I have long disapproved of the job-title inflation which has led to ordinary programmers (like me) to be called "systems analysts", "software engineers", "architects". But banning someone from referring to themselves as an engineer seems like banning a woodworker from referring to themselves as a "cabinet maker", because they aren't a member of the International Society of Professional Cabinet Makers.
The best word for someone who does engineering is "engineer". By restricting the use of the term to members of some professional society that charges annual fees for membership and exams, this looks like private law. At most, the judgement should have restrained this guy from calling himself a "professional engineer", which arguably might have violated the trademark of The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. But that's not what he called himself.
When in Rome. Early in my career I was hesitant to call myself a software "engineer", but then everyone started calling themselves that, and quite a few of them can barely produce a working CRUD app. Calling myself a "programmer" or "developer" would serve no purpose at this point except to put me a step below them in the eyes of employers.
Well, I take a different view. I don't place a high value on self-testimonials, such as one might find in the average CV. I rate a - er - developer on what they can do, as demonstrated by their achievements. In particular, I don't have much respect for recruiters who place any value on job titles as a guide to predicted performance.
I really am just a programmer; I have had tasks assigned that amounted to "architecture", in the sense of designing a complex system that involved networking, heterogenous processors and storage systems, and advanced terminals.
I was once assigned the rank of "systems analyst". I had no idea what a systems analyst was, so I looked it up. It bore no relation to the job I was doing; apparently a systems analyst was a person that traipsed around a shopfloor with a clipboard and a stopwatch, looking for inefficient processes and work-practices.
I've never called myself an "engineer". To my mind, an engineer is a designer who creates designs that are extremely robust and reliable, while keeping costs within "reasonable" bounds. I've never had a job that allowed me to indulge in that kind of work.
I'm content to call myself a "computer programmer".
In many jurisdictions, certain words are "regulated" by law, or by an organization which is has legal authority. This is true for titles like "Engineer," and also academic accomplishments like "Bachelors Degree." (Unlike "certificate," which is not regulated in most places. Some certificates require 24 units. Others require clicking through a website.)
Canada has its laws and regulations, the US has its laws and regulations, etc.
If you don't like the law/regulation, you can try change it. But while they exist, they should be enforced. And while not perfect, these (regulations on names) exist for very good reason, and they're usually very precise. You and I don't get to decide what "should" be allowed.
In canada, engineer is a protected title like doctor or police officer due to the harm it can cause other people (engineer as in bridge builder, not engineer as in nodejs coder).
Yup. A doctor of philosophy is a doctor; but he shouldn't be allowed to call himself a Doctor of Medicine, if he doesn't have a doctorate in medicine.
[Edit] "Doctor" is from the Latin docēre, "to teach". That is, a doctor in some field is a person with enough expertise to teach that field. From that POV, a medical doctor is an anomaly; my General Practitioner is an MD, but he's not qualified to teach medical students.
And "terrific" is from the Latin terrificus, "terrifying, frightening"[0].
I'm not sure if it's a formal fallacy, but "argument from etymology" is, at best, an extremely weak argument. Just because that's what the word came from over 1000 years ago doesn't mean that's how we do or should use it today.
A doctor is one who has a doctorate. Period. That is what the word means today.
Plenty of people without doctorates teach, in all kinds of ways. (For one thing, grade school teachers in the US are only required to have a Masters at most.)
And if a non licensed medical professional told people they were a doctor for political capital, should that be allowed? I have an engineering degree but I don't claim to be an engineer, that's a protected term in Canada.
But he did graduate engineering school. He's got the iron ring. How the hell is somebody who went through the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer not allowed to call themselves an engineer?!
what bothers me the most is here is an ambigious shortening of a phrase "professional enginner" (or P.Eng.) which I would be fine to say, yes, dont call yourself a P.Eng. when that is part of a cult/guild/group/ect; but then it is also restricted is the "generalized" term of it. all of the other points folks write about actually add-more-details, but in this case they're restricting the detail-removed form; bummer for them and I hope that "confusion" (enforced by the "Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists", (maybe we should abbreviate them as "Ass. of PEG") ) is one day better handeled and not restricting a general term
edit: can you call yourself an engineer but not part of ass of peg in the same sentence/paragraph?
A recent weblog post going over the history of this starting back in ~1200:
> However, the term “doctor” wasn’t usually used to speak about those who subsequently went on to work with patients in the field of medicine. Why? Well, the term “doctor” comes from the Latin verb “docere” meaning to teach. So, if you were called a medical doctor it meant that you were teaching at Salerno, not that you were out in the field actually doing the stuff you were trained to do.
> The people who got trained at Salerno, took their degree, and went out into the world to practice medicine needed a title which made it clear that they were not university professors, but university trained, so that people knew what their job was. And they had one – they were called physicians.
[…]
> In English the term “doctor” didn’t start being used to address people with medical degrees until the seventeenth century, and it began more particularly in Scotland. Funnily, the use of the term was meant to confirm respect to the doctor confirming that, yes, they were very smart indeed. Yes, that’s right – they were as smart as all the people with PhDs, bless them.[8] The medical people were trying to catch up with the humanities people because everyone knew that it’s really hard to get a PhD and it confers authority. This took off because everyone post-enlightenment absolutely loves to crank themselves about how important Science is, or whatever. The fact remains however, that it is a relatively new occurrence.
The medical folks should probably be called physicians:
> Doctor of Medicine (abbreviated M.D., from the Latin Medicinae Doctor) is a medical degree, the meaning of which varies between different jurisdictions. In the United States, and some other countries, the M.D. denotes a professional degree. This generally arose because many in 18th-century medical professions trained in Scotland, which used the M.D. degree nomenclature. In England, however, Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery (M.B.B.S.) was used and eventually in the 19th century became the standard in Scotland too. Thus, in the United Kingdom, Ireland and other countries, the M.D. is a research doctorate, honorary doctorate or applied clinical degree restricted to those who already hold a professional degree (Bachelor's/Master's/Doctoral) in medicine. In those countries, the equivalent professional degree to the North American, and some others' usage of M.D. is still typically titled Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery.[1]
> Even though the M.D. is a professional degree and not a research doctorate (i.e., a Ph.D.), many holders of the M.D. degree conduct research and publish in journals during training and after graduation. Combined medical and research training is offered through programs granting an MD-PhD. […] The United States Department of Education and the National Science Foundation do not include the M.D. or other professional doctorates among the degrees that are equivalent to real doctorates.[68][69]
If you get scammed by someone who calls themselves a doctor with no credentials and you believe it, there is no hope for you. No law will protect you from yourself.
If you couldn't stop hitting yourself, a law against it wouldn't help either.
From the article, "software engineer" is exempt but the plain "engineer" is not. They should just settle on "professional engineer" or "licensed engineer" like "registered nurse".
edit: the term "software engineer" indeed is not exempt but an attempt to exempt it is part of Alberta legislation that has been tabled
No, 'software engineer' is not exempt. The article says "Engineer is a protected title in certain contexts in B.C.", and links to the association page, which has this:
Software and computer engineering have been designated as disciplines of professional engineering since 1999 and 1998, respectively, and are currently listed as disciplines of professional engineering under the Regulation.
Non-registrants are prohibited from using titles like “Software Engineer” or other high-technology-related engineering titles such as “Firmware Engineer”, “Hardware Engineer”, “Data Engineer” because they imply that the individual using them is a registrant and that they are authorized to practice the professions of software or computer engineering in BC.
We do, however, recognize that not all software development constitutes software engineering. In some cases, individuals mistakenly use a title like “Software Engineer” when they are not actually engaged in any engineering work. Individuals may have roles more appropriately characterized as a “developer”, “designer”, or “programmer". For more information on software engineering and for help determining whether work constitutes software engineering requiring registration with Engineers and Geoscientists BC, please see our software engineering applicant webpage.
Funnily enough, both provincial and federal government doesn't mind contracts and applications with title "software engineer" for immigration related services. As long as work experience fulfils the NOC 2173 definition. Licensing in the NOC is only mentioned as required for Professional Engineer work.
That private organization is the one that licenses "engineers" in BC.
The entire Canadian regulatory system is crazy anachronistic with a bunch of legacy colonial and British cruft. It's like the worst parts of American federalism were mixed with the worst parts of British centralization.
Engineering societies in Canada are not really private. They are considered self-regulating professions, where the society has an official role regulating their profession. Each of the provinces have enabling legislation that authorizes these societies to create binding regulation within the bounds of the legislation.
Pretty sure the equivalent in Australia is "Chartered Engineer." I knew a guy who spent ages preparing to qualify as a chartered engineer, and then promptly got fired because they'd have to give him a pay raise. That wasn't a great workplace (I quit around the same time) and there was other stuff going on but still... way to inspire the troops.
Yeah in the UK we have chartered engineers but im guessing less than 1% of software engineers are chartered or ever need to be.
Usually the only people are the ones signing off on safety critical software or in defence.
Even in nuts and bolts engineering its only really required for flight safety/ vehicle safety, and most commonly structural engineering. Usually civil engineers take a masters in structural engineering and there the chartership and rubber stamping on stuff is much more important.
You can be a regular electrical or mechanical engineer and never need to be chartered for your entire career if you don't go near safety critical stuff.
>> promptly got fired because they'd have to give him a pay raise
Not so great for the people, too... harder to get a job instead of just letting the new standard engineer go to the highest bidder. They might as well make it very hard to fire him to fix that problem, and then they'd could go full circle and be in France: it's so hard for employers to fire you that they never want to take a chance on you in the first place, and then they want to pay you less because you might turn out to be a bad hire. At least you get endless vacations :)
Or, just make it easy to hire and fire.. better for everyone.
It's counterintuitive but makes perfect sense once you think about it.
Would you put your money in a bank account if you knew that withdrawing it later was an uncertain, long, expensive process?
Of course not.
The same logic applies to hiring. It's a huge deal to hire someone if you know there's a lot of red tape and expense around lettig them go if you have to.
It's actually not a negative because any potential employee falls under the same laws and companies have to get things done. Your argument could equally be applied to a university degree, or to prior experience - both mean you expect higher pay and so by your logic companies are less likely to even interview you.
I'm not familiar with the situation in France but if it's as you say, you're just using the fallacy of the excluded middle to reject out of hand the possibility of a fair compromise.
> any potential employee falls under the same laws and companies have to get things done
The externalities are the killer here; companies slow down their hiring by default, economic velocity decreases, and escape velocity becomes unattainable.
> Your argument could equally be applied to a university degree, or to prior experience - both mean you expect higher pay and so by your logic companies are less likely to even interview you
That higher pay is not a given because it's not mandated. You might expect higher pay but then be sadly disappointed when you find out that the market doesn't value your additional experience or university degree the way that you do, even though you owe $100k for the piece of paper. (Of course, the opposite can also be true and hopefully often is, but the point is that the market decides based on what's most efficient for the company and will help them generate more money fastest.)
Because he's a bad example who worked for a shitty company who was firing half their workforce anyway. They would have found some other reason if not for this. Fun story though, one of the high up managers who pulled this and similar stunts later applied for a job with a friend of mine, and I got asked for my opinion. I was, uh, rather honest about my feelings and he didn't get hired.
I guess I just assumed that now that he had the proper credentials, he could go a get a job with them?
I'm not sure what your economy and job market are like in Australia right now, maybe this is a misguided assumption.
Also, in America, there's almost no ways to guarantee you a specific income, since minimum wages for salaries outside of government positions don't exist.
In the US you have Professional Engineers (PE). Though there's no longer an exam for software because so few people got it. It's mostly for people who have to sign off on things for regulators. I took the engineer-in-training exam early on (I'd have eventually wanted a PE in my first job) but I had career shifts and there was never a reason for me to pursue it further and I'd probably have had to retake my E-i-T in a different state anyway.
However, in general, there aren't restrictions on calling yourself an engineer and all sorts of basically technician roles use the term liberally.
Sometimes. People who do a lot of court work do often have PEs. But I've co-written an expert witness report for a large software-related trial and neither myself nor my coauthor had a PE (nor, indeed, a CS degree).
Canada uses the verb "to table" to mean to place on the agenda, which is the opposite of how it's used in the US, where it means to remove from consideration indefinitely.
Imagine meetings during WW2 with American and British generals, where the Americans proposed an urgent plan, and to which the British enthusiastically responded "Let's table that immediately!"
Interestingly, the UK/US language divide directly led to consequences in the Korean War. When a British general understated the severity of conditions faced by UK troops, an American general took the words at face value and did not provide reinforcements or told him to withdraw. That led to a last stand, where only a tiny fraction of British troops were able to escape. From The Guardian [1]:
"[W]hen the British brigadier reported the position to his American superior in the United Nations joint command, he did so with classic and — as it turned out — lethal British understatement.
""Things are a bit sticky, sir," Brig Tom Brodie of the Gloucestershire Regiment told General Robert H Soule, intending to convey that they were in extreme difficulty.
"But Gen Soule understood this to mean "We're having a bit of rough and tumble but we're holding the line". Oh good, the general decided, no need to reinforce or withdraw them, not yet anyway. [...]
"The programme says: "Any hopes of relief were dashed by an American misunderstanding of British understatement.""
As a non native speaker of English, I have a hard time putting an equal sign between "Things are a bit sticky" and "[we are] in extreme difficulty"
Are these sentences really similar to a British English speaker?
To me the first one means "we have some minor issues" if talked literally, or "we have bigger issues but I decided to add a layer of nonchalance so that you miss the point"
In most contexts, you are correct that the translation of "Things are a bit sticky" is typically not interpreted as "We are in extreme difficulty."
However, in that specific case, the British general supposed that it was the point of pride for a British officer to rarely admit a weakness or lack of control over a situation. So, the slightest admission of the circumstances being "a bit sticky" should have been a sign that circumstances were severe, or otherwise he would have avoided making any admission at all.
The less ambiguous way—which would have avoided any ambiguity due to the general's understatement—would have been for him to state the facts: his troops were substantially outnumbered, and therefore they could only realistically last a short amount of time without support or withdrawal. However, perhaps, it is possible that he could not send a message of that length in the circumstances of the time.
---
I took a brief look at your profile to try and guess your native language to make a comparison, and it appears you may be a francophone.
A perhaps similar example would be if you ask someone « Ça va ? » ("How goes it?") and the other person responds by saying: « Ça va... » ("It goes..."). For some people, « Ça va » is their default response, so it means that their situation is no different than usual. For others, who you might know to usually say the chipper response « Bien ! Et toi ? », a sudden change to « Ça va... » may be a hint that things aren't going so well, and a way to avoid directly saying « Non, rien ne va et je suis déprimé » (as taken from [1]).
The British general's phrase therefore had a distinct literal meaning, but he meant for the phrase to carry a different message that he expected the US general to pick up on (which did not happen, as the US general interpreted the phrase by its literal meaning instead).
As for "ça va": if I had a tumor dangling from my leg and went to the doctor, I could answer when asked "comment ça va?"
- "ça vaaaaaaa...." because I am a Real Man (TM) who does not show weakness, but I should suck it up and cut the tumor myself instead of coming and whining. And only hope that the MD would probe me until I talked about the "sticky thing" that weights 15 kg and makes me turn right when I walk. I should not have come to the MD at all
- or say what I have because I came for that.
By their logic, I do not understand why the British admitted to any problems, putting their honor in jeopardy for the small reward of maybe having their lives saved (and the lives of the people under the general who maybe had a different view on their future).
The definition of tabled used is "next on the agenda" (aka definition 1b instead of 1a for the verb at Merriam Webster [1]).
Generally, articles about Canada, the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth countries use the 1b definition, whereas articles about the United States typically use the 1a definition. I can't recall any article about Canadian news in particular, which uses the 1a definition for "tabled."
This is absolutely ridiculous. If I were him I'd start calling myself "trueengineer", designate it a new word and go to court however many times it'd take with ever more trolling variations every time I'd lose.
Engyneer, an-gineer, did-everything-except-pay-the-engineering-cartel, guy-that-does-engineering-work, (not)engineer... I think I can do this all day.
It is pretty much how it works with controllers, accountants, lawyers, professor, actuaries and notaries. The local varieties and rules may differ, but most of them have entry requirements and a professional organization that is allowed to create the exams, administer judgement over peers, hand out titles and withdraw titles. Where I’m from I can call myself an actuary, but not a lawyer, could’ve called myself professor when a child but not anymore since they’ve changed the rules.
These are for better or worse, guilds. Guilds give a certain air of quality and come at the cost of peers restricting markets thus raising prices, raising their income and lowering that of all that are obliged to purchase their services. I do like my investments in firms to come with an audited yearly report with some kind of guarantee against malfeasance. I like my notary to know the tax and heritage laws. But I still let my plumber, electrician, car mechanic and gardener do their work without guilds. (Although my car mechanic is part of a chain which offers some semblance of a guild.)
When I was younger Milton Freeman was my hero. He was very vocally against these guilds. The market would solve it all. I think it would, but it’s quite probable that the cost for guarantees and insurance would make the average consumer worse off than this strange remainder of the Middle Ages. This is institutional economics and sociology in action right in front of you.
Some of those are better examples than others. Someone who works as an accountant can probably call themselves an accountant--they just can't call themselves a CPA if they aren't one and may need a CPA to sign off on their work. A notary is someone with a stamp issued by the state. I'm not even sure what defines someone being a professor; they teach at a school of higher ed? There's certainly no legal requirement they have a PhD.
But to your broader point, there's various licensing/guilds--some of which is stricter than others. For the most part, engineering is pretty loose which the exception of branches that deal a lot with regulators in particular, like civil engineering.
While i agree with you - don't a lot of laws/courts/etc judge things by the spirit of the law/action/etc? I have to imagine that making subtle changes to reserved keywords is handled for.. i hope lol.
I'm not sure I'd base the nomenclature of society around whether or not The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of B.C can win a lower court legal argument. It's also quite absurd in America where Sam Altman and Elon Musk personally coded tech companies (zip2, loopt) but now are derisively called businessmen and non-technical. Clearly "engineer" has a broad general meaning accepted by society which is clearly more broad than an association can gatekeep.
The intent at least in Canada is that "engineer" should be as guarded as "veterinarian" or "lawyer" or other titles which tend to strictly imply a registered profession. This isn't novel but the status quo, effectively, and until "software engineer" started showing up everywhere the professional engineer associations were pretty consistently successfully defending their exclusivity.
I don't think "engineer" has a broad general meaning any more than "veterinarian" in the context of professions. I do think that "software engineer" does have broad general meaning, however.
Seems kind of quixotic for a country of 38 million people to try to maintain a different definition of a common word than the other 400 million native English speakers and >1 billion non-native speakers in the world.
From what I can tell, "engineer", as used for denoting someone has been certified in something, is a somewhat recent 20th century trend. Prior to that, engineer was what you called someone who did the thing (I.e. railroad engineer), not the certificate needed. Indeed, having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention.
So it would seem this ruling goes against historical usage.
> engineer was what you called someone who did the thing (I.e. railroad engineer), not the certificate needed. Indeed, having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention.
Umm, no. It is true that train drivers were called "engineers" because they operated an engine.
But the title "engineer" goes back much further than that. It comes from "military engineer", where "engine"/"engineer" meant "machine" or "ingenious".
Military engineers have been around for a very long time. Around the time when the industrial revolution started, people who worked with non-military engineering started to be called "civil engineers".
They mostly worked on building roads and bridges, which is where today's "civil engineer" comes from. But in countries like Sweden, "civil engineer" (civilingenjör) has remained a title for all engineers, not just road/bridge-builders.
> having a certificate for engineering at all is a recent invention
Not that recent, higher engineering education started in the 1700s in Europe.
Sure but he has a university degree in engineering and was a titled hardware engineer for 9 years. To me, it's kind of like not being able to call yourself a network engineer or sysadmin because your CompTIA certificate expired.
“Using “Engineer” in combination with an engineering discipline, in combination with another word related to the profession of engineering, or in combination with any language that expresses or implies the right to practice engineering.”
Trying to protect a generic term with a history as long as “engineer” is ridiculous.
In Ontario (perhaps other provinces as well), train drivers (engineers), and operating engineers, are allowed to continue using the "engineer" name for their jobs, but not "professional engineer". Those two were well established uses of the word engineer before engineering professionalized and became regulated, so they are essentially grandfathered in.
Operating engineers are probably more tightly regulated than professional engineers in Ontario. I'm not sure how the regulation on the train drivers compares to the other two groups of "engineers".
> Second, while a state may regulate misleading commercial speech, the term “engineer,” standing alone, is neither actually nor inherently misleading.
IANAL but they only ruled on the general use of "engineer" because they found Oregon's statute overly broad on First amendment grounds. "Professional engineer" is still protected, just like it is in Canada. In the US I'm careful to write "engineering professional" as an electrical engineer if I need the phrase.
It seems a whole lot of confusion and grief could be avoided by making this about a more specific official certification/title rather than the co-opting of the single word.
This reminds me of the StackExchange question where the manager didn't get the replies they expected when asking how to deal with a registered Engineer who'd been shafted by the company:
I don’t know what’s funnier, than trying to force a P.Eng to sign off on stuff with all the legal liabilities that comes with it, or them not blinking twice when making some kid, who apparently isn’t a P.Eng a principal engineer and not understanding how that’s an issue.
It raises the question of whether these old guild systems and professional bodies provide value in exchange for governance anymore. Medical doctors have created a monopoly on a lot of things we can train children to do, and drug scheduling for basic treatments means people are using up artificially scarce appointments just to get perscriptions for things they can do themselves in their homes.
In engineering, it's romantic to say that professional engineers have accountability, but CAD software, limited liability corporations and E&O insurance policies have replaced the meaning of that almost entirely. Sure, we all like our bridges built by people with integrity, but we know that's not necessarily the case either.
In recent years, they have become a para-governance layer used to blackmail members into political alignment and compliance to radical edicts, such as those in psychology and medicine.
The backstory on this guy for non-Canadians is that he was a political candidate for a controversial party, and it's pretty clear this case was brought as part of an oppo research ploy to discredit him, which is fairly consistent with how these professional bodies are used these days.
The exact wording of the law prohibits "Uses any other name, title, or description in a manner implying that they are a registrant of Engineers and Geoscientists BC, associated with Engineers and Geoscientists BC, or are authorized to practice the professions of engineering or geoscience in BC."
Calling himself an "unregistered engineer" should in theory satisfy the law.
Regulating the term "Engineer" is part of the system of governance and professional regulation. People depend on engineers for life critical infrastructure.
The mistakes of Engineers tend to be written in blood.
Wrong. The mistakes of people who do specific jobs tend to be written in blood. Calling yourself an "engineer" does not automatically magically make you become employed in those specific jobs, nor does preventing someone from being called an "engineer" automatically magically prevent them from becoming employed, literally or de facto, in one such job. Words do not have magical abilities. Preventing people from calling themselves "engineers" is magical thinking. It's like superstition. It only works as part of a broader set of rules, where you mandate that only people with the title of "engineer" can do certain jobs. But, that's pointless and wasteful because you can simply reduce that step and say "only people who pass <this set of criteria to be called an engineer> can do these jobs". The added complication of adding a restricted word is just hot air and political razzle-dazzle for the masses.
You don't call yourself an engineer... the State calls you an Engineer once you meet the qualifications and pass the professional licensing Examinations.
You don't call yourself a driver... the state qualifies you to do that.
Just as a data point, in Iceland engineering is an accredited university degree program that requires a MSc in engineering. Same goes for software engineering.
So it is in fact illegal to call yourself a software engineer without a MSc in software engineering.
Professional engineering in Canada means you swore an oath the protect the public, and you went through an accredited 4 year engineering program for specific programs and then passed an exam and have put x amount of years of practical experience.
We should absolutely have that level of accreditation for disciplines where public safety is incredibly high. For an attempted politicians to use title inflation to gain publics trust is pretty bad and ruins the value that engineering had developed from holding a high bar for accountability.
He has an iron ring and works in the field and graduated from an engineering program. What should he call himself? He should only be barred from calling himself a "Professional Engineer".
Does the general public have this value connection to the term "engineer"? Because I don't think that's the case - I hear everyone use the term to describe those working in the field.
As far as I know, in US/Canada after a students graduates from a civil engineering course, he is called as Engineer In Training (EIT) after he passes Fundamental of Engineering (FE) exam.
Then he has to work for 3/5 years at a engineering firm. He will then have to pass Professional Engineering (PE) exam to be called PE. I think he also has to get two recommendations from other PE's then only he can get certified as PE.
Usually, in US you are considered a 'real' engineer only when you get certified as PE.
I would agree there is an issue there with the term being diluted to the point of almost meaningless and how licensure should address that problem. However if they were to use another term, that term would likely get co-opted and diluted as it would be a coveted term (the reason it got diluted in the first place as it had accrued perceived public value and trust).
I will take small issue with your second statement - there is a difference between those two programs at Uwaterloo:
Mainly comp sci you have a lot of spare time and have a lot of electives and more flexibility in your coursework. Computer engineering you have a specific regime of classes that you need to go through - specifically in physics, circuits, math, chemistry. It the SE program has a higher bar to get into it as a function of its program size being smaller. Both have benefits and drawbacks but I wouldn't call a comp sci major a professional engineer unless they passed the PE. There is a component of physical sciences in the engineering program.
My personal take is that professional engineering - has an element of understanding the physical environment and the mathematics that we have used to build civilization (such as physics, math, circuits and chemistry) and you have an oath to public safety above private motivations.
Reminds me of Mats Järlström who challenged traffic light timing. "The [Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying] fined Mats $500 and said that he could not talk about traffic lights in public until he obtained a state-issued professional-engineer license."
Missing from both the cited news item and the discussion is:
As an engineer, you are required to maintain a duty of care that overrides employer/client relationships. As in, even if the boss says "seal it" on an inadequate bridge design, you are legally required to refuse. Key thing is, that seal is required, so (at least in theory) the boss is stuck, since nobody else with a seal will seal it either.
Now stuff happens, ultimately the penalty is dismissal from the ranks of the PEng (and likely civil lawsuits), but an engineering license is a matter of entrusting the recipient to create a cost effective solution that does not compromise the safety of third parties.
In economic language, this 'internalizes' the cost of failing to build things that will be safe to third parties (eg., the users of the bridge).
As near as I can tell, the individual never had that accreditation, so the issue isn't about 'paying tribute', it's about false advertising.
I know people who put the P.E. on their business cards in the US. Most of them are closer to civil engineering or mechanical. I know one EE who is also a PE. I've never met a software focused person with a PE. In fact I'm not sure a CS curriculum prepares you for the PE test.
I studied computer engineering. It's not a CS curriculum and it prepares you for the PE test. They also drill into your head that you can only refer to your self professionally as an engineer in Canada if you pass your engineering practice exams. Just to illustrate the difference between a computer engineering workload and a CS workload, I generally had 40 hours of classes, tutorials and lectures per week while my CS friends had about 24.
I don't think you can get a PE in software engineering any longer in the US. Very few people got it, at least latterly. As a mechanical engineer I did start down the path with the Engineer in Training exam because, had I stayed in my role at the time, I'd have eventually needed to start signing off on blueprints etc. for regulators.
There are so many frameworks, systems, and products I’m not sure you can have a broad certification to be able to call yourself a licensed professional in any reasonable sense. I became an engineer in training for electrical engineering but decided to pursue a software career as I enjoyed it more and it was more lucrative.
Not too mention that whatever you build has so many dependencies that would all have to fall under some category of licensed or industrial grade just to be used.
Besides move fast and break things with venture capital is not aligned with the risks that a licensed professional would have.
Isn’t that also true of engineering in the physical world?
I wouldn’t have any problem with there being a licensing body for software engineers. This would encompass safety-critical areas like automotive and aeronautical software systems, military systems, etc.
I don’t feel there is a need for your generic CRUD app developer to be an engineer. And there’s nothing wrong with being “just” a developer.
it can be misused if the context suggests that someone is a registered professional engineer
I'd argue that is rarely the case owing to the fact nobody knows what the fuck a "registered professional engineer" is other than someone with an engineering degree.
> university degree in engineering but is not licensed as a professional engineer,
I think as long as you have a university degree in engineering, then you are entitled to be called an engineer regardless, having a P.Eng title should be an honorable distinction or where it might be required, hence it’s called “professional engineer” not just an engineer as you already claimed that title. Not having an engineering degree and you still call yourself an engineer? Yeah, this is what should be discussed.
In the EU and its individual member states titles like this are also protected, but typically those protections are limited to explicit cases where it’s used in conjunction with a name.
E.g. “ir. John Smith” or “Anne Smith Eur. Ing.”
Using it a random descriptor like in this case is generally fine, with perhaps the exception of specific professions such as doctor (in the medical sense) and lawyer when it’s used to imply you’re allowed to provide medical care and legal aid respectively.
To say nothing about BC politics I do wish we had some sort of licensure in the public interest for software engineering in the US. It has just as much ethical implication as architecture or being a lawyer.
Man with engineering degree, who does engineering things, can't call himself an engineer because he doesn't pay the government enough money, so says the government.
Dear Americans if you're wondering, Canada doesn't have free speech. I suppose Elon Musk recently got under fire for saying this.
Oh and the government won't be cracking down on all the other people improperly using the engineer title, like locomotive engineers or you know everyone who has ever engineered something at a makerspace or everyone in STEM.
This is political, he's part of a political party which needs suppressing.
I think this article is missing something. There is no way a engineering board has time to scrap every website and every person and see if they call themselves an engineer or not. He probably said or did something to bring in some eyes. I obviously have no idea what that is or was, but his website does have some interesting science on it. Perhaps the engineering board does not appreciate having someone with "engineering" degrees go around denying climate change?
The title is there to indicate a level of professionalism. Same with doctor, nurse, financial planner, etc. If you go around calling yourself a doctor while screaming about vaccines containing micro chips they'll probably do something about it. If that is right or not, I suppose doesn't really matter as the title provider wrote the rules.
> There is no way a engineering board has time to scrap every website and every person and see if they call themselves an engineer or not.
They actually do! The startup I currently work at, once it got to a decent size, the BC PEng association reached out and said “your company is full of people not registered as Professional Engineers with the job title Engineer, change or we’ll sue.” No biggie, we changed the job titles to Software Developer, and everyone updated their LinkedIn, etc. The exact same thing happened at the last startup I worked at, too. They’re pretty thorough.
They don’t sue right away, they just ask first, and normally everyone just changes the title when asked - Engineer IS a protected title here, you do have to be a registered Professional Engineer to use it. This guy only got sued because he refused to change it.
Literally the second paragraph states he's been a federal politician, and the fourth says he presented himself as an engineer for the purposes of campaigning... when you say "the article" did you really mean "the title"?
Is climate change an engineering field? Is a professional society of engineers supposed to regulate speech about topics unrelated to it? Do you not find this disturbing?
I find the whole thing very silly. But this is entirely 1 side of a story. And I don’t know any context. I doubt this story covers everything. This my suspicious that parts are missing that maybe answer the question.
If this is in fact the entire story. Then yes I do find it disturbing. But Canada is a giant nanny state so it’s not really shocking.
Are you saying he also went around denying climate change and screaming about vaccine microchips? I don't see that part. Am I missing something? Or did you make that up?
This is no different than claiming to be a registered nurse without going through the trouble to become one or baring the responsibility that entails. In this case, "Engineer" is a protected title, like "Registered Nurse", or "Doctor". Although it's typically applied to civil and structural engineers who must accept liability for designs they approve. Think bridges, buildings, etc. Professional Engineers are bound by standards of performance, personal liability and a code of ethics that does not apply to people who simply "graduated from an engineering program." When an engineer designs a bridge and puts their professional seal to it, they're taking personal responsibility for the design's safety. If that bridge fails, they could be held liable for damages.
That this guy didn't understand the difference speaks to his level of knowledge and professionalism.
> On its own, the word "engineer" isn't an expressly reserved title under B.C. law. But according to the professional association, it can be misused if the context suggests that someone is a registered professional engineer.
He didn't call himself "Professional Engineer" which may be more analogous to the term "Registered Nurse"
Using Engineer in a way that suggests you are a Professional Engineer is considered misuse. Not understanding the law does not exempt you from it.
> On Dec. 1, Brongers granted a permanent injunction preventing Hilderman from calling himself an engineer or any other title in a way that "expresses or implies" he is a registered professional engineer.
Using Engineer in a way that suggests you are a Professional Engineer is considered misuse. Not understanding the law does not exempt you from it.
> On Dec. 1, Brongers granted a permanent injunction preventing Hilderman from calling himself an engineer or any other title in a way that "expresses or implies" he is a registered professional engineer.
I agree that if he weren't seeking public office, this probably would have gone unnoticed. But those rules are well known among anyone who has taken an engineering education and others have been similarly sanctioned for misuse in the past.
The correct course of action upon receiving a misuse / cease and desist for referring to yourself as an engineer is to apologize, issue a statement clarifying your status, and stop referring to yourself as an engineer. For someone seeking public office to assert that the rules don't apply to them... that's a bad look.
The best word for someone who does engineering is "engineer". By restricting the use of the term to members of some professional society that charges annual fees for membership and exams, this looks like private law. At most, the judgement should have restrained this guy from calling himself a "professional engineer", which arguably might have violated the trademark of The Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. But that's not what he called himself.