Make 'Engineer' a protected title

sebastianlieken

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/6271

This is a petition in the UK which many of you will find interesting. For those of whome who are able to sign, every little bit counts.

Engineering suffers from an image problem. People believe that engineers simply fix things, but we don't: we invent things. Unfortunately the false image is propagated by hundreds of companies out there who term repair-persons and equipment installers 'Engineers'. Engineering suffers from a lack of graduates, and at a time people are looking to manufacturing to fix the economy we need all the graduates we can get. Sadly they are put off by the false image of engineering. It is thus proposed that the title 'Engineer' is protected legally, like 'Doctor' or 'Architect'. It would be restricted to those who are professional engineers or product designers, or those who have retired from the industry.

annfield1978

what is the official line from government and engineers ireland as to why the word 'engineer' is not protected. Should we be ringing an engineer to fix a tv or dishwaster?

sebastianlieken

If Engineers Ireland or any other chartership business had any moral code, they would have endevoured to make "Engineer" a protected title already. INSTEAD, they prefer to charge people a membership, and further belittle the title "Engineer" by making Engineers subscribe to a superflous title "Chartered Engineer". Meanwhile their pockets get fuller on ridiculous membership rates.

godtabh

sebastianlieken wrote: »

If Engineers Ireland or any other chartership business had any moral code, they would have endevoured to make "Engineer" a protected title already. INSTEAD, they prefer to charge people a membership, and further belittle the title "Engineer" by making Engineers subscribe to a superflous title "Chartered Engineer". Meanwhile their pockets get fuller on ridiculous membership rates.

What a joke.

Do some research

EngineersIReland wrote:

Chartered engineer (CEng MIEI)
his is the legal title used by professional engineers

It denotes a professional, competent, professional engineer

Under an Act of the Oireachtas 1969, Engineers Ireland is the statutory awarding body in Ireland

R

eserved functions in Civil Sector largely:

Local Government (Multi-Storey Buildings) Act 1988
Child-care Regulations (S.I. Nos. 397/1996, 398/1996, 259/1995, 550/2004)
Nursing Homes Regulations (S.I. Nos. 226/1993, 379/1993)

Before people bitch on about rates and what do I get from it etc etc do you research

chris85

godtabh wrote: »

Before people bitch on about rates and what do I get from it etc etc do you research

Sorry Engineer is still not a protected title. Chartered Engineer is protected but not many require chartered membership. Anyone can call themselves an engineer at something or other when they do not have a degree and may not be even a qualified technician. In many other countries it is protected and a respected title.

I think it should be protected but since I entered into study in 2003 I have been hearing about it becoming protected and has never happened and don't see if happening in the near future.

When I heard someone who works in a call center call themselves a "help desk engineer" I died a little inside

newmug

What should the minimum qualification level be? Level 6 = cert / diploma, level 7 = ordinary degree, level 8 = honours degree etc. At what level of qualification should you be entitled to call yourself an "engineer", if the term ever did become protected?

kenon

newmug wrote: »

What should the minimum qualification level be? Level 6 = cert / diploma, level 7 = ordinary degree, level 8 = honours degree etc. At what level of qualification should you be entitled to call yourself an "engineer", if the term ever did become protected?

I always thought you were considered a technician with a level 7 and then an engineer with a level 8.

smcgiff

Just stumbled across this thread - interesting, as someone that belongs to a profession with a similar dilemma. Likewise accountant isn't protected.

However, if the title engineer is restricted to those that invent, then I imagine it'd be a very small profession. So, I think a better definition will be required.

professore

"Sanitation engineer" - bin man

I agree it should be a protected title.

macman2010

professore wrote: »

"Sanitation engineer" - bin man

I agree it should be a protected title.

Autoglass "windscreen engineer"

I scream at the TV when i hear them say that.

stereo_steve

An engineer is someone who has completed an engineering degree accredited by Engineers Ireland. Engineers Ireland review engineering degrees set out by colleges and university's to ensure that they meet a certain standard.

Yahew

I generally agree but what was James Watt?

Darren1o1

newmug wrote: »

What should the minimum qualification level be? Level 6 = cert / diploma, level 7 = ordinary degree, level 8 = honours degree etc. At what level of qualification should you be entitled to call yourself an "engineer", if the term ever did become protected?

I believe going forward the standard to be an Engineer will be a 5yr masters program as set out by the bologna agreement. Others can do bachelors degree but would need to do equivlence programs/trainign set out by EI.

Unregistered.

Darren1o1 wrote: »

I believe going forward the standard to be an Chartered Engineer will be a 5yr masters program as set out by the bologna agreement. Others can do bachelors degree but would need to do equivlence programs/trainign set out by EI.

FYP. The problem, as I understand it, is that anybody can call themselves an Engineer. The above does nothing to change that.

Darren1o1

Unregistered. wrote: »

FYP. The problem, as I understand it, is that anybody can call themselves an Engineer. The above does nothing to change that.

FYP? I understand your, but I was showing the current framework under which a standard has been already set and could easily be translated to the professional title of Engineer. This standard brings us in line with European standards in cases where the title is protected.

thecornflake

I don't understand, surely your work should speak for you, not a title.

Some people have titles coming out of the ears and are terrible, I know some people without a "title" and yet they would be more respected than those with one.

All it does is introduce a boys club with these titles that allow the members to feel smug and exclude certain people.

dvpower

thecornflake wrote: »

I don't understand, surely your work should speak for you, not a title.

Some people have titles coming out of the ears and are terrible, I know some people without a "title" and yet they would be more respected than those with one.

All it does is introduce a boys club with these titles that allow the members to feel smug and exclude certain people.

Agreed.

I work in the software business where the term 'Software Engineer' is widely used. Many of the most skilled people I've known haven't got a degree qualification and I've come across heaps of people with software enginering qualifiations who are awful.

Maybe 'engineers' want to protect the title just to add to their own kudos?

Darren1o1

Well the debate about the title IMO is hinged on making sure someone cannot walk in off the street and design a bridge, only for it to fail. It is for protection of the responsibilities rather than the title. There are two main ways to determine if a person is qualified, via education and via observation/guidance (Maybe by an another qualified candidate). Trouble is it is very tough to quantify experience and who is good at a particular role. Through Engineers Ireland there is exams and ways you can work from being a tech through to being a chartered engineer. Sometimes, I feel Engineer should be more like an apprenticeship (or mix of school and working) rather than more so based on education.

Owyhee

Petitioning to LinkedIn could be another start.
I know of few guys advertising themselves as engineers, when they are FETAC/diploma level technicians, with very basic skills.
Clients often do not care for clarification as long as someone will sign off at the end of the day; this is driving standards down in our industry.
Any moves to clarify who is trained or experienced to carry out different levels of work is a good idea.

thecornflake

Owyhee wrote: »

Petitioning to LinkedIn could be another start.
I know of few guys advertising themselves as engineers, when they are FETAC/diploma level technicians, with very basic skills.
Clients often do not care for clarification as long as someone will sign off at the end of the day; this is driving standards down in our industry.
Any moves to clarify who is trained or experienced to carry out different levels of work is a good idea.

The employer is just as thick as they are then.

It's the employers problem for not looking at the qualifications and seeing that they are useless as an engineer. If I called myself "President" cornflake, do you think that means I would have more of a chance getting a job as american president or some hotshot European head of state ect ?

It bloody wouldn't make a difference and shouldn't make a difference, work and experience speaks far far far more than little show off gits who think that just after going to a college for four years that they have the right to a title and belittle others who have been in the business long before the titled person even knew what an engineer was.

Seems from my point of view that most graduates from any engineering courses are more concerned about their looks and how they are perceived by other people rather than getting down to work and actually trying to make a name for themselves. Looks like most that I know would rather fill out a form that they think makes them better than others and more respected even if their work and knowledge of the subject is less than an untitled person.

When did it become a show off subject and area to work in ?

thecornflake

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Well the debate about the title IMO is hinged on making sure someone cannot walk in off the street and design a bridge, only for it to fail.

Excellent point, someone could just walk in off the street and be allowed to design a bridge without any proof, however if only select people with the title "Engineer" infront of their names were allowed walk in off the strees to design it then we could all relax about the standard of work due to the almighty and respectable word infront of that persons name that we must all bow down to, be humble and admire. :rolleyes:

Unregistered.

thecornflake wrote: »

Excellent point, someone could just walk in off the street and be allowed to design a bridge without any proof, however if only select people with the title "Engineer" infront of their names were allowed walk in off the strees to design it then we could all relax about the standard of work due to the almighty and respectable word infront of that persons name that we must all bow down to, be humble and admire. :rolleyes:

Yes that's the point!!! When they have "Engineer" in front of there name due to being accredited by a governing body such as Engineers Ireland then this is exactly how it would work.

thecornflake

Unregistered. wrote: »

Yes that's the point!!! When they have "Engineer" in front of there name due to being accredited by a governing body such as Engineers Ireland then this is exactly how it would work.

But that's what a degree is, you know, the institution award you it, because it proves you must know the material.

Same with experience in the area backed up with references ect.

What the point in going through another process just to have a title that anybody could stick infront of their name anyways ?

dvpower

Unregistered. wrote: »

Yes that's the point!!! When they have "Engineer" in front of there name due to being accredited by a governing body such as Engineers Ireland then this is exactly how it would work.

When the accreditation is basically automatically granted on the basis of holding a degree then it adds little or no value whatsoever. It only acts as a barrier to entry.

In software (maybe its different for other industries) the technical environment is so fast changing that much of the stuff people learn in college is out of date in a few years. Some of the fundementals remain the same, but a much better way of determining if someone is good is to look at their experience and their references. When I'm hiring software engineers, I take very little notice of their formal qualifications.
If only accredited software engineers could work in the industry, some of the best engineers would be out of a job, as would some of the biggest names in the industry.

Darren1o1

thecornflake wrote: »

Excellent point, someone could just walk in off the street and be allowed to design a bridge without any proof, however if only select people with the title "Engineer" infront of their names were allowed walk in off the strees to design it then we could all relax about the standard of work due to the almighty and respectable word infront of that persons name that we must all bow down to, be humble and admire. :rolleyes:

It is very easy to take a snippet and be snarky. Read the rest of my post. I did not advocate for an educational or experience based approach, just someone who has been verified to have the appropriate combination of experience knowledge, be that through working your way up (like an apprenticeship type prog) or through education and exposure to problems. Regards I personally do not care once there is some regulation to make sure whoever is build brides, cars etc. That is me as a consumer.

Unregistered.

dvpower wrote: »

When the accreditation is basically automatically granted on the basis of holding a degree then it adds little or no value whatsoever. It only acts as a barrier to entry.

In software (maybe its different for other industries) the technical environment is so fast changing that much of the stuff people learn in college is out of date in a few years. Some of the fundementals remain the same, but a much better way of determining if someone is good is to look at their experience and their references. When I'm hiring software engineers, I take very little notice of their formal qualifications.
If only accredited software engineers could work in the industry, some of the best engineers would be out of a job, as would some of the biggest names in the industry.

Guys, its not given automatically. Not all courses are accredited by Engineers Ireland. Fact. They have to meet criteria set out by EI. The reason for having them accredited is so you can go anywhere in the world to somewhere were your college is not known and have an internationally recognized accreditation. Nobody is suggesting that only "accredited engineers" should be allowed work in an industry. The topic is about reserving the use of the word Engineer to accredited engineers only.

Darren1o1

Unregistered. wrote: »

Guys, its not given automatically. Not all courses are accredited by Engineers Ireland. Fact. They have to meet criteria set out by EI. The reason for having them accredited is so you can go anywhere in the world to somewhere were your college is not known and have an internationally recognized accreditation. Nobody is suggesting that only "accredited engineers" should be allowed work in an industry. The topic is about reserving the use of the word Engineer to accredited engineers only.

Great point, agreed.

Owyhee

thecornflake wrote: »

The employer is just as thick as they are then.

It's the employers problem for not looking at the qualifications and seeing that they are useless as an engineer. If I called myself "President" cornflake, do you think that means I would have more of a chance getting a job as american president or some hotshot European head of state ect ?

That is my point, often the employer is a state organisation who has tendered for a short term contract and does not have the ability or will, to dig in depth to see the credentials/ability of all or any of the proposed staff listed on a tender application.

From this standards of work can diminish and public safety can be put at risk.

Owyhee

thecornflake wrote: »

But that's what a degree is, you know, the institution award you it, because it proves you must know the material.

Same with experience in the area backed up with references ect.

What the point in going through another process just to have a title that anybody could stick infront of their name anyways ?

The point would be here that nobody could just stick the title in front of their name.
References can be fudged and difficult to prove.
A base standard routed through an institution by any combination of education or experience to demonstrate ability to carry out specific design and construction or manufacturing tasks would be no harm.

Also I get the impression that your argument of the experience taking as much precedence as training, is like many I meet who, think that they know more than an engineer on a specific job. But when unforseen problems arise, these people are in no position to “prove up” a solution to be sound. I think first for the experience only route argument to have any merit, that the person first should have a full understanding of the range and depth of subjects covered on a relevant syllabus.

itsyuranan

Protected title?

godtabh

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Trouble is it is very tough to quantify experience and who is good at a particular role.

No its not. Look at any of the competence and/or behavioral based assessments that many companies use these days and you can very easily quantify experience or expected experience at certain levels.

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Through Engineers Ireland there is exams and ways you can work from being a tech through to being a chartered engineer.

There is no exams. There is an experience report and a competence based interview.

Darren1o1

godtabh wrote: »

No its not. Look at any of the competence and/or behavioral based assessments that many companies use these days and you can very easily quantify experience or expected experience at certain levels.

Very easy to say being in large multinational company e.g. Stryker. Coming from a SME background this is not strictly true. Through an institution which accredits by any combination of education or experience to demonstrate ability in a particular field would negate the need for an employer without prior experience or interaction with the profession to hire a competent engineer.

godtabh wrote: »

There is no exams. There is an experience report and a competence based interview.

As I have been made aware, there will be as part of the bologna agreement reforms, since as EI members will need to be trained of Master equivalent in training. I will reference literature when i find some. Also, another reference for examination occuring in the broad terms is in ASME (FE and PE). Along the way through CPD there are many exams.

godtabh

Darren1o1 wrote: »

Very easy to say being in large multinational company e.g. Stryker. Coming from a SME background this is not strictly true. Through an institution which accredits by any combination of education or experience to demonstrate ability in a particular field would negate the need for an employer without prior experience or interaction with the profession to hire a competent engineer.

Competence assessments are not just the tool of large multi-nationals. I work in a company of less than 30 staff and we do it. I've seen it adopted by smaller companies.

It works but for it to deliver true value it needs to be linked to business needs to actually deliver value.

Darren1o1 wrote: »

As I have been made aware, there will be as part of the bologna agreement reforms, since as EI members will need to be trained of Master equivalent in training. I will reference literature when i find some. Also, another reference for examination occuring in the broad terms is in ASME (FE and PE). Along the way through CPD there are many exams.

If you graduate post 2013 you will need a masters to become a CEng. This brings us in line with the rest of the EU.

EI will not (as far as I am aware) have "examinations" to become a chartered engineer. It will be still based on a practice report and interview. The one change they have made to the process is the introduction of minimum CPD in advance of your report/interview.

This I believe is the one of the public steps in the road to the protection of engineer. Minimum/mandatory CPD is common in many industries that are protected such as doctors and accountants.

There was a paper I read on the 7 corner stones of what a "profession" is. Doctors and accountants gave 5/6/7 of the corner stones. Engineers Ireland only have about 4. I must try and dig that out.

chris85

I think the standard should be level 8. Below level 8 EI should have accreditation bands for varying levels skills but in terms of protected titles I think level 8 is the base level that should be required.

thecornflake

chris85 wrote: »

I think the standard should be level 8. Below level 8 EI should have accreditation bands for varying levels skills but in terms of protected titles I think level 8 is the base level that should be required.

What about the grade of the degree , 1.1 , 2.1 ect ?

What about someone with decades of experience but no degree ? Can they not have the all mighty title "ENGINEER".

People can call themselves what they want, at the end of the day its the work and results that separate the men from the posers.

Owyhee

thecornflake wrote: »

What about the grade of the degree , 1.1 , 2.1 ect ?

What about someone with decades of experience but no degree ? Can they not have the all mighty title "ENGINEER".

People can call themselves what they want, at the end of the day its the work and results that separate the men from the posers.

I already addressed this for you.. on page 2.

thecornflake

Owyhee wrote: »

The point would be here that nobody could just stick the title in front of their name.
References can be fudged and difficult to prove.
A base standard routed through an institution by any combination of education or experience to demonstrate ability to carry out specific design and construction or manufacturing tasks would be no harm.

Also I get the impression that your argument of the experience taking as much precedence as training, is like many I meet who, think that they know more than an engineer on a specific job. But when unforseen problems arise, these people are in no position to “prove up” a solution to be sound. I think first for the experience only route argument to have any merit, that the person first should have a full understanding of the range and depth of subjects covered on a relevant syllabus.

Firstly if employers are not ar**d checking any candidates results, qualification or experience then it is an employer problem not a title issue. If anything introducing the title would make the situation worse.

There is already a standard that has been set up, multiple infact. Courses undertaken by students prove their knowledge of the subject through their awarded degree which should cover both practical and theoretical (again up to the employer to check) aspects of engineering.

Experience would also demonstrate how suited a person is to a specific task.

The idea of introducing another stage via the title will merely only highlight who has an honors degree, which is obvious if the employer were to look at the transcripts ect provided. Thus it is useless except for making people feel good and smug about their image.

Owyhee

Its not about as you say; feeling good and smug, the all mighty title "ENGINEER", or the posers.
Its about something completly different, but you seem to have your own agenda , so please carry on. :rolleyes:

thecornflake

Owyhee wrote: »

Its not about as you say; feeling good and smug, the all mighty title "ENGINEER", or the posers.
Its about something completly different, but you seem to have your own agenda , so please carry on. :rolleyes:

No, I just can't see how it would actually help due to the fact that qualifications and experience speak for themselves. As for the title, whats to stop people using it anyways even if they shouldn't ? Surely it would only serve to make the title even more attractive to be abused by people ?

Owyhee

thecornflake wrote: »

No, I just can't see how it would actually help due to the fact that qualifications and experience speak for themselves. As for the title, whats to stop people using it anyways even if they shouldn't ? Surely it would only serve to make the title even more attractive to be abused by people ?

The title would be just linked to an online registrar for validation. Simple.;)

thecornflake

Owyhee wrote: »

The title would be just linked to an online registrar for validation. Simple.;)

But degrees are too, and a lot of referees and other qualifications are. So I just can't see the benefit apart from adding more red tape that won't prove or disprove anything the employer should have already known.

Unregistered.

thecornflake wrote: »

Owyhee wrote: »

The title would be just linked to an online registrar for validation. Simple.;)

But degrees are too, and a lot of referees and other qualifications are. So I just can't see the benefit apart from adding more red tape that won't prove or disprove anything the employer should have already known.

Would you go to a GP who decides to call themselves a "Doctor" because of the wealth of experience they have practicing medicine dispite no formal qualification or accreditation that says they possess a level of competency and responsibility???

That is what the thread is about. It's not about having boasting rights or feeling mightier-than-thou. Get that out of your head.

thecornflake

Unregistered. wrote: »

Would you go to a GP who decides to call themselves a "Doctor" because of the wealth of experience they have practicing medicine dispite no formal qualification or accreditation that says they possess a level of competency and responsibility???

That is what the thread is about. It's not about having boasting rights or feeling mightier-than-thou. Get that out of your head.

That's what I am against too. Sorry if I haven't been clear. I am totally 100% against people calling themselves engineers (or doctors in the above example) if they do not have the correct qualifications. Now there are some situations where a person can medically help you even if they don't have qualifications , for example a lot of people that are trained in Africa via charities, they would not be doctors but would have the skills to help people or ordinary people who perhaps know CPR.

My point is that the qualifications of engineers and their experience should speak for them, not a title. At the end of the day it is the work and is the results IMHO that defines if a person an engineer or not.

Unregistered.

Well the thread is about protecting the title for those who have been accredited. It gives a gaurantee of sorts to the competency of an individual. Obviously we are not speaking about an employers view on this or how much it's considered along with an engineer's experience.

chris85

Unregistered. wrote: »

Well the thread is about protecting the title for those who have been accredited. It gives a gaurantee of sorts to the competency of an individual. Obviously we are not speaking about an employers view on this or how much it's considered along with an engineer's experience.

Agree on this.

The employers view is not really an issue as employers will hire based on qualifications and that's grand. This is about the public and their perception and expectation from someone who calls them self an Engineer.

Its protected and respected elsewhere. Should be here.

thecornflake

chris85 wrote: »

Agree on this.

The employers view is not really an issue as employers will hire based on qualifications and that's grand. This is about the public and their perception and expectation from someone who calls them self an Engineer.

Its protected and respected elsewhere. Should be here.

Again perception, others views on how the engineer looks. A title is not going to make people think that someone is qualified to do anything, it's just a word. I never go on peoples titles, I always look at their work ect, which is how the general public would also.

Unregistered.

thecornflake wrote: »

A title is not going to make people think that someone is qualified to do anything, it's just a word.

Again, "Doctor", "Professor" both imply a level of competency.

thecornflake

Unregistered. wrote: »

Again, "Doctor", "Professor" both imply a level of competency.

So then get a PhD, that's what those titles are for, but I know a few people who have a PhD, again I would go by someones work rather than title. As far as I am concerned a title doesn't mean that much. The title engineer is different to the title Doctor or Professor (plus any sap who uses the title Doctor or Professor in anything but an extremely formal situation is a clown and usually not liked by people).

Most of the best Engineers I know would not even use the title infront of their name. They don't want to stand out, they don't want to show off. They want to get on with their work, because they don't care what people think of them, its their work and projects they care about.

godtabh

Unregistered. wrote: »

FOR **** SAKE.

Not helpful to the debate.

Last warning to all. Keep it on topic ie discussing making 'engineer' a protected title.

Any more off topic posts will result in a weeks ban.

djpbarry

thecornflake wrote: »

I am totally 100% against people calling themselves engineers (or doctors in the above example) if they do not have the correct qualifications. Now there are some situations where a person can medically help you even if they don't have qualifications , for example a lot of people that are trained in Africa via charities, they would not be doctors but would have the skills to help people or ordinary people who perhaps know CPR.

Someone who knows CPR is not going to call themselves a doctor. However, it seems anyone who knows how to use a screwdriver feels they deserve the title of “engineer”.

thecornflake wrote: »

Again perception, others views on how the engineer looks. A title is not going to make people think that someone is qualified to do anything, it's just a word. I never go on peoples titles, I always look at their work ect, which is how the general public would also.

No, they don’t. The public’s understanding of what an engineer is or does leaves a lot to be desired in this part of the world. Now, you may not think this really matters, but it does. Why? Because there is a shortage of engineers in the world. Trying to attract kids into the world of engineering is kind of difficult when the guy fixing the coffee machine is calling himself an engineer.

thecornflake wrote: »

So then get a PhD, that's what those titles are for, but I know a few people who have a PhD, again I would go by someones work rather than title. As far as I am concerned a title doesn't mean that much.

So if you discover that someone has a PhD, you’ll assess the work they did during their PhD before you deem them worthy of the title “Doctor”?