Does a degree define being an engineer?

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by wilnj

I don’t know much about the medical equipment field but my guess is that there is a testing and validation process with work.

In construction, we don’t have that benefit.

A foundation is designed and constructed. Now we have an independent inspector who checks that the rebar matches the contract documents. We take concrete samples to ensure the mix conforms as well but there is no other test before a steel column is placed on top.

Similarly, the steel if erected, the bolting and welding tested, the metal deck put down and that’s inspected too. Then a concrete deck is poured, loading the structure.

All of this happens without a validation of the design, so a licensed professional, who’s staking his career and errors and omission insurance on his design is needed.

i dont really get the point of this post.

like, yes, but none of this is a comment on how outside of civil stuff, basically nothing else is touched by a PE.

[wilnj]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

i dont really get the point of this post.

like, yes, but none of this is a comment on how outside of civil stuff, basically nothing else is touched by a PE.

That is my point, construction related activities is one of the few industries where a license holder is typically required.

Most other systems designed by an engineer have a validation process that doesn’t require the system be designed, constructed and put to work without a trial period.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by wilnj

That is my point, construction related activities is one of the few industries where a license holder is typically required.

Most other systems designed by an engineer have a validation process that doesn’t require the system be designed, constructed and put to work without a trial period.

no one was disputing this.

the entire thing is a counter argument to the notion that only licensed engineers are engineers. that is simply not the case.

[wilnj]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

no one was disputing this.

the entire thing is a counter argument to the notion that only licensed engineers are engineers. that is simply not the case.

I never stated that. My first post in the thread was clear that IMO engineers is defined by what they do not what their education/licensing certifications say.

The post you just quoted was explaining why some industries require a license while most others don’t.

[cockerpunk]

Originally Posted by wilnj

I never stated that. My first post in the thread was clear that IMO engineers is defined by what they do not what their education/licensing certifications say.

The post you just quoted was explaining why some industries require a license while most others don’t.

you responded to me :shrug:

[wilnj]

Originally Posted by cockerpunk

you responded to me :shrug:

Yep because I was agreeing and reinforcing your point with my understanding.

[fintstone]

When I was a Fed, I pretty much controlled what qualifications one needed to be considered an engineer in my Agency (regardless of the job you were hired for/assigned to once hired). For an entry level engineering position, Feds require a BS in Engineering from an ABET accredited school or equivalent courses plus evidence of adequacy (PE,FE, etc.). A related degree like Computer Science, Engineering technology, Physics, etc. would qualify if one took essentially the same courses as an engineering major and had at least a year of professional engineering experience acquired under professional engineering supervision and guidance. If assigned to an acquisition-related engineering position (most were in acquisition), I had to certify they met minimum standards, so I reviewed each of their transcripts and resumes. Many did not. Some forged transcripts or pretended some diploma mill was a real college. Many used experience as government contractors where their company gave them the title of "Engineer" or "Senior Engineer" because most contracts paid more for those designation than "technician" which was really what most were. I disapproved a lot which often put their new employers and them in a bind.

Most positions did not require licensing, but I always recommended that those I mentored get their PE while all the info/math was still fresh in their minds as it expanded their options.

[flatbutt]

Originally Posted by wilnj

I don’t know much about the medical equipment field but my guess is that there is a testing and validation process with work.

.

Indeed. Not the same as with meds but the CFR has the requirements clearly enumerated.

[aschen]

only tangentially related but I have had good luck hiring and looking for MET and EET (Bachelor's not associates) degrees for certain positions.

A great option I think if you have kids or grandkids (i know some of yall old!) that like building and designing but are lukewarm on math and theoretical. Not a huge discrepancy in starting pay or opportunities as well.

[DRONE]

I was asked to become an engineer by my department head and I accepted
I started my career as an outside machinist for a shipyard back in 1979, we were the ones that broke down the machinery on board and then put the engines, pumps generators.
once I saw what the shop machinists job was I knew that was the life for me I left the shipyard
I spent the next couple of years as an apprentice worked for a small shop then onto Ryan aeronautical as a cc machinist once they found out I could handle manual machines I transferred to that shop 3 years later I became a journeyman.
I was recommended to the engineering shop and was hired as salaried employee got my TS clearance and began working on anything new the senior engineers would come up with, lots of new and exciting drone stuff.
after years of that and that Northrop Grumman bought Ryan I was asked to become an engineer level 2 ,along with a 10 percent raise and continued on to flight test world where I finished my career not bad for a guy with a GED

[DRONE]

Oh yeah could I have gone to any other company and get an engineering position ? Probably not

[Captain Ahab Jr]

I'd count myself as Professional Engineer, have a BSc from a 4yr degree

At my age it counts for nothing, never felt the need to join a professional body to pay an annual subscription so I can show off a few more letters after my name

Never written BSc (Hons) after my name which I'm entitled to as I let my reputation and resume do the talking

When working with other engineers I don't care if they have no degree, a BSc, MSc or PhD, if they're good enough at engineering they're an engineer to me

I understand/agree that engineers validating/signing off safety critical engineering work should be accredited by a professional body as this proves they've reached a certain level through a well structured/taught learning programme