135
136

[GENERAL]#ILookLikeAnEngineer needs to have meaning (self.engineering)

SeedSing が 投稿

I am conflicted about this one. This #ilooklikeanengineer movement. I’m a woman. I have a BS in Mechanical Engineering, and a couple decades of “hard” technical experience. I self-identify as an engineer, even though a big chunk of my current work is paper-push..., I mean management. I’m also really glad that people like Mary Barra (BSEE) and Ursula Burns (MSME) have thrown in with the movement, not just because they’re major CEO’s, but because they are actually ENGINEERS. And actual engineers seem to be only half of the #ilooklikeanengineer movement.

In principle, this hashtag is great. Engineers aren’t just dorky white or Asian boys who are good at math. I bet in a lot of places, boys with average aptitude in math and science are tracked for engineering, and yet their schools/parents don’t do the same for girls with equivalent or even better aptitude. That happens. I graduated from Purdue University’s College of Engineering in the 90’s. Purdue has a history of actively recruiting and supporting women engineers, and prides itself on having started the first Women in Engineering program. For all their efforts, female enrollment there is currently about 20% right now, per their own website. (I can’t speak to black and Latino enrollment, but I’m guessing they’re similarly underrepresented.) So I’m all for anything that encourages a more expansive view of what an engineer can look like.

But the problem with this hashtag is while it expands the view of what an engineer looks like, it’s also trying to expand the definition of what an engineer actually IS. Engineering is a specific field of study. And one of my pet peeves is the conflation of “engineer” with “person who works with any kind of technology.” Words have meaning. And, despite recent abuse of the language, web developers, coders, and network architects are not engineers. The noun “engineer” implies engagement with the PHYSICAL sciences; the application of chemistry and/or physics to solve a physical problem. It implies grappling with scientific unknowns, and imperfectly modeling the physical world. Well, either that, or a person who drives a train. (My alma mater’s website backs me up on this: computer science is not listed under the College of Engineering.)

I’m not suggesting that other STEM professionals are lesser or greater. My mom had a long career in IT working on mainframe software. My dad is PhD chemist. But they don’t call themselves engineers. And frankly, even though he’s certainly earned the right to be called Dr. S as an honorific, it would be pretty misleading for me to say “my dad’s a doctor” without some kind of qualifier. Look, dentists and CPA’s are both highly trained and respected professionals. But my dentist doesn’t call herself an accountant, because she’s NOT one. Words have meaning. And if your education and work don’t involve the application of physical engineering principles, you aren’t an engineer. The team that designed the Wii U hardware? Engineers. The team that designed Mario Kart 8? Not. (I intend no disrespect, quite the opposite. Mario Kart 8 is awesome.)

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.”

The set of engineers is a subset of the set of STEM professionals. (It’s the E part!) But there are also the S, T, and M parts. They are disciplines and fields of study in their own right, and deserve recognition and respect. And once they get it, maybe people can stop gussying up their job titles by adding “engineer” as some kind of professionalizing suffix. All girls should be encouraged to take calculus and physics in high school, and know that they can have any career they want, in either software development, cell biology, applied math, nuclear engineering or whatever. So I really respect the intent behind the hashtag. But please, stop diluting my profession. Pick a different word. And I’ll tweet the hell out of #ILookLikeaSTEMprofessional!

I welcome any and all rebuttals.

Tina S.

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 215
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]bobbaddeley 57ポイント58ポイント  (4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.

[–]Synaptic_Shok [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

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.

While this is a sentiment that I share and agree with, it also ignores the main issue raised in OP's post. Which is that a hashtag that seems to be intended for use by engineers, is being used by people who themselves are not engineers, at least in the technical sense of the word. The problem is that in this situation this technicality is much more important.

Now you've said:

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

Which on it's surface is something that I think most people can agree with. The problem lies in the fact that #ilooklikeanengineer, like all other "stand-up and be counted" movements, derives a large part of its power by sharing the stories of specific individuals who can speak to their own personal experiences. And herein lies the problem. By diluting the standards of who gets to use the label "engineer", you dilute the power of the stories. It is for this reason exactly that we don't have anyone and everyone using the hashtag themselves even though, by our admission, we agree that they do "look like engineers". There is still the required qualifier "that they are one". It is the occasional lack of this qualification by users of the hasthag that OP is pointing out.

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E.[M] 134ポイント135ポイント  (15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.

[–]csl512 12ポイント13ポイント  (3子コメント)

What kind of ice cream? Liquid nitrogen ice cream?

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E. 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

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

[–]bmnzEE - Power 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's cooler than ice cold.

Edit: http://chemistry.about.com/od/demonstrationsexperiments/ht/n2icecream.htm

[–]elcollin 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Gotta not recommend people put their LIN into a "large plastic mug." This will pull most plastics out of the ductile region.

[–]ujussabFlair 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sweet, can I get cookie dough ice cream?

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E. 13ポイント14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. 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

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

[–]funkyb 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

As long as you're not a physicist in disguise.

[–]SiegeFlank 19ポイント20ポイント  (3子コメント)

Engineering is less about what you build and more about the set of principles that you adhere to during the building process. 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.

Edit: Phrasing

[–]KenjiSenpai 5ポイント6ポイント  (2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.

[–]OmNomSandvich 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Engineers have had their fair share of ethical lapses: look at General "Paying for lawyers is cheaper than fixing a potentially deadly ignition switch problem" Motors.

[–]mattkim824 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I would say that's more on the part of the company that was trying to cut costs rather than the engineers that were designing it.

[–]walexjAerospace & Mechanical 43ポイント44ポイント  (8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.

[–]246810121416aStructural (UK version of EIT) 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

As a white, male engineer who wore an I'll fitting white and blue striped shirt today... I haven't done laundry in a while because I've been balls deep in FEA 24/7 for as long as I can remember. Cut us some slack :P

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

Jesus Christ it's like we're living the same life.

[–]walexjAerospace & Mechanical 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hey, I am one too. My ill fitting white shirt was even short sleeved.

[–]DonnFirinne 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

But what if loads of white male engineers tweeted pictures of themselves with that hashtag? Does that send the wrong message?

[–]RMJohn [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If it gets them to stop posting daft ifuckingovescience and duct tape memes it's a net positive.

[–]10xKaMehaMeha 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I agree with your point that it says look like but that's my problem. Who cares what you look like? It's what you are that matters. That's the point that needs to be expressed here, to everyone, especially high school kids. It's not just overweight with bad hygiene and League of Legends addictions who are engineers. I was in a sorority in my undergrad and I can guarantee no one was able to predict I was studying engineering, and there were many times people accused me of lying to my face when I told them. It's that negative stigma that needs to go away. You don't have to look like anything.

[–]salierniwasokay 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think you're misunderstanding the campaign's intended message. A bunch of people (who all look different) are saying that they look like engineers to demonstrate that looks do not matter in engineering - engineers really come in all shapes and shades. I agree that this is a good message (for just about ay profession, really).

[–]walexjAerospace & Mechanical 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's exactly the point of the hashtag. It's to show that there is no individual 'look' to an Engineer. So even if you're a Woman, Black, White, Asian, Latino, skinny, fat, Etc. It doesn't matter.

[–]Bromskloss 10ポイント11ポイント  (5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 7ポイント8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 2ポイント3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.

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

After moving to a new city I was job hunting and when I searched indeed.com and other job postings for "engineer" to keep the search broad since this is a small area. I had results for positions like "facilities engineer" that was basically a maintenance tech for a hotel. That's one example of misusing the word. I'll try to think of others I saw but I had to dig through a lot of irrelevant postings to find positions that required an engineering degree.

[–]Bromskloss 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I was actually looking for misuses of the word in connection to this "ilooklikeanengineer" motto. Thanks for your example, though.

[–]The_WoogiemonsterIndustrial / Construction 11ポイント12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.

[–]TBBT-Joel 27ポイント28ポイント  (7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 16ポイント17ポイント  (3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.

[–]nakkinator 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Other side of the coin - my job wouldn't go well without accountants and salespeople. It doesn't make them engineers to have an area of expertise.

[–]TBBT-Joel 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's never hampered my career. I worked at a few large aerospace firms, and made my way to a national lab. Now I work as a manufacturing engineering doing a bit of everything, I teach welding part time and grease the wheels of an entire metal forming shop. I also consult on the side.

Here's the ironic small twist: I wanted to work at NASA, but they have a very strict "must have ABET accredited engineering degree" in order to work there. By definition my engineering tech degree does not count, there's only one school in the nation that has the legal accredited degree of "welding engineer". Well NASA couldn't hire enough welding engineers as basically most were locked out of the position, so they end up hiring Mechanical engineers or metallurgists/material scientists who studied metal and try to make them welding engineers.

When they needed consultation, who did they turn to? The national lab I worked at. Qualified to consult but not qualified to work at NASA.

I have a small chip on my shoulder when people think a welding engineer tech means I'm just a smart welder, but honestly those same people will come begging for answers when their million dollar structure is failing at the welds.

[–]DNGTA 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah I'm in a similar boat where even though I'm tech I ended up in a highly qualified job as far as my field goes. I'm at a small company and in the design department I'm the only guy with an engineering BS aside from the design lead (who's an IE) & engineering manager above him. Every now and then when I don't know crap I have to remember that nobody else does either.

[–]AdmnGt 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

However most P.E's couldn't do the welding analysis necessary to insure the welds on their bridge are up to code.

That is simply not true. If a PE is going to be signing off on a bridge/building design that will need welding, they will absolutely know how to do the weld analysis. They may not be able to go out into the field and make the welds themselves, but they can and will incorporate the welds into their design because it changes the mechanical properties of the structure.

You can be a very talented and skilled individual, but in my opinion you have to have a degree from an accredited, and widely regarded, institution in order to call yourself an engineer. Engineering is a profession and one of the articles that really gave importance and significance of the word "engineer" to me was a 1957 paper by Ernest Greenwood, Attributes of a Profession.

Greenwood states that five things need to be satisfied in order to be in the engineering "profession":

  1. Systematic Theory / Body of Knowledge
  2. Authority
  3. Community Sanction
  4. Ethical Codes
  5. A Culture

You can have one or more of those properties in your occupation, but unless you hold all five, you cannot consider yourself as part of the engineering profession. I won't re-write his essay as you can read it in the link I posted above. Of course, this is just a single man's interpretation of what it takes to be a professional, but I think that it does the term justice.

[–]TBBT-Joel 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would trust any decent PE to do the structural analysis on welded joints which in the US is mostly plug and chug statics formulas and design guides. I CAN do those equations but really I have only used them a handful of times since undergrad. However, I have met very few P.E's who have any deep technical understanding of welding on the application side.

No one calls in a welding engineer to design welded connections, you call them in for all the issues with your welded structures: "we welded and inspected same day, came back monday and it was cracked what caused this", "Code said to preheat to 70 degrees it was 45 degrees this week and we laid down half a million of steel what is our course of action", " I have a rare alloy system how do we qualify a cobalt-copper weld" That is without getting into metallurgy, procedure development, inspection or process optimization, or automation. Welding is a relatively large field in terms of what you do in it.

Welding engineering has everything listed above, with the caveat that in the US just about every welding engineering program is a welding engineering technology program, and not a traditional engineering degree.

[–]magodaChemE 1ポイント2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...

[–]blowjobtransistor 38ポイント39ポイント  (71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.

[–]LaughLaxElectrical - Student (OU) 13ポイント14ポイント  (5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

[–]DialMeOut 7ポイント8ポイント  (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.

[–]TOaFK 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

IE = Imaginary Engineer

[–]EducatedAtom 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm a Service Engineer. No degree, but I do have 12 years experience in an Engineering company. We work for the ME's and the ME's work for an IE that's the project manager. He doesn't do any design or installation, but he is still in charge.

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

New and starting college next week to be an ME. How are you a Service "Engineer" without an engineering degree? What do service engineers do?

[–]DialMeOut 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

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

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 19ポイント20ポイント  (32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 13ポイント14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 4ポイント5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.

[–]briklodge 8ポイント9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 -4ポイント-3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 2ポイント3ポイント  (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.

[–]PhileruperMechanical Eng 19ポイント20ポイント  (24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0ポイント  (23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)

http://www.concordia.ca/academics/undergraduate/software-engineering.html

http://www.concordia.ca/encs/computer-science-software-engineering/programs/undergraduate.html

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 5ポイント6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.

[–]GKorgoodCivE switching to MechE/Aerospace 2ポイント3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.

[–]Endless_September 1ポイント2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.

[–]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.

[–]butters1337 3ポイント4ポイント  (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.).

[–]StrawRedditor 10ポイント11ポイント  (4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 0ポイント1ポイント  (3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 your argument.

[–]StrawRedditor 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

And my hardware designs may not be as good as a mechengs drawings... so I don't understand your argument.

[–]OnlyHeStandsThere 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not that other guy, but I do see his point. I'm currently getting a bachelor's degree in an engineering field and I have certainly studied a few programming languages along the way. And yet, when I took my semiconductors class I noticed it was full of engineers and physics students, and nothing else. Same for quantum mechanics, and electricity and magnetism, and circuit theory, and just about any other class that might actually be helpful when designing hardware for computers. Designing semiconductor/electrical systems absolutely requires a basic understanding of quantum physics, and that is why I have never seen a computer sciences major in a class that has anything to do with how computers are made. But learning a programming language really just requires a basic knowledge of math and logic. The issue is that it is quite simple to buy a basic but cheap computer software so that all extra coding you do on a device is easy to do (or learn Linux and get an operating system for free), whereas it is nearly impossible for even an advanced web developer or coder to make a simplistic electronic device without requiring an engineer to design it for them.

[–]StrawRedditor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

and that is why I have never seen a computer sciences major in a class that has anything to do with how computers are made.

Except computer science isn't software engineering.

But learning a programming language really just requires a basic knowledge of math and logic.

Learning a programming language isn't software engineering.

No offense but, I'm hearing a lot of people who clearly aren't software engineers tell me what software engineering is... and they really aren't doing a good job.

whereas it is nearly impossible for even an advanced web developer or coder to make a simplistic electronic device without requiring an engineer to design it for them.

Again, web developer and "coders" aren't software engineers. They did not take software engineering, I did. As part of that, I've also taken like 90% of what electrical engineers took.

[–]RollingprobablecauseSoftware/Systems Engineering 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

develper specializes in just working on code.

This is flat out wrong and indicative of what non-software Engineers do not know about our world. Coding is an intricate part, but it's 30-50% of the job.

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

That's because they overlap with each other. If you look at the NCEES exam for the PE: http://ncees.org/exams/pe-exam/

You will see that the requirements require either background - it doesn't make a difference.

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

This is flat out wrong and indicative of what non-software Engineers do not know about our world. Coding is an intricate part, but it's 30-50% of the job.

Fair enough, what's the other 50-70%?

[–]traverseda 0ポイント1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 -2ポイント-1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 2ポイント3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 0ポイント1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 0ポイント1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.

[–]RollingprobablecauseSoftware/Systems Engineering 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's incredibly important to us because the distinction indicates the job being performed. Even those of us who just code 100% of time are still applying principles of engineering to each step we do.

What I hate about all this is everyone is up in arms over a freaking title. Guess what? If I keep using everyones logic in this subreddit, then NONE of you are engineers in the US unless you have a PE. I am sorry but OP knows nothing about the software/IT world. I got my SE degree and subsequent licensing as soon as it became available. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not understand the significant amount of engineering processes and design that goes into building massive applications and hardware. The NCEES isn't keen on making more PE's exams in the future so Software and Industrial engineering is the only way to get called one.

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

What I hate about all this is everyone is up in arms over a freaking title. Guess what? If I keep using everyones logic in this subreddit, then NONE of you are engineers in the US unless you have a PE. I am sorry but OP knows nothing about the software/IT world. I got my SE degree and subsequent licensing as soon as it became available. Unfortunately, a lot of people do not understand the significant amount of engineering processes and design that goes into building massive applications and hardware. The NCEES isn't keen on making more PE's exams in the future so Software and Industrial engineering is the only way to get called one.

As far as I'm aware the PE for software engineering is a bit of an exception believe you don't actually have to take the fundamentals of engineering exam like everyone else.

In any case, I've already said that I really don't care who calls themselves an engineer (Sanitation Engineer, Domestic Engineer, who gives a damn) so have at it. I just don't see why people care if they're referred to as a developer instead. It's not like there's any negative connotation with it.

[–]na85 14ポイント15ポイント  (29子コメント)

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

[–]Weefs 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

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

[–]KenjiSenpai 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's probably more of an administration and class sharing matter than some statement about what being an engineer means. Software Engineers are Engineers, Computer Scientists are Scientists. As someone studying Engineering I find that science has more prestige to it anyway.

[–]darknecross 6ポイント7ポイント  (26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  (7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 2ポイント3ポイント  (3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.

[–]StrawRedditor 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

DO you mean PEO will also accept that?

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

UWaterloo uses Bachelor of Applied Science so yes it does.

[–]darknecross 0ポイント1ポイント  (2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?

[–]StrawRedditor 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It depends what you mean by "get a job as".

The way it works in Ontario is that all P.Engs are the same, in the sense that, you don't get your P.Eng in a specific discipline, you're just a P.Eng regardless of what your B.Eng was in.

So theoretically, a mechanical engineer could get a job doing civil work. Theoretically, they could also stamp building drawings. The thing is though, unless they can prove without a doubt that they are qualified to stamp those building drawings (either through work experience, or secondary training or whatever), then they could easily be charged as negligent and have their P.Eng stripped as well as face fines.

However, if they're just doing engineering work, but not actually acting as a professional engineer... then it doesn't really matter, as everything they do would be stamped by an actual civil engineer and the responsibility would fall on him.

Software is a little weird in that (as of now) there's really no precedent for "stamping" software... like there is for civil structures.

[–]darknecross 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I sorta understand the legal complications with the protected title of "Engineer" in Canada. However in the states there's no such protection, and even though we have the P.E. license, it's only really obtained by people who do things like stamp drawings or have government contracts. It's not super common for any of the EEs or CompEs in Silicon Valley to have a P.E.

[–]na85 6ポイント7ポイント  (17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 5ポイント6ポイント  (16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 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Did you take the FE? PE?

[–]darknecross 5ポイント6ポイント  (6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.

[–]DialMeOut 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's interesting. Why not?

[–]rockdude14Mechanical Engineer 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

The same reason that most engineers dont bother to get it. It takes time, money and effort and has no benefit to their career because they work in an industry that doesn't require PE licenses for anything.

[–]EducatedAtom 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

My company pays the ME's for all the fees, books, and courses. If they pass they get a bonus, raise, and new business cards with the PE listed after their names.

[–]darknecross 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

From my understanding, a PE license is necessary if you need to stamp anything official and be held accountable, like government contracting.

The consumer electronics industry doesn't tend to do that kind of work.

But like I said, I don't know much about the FE or the PE because it's not really important in my field.

[–]morto00xHardware Engineer - EE 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

For most jobs, we don't need it. The main exception for EE's would be HVAC and power distribution.

[–]hbdgas 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

'Software engineer' is a job title that is handed out somewhat indiscriminately. Sometimes the person is actually designing complicated things, and other times they're just making simple websites. So we can't make a blanket statement about its validity.

[–]StrawRedditor -1ポイント0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.

[–]xPURE_AcIDx 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

...An engineer is someone who uses the principles of science to solve problems.

So basically someone who makes things that are hard to make. Software developers are in fact engineers if they use the principles of computer science to solve problems in their code.

[–]NotRayRay 12ポイント13ポイント  (5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.)

[–]424f42_424f42 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Based on OPs definition power engineering isnt engineering... Guess don't need electric to your house Op

[–]na85 5ポイント6ポイント  (1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.

[–]NotRayRay [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

(Wrote this, then saw the thread exploded, and everyone's fighting about the different names and what that implies. Whoops.)

I agree with you, I guess I don't often think of CS and Software Engineering as different, as you only really see what would be the Science side in academia (and I'd probably have called it applied math or computation theory, but hey, it doesn't matter - main thing I've learned is that there's way too many names for CS/CPE/SE programs - we should get a standard on that, because right now, no one knows what any of us can do!).

[–]MagTron14 2ポイント3ポイント  (1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.

[–]NotRayRay 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I debated putting that in, as my point was more that we shouldn't exclude when we all have so much in common. Didn't mean to offend!

I was mainly trying to see if the distinction was about working on tangible, physical things vs code/algorithms/software concepts, and therefore was wondering if things like Materials Science (which was only offered as a grad Engineering discipline at my school) and ChemE fit the bill - I was more picturing test tubes and liquids than bridges and structures (and here I am showing my ignorance of ChemE). TIL its more physics-based, which is cool (thanks for sharing). I was also wondering if Computing was being discounted because it involves man-made concepts instead of naturally occuring, and then I starting thinking with portals, er, in circles.

I guess I was thinking they were somewhat analogous: Chemistry is to ChemE as Math is to Computer Science." [or Theory of Computation is to Software Engineering, if we're splitting hairs]

[–]pouponstoops 18ポイント19ポイント  (19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 23ポイント24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 26ポイント27ポイント  (1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.

[–]xavier_505 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not to mention very few EEs outside power bother with their PE. It's meaningless for most of our profession.

[–]alpinekarst 4ポイント5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

[–]Harumphapotamus 7ポイント8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

[–]cookrw1989 3ポイント4ポイント  (2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 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1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.

[–]TBBT-Joel 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

P.E only applies to certain engineering disciplines though. Almost no ME's in the product design or consumer products field will have a P.E it's not needed.

[–]Bromskloss 2ポイント3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 -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

There are already requirements.

[–]Bromskloss 0ポイント1ポイント  (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.

[–]SkyNTPCivil - Transportation/Road Design&Safety, Ph.D. 8ポイント9ポイント  (2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.

[–]sacesu 3ポイント4ポイント  (0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.

So...someone who applies technical principles (mathematical equations that apply to the physical world) and builds in redundancy, and ensures to the best of their knowledge that they're building something safe and reliable and legal, and that if they make a design decision it'll ultimately be on them and their technical and scientific knowledge...that person is an engineer?

Sounds an awful lot like a software engineer working on manned spacecraft systems.

[–]darknecross 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

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

[–]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.

[–]ristorilControl Systems & Simulation -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2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.

[–]xavier_505 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Is that what the NSPE is convincing people of these days? You can absolutely call yourself an engineer in just about any situation you are not advertising engineering services directly to the public.

[–]TBBT-Joel 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

P.E carries a lot of weight (as it should) in the civil engineering world for things like building contracts, but it's completely irrelevant to large swathes of engineers. In that context yes you can't legally call yourself an engineer and sign off on a bridge if you are not a P.E. If you are an engineer who sizes the HVAC system for city hall you won't have that requirement. I'm a welding engineer and P.E makes no sense for me to get.

[–]StrawRedditor 4ポイント5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.

[–]akim1026 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

The thing I hate about this movement is that I'm an engineer, though I am a short nerdy asian guy, so I look like what is considered a "stereotypical" engineer. I feel like if I were to make a post with "#ilooklikeanengineer" I'd get flak about it.

[–]NotRayRay [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe. In my observation, it's more about expanding society's expectations of what engineers look like, so that everyone feels like they can be an engineer too if they want to be. There's nothing wrong with being a visual match for the stereotype (you probably look like a lot of my friends and colleagues!) it's just that in this case the goal is to show that the next kid can look completely different and join the same field.

Maybe #ilooklikeanengineer #andyoucantoo?

[–]10xKaMehaMeha 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

First off: shout out to a fellow female Purdue engineer (I'm getting my masters there right now) Second: I had this discussion earlier this week. I don't look LIKE an engineer, I AM an engineer.

[–]BelmontBandit 5ポイント6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

[–]aggierandy 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

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

[–]raoulduke25Structural P.E. 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

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

[–]platypython 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Overtime, superconductor?

[–]mechtonia 2ポイント3ポイント  (1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.

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

I drive a train can i use #ILookLikeAnEngineer? Seriously though, anyone who is upset about a non-engineer claiming to be one needs to work on their self worth and just ignore it.

IMO using your profession as a way to valid your intellect/work ethic is pretentious as fuck and it;s the only reason I can think of that could cause this much uproar over semantics.

[–]lordfransie 3ポイント4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.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 3ポイント4ポイント  (45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.

Edit: Yes CS majors, I get that my view offends you. Just to be clear, you could theoretically have a CS degree and be an engineer if you're doing actual engineering, and not everyone with an engineering degree is an engineer. However, you're not going to convince me that pure programming is engineering, sorry.

[–]darknecross 16ポイント17ポイント  (27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 9ポイント10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 2ポイント3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.

[–]taterbizkit [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The way I look at it is that an engineer is someone who is given a complex problem that requires a highly technical multidisciplinary approach, and who is given a high degree of autonomy in finding a solution.

"Build me a bridge that will span this gap", "design an engine that will produce X foot-pounds of thrust and maintain an internal temperature less than 500c" are examples of engineering problems.

So is "design and supervise construction of a 50,000 sq ft IT space that can provide X server workspaces with Y petabytes of storage under Z KWH/BTUs of power/cooling with P% uptime within a budget of $Q,000,000" and "Design a data-centric application that will provide X response time to Y concurrent users via web, mobile and desktop clients with a SLA to provide 4-sigma error-free whatever.."

Title inflation is a problem in IT/software fields because the best candidates for narrow-band roles that are very difficult to recruit for can demand whatever title they want, often also involving cultural pressure to refuse jobs that aren't "engineer, lawyer or doctor".

[–]csl512 6ポイント7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?

[–]KenjiSenpai 2ポイント3ポイント  (6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

[–]Hakawatha 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Adding to this, not every engineer does core classes. EE at my school in England doesn't even give you the option of taking a non-EE class until third year - the closest you can get is Fields or Computational Complexity second year. The flip-side is that you've done 25 or so EE modules and specialize early by the time you graduate.

If you gave me a statics problem second year, I probably couldn't solve it. But it's still a (rigorous) engineering degree.

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

You're also in Canada, and I was speaking generally about the USA.

[–]KenjiSenpai 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

So Canadian software engineers count as engineers? Cause if so, that's enough for me since, we are licensed by the regional order in like 99% of Canada and I don't know the programs in the USA.

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

Honestly man, just look at what I actually wrote, and not what people were replying to me. I said, on multiple occasions, that anyone who uses core engineering principles is an engineer. If you're using a knowledge of circuits and electrical principles, then you're an engineer. If all you do is code, and nothing else, then you're not. Other users think that programmers count and engineers too, and got weirdly upset that I believe something different from them. That's all that happened here.

[–]KenjiSenpai 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I disagree that using knowledge of circuits and electrical principles (or any physics) Software Engineers use all kind of scientific fields for their work and it varies from engineer to engineer. Some use physics for simulations or video games, some use thermodynamics when working on chips, but ALL use Computer Science, which is

(From Wikipedia: ''Computer science is the scientific and practical approach to computation and its applications. It is the systematic study of the feasibility, structure, expression, and mechanization of the methodical procedures (or algorithms) that underlie the acquisition, representation, processing, storage, communication of, and access to information, whether such information is encoded as bits in a computer memory or transcribed in genes and protein structures in a biological cell. An alternate, more succinct definition of computer science is the study of automating algorithmic processes that scale. A computer scientist specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computational systems.'')

a real science.

So now, acknowledging that Computer Science is indeed science (not programmation but realy computer science), and using the wikipedia engineering definition.

''Engineering is the application of scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, devices, systems, materials, and processes.''

Knowing that software engineers use knowledge of computer science and often other sciences to build, maintain and invent systems and processes in all sorts of environments (from very engineering driven and where security is paramount projects like car firmware to projects where cost-optimisation and security is less important) we can safely affirm that Software Engineers with the right education ARE engineers.

[–]NineCrimesMechanical Engineer 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Let me try to make this more clear. I really don't care who you want to call an engineer. In the US sanitation workers call themselves "Sanitation engineers" and stay at home moms call themselves "Domestic Engineers", so if programmers want to call themselves engineers, I really don't care. I call them developers, and when some people asked me to explain my reasoning, they got pissed and out came the CS downvote brigade. Like I said, people can call themselves whatever they want. I really don't care.

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

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

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

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

[–]briklodge 1ポイント2ポイント  (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.

[–]KenjiSenpai 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here's my rebutal: '' Engineers are trained to use the knowledge in mathematics, science and technology in order to build the necessary products to the security and well-being of the public. Software engineers specialize in the design, implementation, validation and maintenance of software. Although the theoretical foundations of software engineering mainly from the computer science, a disciplined and systematic approach to the software development process requires a good dose project administration and human resources management. Growing process are too fast to be controlled by a human or a mechanical or electrical artifact. The growing importance of software in our daily life and the catastrophic effects that may arise from malfunction in critical situations have enabled the rapid development of software production standards and methods. A software engineer is socially responsible to implement these healthy practices when developing and managing large-scale projects where public safety is of paramount importance. During the last decade, software engineering has become a separate discipline of engineering, as well as electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc. The software engineering bachelor program aims at changing software development methods to replace traditional methods of software production through more rigorous approach based on engineering. In March 2001, the Ordre des ingénieurs du Québec has officially recognized that specialization. Everywhere in the world, practitioners of this profession help ensure quality software production.''

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

Do marine engineers get any love?

[–]LazyOptimist 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ideally, the probability that someone is an engineer should be statistically independent or race or gender. If this was the case, then anyone could say they look like an engineer, because their race and gender would not give you a hint as to whether or not they are an engineer. The #Ilooklikeanengineer movement is trying to get that point across. So when a STEM major who isn't an engineer says that they look like an engineer, they're saying that they're indistinguishable from an engineer based on appearances alone. Likewise, anyone form any discipline, non-STEM and STEM alike, should be able to say that they look like an engineer. As a result, if you see a sales clerk use the #Ilooklikeanengineer tag, and you respond by saying that no, you're not an engineer, you're a sales clerk, you're missing the point.

[–]424f42_424f42 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Based on your 3rd para definition... So power engineers aren't engineers either i guess

[–]eks_orPower/Control Systems 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

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.”

I completely agree with you because I'm one of those engineers but not sexist.

Also, My alma mater has the Computer Science department in "Science" department and not "Engineering."

[–]platypython 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a site reliability engineer for a web SaaS startup. I do everything from bringing in the 3-phase 208v electrical feeds, down to operating system install and website testing. I'm actually getting ready to take the FE, followed by the PE for software engineering. This will "certify" that I know enough about physics, statics, dynamics, and chemistry, and the physical world AND good coding strategies that I can work on critical systems like streetlights and car computers without killing people. NCEES and IEEE say there is such a thing as a Professional Software Engineer. All software engineers are software developers, but not all software developers are engineers.

[–]fbgmoolaMech Design Engineer 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You should spend less time on twitter if this irritates you.

[–]cheshire137 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I've been called a software engineer for so long, I just go with it. I got my degree from the College of Engineering at my university, same as all you physical types.

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

ITT: Highly educated people spending their (what I assume) limited amount of free time to debate semantics.

Is this to validate self worth, or a compulsive need to prove brilliance? Find out in the next inevitable thread about useless social media activism.

[–]uni3993 -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1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.

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

I agree this is such a laughably petty way to try to increase diversity.

[–]csl512 -1ポイント0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.