全 131 件のコメント

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E.[M] 71ポイント72ポイント  (7子コメント)

OK, folks. This is probably the last post on this topic that will be allowed for a good while.

Just promise to play nicely and we can all go out for ice cream later.

[–]ujussabFlair 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Sweet, can I get cookie dough ice cream?

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E. 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Only if you're a girl who can tweet an image of yourself wearing some horn-rimmed glasses and holding a piece of paper that says

#dontjudgemebecauseimtechnical

[–]ujussabFlair 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm a guy who can do that, does it count?

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E. 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, but you will have to link to the tweet.

[–]csl512 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

What kind of ice cream? Liquid nitrogen ice cream?

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E. 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Liquid nitrogen ice cream? That sounds like it would be pretty cool.

[–]bobbaddeley 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

TL;DR: Everybody can say they look like an engineer because being an engineer has nothing to do with how you look.

To me the point is that there shouldn't be a stereotypical way that engineers look. Can you pick a doctor out of a crowd? An accountant? They look like people. Lots of different kinds of people. So why should engineering be different? Why should there be an extra barrier for people who don't look like a stereotypical engineer? The way to combat that is the same way they do it in the corny movies where they're trying to single out a person to punish and everybody stands up and says they are that person. It's the same here. If everybody, whether engineer or not, says they look like an engineer, then it destroys the typical engineer stereotype, and makes diversity easier. I don't think it's about diminishing the title, and I think the way I described it just now literally everybody in the world could post a pic of themselves and use the hashtag, because we want to destroy the stereotype and point out that how you look doesn't matter and anybody COULD be an engineer, even if they aren't right now.

[–]TBBT-Joel 20ポイント21ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I'm a minority in a minority engineering field (welding engineer). I've had to go a whole career being told "I'm not a real engineer" because my degree is welding engineering technology and I didn't take "hard" classes.

Engineer is a spectrum from pure research and development to more technical hands-on field work. You can be anywhere in that spectrum. Software engineers, IT systems architects etc can fall into that spectrum. Not all, but some. I encourage the protected use of P.E's when it makes sense for the position; I am not qualified to judge the soundness of a bridge and I shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Very few welding engineers are P.E's and most welding engineers don't do detailed structural analysis like a civil or ME would. However most P.E's couldn't do the welding analysis necessary to insure the welds on their bridge are up to code.

Engineering is a mindset, It's using the tools of science to apply and solve real-world problems and optimize systems. It's not a piece of paper or just a handful of job titles. I know some great engineers who don't have degrees in the field, and I'm tired of the thinking that somehow only the big four (civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical) fields who get their degrees from a school are engineers and everyone else need not apply.

[–]DNGTA 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh dear you've admitted to being a tech, that's something I rarely admit to lest I be shown the door.

I agree with your post though. We have a weld tech guy at my job and my FEA work wouldn't go well if I couldn't refer to him regarding weld joints. The whole thing is crap.

[–]magodaChemE 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed. It's not a degree that makes the engineer, it's the experience and know-how. I know ChemEs with fancy degrees I wouldn't trust to make me a cup of salt water. Being told you're not a "real engineer" for having a weld tech degree is bullshit. We love us some weld engineers...

[–]walexjAerospace & Mechanical 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

That hashtag is "I look LIKE and Engineer" not specifically "I AM an Engineer".

I know language isn't our strong suit but, it's really just to give young people, specifically young women, the idea that an engineer isn't necessarily a white male with glasses and an ill fitting white button down shirt.

[–]Bromskloss 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't frequent sites that uses "hashtags", so I'm mostly in the dark. What non-engineering things has it been used for? I should say that, just like you, I support using words in their actual meanings, which, as you say, has nothing to do with valuing one thing above another.

Anyway, I don't mind there being a caricature picture of engineers. Sometimes, I might even more or less jokingly live up to it myself, but otherwise, I hope I do not look like one. It wouldn't exactly be flattering if someone said I did. :-)

#idonotlooklikeanengineer

[–]NotRayRay 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's the thing though...looking "like an engineer" is often considered not a compliment, or it implies a certain subset of geeky young men (often white or Asian) who have bad social/communication skills. Heck, the idea that it has a look at all means there's people who "fit" the mold and people who don't.

If that's what society says engineers are, we'll lose out on future engineers who have the interests and smarts, but are told its not for them. You get whole groups of people who are counted out (or count themselves out) before they even try it.

[–]Bromskloss 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's the thing though...looking "like an engineer" is often considered not a compliment

I thought the campaign rather was about that non-geeky engineers (or maybe the campaign concerned itself only with women, I don't know) were told they don't look like engineers and disliked to hear that.

[–]SiegeFlank 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Engineering is less about what you're actually building but the set of principles that you used to do so. I agree that not everyone who works with technology should call themselves an engineer. And indeed, most schools don't list computer science within their engineering programs, but software engineering often is included with them.

The best description I've heard is that software developers are people who specialize in programming, but software engineers are a subset of software developers who apply engineering principles to software development. Designing for testability, performance, maintainability, robustness, etc, while also taking part in project management, is what distinguishes the software engineer from the software developer.

As a computer engineer (basically a cross between EE and CS/SE), I'll also note that developing software, particularly at a low level, often does have physical constraints that need to be accounted for. Understanding the architecture of the device you're developing for, and what its specifications and constraints are, are extremely important. Many CS majors actually do take courses in electrical engineering as a way of learning how to take advantage of the physical resources available.

[–]KenjiSenpai [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The toyota camry sticking throtle problem is one of the prime example that shows a difference in ethics between a software engineer and a programmer. If you want people to die, hire a non-engineer.

[–]blowjobtransistor 24ポイント25ポイント  (50子コメント)

Software engineers are also engineers.

Also, I think you might be missing the point a little - it doesn't matter if they are actually an engineer. The point is that you shouldn't be able to discern if someone is an engineer just by looking at them.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 18ポイント19ポイント  (25子コメント)

Software engineers are also engineers.

I've always called them software developers. It seems like a more accurate title and I don't see it as any less prestigious than engineer. I guess my thought is, why do they want to be called engineers so badly? There's really nothing special about us, and as far as I know, most colleges in my area don't list Computer Science as an engineering major. They may be related, but they're just two separate things, and that's ok.

[–]StrawRedditor 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well at least in Ontario, there is a difference.

My degree is a Bachelors of Engineering IN Software Engineering. When I get my P.Eng, I will be a Software Engineer.

I didn't take Computer Science (which is it's own distinct thing in Ontario and other pleases), I took Software Engineering.

I guess it depends on where you're from though. Again, in Ontario, "Engineer" is a protected term that does convey some importance... which is why I went that route.

[–]twinnedcalciteGeological EIT 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Softies are awesome. :) It's definitely a full engineering degree and not an easy one at that.

[–]PhileruperMechanical Eng 11ポイント12ポイント  (19子コメント)

They are engineers, control systems for an example is to relate the mechanical movements through an electrical system via inputs and outputs. Yes as a mechanical you can do this as well, but it is a fusion of the two. And computer science is not the same as software engineering (the differences I don't even know, even though both are offered at my school).

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 1ポイント2ポイント  (18子コメント)

They are engineers, control systems for an example is to relate the mechanical movements through an electrical system via inputs and outputs.

I'm well aware of what control systems are, but the difference is that a Mechanical can design the hardware (possibly the software as well), whereas a "software engineer" can't. I don't see why they want to be called something they're not.

Yes as a mechanical you can do this as well, but it is a fusion of the two.

But again, the ME can likely do both parts, whereas the the develper specializes in just working on code. Not only that, but the developer likely has little idea as to the underlying principles that go into designing the hardware.

And computer science is not the same as software engineering (the differences I don't even know, even though both are offered at my school).

I've never seen a college with both. I'd be very interested to know what their distinction.

[–]PhileruperMechanical Eng 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

That looks a lot like mechatronic engineering to me. They do take core engineering classes though, which I don't believe any US Program I've seen does. I would honestly think that Mechatronic Engineering or something along that line would be a better fit for that degree program.

Edit: After looking deeper, it's pretty light on actual engineering classes, so I'm a little surprised they still call it engineering.

[–]Endless_September 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

As far as I know there is only one place in the USA that offers an accredited mechatronics engineering BS. California state university Chico. I know several places have it as focus/specialties of other degrees like mechanical or EE. And a bunch of places have it for masters and PHD levels.

And guess what. As a guys with a mechatronics degree I work as a controls systems engineer. Don't need any of them silly computer science guys.

The only thing close is computer engineering but they focus more on computer/electrical hardware rather than software or motion control.

[–]GKorgoodCivE switching to MechE/Aerospace 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm at The Cooper Union in Manhattan and inside the EE department is a Software Engineering track. Many people double major between that and MechE to fulfill a Mechatronics goal. However just last year the administration tried to start a CompSci program. It was originally planned to be inside the Engineering school, as a fifth degree. That plan was rejected, so they tried to start a fourth school (which would join the existing Art, Architecture, and Engineering schools). Ultimately the whole idea was implemented very shadily (like many other things the administration does/did) and was put on hold as far as I've heard. But the curriculum developed for the CS program was going to be vastly different (and less rigorous) than the Software track of EE.

[–]PhileruperMechanical Eng -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hence why in the mechanical undergraduate degree program they offer the 3 specialization groups and one of them is system and mechatronics (i believe thats the name of it, or something along the lines of it). Canada is special it seems.

[–]StrawRedditor 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

What's your justification for saying a ME can design the software? I mean I'm sure you could, but I can almost promise it wouldn't be done as well as an actual software engineer.

But again, the ME can likely do both parts, whereas the the develper specializes in just working on code. Not only that, but the developer likely has little idea as to the underlying principles that go into designing the hardware.

You're continuing to conflate software developer and software engineer... they are different things in many places.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean I'm sure you could, but I can almost promise it wouldn't be done as well as an actual software engineer.

I've already said an engineers code wouldn't be as good as a Developers, so I don't understand you're argument.

[–]butters1337 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Err at my school, Software Engineers did electrical hardware courses so I don't know what you're talking about. They just didn't do any of the non-silicon electrical courses (power systems, electromagnetics, etc.).

[–]traverseda -1ポイント0ポイント  (8子コメント)

whereas a "software engineer" can't.

Maybe we're talking about different levels of stuff, but I've never found designing hardware to be super difficult. And I've sourced and designed my own 3D printer, among other things.

I've seen software engineers build their own scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes. Force feedback controls, you name it.

It's certainly not easy, but I find working on hardware projects a welcome break from software. Which probably says more about the type of hardware projects I do, but still.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

Maybe we're talking about different levels of stuff, but I've never found designing hardware to be super difficult. And I've sourced and designed my own 3D printer, among other things.

Well there's a massive difference between drawing up something and printing it on a 3D printer and actually designing it. The second option means you take into account material selection based on strength requirements, and understanding why materials act the way they do.

I've seen software engineers build their own scanning tunneling microscopes and atomic force microscopes. Force feedback controls, you name it.

Well of course anyone can point out people who are amazing engineers that don't have any formal education, and people who do that never do a day of engineering in their lives. I'm speaking generally here.

[–]traverseda 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Well there's a massive difference between drawing up something and printing it on a 3D printer and actually designing it. The second option means you take into account material selection based on strength requirements, and understanding why materials act the way they do.

Have you done any work with 3D printer filament? There are a lot of different types, with a lot of different properties. And of course 3D printers aren't just 3D printed parts. There are a whole bunch of places where it interfaces with metal or wood components. There are a bunch of parts that heat up and cool down, and different filaments have different glass transition points and thermal expansion rates.

Keeping backlash and wobble to a minimum while doing things cheaply isn't an easy problem.

Prints have a grain because of the Z axis, and minor changes to the tool path can completely change a print.

Most people can get alright results on simple objects out of a 3D printer, but there isn't really a turn key solution to getting good results. It requires a lot of understanding of the properties of the material you're working with.


In my experience, engineers write shit software. So there's that. I guess what I'm saying is get off your high horse. We all build stuff, some of us are better then others. In my experience, a degree isn't a very good indicator of that.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

In my experience, engineers write shit software. So there's that. I guess what I'm saying is get off your high horse. We all build stuff, some of us are better then others. In my experience, a degree isn't a very good indicator of that.

How is that a high horse? I've fully said that people can be engineers without a degree and that getting one doesn't make you an engineer. I don't know why you're so defensive about this.

Also, I know people who have worked with 3D printers they'd made from plans off the internet and didn't have the faintest idea of what a coefficient of thermal expansion was, nevermind anything more complex. Building something from someone else's plans doesn't make you an engineer.

[–]traverseda -3ポイント-2ポイント  (4子コメント)

a Mechanical can design the hardware (possibly the software as well), whereas a "software engineer" can't.

That is pretty much where my "high horse" argument comes from. You seem to be defining software engineers as how they're deficient compared to mechanical engineers. You seem to be claiming that a mechanical engineer can throw together code with no understanding of software design, but that mechanical design is somehow special. A software engineer can generally do both parts as well, but everyone has their specialties.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Again, I fully acknowledge that developers are going to better programmers than engineers, but the difference being that, at least where I went to school, engineers had to take programming classes, but programmers didn't take engineering courses. And once again, being a developer is in no way inferior to being an engineer, it's just different.

[–]briklodge 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

and as far as I know, most colleges in my area don't list Computer Science as an engineering major

Some of us majored in Computer Engineering - which is just as close to actual software work as computer science is. One focusing more on computer architecture and the other more on algorithms/theory. No need to assume Software Engineering = Computer Science and then make naive etymological arguments based on it.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

Computer engineering St my school focused on the development of computer hardware, so I don't really understand using it in that context I'm afraid.

[–]briklodge [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So for example, for two classes, I was required to write simulators from scratch of branch predictors and multi-core cache-coherency systems. One required using C++ which I had to teach myself in order to do the project. There was basically zero guidance as far as how to do the programming; mastery was just assumed.

A core part of my job is writing real-time audio processing software. Doing it well means using detailed knowledge of the hardware to write the fastest low-level code in general, having knowledge of electrical engineering, dynamics, and math to simulate strings, analog signals, etc. at varying accuracy/performance requirements while dealing with the aliasing problems of discrete time simulations. It expands far beyond what I learned in school, but Computer Engineering is by far the closest curriculum match and provided the key intro courses on all the subjects I mentioned.

[–]LaughLaxElectrical - Student (OU) 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

Everyone keeps (rightly) bringing up software engineering. But here's another perspective - industrial and systems engineers. By my understanding*, they often deal more with processes than physical things. But they're still engineers, and nobody seems to be arguing about that.

*I am not in ISE

[–]TOaFK 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

IE = Imaginary Engineer

[–]DialMeOut [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sigh....Imagine you'll be working for me someday...

[–]DialMeOut [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I took the FE and my company is paying me to take the PE next year.

*I'm an IE

EDIT: Wanted to add that processes can be physical things. Manufacturing is a process full machines and people.

[–]na85 10ポイント11ポイント  (18子コメント)

Not unless they have an actual software engineering degree. Comp Sci is not engineering.

[–]Weefs 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

There are many collegew that house their comp sci department in their school of engineering.

[–]darknecross 2ポイント3ポイント  (16子コメント)

The name of your degree doesn't dictate what your job or profession is... that's a pretty naive thing to say.

[–]StrawRedditor 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

It does in Ontario.

IF you don't get a B.Eng, you cannot be an engineer. B.eng programs are accredited by the PEO, comp-sci or other programs are not.

[–]twinnedcalciteGeological EIT 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

B.Applied Science is also common in Ontario, depends when the degree was originally created.

Source: I can see my degree from where I'm sitting.

[–]mecheng904Mechanical Systems 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep, It's pretty well the exact same thing in Ontario. Some other places of the world a BSc vs B.Eng degree makes a lot of difference, but here in ON we say Bachelor of Applied Science (BASc) or Bachelor of Engineering (B.Eng) are the same thing, since Engineering is by definition an applied science, not pure science.

[–]darknecross 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

But who's to say that a MechE can't get a job as a CivilE? Or vice verse? Or a MechE can't get a job working as an Aerospace Engineer? Or vice verse?

[–]na85 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

Your degree dictates the kind of education you get. Engineering is an applied science. While they have overlapping skills, a chemist isn't a chemical engineer. A geologist isn't a geotechnical engineer. A mechanic isn't a mechanical engineer. An electrician isn't an electrical engineer.

I'm absolutely not looking down on those trades. Most of the time the reverse is also true: My degree is in mechanical and while I do have some of the skills that mechanics have, I don't have the same training and would not be a very good auto mechanic. A couple of guys I know from university have electrical engineering degrees and I'd never let them come do the wiring in my house.

While both software engineers and computer scientists write programs and code, Computer Science is distinct from Software Engineering. A guy doing AI research has a really awesome job but he's not an engineer. He's a scientist. Writing JavaScript for a webapp is not software engineering.

[–]darknecross 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

Your degree dictates the kind of education you get.

That's a difficult statement to make considering the education you get with the same degree can vary wildly by institution or country. Sure, there's ABET certification but still not all programs are equivalent or have the same requirements or focus.

While both software engineers and computer scientists write programs and code, Computer Science is distinct from Software Engineering. A guy doing AI research has a really awesome job but he's not an engineer. A guy doing Javascript work for some web application is not doing engineering work.

Exactly, and I agree, but it's naive to think that someone with a CS degree can't go work in Software Engineering, and I personally know a few EEs who work in Software Engineering. Some might say that dilutes what a Software Engineer is, and while I can agree to an extend, I believe it reflects more on that industry's respect of self-teaching and independent activity.

Hell, my own degree was called "Electrical Engineering and Computer Science". It's not a double major, that's just the name of the program itself -- there is no EE major. It was interdisciplinary between CS theory, software engineering, computer engineering, and electrical engineering, with even more underneath and inbetween. Can nobody from this school be considered a Software Engineer because they don't have a Software Engineering degree? The degree is a focus, but it's not pigeonhole.

[–]DialMeOut [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Did you take the FE? PE?

[–]darknecross [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Hardly any of the Electrical Engineers, Computer Engineers, or Software Engineers in silicon valley take the FE or the PE.

[–]na85 -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

I'm sorry that this offends your sense of self-worth but a comp sci degree doesn't make you an engineer. Full stop.

[–]darknecross [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I'm sorry that this offends your sense of self-worth but a comp sci degree doesn't make you an engineer. Full stop.

That's literally what I was saying.

The name of your degree doesn't dictate what your job or profession is

If you have a mechanical engineering degree but you've never worked an engineering job, are you still an engineer?

If you have a CS degree and you've worked an engineering job for thirty years, are you still not an engineer?

Experience matters more than your degree does. I thought this was common knowledge.

[–]na85 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

If you have a CS degree and you can do the job, then it's not an engineering job. It might be called "engineer" by the company but you aren't an engineer.

[–]darknecross [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Can a Mechanical Engineer working as an Aerospace Engineer for 20 years not call themselves an Aerospace Engineer?

[–]na85 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sure they can, because as a professional engineer you are able to decide your own competency.

But computer scientists aren't engineers.

[–]KenjiSenpai [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

But a software engineering degree does. My university offers both and they are distinct.

[–]na85 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I agree. My alma mater offers both as well.

[–]StrawRedditor 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

he point is that you shouldn't be able to discern if someone is an engineer just by looking at them.

Except that point isn't really communicated that well if the examples of "people who are engineers that you wouldn't assume to be" ... are NOT actually engineers. If anything it just proves the opposite.

[–]NotRayRay 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

There's a lot of "computer science/software development isn't engineering" in this thread, so I'd like to offer a counter perspective. Not to go on the offensive, but no one seems to question why chemical engineering is engineering, though I think some of the same arguments apply. Unless its literally just a semantics argument (gotta have the e-word in the name?)

At my uni, CS was in the engineering school, separate from liberal arts. We took engineering classes (Engr101 on up), all the same math as the rest of the engineering majors, physics, more stats, electrical required classes (digital logic design, complete with bread-board pain), and the same senior thesis requirements of all engineering. So regardless of what my current gig is, be it development or project management or network engineering or industrial system design, I identify with "engineer" - I fought really hard to earn it. A lot of you may disagree. And that's OK.

What I feel is less OK is the exclusionary attitudes in STEM in general...drawing a firm line in excluding the "less hardcore" majors is somewhat like the exclusion that the hashtag was trying to challenge. When majors like CS have some of the lowest rates of female and minority students, this campaign is even more important. I literally cannot tell you how many times I was told that I wasn't what was expected when I explained my major or my career. Or how many times I was asked "are you sure you want to do that? It sounds boring" Or "no one will talk to you all day if you do CS" - which encourages the stereotypes and keeps interested students who don't fit the mold from feeling like they can do it too. And that's a loss for everyone. Because I hope most of us would agree that the world could use more good engineers.

(And to address professional certification, yes, I know the PE is a big deal for civils. My department even hosted a talk on whether CS should have an equivalent test, although the field does embrace learn-it-yourself alternatives.)

[–]na85 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

no one seems to question why chemical engineering is engineering, though I think some of the same arguments apply

Comparing Comp Sci to Software Eng is like comparing Chemistry to Chemical Engineering. They are related but distinct.

Computer Scientists are scientists, not engineers.

[–]MagTron14 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

May I ask why you mention chemical engineering? Chemical engineering is very different than chemistry, it's almost entirely physics based.

[–]pouponstoops 18ポイント19ポイント  (14子コメント)

How about if you aren't licensed, you don't call yourself an engineer?

And how about we just don't tweet stuff like this at all?

#GrumpyOldMan

[–]DNGTA 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

Licensing in the USA is irrelevant to the term Engineer as you don't need one to practice. So very few outside of public sector even has the license. We have a CWI, a few process engineers, and an Industrial Engineer on staff besides myself. Nobody has a PE here because nobody needs it to get the job done.

[–]TBBT-Joel 21ポイント22ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm all for keeping the P.E term protected and applied where it makes sense.

I disagree that only licensed engineers are engineers. I'm a welding engineer a P.E doesn't help my career and doesn't apply to what I do. CWI/CWE is probably closest but carries no weight in certain fields. I'm sure I could study and pass the P.E test from an aptitude standpoint but I would never use those skills in my career path.

[–]Harumphapotamus 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

On a side note, when I dress like my male counterparts, I like to use the hashtag #shinebrightlikeawhiteman

[–]alpinekarst 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agree on the professional licensure distinction which in the US also requires that your degree is ABET recognized and accredited. On some projects, having a PE in responsible charge is contractually mandated even though Engineers in Training (EIT) and unlicensed STEM staff may do some or all of the actual "work". In some disciplines (civil, geotechnical, etc.) PE licensure is quite common in the private sector. The PE doesn't mean that you can necessarily do the work youself, it means that you accept responsibility for the work performed (i.e. you or your firm can be sued).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_engineering

http://ncees.org/licensure

http://abet.org/accreditation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_liability_insurance

[–]PhileruperMechanical Eng 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This sounds good to me. If you're an engineer than I think you already know you are one.

[–]SkyNTPCivil - Transportation/Road Design&Safety, Ph.D. 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

An engineer applies scientific principles and manages technical risk. That means taking ethical, legal, and professional responsibility and liability for any form of design and decision making requiring technical and scientific knowledge. That's the bottom line.

Playing with tech may be "engineering", but it doesn't make you an engineer. It makes you like 99% of everyone.

[–]darknecross 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I guess Intel doesn't employ as many engineers as I thought...

[–]Bromskloss 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

How about if you aren't licensed, you don't call yourself an engineer?

That just shifts the question into one about what the requirements for receiving the license would be.

[–]pouponstoops [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

There are already requirements.

[–]Bromskloss [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I meant to say that the question becomes one about what the requirements should be, but I see that I used the wrong word.

In any case, license requirements are a local thing. Not all places have licensing at all.

[–]cookrw1989 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Ooh, I've got a bone to pick with you... Just because I don't have a piece of paper stating "Professional Engineer", it doesn't make me any less of a member of the engineering profession. I just can't legally stamp drawings, and the like.

[–]pouponstoops [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There are certain people that can call themselves engineers who aren't licensed, but outside of that, you can't call yourself an engineer in a professional setting.

That's my standard.

[–]ristorilControl Systems & Simulation -2ポイント-1ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you're interacting with government officials in any capacity then you can't call yourself an "engineer" unless you're a licensed professional engineer.

I mean it's not like they're going to throw you in jail or anything, but you're not an engineer in the eyes of the state unless you're licensed as such by the state.

[–]StrawRedditor 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

All these web designers, software developers, etc. who are jumping on the #ilooklikeanengineer hashtag (including the woman who started it) are undermining their own point. Because all the sexist guys who are real engineers can point to these women and say, “Well, I don’t have to listen, because what you do is programming/web design/etc. You don’t even know what an engineer is.”

Just as a small correction/FYI.

Software Engineering is a legit thing in some places... completely separate from Computer Science. In Ontario it is for sure, and I think a few other provinces and states.

As to actually address your post though... I agree. There's nothing wrong with promoting more diversity in engineering (or anything really)... as long as a lowering of the bar doesn't come with it. I also include "diluting" as lowering the bar.

[–]aggierandy [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

This all started with those guys driving trains...you're a conductor. Just accept it!

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E. [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, but if you only do it part time, then you're just a semiconductor.

[–]BelmontBandit 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Great post Tina. So you're saying people are misusing the title of engineer through proliferation of this hash tag, and are feeling irked at the fact that Web page designers are labelling themselves engineers.

I wouldn't worry a whole lot about these people stealing your hard earned title, because they really can't. They don't have the education and experience to do so, and are probably grouping themselves in for a number of reasons, including to portray themselves in a better light. The hash tag has backfired a little bit but I feel as though the field of engineering doesn't need to be portrayed in any sort of specific way. The stereotypical white male nerd engineer is just that - a stereotype, but what it boils down to is any person who made the sacrifice to become a real engineer can carry the real title and work in real engineering jobs, and those who haven't can enhance their online presence by slapping a false prefix to their portfolio.

-bb

[–]The_WoogiemonsterIndustrial / Construction 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

As someone stated earlier, I think the point is missed. This is basically a rant, regardless of how polite it is. To me, it's the same as the #blacklivesmatter and #gaypride movement. Those movements gain momentum when people who are not necessarily a part of that demographic or sexuality show support to its cause. It's how the borders are broken down. But when a small minority of the movements voice that they do not want support of non-members for this reason or that, it builds another roadblock. I agree with you that words have meaning, and that the title of "engineer" should not be thrown around to every STEM profession, but this is one misgiving that you should look past.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 4ポイント5ポイント  (34子コメント)

I agree with you. I don't understand he fascination with developers wanting to be called engineers.

My thought is, every engineer (ME, CE, ChemE, etc.) has at least some core competency in actual engineering. Give a sophomore in any engineering major a basic statics problem, and they should all be able to solve it (at least after reviewing their notes) because they all had the same core classes. The same just isn't true of CS majors.

Sure most physical designs require some knowledge of programming these days, which is why many engineers can program a bit, but every software developer I've ever met worked purely on the software side, they never did any physical design.

[–]darknecross 11ポイント12ポイント  (23子コメント)

Two big misconceptions you obviously have:

1) Engineering isn't intrinsically dependent on physical constraints, it just so happens that physical constraints comprised the majority of engineering problems for the past few centuries.

2) CS isn't the same thing as programming, and programming isn't the same thing as software engineering. These are three wholly different things whose only similarity is the computer itself.

I think about engineering more as a methodology than anything else. In this methodology you break problems down into smaller and smaller pieces, abstract away details to fit models, optimize a design to solve those problems, and operate within a given set of constraints, and work to integrate the set of solutions back together to solve the main problem.

With traditional engineering disciplines, your constraints involved physics itself, and your abstracted models were built off of physics.

Computer Scientists aren't software engineers (and if you ever met someone who considers themselves a true computer scientist, they'd likely agree). You don't even have to write a single line of code to work on some of the most interesting computer science problems.

Programmers aren't software engineers the same way construction workers or DIY-ers aren't civil engineers.

Software Engineers definitely do fit into the same categorization that other engineers fit into. They optimize solutions to complex problems operating within a set of constraints. Just because the problems and the constraints aren't physical doesn't mean they don't employ the same type of logic and reasoning that goes into other engineering disciplines.

[–]Jimmers1231 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

Really, the blur between Software Engineer, Programmer, and Computer Scientist is mostly due to ignorance about what makes them different.

I honestly don't know what makes them different, so I tend to think of them as generally the same. Again, mostly through my own ignorance of what differentiates them.

[–]StrawRedditor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Really, the blur between Software Engineer, Programmer, and Computer Scientist is mostly due to ignorance about what makes them different.

Which I've always found funny coming from other engineers... seeing as, at least in my classes, due diligence was something stressed pretty often.

[–]csl512 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

This smells like "no true scotsman".

Do EEs really need to do FBDs and moments though? Aren't those covered in physics?

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer -2ポイント-1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Trying to make it a no true Scotsman argument means that you could define any job as "engineering"

Do EEs really need to do FBDs and moments though? Aren't those covered in physics?

Not where I went to school they weren't.

[–]csl512 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Trying to make it a no true Scotsman argument means that you could define any job as "engineering"

Ah, you countered with the slippery slope! :-D

Do you mean FBDs and moments weren't covered in physics, or that EEs didn't have to take statics?

ETA: Really it seems the main gray area here is software engineering. It feels more like locking the scope of engineering towards more direct descendants of the scope of engineering in the 1960s-1980s.

What about people with engineering degrees doing things other than direct engineering?

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

What about people with engineering degrees doing things other than direct engineering?

In that case, I'd say they have an engineering degree, but aren't engineers. In any case, I'm giving up on answering replies. You've been perfectly nice, but others are just getting childish and pedantic. It's a little sad that one can't even express an opinion, which I feel has some solid backing, without people losing their minds.

[–]csl512 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Par for the course for online. :-/

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

True enough! The best part is, most of the thimgs they were trying to put on me, weren't actually the things I was saying, but oh well, if they want to get themselves all upset about some guys opinion on the Internet, they can have at it.

[–]KenjiSenpai [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're wrong, software engineers also get physics classes like thermodynamics. Hell i have to take a biochem class. http://www.polymtl.ca/etudes/bc/cheminement/logiciel.php

[–]briklodge [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

An average ChemE is not going to be any better at statics than a software dev. At my school statics was optional for everyone except Mech/Civil. And literally nothing involved isn't intuitively deducible.

You're way too much credit to the education and degree. I've observed minimal correlation between education and competence in both software and mechanical design. Ultimately talent and practice determine whether someone can do "engineer things" and that's how we should decide if they can "be an engineer".

[–]csl512 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Statics was part of ChE because the FBDs and such were useful for fluid mechanics later.

[–]briklodge [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Are there places where people do not learn FBDs before statics? The statics course I took was just an extended rerun of the first month of the intro physics course I took in high school.

But the point I'm making is that truss analysis is just detail work that is trivial but tedious enough to be hard to anyone who doesn't have the "muscle memory" for it - which is basically everyone outside civil.

[–]lordfransie 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Software engineers are engineers too. Building a system of multiple servers that communicate a variety of protocols over a number of connections and then create something out of all that is engineering.

[–]LubricatingOil 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Do marine engineers get any love?

[–]csl512 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Engineering undergrads call themselves engineers. Are they in or out? If they switch out of the program?

Do you know the origin of the hashtag?

Like anything put out online and then reused, it loses meaning fast.

c.f. #distractinglysexy http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/12/413986529/-distractinglysexy-tweets-are-female-scientists-retort-to-disappointing-comments

--dorky Asian boy who actually kind of sucks at math now.

[–]mechtonia [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

#ILookLikeAPersonEmployeedInASTEMField just doesn't have the same ring as #ILookLikeAnEngineer

Seriously, we don't have a better English word than "Engineer" for people employed as professionals in STEM fields.

My preference is to have a formal title for licensed engineers (like Britain's Chartered Engineer) and let everyone else call themselves engineers with no further qualifier. We have Professional Engineer but that sounds too much like a description rather than a title.

[–]uni3993 -4ポイント-3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why are you fixated about a title? I wouldn't care if a homeless guy called him an engineer. You should get rid of your complexes man.