"Analysts"

eeguy

In Canada the word engineer is a protected title. People who use it outside of clearly defined roles are open to be fined.

Also certain work can only be done by engineers, and those who aren't "engineers" can be fined.

Stheno

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Kermit will do them for you. He could do all the jobs he doesn't understand

Eh no ill opt to use the very nice staff at the salon I go to thanks

I didn't stop biting my nails and get to have nicely groomed nails at the age of 40 to let some "analyst" massacre them

Kermit.de.frog

eeguy wrote: »

In Canada the word engineer is a protected title. People who use it outside of clearly defined roles are open to be fined.

Also certain work can only be done by engineers, and those who aren't "engineers" can be fined.

THIS is what's needed against the spoofers like El-Dudess :cool:

Aongus Von Bismarck

I'm an analyst in the purest sense of the word, in that I have passed the exams needed to become a CFA (Certified Financial Analyst). I must admit to being annoyed when I see some graduate with a 2.1 degree from UCD and two years of work experience for AIB describe himself on a CV as a financial analyst. An analyst of what? Self-delusion? Come back to me when you've put in over 1200 hours of study over a three year period to get the only qualification that matters in our industry.

El_Duderino 09

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

THIS is what's needed against the spoofers like El-Dudess :cool:

You've misunderstood. I haven't tried to spoof. In fact I've overtly declined to inform you about the particulars of my research. I'm enjoying your ignorance to tell the truth.

wil

PandaPoo wrote: »

What else can you call a nail technician?

Surely that was obvious from the op

A nailist.

Stheno

wil wrote: »

Surely that was obvious from the op

A nailist.

Manicurist?

Specialun

Ninja is one ive seen lately

jimgoose

Pack o' ****. I had my fun, and that's all that matters.

Signed,

The CEO.

smash

jimgoose wrote: »

Pack o' ****. I had my fun, and that's all that matters.

Signed,

The CEO.

I once knew a Company's Entertainment Officer. They were in charge of organising puss ups. But they still signed there email as CEO.

wil

smash wrote: »

I once knew a Company's Entertainment Officer. They were in charge of organising puss ups. But they still signed there email as CEO.

AKA a Premium Introduction Management Professional.
classy;)

Adamantium

"I'm a senior partner from Corless Corless & Sweeney....Ah no we're fine for coal thanks"

El_Duderino 09

smash wrote: »

I once knew a Company's Entertainment Officer. They were in charge of organising puss ups. But they still signed there email as CEO.

If they're the social secretary and don't take job titles too seriously, signing off CEO is fairly hilarious.

boobar

I heard a guy describe himself to a large audience as a technology evangelist

You could smell the cringe

jimboblep

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I'm an analyst in the purest sense of the word, in that I have passed the exams needed to become a CFA (Certified Financial Analyst). I must admit to being annoyed when I see some graduate with a 2.1 degree from UCD and two years of work experience for AIB describe himself on a CV as a financial analyst. An analyst of what? Self-delusion? Come back to me when you've put in over 1200 hours of study over a three year period to get the only qualification that matters in our industry.

1200 hours over a 3 year period, does that include lecture time, because it really isn't an awful lot of time spent.

mr.anonymous

People who are most junior in a department should be called an Administrator. But if that role is in a commercial department/company, suddenly they're a Commercial Executive. It's ridiculous.

Another empty term I can't stand is Leader or Leadership!

Lia_lia

Stheno wrote: »

Can't believe this thread is so long and no one has mentioned the latest IT fad for " evangelists"


One former colleague of mine has his title as cloud computing evangelist on his LinkedIn

Oh dear, that's the worst.

Nucular Arms

I would have thought that the increasing prevalence of analyst jobs is based on the growth of the overall technology sector no?

I mean, i use analytics software which harvest raw metrics about activity on a piece of software, and then examine that data to find trends, identify problems, or otherwise use the information to make better decisions about how to develop the software..

Am I an analyst? I also produce technical specifications and plans for products and then use those plans to build the product according to the defined specification..

Am I an engineer? Am I both? Do neither of these terms describe what I do? If so, what is my job?

smash

Nucular Arms wrote: »

Am I an analyst? I also produce technical specifications and plans for products and then use those plans to build the product according to the defined specification..

Am I an engineer? Am I both? Do neither of these terms describe what I do? If so, what is my job?

You're neither, it's just a part of your over all job. Ask any designer or developer and you'll find they do the same thing. These job specs of "software engineer" just piss me off.

El_Duderino 09

What's the story with people who think they can demand a detailed description of the work others do? Does it help you to put them in a box or find out about their education or socioeconomic background?

Analyst tells you all you need to know. They analyse data professionally. If they wanted to go into detail, they probably would. What makes you feel entitled to more information?

Nucular Arms

smash wrote: »

You're neither, it's just a part of your over all job. Ask any designer or developer and you'll find they do the same thing. These job specs of "software engineer" just piss me off.

That seems kind of arbitrary though. I mean software engineering as a discipline has been around for what? 30 years odd.

Also why not take umbrage at the term developer? Is it any less ambiguous? And what is your definition of an engineer anyway? Surely they could just as easily be called builders?

One eyed Jack

Aongus Von Bismarck wrote: »

I'm an analyst in the purest sense of the word, in that I have passed the exams needed to become a CFA (Certified Financial Analyst). I must admit to being annoyed when I see some graduate with a 2.1 degree from UCD and two years of work experience for AIB describe himself on a CV as a financial analyst. An analyst of what? Self-delusion? Come back to me when you've put in over 1200 hours of study over a three year period to get the only qualification that matters in our industry.

I'm sure you mean Chartered Financial Analyst there Aongus, right?



Shame it's not an MBA, eh?

El_Duderino 09

I bet it has always been this way. Imagine the job description 'typist' when typewriters were brand new. You know the person typed for a living but it tells you nothing about the setting, the type of material, is it replication or original material. Was it in a regal court, legal court or were they a forger? Private or public sector?

The same characters who didn't know what 'typist' meant would have been complaining that typists were illusive and self important.

Eugene Norman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You've misunderstood. I haven't tried to spoof. In fact I've overtly declined to inform you about the particulars of my research. I'm enjoying your ignorance to tell the truth.

Not only do we not now understand what analysts do, it seems clear that analysts don't know what analysts do.

Mickey H

PandaPoo wrote: »

What else can you call a nail technician?

Nail Painter
Nail Decorator
Jacinta

El_Duderino 09

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Not only do we not know understand what analysts do, it seems clear that analysts don't know what analysts do.

The op was hostile to the job title and those who do it, then demanded that I tell him what it means. I decided not to oblige him. Would you go into detail in that situation?

smash

Nucular Arms wrote: »

That seems kind of arbitrary though. I mean software engineering as a discipline has been around for what? 30 years odd.

Also why not take umbrage at the term developer? Is it any less ambiguous? And what is your definition of an engineer anyway? Surely they could just as easily be called builders?

They're not engineers, they're designers and developers. Engineer has a clear definition:

"a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures."

Cold War Kid

"Don't be afraid to user your nails boys!"

Nucular Arms

smash wrote: »

They're not engineers, they're designers and developers. Engineer has a clear definition:

"a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures."

Well since you seem committed to the terminology employed..

Structure - Definition: a complex construction or entity

Entity - Definition:
Something having real or distinct existence; a thing, esp when considered as independent of other things

In all fairness you have no reason to feel the way you do. It's a perfectly reasonable application of the term engineer. You're just trying to be pedantic to cover the irrationality of your objections.

Nucular Arms

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm sure you mean Chartered Financial Analyst there Aongus, right?



Shame it's not an MBA, eh?

Someday I dream of earning a Most Business Achiever too!

Kermit.de.frog

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The op was hostile to the job title and those who do it, then demanded that I tell him what it means. I decided not to oblige him. Would you go into detail in that situation?

Keep being evasive. The term is too generic and that is why loads of people use it. They don't want to use a word that more accurately describes their role because they are so precious.

smash

Nucular Arms wrote: »

Well since you seem committed to the terminology employed..

Structure - Definition: a complex construction or entity

Entity - Definition:
Something having real or distinct existence; a thing, esp when considered as independent of other things

In all fairness you have no reason to feel the way you do. It's a perfectly reasonable application of the term engineer. You're just trying to be pedantic to cover the irrationality of your objections.

It's not irrational to object to it. It's taking a phrase and assigning it where it doesn't belong. Why do certain companies now call developers or designers, engineers?

Nucular Arms

smash wrote: »

It's not irrational to object to it. It's taking a phrase and assigning it where it doesn't belong. Why do certain companies now call developers or designers, engineers?

Ok well the word engineer was originally a Norman word used to describe someone who built military siege equipment. At some stage the meaning of the word evolved to encompass a broader definition of someone who generally built things.

The point is that language is not fixed and that it evolves over time. Your assertion that the term engineer shouldn't apply to someone who builds software is irrational because it is based on the faulty premise that your idea of what an engineer means or where the term came from or what it should apply to is the definitive ideal for the term when it is not, strictly speaking.

It is also irrational due to the fact that using your own terminology to describe an engineer I was able to assign a legitimate use case for the term as applied to the discipline of software engineering.

You seem to prefer the term developer for no apparent reason other than that engineer annoys you, which is almost the definition of irrational thought in that it follows no rational or logical reason based motive to arrive at your conclusion, given your proposition.

smash

Nucular Arms wrote: »

Ok well the word engineer was originally a Norman word used to describe someone who built military siege equipment. At some stage the meaning of the word evolved to encompass a broader definition of someone who generally built things.

The point is that language is not fixed and that it evolves over time. Your assertion that the term engineer shouldn't apply to someone who builds software is irrational because it is based on the faulty premise that your idea of what an engineer means or where the term came from or what it should apply to is the definitive ideal for the term when it is not, strictly speaking.

It is also irrational due to the fact that using your own terminology to describe an engineer I was able to assign a legitimate use case for the term as applied to the discipline of software engineering.

You seem to prefer the term developer for no apparent reason other than that engineer annoys you, which is almost the definition of irrational thought in that it follows no rational or logical reason based motive to arrive at your conclusion, given your proposition.

I guess it annoys me because I feel that using it to describe the role of a software developer or designer just undervalues the use of it for careers where it's the only word to describe it. Where it without a doubt belongs. All done in the hopes of making people feel more important.

Eugene Norman

smash wrote: »

It's not irrational to object to it. It's taking a phrase and assigning it where it doesn't belong. Why do certain companies now call developers or designers, engineers?

1)The term software engineering is older than developer.
2) most software engineers have computer science or B.Eng backgrounds, and are therefore scientists or engineers.

Eugene Norman

smash wrote: »

I guess it annoys me because I feel that using it to describe the role of a software developer or designer just undervalues the use of it for careers where it's the only word to describe it. Where it without a doubt belongs. All done in the hopes of making people feel more important.

Software developers are most definitely engineers ie applied scientists.

The term is as old as the industry.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_engineering

Nucular Arms

smash wrote: »

I guess it annoys me because I feel that using it to describe the role of a software developer or designer just undervalues the use of it for careers where it's the only word to describe it. Where it without a doubt belongs. All done in the hopes of making people feel more important.

That's fair enough I suppose. My own understanding of the history of the discipline is that there was a concerted effort to introduce the term software engineer in or around the 80's in an attempt to legitimise and bring a greater amount of accountability to the field. At the time there were just 'programmers' and there wasn't really a defined framework within which the growing complexity of software projects could be easily and reproducibly managed. There was little to no general consensus on best practice's or on standardised methodologies that could translate to different projects with reproducible or predictable results. Someone would hire a bunch of programmers to build something and they would all divy up the work and then each would do their own part basically however they felt like and at the end they would jury rig it all together until they had a system.

Obviously this approach was incredibly difficult to maintain or extend, and the knowledge of any part of the system rested solely with the individual programmer who built it. If he left the company or whatever and you had to add some functionality you were screwed because you'd have to go in and reverse engineer what that particular guy had done essentially unilaterally before you could even attempt to alter the program.

So my understanding is that a bunch of movers and shakers in the industry came up with the idea of promoting standards and methodologies that, if everyone knew about and subscribed to, should lead to more accurate time frames, more easily maintained systems and a more rigorous methodology all around. Basically constructing the field of 'software engineering' as a result.

So now today when you're taught software engineering in college and you learn all your lovely UML, OOP, design patterns etc. you can rely on the fact that everyone new to field has the same common background to draw from and further expand upon.

smash

To be honest I wouldn't actually mind if the phrase "software engineer" was used correctly or if it had a defined role but it's been so interchangeable with other titles these days and because of its overuse, it just doesn't hold value over the title of 'developer'. A lot of companies use it to make a role look more attractive. Hell, I've even had 'engineer' offered as an extension to my title in a previous role as a bargaining tool to stop me moving to a competitor, but it would have by no means extended my responsibilities.

Badly Drunk Boy

Mr_Muffin wrote: »

Subway are always looking for 'Sandwich Artists'. Seems like you'd need a degree of some sort for that.

Nothing much to do with the thread, but earlier on the Channel 4 election coverage, comedian Roisin Conaty mentioned how sometimes she forgets very common words and not being able to remember the word 'sandwich', she referred to her sandwich as a 'double bread'.

(She also got the lowest ever score on Countdown.)

Nucular Arms

smash wrote: »

To be honest I wouldn't actually mind if the phrase "software engineer" was used correctly or if it had a defined role but it's been so interchangeable with other titles these days and because of its overuse, it just doesn't hold value over the title of 'developer'. A lot of companies use it to make a role look more attractive. Hell, I've even had 'engineer' offered as an extension to my title in a previous role as a bargaining tool to stop me moving to a competitor, but it would have by no means extended my responsibilities.

Perhaps you're right. I mean I tend to think of myself as more of a programmer I guess. When I think of a 'proper' software engineer I think of the likes of building guidance systems for airliners or interpreting the data from the LHC at cern or something. I still believe that it can be reasonably applied in a lot of cases though. I mean if you're building a serious financial services product or something its a non trivial project.

I suppose I see what you mean in a sense but it wouldn't really bother me either way.

El_Duderino 09

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Keep being evasive. The term is too generic and that is why loads of people use it. They don't want to use a word that more accurately describes their role because they are so precious.

I'm not being evasive. I've overtly told you that, since you were hostile to both the job title and those who do the job, I don't want to share the information with you.

If you're always this hostile to people when you ask them then that's probably the reason why they dont go into detail and allows you to continue not knowing what they do. It does seem to upset you to an unusual degree.

What makes you feel entitled to detailed information about other people's jobs?

Endaaaagh

Analysts?
They're only 1 letter removed from Anal Cysts :D:D:pac::pac::pac:

Special Circumstances

smash wrote: »

They're not engineers, they're designers and developers. Engineer has a clear definition:

"a person who designs, builds, or maintains engines, machines, or structures."

That's a pretty crap, narrow definition of engineer that completely ignores how you are accessing the internet, the internet itself and several huge employers in Ireland.

I prefer the theory of it being derived from ingenuity/genius.
I do agree however that the term is used a bit too loosely in some countries and businesses.