Blah, blah, blah. I read enough to realize you have entirely missed the
point of my post. <sigh> Find something im****tant to argue about! <eg>
--
Kelley
aka catwalker
IT Professional, MCP
"Bernie" <Bernie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ur4ag0ha61e8pb8f5o6cm2mu4palctqbac@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
|
