"Bernie" <Bernie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:5pl7c013pguuudfsoifq82oeofev54rp39@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:24:25 -0700, "ec" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Bernie" <Bernie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >news:j367c0lhpbel5koh5ugbur77o8i56vrjpc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:20:59 -0700, "ec" <no@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Bernie" <Bernie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >news:o4vsb01hksed3oat9ocoqm434n59p9gf69@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:43:50 GMT, "AT" <torgny@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Bernie" <Bernie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:6qrrb0labbs24i0b473f0h40ajit260u3d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >> Quick question. Do you mean real engineers, psuedo-engineers
(who
> >> >> >> arguably do perform *some* engineering tasks but are not
certified
> >by
> >> >> >> state government as "engineers"), or the completely fake
engineers
> >who
> >> >> >> make a joke out of the real term "engineer" by attaching it to
> >people
> >> >> >> who pass silly Prometric exams?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --Bernie
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Engineer is a Job Title! Meaning if you have the job as an
engineer
> >then
> >> >you
> >> >> >are an engineer!
> >> >>
> >> >> Correction. Today it is a job title and a professional degree
which
> >> >> also has governmental controls (e.g. state board certification
etc.).
> >> >> It used to only be the latter. The title engineer has been so
> >> >> cheapened by cheesy jobs and lame vendor certifications that
adopted
> >> >> that title to grant an automatic (and cheaply bought I might add)
> >> >> elevation in status.
> >> >>
> >> >> So ten years from now when "engineer" no longer carries even the
> >> >> pitiful status it retains has today, are we going work the word
> >> >> "doctor" into our titles to get a further cheaply bought
elevation?
> >> >> I'm a "network doctor" (not an MD).... scratch that, I'm a "senior
> >> >> network doctor." Oops now that everyone is calling themselves a
> >> >> senior network doctor, I am now a "level three senior network
doctor."
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe after that we will start calling ourselves scientists or
lawyers
> >> >> etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> See how ridiculous that is? It is a slippery slope when you start
> >> >> cheapening titles that used to mean something.
> >> >>
> >> >> >On the other hand you can have an education as an engineer
> >> >> >but not have a job as an engineer. In this case I would not
consider
> >you
> >> >as
> >> >> >an engineer.
> >> >>
> >> >> But what does it matter what you consider someone if the state
board
> >> >> considers someone a civil engineer, electrical engineer, etc?
> >> >>
> >> >> >Complicated? Could be, but that's life!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The original question is too wide to even try to answer.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes it is! That was partly my point.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Bernie
> >> >
> >> >Oh, and the CCIE is a "cheesy" cert right?
> >>
> >> E stands for Expert in case you weren't aware, lol.
> >>
> >> >Those guys aren't real engineers,
> >>
> >> No they aren't. I'll leave it to you to try to make the case that
> >> they are.
> >>
> >> >right? Whats your CCIE number Bernie? It's so easy and cheesy to
get,
you
> >> >must have gotten one as they ARE valuable.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >>
> >> --Bernie
> >
> >Please enlighten me on the proper terminology then, Bernie, to replace
the
> >"engineering" in network engineering.
>
> First off, you are obviously punting on the previous issue where you
> demonstrated an inability to read a simple sentence. I bashed the
> simple certifications that use the term engineer, and unless you are
> going to say that MCSE or CNE are on the level of PE, you have to
> punt. So lets not forget that you are now changing the point of
> contention to something else.
>
> On this present point, there are plenty of alternative verbs to use.
> I suggest you consult a thesaurus to answer your question. Words like
> design or architect (if you want to alternatively disparage another
> profession) would easily fit. The simple fact is that the profession
> of engineering was in the past reserved to those PEs and regulated by
> state boards. Only recently did this term get borrowed by so many
> other fields to grant elevated status to those jobs. You would seem
> to imply that because you lack enough command of the English language
> to come up with a suitable synonym that we must therefore just use
> "engineer." Lack of imagination is not a valid justification.
>
> >If a client wants me to engineer a
> >solution for them...shall I say I will tech it for them?
>
> I will resist pointing out your lack of ability to come up with other
> synonyms... Ok, perhaps not, the temptation was too great ;-)
>
> As an aside, I remember a stoner friend of mine (from way back) once
> stating (in his best stoner voice) that our founding fathers didn't
> intend a bicameral system (in reference to the two political party
> system we have today). Now he misused the term obviously. Does that
> mean that we should change the definition of bicameral to now include
> references to a dual political party system as well as dual
> legislative chambers? No. Misuse of a word does not legitimize the
> misuse. You are arguing with circular arguments and thus they are
> dismissed. If a client ask you to "engineer" something for him,
> perhaps it is because you first misled him into thinking you were
> going to actually do some engineering. Or perhaps he has been fooled
> by our job titles. But nonetheless it is not legitimized by such a
> request.
>
> >Please see the
> >definition of engineer in the dictionary.
>
> The definition of an engineer is thus (skipping the obvious non
> applicable definitions):
> 3 a : a designer or builder of engines b : a person who is trained in
> or follows as a profession a branch of engineering c : a person who
> carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance
>
> I will leave it to you to try to argue that systems/network
> engineering is a valid "branch of engineering", or that certifications
> include engineering training in such a branch. For example you can't
> find any of the ones you list on Pennsylvania's (e.g.) list of
> engineering branches:
> http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/049/chapter37/s37.34.html
>
> And to further this point, the US Dept. of Labor states this about
> Engineers:
> "Engineers apply the theories and principles of science and
> mathematics to research and develop economical solutions to technical
> problems.....Engineers design products, machinery to build those
> products, plants in which those products are made, and the systems
> that ensure the quality of the products and the efficiency of the
> workforce and manufacturing process....."
>
> Now in case you are wondering, the Department doesn't list either
> network engineering or systems engineering as an engineering
> occupation. So if the DoL, which tracks every occupation in the US,
> doesn't recognize it as an engineering occupation, why the hell should
> I buy your flimsy, and rather self aggrandizing, explanation?? Now
> maybe in your backwoods, you regularly use principles of science and
> mathematics to design networks and systems, but I can assure you about
> 99% of the people performing the same job tasks don't. They throw
> gear and bigger pipes at the problem. About the only math involved is
> oversubscription ratios.
>
> >It does not say "requires an
> >undegraduate degree in an engineering discipline and state
certification
as
> >such".
>
> It also doesn't say building a specific configuration through a
> hands-on lab by the tweaking of router knobs does it? You are
> actually making my case quite well. Pointing out that the term has
> been watered down today in the workplace is my fundamental premise.
> So proving that this is the pathetic state of our workforce today is
> proving my premise.
>
> In any case, Cisco doesn't blanketly call the CCIE "engineer", so
> neither should you. That avenue of argumentation is closed to you.
> Now I have never stated that people in this profession don't perform
> engineering-like tasks from time to time. Never in the least.
> However, I also don't call 99% of what really takes place in the class
> of "network design" these days to be an "engineering" task. Most of
> that is simply putting bigger pipes here and switches there and using
> the generic cookie cutter criss-cross STP redundancy designs.
> Throwing bigger pipes at a problem does not require skill.
>
> Also, many of the jobs performed by people who use the title
> "engineer" cannot in the least be argued to be engineering jobs. Tech
> sup****t is not engineering, yet many adopt that title. Network
> installation and maintenance is not engineering, yet many adopt the
> title. About the only networking job that can be argued to be
> engineering is network design (see above). And not all CCIEs or other
> certified individuals are network designers. Many work at Cisco doing
> things like tech sup****t in the TAC etc. [and again I will point out
> that E is Expert not engineer anyway]
>
> >An undergrad in engineering in no way makes you superior to someone
> >else doing the same job, albeit possibly better, who doesn't have a
degree.
>
> Why would you assume that because I hold this position that I am
> degreed in engineering? I am not I assure you, but that doesn't mean
> I cannot be against stealing job titles from other professions to
> imply things about my profession that are not true (like the amount of
> science and math involved in designing networks).
>
> >Network Engineer and Systems Engineer ( not talking about "MCSE" ) are
valid
> >titles for people in IT who perform roles they specify, JUST AS MUCH as
an
> >EE designing ASIC's.
>
> It CAN be. However, if you are seriously equating providing tech
> sup****t (one job that typically uses these titles as an example) to
> being a PE, then I feel sorry for you for your ignorance. If the
> person is truly engineering, then I wouldn't have as big a problem.
> But even in the design positions that you would probably use as an
> example, 99% of the time there is no real engineering involved.
> Throwing bigger fatter pipes at a congestion problem is not
> engineering. Throwing up more APs in a building to scale the WLAN is
> not engineering. That is simply throwing money and capacity at a
> problem and praying it doesn't need more or less. As an example, I
> could probably "engineer" a highway if I wanted to. Not understanding
> the physics behind it, I'd probably just say to pour the concrete ten
> feet thick and put in m***** of rebarb. Sure throwing enough
> substance at a problem *looks* like I am engineering it, but no that
> isn't really engineering.
>
> And if you will refer back to the definition of engineering, it
> necessarily requires that subtle skill or craft be involved. Putting
> in as big a pipes as your budget will afford is not exactly subtle
> skill or craft. Selling as big a pipes as the customers budget will
> afford is not subtle skill or craft. Calculating the backbone needs of
> a carrier class ATM WAN provider through application of statistics
> would be something that would be engineered.
>
> I just cannot imagine in what little ignorant world it can be argued
> that most of these tech jobs can be compared to designing an air****t
> to withstand earthquakes, tornados, and other natural forces.
>
> >Getting a 4 year degree requires no talent nor large
> >amount of intelligence. It requires patience and funding. I have a
friend
> >who graudated high school with a 2.6 GPA, got 990 on his SAT, and
graduated
> >college with a BSEE.
>
> Which is why PEs are regulated by a state board as an additional
> quality control. I am assuming you wouldn't want to work in a
> building designed by your friend would you? I wouldn't.
>
> >I am NOT downplaying the good EE's out there, I am just
> >saying an engineering degree doesn't hold any more water than an IT
> >certification.
>
> Now really. Is that a blanket statement about all or just certain
> certifications? I don't want to misunderstand you, so before I laugh
> at the proposition of MCSE being equivalent to a four year degree and
> state board certification, I will give you a chance to retract this
> patently ridiculous statement and/or modify it to something a little
> more defensible.
>
> >The person needs to be put on the job to make the real
> >judgement.
>
> That is about the only thing I agree with. And if you will make that
> statement, then why the hell are you debating about the merits of
> certifications, particularly the ones that use "engineer" in their
> title??????
>
> --Bernie
Due to the fact you had to make personal swipes throughout your
"argument",
I find you to be a child, and not worth any further conversation. Educated
adults don't need to take that route. Thanks for showing your true colors.
|
