On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:47:56 GMT, "AT" <torgny@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>I don't know what is so hard with this.
Neither do I.
>To call yourself "Doctor" you have
>to have a degree as Doctor.
Actually that is not technically true. There are a number of looser
definitions of the word that don't include a degree. Having a degree
as a doctor is just one criterion under which it is valid to use the
term.
>You also have to have a degree to call yourself
>Civil Engineer.
It isn't just civil engineering that is protected. Just about any
engineering branch is protected in the same way. So what is so
special about civil engineering that doesn't apply to nuclear
engineering?
The point is that there is the degree that you get from studying one
of the legitimate branches of engineering. If you are going to
"engineer" on public systems, like highways, nuclear plants, etc., you
then have to take the extra step of becoming a PE.
This is fairly well explained by the Department of Labor in their
Occupational Handbook:
"All 50 States and the District of Columbia require licensure for
engineers who offer their services directly to the public. Engineers
who are licensed are called Professional Engineers (PE). This
licensure generally requires a degree from an ABET-accredited
engineering program, 4 years of relevant work experience, and
successful completion of a State examination. "
So are all of these not protected titles then? Of course. It isn't
just "civil engineering". Of course someone could still technically
be a civil engineer without becoming a PE. It is implicit in the
description. Finding a project to work on might be difficult, but that
is beside the point.
>Both of those cases are about protected titles. Since that
>is not the case with the word "Engineer" anyone can call themselves
>engineer.
Semantics. It doesn't float. Every dictionary I have found defines
an engineer as this:
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
Engineering is further defined as:
2 a : the application of science and mathematics by which the
properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made
useful to people b : the design and manufacture of complex products
<software engineering>
The DoL has a long write-up about what an "engineer" is in more
detailed terms:
"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....."
So maybe there is nothing illegal about saying I am an engineer of
basket weaving, but it is definitely not consistent with *ANY*
official resource concerning the proper use of the word "engineer".
Likewise, there is nothing illegal about me re-defining the word "is",
but me doing so doesn't officially change the real meaning that
everyone else applies to the term. Not all things that are wrong are
illegal. I am not arguing legality, rather what is right or wrong,
what the meaning is or is not.
So I ask you, who is correct? You? Or Webster, the DoL, and every
university that offers degrees in branches of engineering? I think
I'll choose to go with the traditional interpretation of the word
engineer, not the dotcom interpretation of the word by which overnight
everyone and their dog became an "engineer" in job title only.
>Simply said there are no educational degree giving you the title
>"Engineer" without being combined with something more, i.e. "Civil
>Engineer".
That is semantics again. I have never seen a person use just the job
title "Engineer". It is always combined with Network, Systems,
Custodial, etc. Those are either legitimate branches of engineering
where science and math is applied to problems, or they are not. The
descriptions from Webster, DoL, et al, about the simple term
"engineer" are correct or they are not.
>The word Engineer is commonly used as a job title and I don't
>express any opinion about if that is right or not.
But that is what this thread is about, is it not? If the point is
simply that garbage collectors use the term, then yes we all agree,
they do use it, case closed.
>I only state what is
>common use of the separate word Engineer.
It has become common in many places. It doesn't make it proper
though.
>If you only ask anyone making a surgery on you if they are a Doctor I
hope
>for your own sake that you ask if he/she is a Doctor of Medicin.
I don't suppose if they said, "Yes, that is my job title" it would be
ok, would it?
>After all
>they could be a Doctor of Technology and have no clue at all about
medicin.
>But they are anyhow allowed to carry the title Doctor.
Yes we agree. That wasn't the point though. The term Engineer was
once revered too. In some cases, companies have been forced to remove
the title from their workers by pressure from state boards. This
happened to MS. Engineer may not carry as much weight as doctor, but
it is a slippery slope when you start allowing reserved titles to be
used by people who shouldn't be using them. There really isn't
anything stopping someone from using the title "doctor" as a job
title, as opposed to implying that they are degreed as a doctor. What
are you going to do when that alternative medical practitioner starts
applying this definition of the word:
2 b : MEDICINE MAN
Technically they could I suppose. Now it sounds like you would agree
that this is false representation. It would also be false
representation if that Doctor of Technology practiced medicine simply
as "Dr. so-n-so." He could say, "Hey, that's just a job title, you
didn't ask to see my diploma before I operated on you, did you?" If
you want to twist words concerning "engineer", then you have to allow
the same games to be played with other words like "doctor." You can't
craft a consistent POV otherwise.
Technically the same thing could happen to the word doctor. It is
only the integrity of the larger workforce that keeps the title
protected and revered the way it is today. But there is nothing
legally stopping you or I from cheapening the title the way "engineer"
has been cheapened through improper use.
>AT
>
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:l1g4d0h64746fg2f6d4h14kg8hfddarti7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 00:48:31 GMT, "AT" <torgny@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >You are as so many others here confused with titles. Doctor is a
degree
>and
>> >a title but does not nessecery mean that you are a doctor in Medicin.
You
>> >can achieve a doctor exam in many different professions.
>>
>> But you are sidestepping the question posed. An alternative medicine
>> practitioner does not (necessarily) have any doctoral degree in
>> medicine or any other field. So is it or is it not correct for them
>> to pose as "doctors" and call themselves such? After all, if you
>> underwent surgery from a quack/fake who called himself a "doctor" just
>> to wake up with a limb amputated by mistake, you probably wouldn't sue
>> him for false representation--hey, he is free to *use* the title if he
>> wants to. If he told you, "Hey, I never said I had a degree from med
>> school, I just like the title because it sounds catchy...BTW, sorry
>> about your arm," I suppose that would be a satisfactory answer. Or is
>> it?
>>
>> >The title Engineer by itself does not say more then that you are
holding
>an
>> >engineering position and you don't even need a degree for that.
>>
>> Actually, the title as defined by dictionaries means you are either
>> trained in a branch of engineering or you are practicing a branch of
>> engineering. Garbage collecting is, by the way, not a branch of
>> engineering, so that use of the title is technically invalid, just as
>> redefining words to suit some personal agenda is invalid.
>>
>> >Civil
>> >Engineer on the other hand is an educational degree and a title and
that
>is
>> >a total different thing. Having a degree in "something" Engineering
>doesn't
>> >even give you a title, just the degree.
>>
>> Actually it does. It doesn't give you a state board certification as
>> a PE, but it is still proper to call a person with a degree in
>> engineering an engineer. Now if they are five years out of practice,
>> it starts becoming a gray area I suppose. But instead of dealing with
>> odd corner cases, lets stick to the main issue.
>>
>> >AT
>> >
>> >
>> >"Sunny Cheung" <sunny.cheung@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >news:40d05057$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> I agree. Calling someone an Engineer who is not formally qualified
(in
>> >that
>> >> I mean by successfully graduating from a recognised tertiary
>institution
>> >> with a B.E or equivalent as deemed so by IEAust) is a total sham to
the
>> >> profession!
>> >>
>> >> Everyone would get upset if "alternative medicine practioners"
suddenly
>> >> called themselves "doctors", so whats the difference with those
getting
>> >> MSCE's and calling themselves "Engineers"? I think its time
regulatory
>> >> bodies impose strict guidlines on how organisations can use titles.
>> >>
>> >> What really gets my goat is sparkies calling themselves Electrical
>> >> Engineers!!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>> --Bernie
>
--Bernie
|
