On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 22:47:00 -0700, "catwalker63"
<_catwalker63_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Definition # 6 describes an engineer as someone who plans, oversees, or
>brings about something that is achieved with ingenuity or secretiveness.
>That's IT to a tee! <g>
There are several problems with #6. I'll list those in a reasonable
and logical order.
First, there is disagreement on whether #6 is a true definition.
Webster and American Heritage, carry only a similar definition, but
not nearly as generic. "[3] c : a person who carries through an
enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance." Not sure what your
source is, but I'll tend to stick to Webster. (Note that under the
Webster definition, the bar is much higher so similar arguments apply
but to a greater degree.) MSN Encarta is hardly the end authority on
the English language <g>. Either way, the rest of the argument will
follow very similarly, so for sake of ease, I will still refer to #6
from here on out.
Second, #6 has transient application, and is clearly not applicable to
this topic of job titles. #1 is clearly the definition that has
application to job titles. #6 may apply to certain cir***stances, or
activities in time, but it does not make one an engineer by
profession. What didn't come through as clearly in the copying and
pasting is the bold type for the category of the different
definitions. One was labeled "engineering professional" and the other
"planner." Which do you think fits this application (i.e. job titles)
best? As for sup****t in this interpretation, the Department of Labor
who tracks and publishes info on occupations, does not apply this
definition to the term engineer. They apply something along the lines
of #1, but with much greater depth of definition and description. The
heading on your definition #1 "engineering professional" does
highlight the fact that this is the definition that applies to jobs
and job titles if any of them do. For example, an engineer may be
what I am when I get out my roll of duct tape around the house <g>,
but that doesn't make me an engineer by profession. If I call myself
a Network Engineer, I am essentially claiming to be part of the class
of engineering professionals. Definition #6 is clearly not the
definition that is invoked when someone introduces themselves as a
"Systems Engineer."
Third, (for the sake of argument, assuming you still disagree with 1
and 2 above) lets look at the discrepancy between #6 and the vast
majority of those using the title "engineer" in the IT field. At
best, #6 only has application to those who work in the design phase of
projects, particularly the consultants who typically get involved at
the planning level. Yet people who are troubleshooters, fixers, tech
sup****t, implementers, installers, technical salespeople, ad nauseam
all steal the term "engineer" and put it on their business cards too.
Why is that? The interesting dynamic here is that the people who snub
the consultant and say "I am a real engineer because I play with nerd
knobs all day; the consultant is a bozo" are not the engineers...the
consultant is (under that definition)!! Fixing a network, even with
ingenuity, is clearly not an application of #6. Installing a router,
even with ingenuity, is not an application of #6. Designing a network
with ingenuity is at least an arguable application, so see the next
note. But with respect to the hoards of Systems Engineers, Sales
Engineers, Sup****t Engineers, Network Engineers [ad nauseam] whose
jobs don't include design/planning, sorry, but #6 just doesn't cut it.
As an example of this distinction, Software Engineer and Computer
Programmer are two distinctly different jobs, and the DoL tracks them
as separate (but obviously related) professions. So even if you still
believe that #6 applies to some, you have to admit that most of those
using the title in the IT field are using it illegitimately.
Forth, for those few IT people remaining in consideration under point
3, ingenuity and secretiveness don't quite cut it either. Lets narrow
the focus to only those designers who can make argument of the use of
the title under #6. You can't call it secretiveness when bookstores
carry hoards of publications on these subjects of IT. Ingenuity is
certainly debatable here too. I have run across few people who
actually practice ingenuity in their daily jobs. They follow Cisco's
blueprint for design and throw gigabit (and now 10G) pipes everywhere,
even to the desktop, when it really isn't needed. Throwing raw
bandwidth at problems until problems go away is not ingenuity. As
another example, with WLANs (wireless being an area that has
previously been a true application of an engineering field) these so
called planners are not RF engineers, they are people who are looking
for simple rules of thumb to design by, like "one AP per 7500 sq.
ft...." and when those rules of thumb fail them they do a site survey
to figure it out by trial an error. That is not ingenuity. Following
like a lemming the blueprint from Cisco is not ingenuity. Calling an
SME to help them figure out the only complex part of a design is not
ingenuity. Case in point, how many times have you looked at a network
and said "Why that design is ingenious!" Probably never. These
cookie-cutter designs are things you see everywhere you go.
Alternatively put, if your mind convulsed at the suggestion above
(point 3) that the consultant is the "engineer" of the project then
you agree with me on this point too, i.e. that the planner isn't
particularly ingenious in his work. Summary, the guy who wrote the
Cisco blueprint *might* be considered an engineer, some top people in
the industry *might* be considered engineers, but most of the planners
who steal the title "engineer" do not practice ingenuity at all, if
ever. And I then refer you back to point 2 above: even so, it is a
transient description of an activity, not a job title or legitimate
profession.
Fifth, you just really cannot possibly be putting network design on
the same level as engineering a plot to overthrow a government, or
building a bridge to withstand earthquakes, can you???? When they say
(#6) ingenuity, they *mean* ingenuity. They provide an example that
illustrates the level that they are talking about. It just doesn't
follow that our jobs fit in that echelon. For example, I plan to go
to the store, and I think through in my head the shortcut I will take.
Did I engineer my trip to the store? No. There is a level of
ingenuity required, and a level of difficulty required before the term
fits. If former truck drivers could learn the trade in a few months
and do the job as well as the former plumber <g>, then we aren't
talking about a trade that requires a particularly high level of
ingenuity (no offense to truck drivers or plumbers <g>). Your
application of ingenuity to the IT field is greatly overstated.
Sixth, I submit that if #6 really did apply to IT, then we wouldn't be
complaining about offshoring right now because it wouldn't be
happening except as a trickle of jobs moving. I really can't claim
that I am performing secretive arts or ingenuity if just about
*anyone* can do my same job in my place.
Seventh, if you argue that #6 applies to IT as a general statement,
then you also open the flood gates to application of the term doctor
to ourselves. By genericizing beyond the intended application of the
definition (which is fairly clear given the context of it: see point
2) in order to cheapen the term making it apply to a broader set of
people than it should, you open the floodgates to this happening to
other revered titles. In fact, if you want to insist that Encarta is
the authority on the subject of word definitions, all tech sup****t
people in the IT industry should heretofore start calling themselves
"doctors" and change their job titles:
3. somebody who can fix things: somebody who is good at doing
something, especially fixing or improving something
As with the term engineer, Webster offers similar "loopholes" if you
insist on interpreting them that way. Webster is also similarly not as
watered down in wording as Encarta. Encarta seems to be trying to
legitimize the colloquialisms which is not the way you maintain
standards in a language. That is why Encarta isn't authoritative as a
dictionary. See point 1.
Conclusion. 1 and 2 really discredits any application of that
definition to our use of job titles. However, if you contest that,
you at least have to grant 3, that most who do use the title,
shouldn't use that title. 4 through 7 contests even that limited
application of the title. (I suppose all the domestic engineers,
sanitation engineers, custodial engineers, etc. cite #6 and claim they
do some planning in their work too....)
>RE your BTW: I'm female so I'm quite able to believe in logical
>impossibilities. It's part of my nature. And the term has six
definitions
>so it's in no way binary.
It is binary by the fact that if one of the six fits the definition
fits, and if none of the six fits it doesn't fit. That is why there
are multiple (sub)definitions--you can't say that a train engineer
(#2) is not an engineer because they aren't in the Navy (#3). That is
obviously not how the logic of definitions works. So regarding the
question posed, there are only two possible conclusions. Since
various sub definitions are meant to be read as logical ORs, the
definition (as a whole) fits or doesn't fit as a simple binary.
--Bernie
|
