the best Engineers I know would not even use the title infront of their name. They don't want to stand out, they don't want to show off. They want to get on with their work, because they don't care what people think of them, its their work and projects they care about.

godtabh

Unregistered. wrote: »

FOR **** SAKE.

Not helpful to the debate.

Last warning to all. Keep it on topic ie discussing making 'engineer' a protected title.

Any more off topic posts will result in a weeks ban.

djpbarry

thecornflake wrote: »

I am totally 100% against people calling themselves engineers (or doctors in the above example) if they do not have the correct qualifications. Now there are some situations where a person can medically help you even if they don't have qualifications , for example a lot of people that are trained in Africa via charities, they would not be doctors but would have the skills to help people or ordinary people who perhaps know CPR.

Someone who knows CPR is not going to call themselves a doctor. However, it seems anyone who knows how to use a screwdriver feels they deserve the title of “engineer”.

thecornflake wrote: »

Again perception, others views on how the engineer looks. A title is not going to make people think that someone is qualified to do anything, it's just a word. I never go on peoples titles, I always look at their work ect, which is how the general public would also.

No, they don’t. The public’s understanding of what an engineer is or does leaves a lot to be desired in this part of the world. Now, you may not think this really matters, but it does. Why? Because there is a shortage of engineers in the world. Trying to attract kids into the world of engineering is kind of difficult when the guy fixing the coffee machine is calling himself an engineer.

thecornflake wrote: »

So then get a PhD, that's what those titles are for, but I know a few people who have a PhD, again I would go by someones work rather than title. As far as I am concerned a title doesn't mean that much.

So if you discover that someone has a PhD, you’ll assess the work they did during their PhD before you deem them worthy of the title “Doctor”?

chris85

thecornflake wrote: »

So then get a PhD, that's what those titles are for, but I know a few people who have a PhD, again I would go by someones work rather than title. As far as I am concerned a title doesn't mean that much. The title engineer is different to the title Doctor or Professor (plus any sap who uses the title Doctor or Professor in anything but an extremely formal situation is a clown and usually not liked by people).

Most of the best Engineers I know would not even use the title infront of their name. They don't want to stand out, they don't want to show off. They want to get on with their work, because they don't care what people think of them, its their work and projects they care about.

Its not about using the title. I would not call myself Engineer Chris. That's just stupid but protecting the title prevents job titles like someone who has never gone to college and can fix a bike calling themselves a bicycle engineer. What do they know about engineering. Well they can tighten nuts and bolts and fix wheels.

chris85

thecornflake wrote: »

Again perception, others views on how the engineer looks. A title is not going to make people think that someone is qualified to do anything, it's just a word. I never go on peoples titles, I always look at their work ect, which is how the general public would also.

Perception is all there is in the public in many cases. A client meeting an engineer for discussion of a project would not be have the ability to assess their qualifications on the spot but can be assured that since they have the title of being an engineer they have reached a certain level of competency.

kennethsmyth

Anybody can call themselves an Accountant also but cannot call themselves a "Chartered" or "Certified" Accountant. This is the same with Engineer. I am a Chartered Accountant and we also had the same debate about whether anybody should be allowed to use the word "Accountant".

To me even though I have worked hard and I am qualified I believe the words "Accountant" and "Engineer" should be left alone, they have been around before any type of membership or body existed. Therefore anybody who does accounts can call themselves an "Accountant" same as anybody who does some type of Engineering can call themselves an "Engineer".

It is the qualification "Chartered" etc.. that dictates the level or compentancy of the individual in the field and I believe that you would have to be very gullible to believe an "Engineer" without a qualification or membership would be a competent one. Hence leave the dictionary alone as it is and concentrate on ensuring people use qualified persons.

chris85

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Anybody can call themselves an Accountant also but cannot call themselves a "Chartered" or "Certified" Accountant. This is the same with Engineer. I am a Chartered Accountant and we also had the same debate about whether anybody should be allowed to use the word "Accountant".

To me even though I have worked hard and I am qualified I believe the words "Accountant" and "Engineer" should be left alone, they have been around before any type of membership or body existed. Therefore anybody who does accounts can call themselves an "Accountant" same as anybody who does some type of Engineering can call themselves an "Engineer".

It is the qualification "Chartered" etc.. that dictates the level or compentancy of the individual in the field and I believe that you would have to be very gullible to believe an "Engineer" without a qualification or membership would be a competent one. Hence leave the dictionary alone as it is and concentrate on ensuring people use qualified persons.

The title is not inaccurately used as much in the accounting as it is in engineering.

C.D.

chris85 wrote: »

The title is not inaccurately used as much in the accounting as it is in engineering.

Indeed, who would want to pretend to be an accountant?

djpbarry

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Therefore anybody who does accounts can call themselves an "Accountant" same as anybody who does some type of Engineering can call themselves an "Engineer".

But the problem is that there are scores of people who could not possibly be considered engineers who are calling themselves engineers. It’s analogous to someone calling themselves an accountant because they know a few tricks in Excel or they can perform basic arithmetic on a calculator.

EDIT: Just to give an indication as to how much the term has been devalued, I have a friend who works for an aerospace company – she’s involved in the design, construction and launching of satellites. When she tells people she’s a satellite engineer, they often think this means she sticks satellite dishes on the side of peoples’ houses.

chris85

djpbarry wrote: »

EDIT: Just to give an indication as to how much the term has been devalued, I have a friend who works for an aerospace company – she’s involved in the design, construction and launching of satellites. When she tells people she’s a satellite engineer, they often think this means she sticks satellite dishes on the side of peoples’ houses.

That's pretty much the essence of the entire thread for me!

Owyhee

djpbarry wrote: »

But the problem is that there are scores of people who could not possibly be considered engineers who are calling themselves engineers. It’s analogous to someone calling themselves an accountant because they know a few tricks in Excel or they can perform basic arithmetic on a calculator.

EDIT: Just to give an indication as to how much the term has been devalued, I have a friend who works for an aerospace company – she’s involved in the design, construction and launching of satellites. When she tells people she’s a satellite engineer, they often think this means she sticks satellite dishes on the side of peoples’ houses.

The chances are too that within the industry which the self-titled engineer is working, that they hold a reasonably specific job title which is task specific, i.e. your satellite engineer is actually a satellite dish installer, or the bridge engineer is a construction manager.

lawred2

godtabh wrote: »

What a joke.

Do some research





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

maybe you should pay closer attention - all that's protected there is the adjective chartered!

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I just read a sky agent refer to the lad that connects a dish to a box as an 'engineer'...