What they don't teach engineers
 

1) There are at least ten types of condensor

2) Theory says how a circuit functions. Not why it doesn't.

3) Not everything works according to the specs in the data sheets.

4) Anything practical you learn will be obsolete before you use it, except complex math which you will never use.

5) Engineering is like having a class at 8 in the morning and lab work late at night every day for the rest of your life.

6) Paid overtime? What paid overtime?

7) The managers, not the engineers rule the world

8) Always try to match hardware to software.

9) Dilbert is not a comic strip, it's a documentary.

Brilliant! :D

Forget what you learned/liked in Engineering School, you will never work in that field.

There is never enough money to hire another engineer to help, but there is always money for another manager, to crack the whip.

:)

Engineering school is an ongoing four year I.Q. test to verify that you are smart enough to learn how to do the job your new employer is going to teach you.

8 inch bolts will not fit in a 4 inch space.

Pay the welder 1000 bucks to do it or the engineer 5000 to design it.

There is such a thing as close enough.

Where was that class on tolerances?

Remember that sewer pipe isn't being shot to the moon.

The best designed large diameter pipe alignment will be corrected in the field by the welder.

A good machinist, welder, electrician, or any other tradesman or craftsmen is your friend.

That 10% contingency should be tripled.

The success of the piping system is inversely proportional to the experience of the engineer and exponentially proportional to the skill of the welder.

If you don't low bid brain surgery why low bid structural framing work?

You make money on a schedule not the design (does not apply to architects).

If its stupid but it works it isn't stupid.

Your professor isn't an engineer.

Dirty boots is a sign of dedication.

They went to the moon using 3.14 and a slide rule.

The best thing about an engineering degree is that it gets you closer to that MBA ;)

At my place of business, the engineers are the workhorses and get stuff dumped on them constantly by micro-managers without a clue.
The only way to beat them is to get an NBA and become one of them.

"Why buy one when you can get two for twice the price."

They also built the Pinto.

my first engineering boss told me (bridge dude);

"***** cliff, we're not building a swiss watch out here!"

I don't think a calculator would have fixed the Pinto. Or knowing pi to 27 decimal places.

I thought Ford's accounting department build the Pinto.

They certainly decided that the lawsuits would cost less than the gas tank recall.

Good one Milu.

I'm almost finished with my Tech. Mgmt. degree in the engineering, mgmt. and robotics dept.

What the REALLY don't teach engineers is liberal arts.

So far from what I have seen Leadership and people management skills are NEVER part of Engineering programs.

"Yes" or "NO" are not asnwers Engineers are capable of.

If it's broke real bad the boss calls me not and Engineer to fix it.

Disappointed
 

I’m still bummed that I had to take so many college classes to become an engineer, and I still don’t get to drive a train.

That people actually need to be able to access and fix the gadgets the engineers design.

Sadly, it's done every day.

No lack of evidence of that. Just browse P.A.R.F.

What they don't teach engineers

How to get a date with a Hottie.

Actually it is quite simple. When encountering a hottie, think of the first thing that comes to mind, and do the opposite. Continue and Repeat.

Many of these listed are the truth of being an engineer.

What is really frustrating in the profession is to be asked for advice or input and than being ignored, only to be blamed at a later date for the failure. One of the posters stated that engineer's do not understand management or have people skills. Unfortunately, as an engineer, my experiences have led me to that same and unfortunate conclusion as well. Its kind of like a doctor or lawyer's advice, if we don't listen to it then what befalls is our responsibility, not the professional to which we did not listen.

Don't get me wrong, as engineering "solutions" are not gospel and designs are not stone tablets. The best engineers, the ones who affected me the most understood the absolute importance of understanding the role of the trades and the operators in the total project. Over the last 30 or so years of doing this gig as an engineer and a contracts and construction manager, I have found a disturbing trend among engineers to ignore the critical role that the trades play in the completion of a project. Although I have seen some bitterness in the trades against engineers, given the current state of the profession, it is completely understandable. The best projects, are when engineers, trades and owners are working together to make a project reality.

Other things related to the profession is the lack of advocacy. This may apply to other science based professions as well, although I can only assume and not attest to the possibility that engineer's share similar frustrations. I am referring to the role of elected officials and the role of emotion in engineering and construction. I cannot list how many times I have seen incredibly stupid decisions made on the basis of political gain or short sighted budget policies. But on the other hand, if the engineering profession, somehow, had the same attitude as the legal and medical profession than some of this crap could be stopped. IMHO that is highly unlikely.

In that time of my practice, I have also determined that many of the projects in the areas I worked on lacked a real understanding or did not even consider the scientific necessity for a project. I have written about this before so I won't beat it to death here.

The setting of rates and fees for utility services, including factors for maintenance and operations as well as replacement costs are well known. But elected officials clearly have pet projects that have given rise to the fleecing of these funds for projects completely unrelated to the utility for which these fees are collected. There are many examples, redevelopment agencies, charging enterprise funds (water, sewer etc) exorbitant administrative fees for staff that serves all other municipal administrative fees, developer and business incentives that deplete cash replacement reserves and many other behind the scene deals performed for political gain. The eventual outcome is a depleted reserve over time. In the past, politicians have clearly understood the advantages of diverting these enterprise cash reserves to serve other municipal pet projects, including redevelopment agencies (very secret stuff here in CA), meals on wheels (admin), planning and regulatory stuff etc. They have figured out long ago that when the effects of depleting these reserves are noticed (pot-holes), those politicians will be long gone. The operative words during budget hearings is "incentive"; which is taking money collected for operations and replacement and giving to a special interest, business, developer, etc. (also done administratively by not collecting or forgiving upfront fees to recover previous capital expenditures), and "deferred maintenance" which is usually indicative that fees have been "loaned" to other departments. I think you get my drift.

The list goes on and engineers should be much better prepared to communicate this to the public and to shape the decision making process. But I do not think I will see it in my life time.

No better words spoken.

True story. My cube-mate at GE was on the hunt one day in a bar, and encounters said hottie.

"What do you do?"

"I'm an engineer"

she turns to the guy on the other side of her.

"What do you do?"

"I'm a shepard."

She went home with the shepard.

"Gee, your hair looks nice and parallel today."

My 1st wife, who was also an engineer, did not appreciate that I could setup a standing wave, with one of her boobs.

And both used the lowest bidder.

Sometimes you eat the bear & sometimes the bear eats you.

Well as another engineer on this forum, I must ring in...
1) maybe true...
2) We do learn how.. that is what the chemistry and physics courses are for.
3) maybe. Specs provided with a product are done after and summarize the product, it should work to spec, but lessor production quality components effect
this.
4) When I was in engineering school in the 80's, I worked at Huges Aircraft. Some of the old engineers were brilliant and used their 1950's text books in communication and control systems to tudor me. The basics are the basics and are not obsolute. Now if you referring are they "marketable $" that might be true.
5) ABSOLUTELY. We cannot stop engineering things. I am not a tech, so building stuff is not that fascinating as compared to how it works. If so, I should have got to Devry or ITT.
6) Agree. Unless you are a consultant...:D
7) Good to be a senior mgr/director... :D
8) Reverse of the old days. Match avail software to new hardware..:(
9) Word....... But writer was not engineer, but worked for PacBell (worked there once) and fully applicable anyways.
10)

Where I went to school...I ran into a lot of brilliant guys. However, they had no idea how to communicate.

The university ended up making just about every class incorporate group projects in order to try and get the engineering students to learn how to interact.

I don't think there was any low bid on either of these. Can't say for the Pinto but that was a private company. Moon shot I would imagine was a qualifications based selection based on a fee structure? Some of the other guys probably know. The low bid is used by municipalities with success in many areas but not complicated systems.

How about these:

Managers seem not to listen because they are not engineers and expect you to learn their language;
Managers have political aspirations that don't involve you;
Politicians in the purist forms don't give a rats butt about anything except votes;
Good engineering and for that matter craftsmanship does not equal votes;
Don't ever agree to underfund a project during budget discussions, never; it will cost you more than project overruns;
Regulators don't have science backgrounds and they hire their friends.

I always like this one:

A man is flying in a hot air balloon and realizes he is lost. He reduces height and spots a man down below. He lowers the balloon further and shouts, "Excuse me, can you tell me where I am?"

The man below said, "Yes, you’re in a hot air balloon, hovering 30 feet above this field."

"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the balloonist, "everything you have told me is technically correct, but it’s of absolutely no use to anyone."

The man below said, "You must be in management."

"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don’t know where you are, or where you’re going, but you expect me to be able to help. You’re in the same position you were before we met, but now it’s my fault."

I would add: things don't always work in the real world the same way they do on paper.

It's amazing how few engineers are able to see things from the user or repair technician point of view.

Spot on. There seems to be a deepening trend in this direction. When I was a kid engineering technicians, I observed that almost all of the engineers that I worked for had a natural curiosity not only on solving problems but on the function of the stuff they designed. They were "tinkerers" for lack of a better word. But that has sadly changed.

"Better" is the enemy of "good enough"...

oh yeah. necessary and sufficent is good enough


I can visualize that.


I R inguneer

In the average classroom of 30 engineering students, there's maybe 2 or 3 that are actually hands-on, spin wrenches and get dirty types. The rest are kids that like math, but know that being a math major doesn't get you a very good job.:rolleyes: