Posted on 03/30/2003 7:38:16 AM PST by weegee
An engineer by any other name
Legislature to decide if computer programmers can legally use the title
By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN -- One of the oddest battles of the 78th Legislature is pitting Texas' licensed professional engineers against the high-tech industry's software dudes.
At issue is just who in Texas can call himself an engineer.
"It's one of the silliest issues we're having to deal with this session, but it's also one of the most important," said Steven Kester, legislative director of the American Electronics Association, an organization of computer companies.
Texas has one of the nation's strictest engineering practices acts and limits the title of engineer to those people who have studied engineering and passed a licensing exam.
And that law puts most of the "engineers" in the high-tech industry out of the field. Kester said the restriction threatens high-tech growth in Texas.
But Ken Rigsbee, chairman of the Texas Society of Professional Engineers legislative committee, said the restriction is needed to protect the public.
Rigsbee said state restrictions on who can call themselves engineers were set up decades ago after someone misengineered a heating pipe system at the New London Junior-Senior High School.
An explosion of natural gas in the pipe system killed 300 students and teachers in 1937.
Rigsbee said the licensed professional engineers of Texas have been protecting their title from encroachment ever since. There are 49,000 state-licensed professional engineers.
Rigsbee said the high-tech problem mostly involves computer programmers whom the industry likes to call computer engineers.
Rigsbee said the industry holds out its products as having been "engineered." And he said there is a belief that the computer companies are in a better position to win contracts if they can say they have 150 engineers on staff instead of 150 programmers.
"What we have a problem with is a graduate of a two-year computer programming school or some technicians ... holding themselves out as engineers when they clearly are not," Rigsbee said.
The computer industry had been happy to function under an exemption in state law that allowed a company to call in-house personnel whatever it wanted to so long as the engineering title was not held out to the public.
But the Texas Board of Professional Engineers sent cease-and-desist letters to some high-tech industry specialists who used the title of engineer in correspondence.
That led to a request to former Attorney General John Cornyn to clarify the issue. Cornyn last July said the matter is simple when it comes to state law.
"The Texas Engineering Practice Act ... does not allow an in-house employee of a private corporation, though classified internally as an `engineer' or under another engineering title, to use the title `engineer' on business cards, cover letters or other forms of correspondence that are made available to the public," Cornyn said.
Boom. In a single sentence, the computer programming engineers of Texas became software dudes.
Actually, while software programmers make up the bulk of the high-tech industry's engineers, the industry also uses the title for electrical and mechanical engineers not licensed by the state. Texas Instruments also has "customer support engineers."
"Texas is becoming a laughingstock of the global high-technology community," said Steve Taylor, director of corporate affairs for Applied Materials.
Taylor said there are about 100,000 high-tech personnel in Texas who have "engineer" in their title, but they are not licensed by the state.
"They risk fines of up to $3,000 a day for handing out business cards to a supplier or even dropping it in a fish bowl at a restaurant for a chance at a free lunch," Taylor said.
AEA's Kester said electronics professionals from around the country are called engineers within their firms and in the industry. Suddenly, he said, they are now required to carry one set of business cards for Texas and another for the other 49 states.
"It's a matter of professional pride," Kester said. "They've built up a lot of experience and earned the title of engineer in their industry."
Kester said the electronics industry has made changing the state law a top priority because it is making it difficult to recruit employees from other states and around the world.
"We run the risk of not having them move here," Kester said. "That puts us at a significant disadvantage."
Legislation to loosen the title requirements is being carried by Sen. Rodney Ellis, D-Houston, and Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa.
The fundamental problem with software design verification is that marginal reductions in the number of defects have an essentially exponential cost. The market has declared that it is unwilling to pay ten times as much for software as they do in exchange for not having to patch as many bugs. There are companies and applications that actually do a proper rigorous design verification, going as far as doing module level proofs of correctness, but this is extremely complicated and costs a fortune. The only people that can afford software applications that reliable is the military and similar. A defect in a single line of code can cause a million line application to subtly fail in ways that are nearly impossible to detect. Proving the correctness of an application that large is an exercise in the intractable.
So it boils down to economics. Virtually no one can afford to eliminate all defects in non-trivial software applications, certainly not for the consumer market. It is the nature of the beast. Comparing it to conventional engineering is apples and oranges.
IMO engineering is a practice or a method, not a set of passed classes. A relative of mine worked as an engineer for Aerojet in the early years of the aerospace industry and had never been to college.
Just because you've been to school doesn't mean you know jack about "engineering".
Licenses are a way for the anointed ones to limit the market and keep prices high. If someone cares enough, it's easy to check to see if the engineer in question knows his stuff and has the credentials in place.
Could you imagine living in this world minus the things that have been engineered by people who did not hold a degree.
Let me just say that this entire discussion is almost laughable. Just because a man (or woman) has gone to a college or university, earned a degree, and then took a test and passed it; does not mean he/she is a good engineer.
While in the Marines I was sent to a school called AVIC-7. The school was a an engineering immersion course that lasted 12 months, 8 hours per day, 5 days per week. Virtually every engineering subject was taught. It was heavy on electrical and mechanical courses but also included courses like radio wave propagation, metallic anomaly detection, hydraulics and numerous other courses. After leaving the military I started working in an environment where I was surrounded by highly educated engineers from many of the most prestigious universities, including one engineer in particular that was a West Point grad with a MSEE from MIT. After working with me for about six months, he and a number of other highly degreed engineers, some with the highly touted “PE” behind their names, would come to me for verification and / or confirmation of their work. When I told them I was “unqualified” to do that they just laughed and insisted that they needed my help.
In another instance; a friend of mine that had the same military background as me eventually went to the University of Texas and earned his BSEE. He was on the Dean’s list every semester. When I asked him if he learned anything in his engineering courses his responses was “Hell no! The reason I was able to stay on the dean’s list all the time was because I slept through my engineering courses and focused on all the other stuff!”
So my point is this: I have always been regarded as a top-notch engineer in both the electrical and mechanical fields. However, the only way I was able to overcome the stigma of not having a professional degree or a PE behind my name, was to start my own business. (It is amazing how having a card that says “President” on it automatically make you above reproach.) I would do my own designs and then pay a PE to review and stamp the drawings for me. I eventually turned my company into a $50M / year design-build firm. Now that’s my success story. But not everyone is a risk taker like me and I would like to see other’s like me, that have received our level of technical education in a non-university setting; get the proper recognition they deserve. There are thousands of men and women trained like I was that cannot make the pay or get the recognition they deserve because they never went to a college or university. It is a horrible inequity. I appreciate the guys that do go to good schools and get their degrees! I have lots of you working for me. But I want everyone to know that a degree does make an engineer a good engineer. It just means you can study and pass tests. The real test is how you do in real life and if I, or any others like me, surpass a degreed person(s) in talent, then we deserve the title ENGINEER as much as anyone!
Maybe one of you can “engineer” a fix for this problem?
Why not “Registered Programmer”?
They see the title of “Engineer” as having value (or they wouldnt want to usurp it), but do not wish to actually attain it.
It’s not that hard to become a PE.
“What about those who have not just an engr. degree from an accredited school, but one from a top rated Engineering program like Stanford or U of Illinois? For example a MS/PHDEE from Stanford? Can they claim to be engineers, or do they have to get permission from these Texas hicks? “
Well, for someone with such stellar credentials, the FE and then the PE exam would be a snap! Why not get it if you think there is value in being an “engineer”?
Those same texas hicks insist you have a drivers license too, who do they think they are?
On beef I have, as a PE, is the parochial way of individual state boards. Reciprocity between states should be easier, but that’s another matter.
“Software engineering is too new and varied to be licensed. And, the public-safety aspect of software engineering is missing, so the state should just butt out. “
The issue is that universally applicable standards of software engineering are not applied. They could be, but nobody has bothered - and to be fair it’s a cost issue.
So that’s to their detriment. You can’t tell the difference on a card between a hacker and someone with a true design background applying rigorous engineering principles.
They want the title, but don’t want to go through the effort to earn it. that should tell you everything.
” I don’t see why PEs should have a monopoly on the use of the word “engineer.” They should only have a monopoly on the phrase “Registered Professional Engineer.””
Because “Engineer” implies that one is duly trained and educated to apply the principles of engineering and has placed oneself accountable to an engineering board, with liabilities and responsibilities.
Other folks want the title but don’t want the responsibility.
It SHOULD be easier for an engineer in one state to practice in another - THAT is a matter of politics and fees, that should be fixed.
“Traditional engineering pursuits are clinging to the concept that engineering involves creation of tangible, durable objects”
No.
Engineers design. They ensure that proper standards and codes as required are implemented properly.
A design is not necessarily a tangible durable object.
” I’m still not allowed to call myself a “Network Engineer”. “
Why would you? You assume no liability, you do not understand the concepts of responsible charge, and you claim your specialty is so narrow that you couldn’t possibly be accountable to an engineering board.
You COULD try “Network Architect”, but then the Board of Architects would come after you for much the same reason.
You DO want the title of “Engineer” because you think it has value, but you do not wish to submit your work to a process involving engineering accountability.
Relax, call yourself something else - but whatever you think you are, you are NOT an engineer.
“You haven’t seen the testing standards we employ for software. My last project had over 7,000 pages of testing requirements. The testing took 9 people close to a year. I’m not willing to shut down a billion dollar enterprise by inadequate testing.”
A project and responsibilities like this speak for themselves, they just don’t speak the word “engineer” in any lawful manner.
Software Engineering principles certainly CAN be applied with the same rigor as any other engineering discipline, and I think that it would have value to do so - but it would cost more and so it’s not done.
That said, on my EE PE exam, I had a couple of software questions - one was a boot loader written in a concocted assembly language.
so a software engineer COULD obtain licensing as an EE (and definitions vary by state - but some say if you are moving electrons, you ccan be registered as an EE and SE can be considered and sometimes is considered that - I used that as part of my experience when I was originally licensed - no problem)
“Any man that does the job deserves the title”
The law says he can use that title internally to a company all he wants, but the second he offers to provide Engineering or Design Services outside his company, he must be registered.
There is a reason for it, you think it’s pompous and self-agrandizing - but it’s not that hard to become a PE, but it doesn’t take “zero” effort.
“Very few electrical engineers understand Maxwell equations, and if they do, it is because of their extra-curricular curiousity. The one who needs to understand it is a scientist; all engineer does is applying it to solve concrete problems”
If an engineer were solving “concrete problems” he’d likely be a civil engineer, not an electrical engineer, in which case, I’d agree, maxwells equations would not be important.
(kiddin’ of course)
I’m not a trained, qualified, certified engineer in any field so I don’t have a dog in this fight per se, except to point out that this smells like another government money grabbing scheme by netting more licensing fees from the growing number of software “engineers” entering the state for work. Sounds to me like the Texas legislature sees an opportunity to scoop up extra $$$ over semantics in the term “engineer”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.