Hacker News Reader

Comment by SECProto | Hacker News Reader

While on this issue I mostly agree with the defendant, I think it's reasonable to protect certain titles (engineer, doctor, lawyer, dentist). For a parallel situation, imagine a hypothetical person named Phil, who has a doctorate in psychology. They call themselves "doctor" and give medical advise to the unwitting public, despite having no relevant training.

In this case, the guy had training as an electric engineer, but was commenting outside of his proven realm of expertise. However, he wasn't deceiving the public by representing himself as an engineer-for-hire, though, which I think makes it forgivable. I just found the free speech ruling to be over-broad.

View on HN

The courts very much got it right in this case. Joe Shmoe has health problems and will listen to a "doctor" but they don't have a bridge half-built in their backyard or an automotive manufacturing setup. There's just no risk to letting people say they are engineers, and the first amendment should only be infringed upon for good reason.

Let's take this case as an example. Anyone can send a letter saying "The traffic light is too short; here's the math to prove it". Saying "I'm an engineer" might help you get that letter noticed, but it would almost certainly be illegal to reprogram the light without a professional engineer's sign-off independent of that letter no matter the person's qualifications. The state was never at risk of acting on his advice no matter how he represented himself. So why not let him say it?

No pretending to be an engineer can have deadly consequences. Imagine someone saying they're an engineer and being contracted to build a bridge or building. That could (and has) have disastrous consequences.

You can be an engineer without an engineering license. Safety-critical jobs usually require a professional engineering license, but there are a lot of engineering work which is not safety-critical.

When it comes to civil stuff (i.e. the safety critical thing people think of when they hear engineer - bridges, buildings, highways, flood protection...) you absolutely can't call yourself an engineer without professional accreditation in every jurisdiction I know.

Even then (buildings for example), I believe some of the work can be done by non-licensed engineers. Stuff like land surveying, some electrical, CAD/modelling work, design of plumbing, heating, etc. can be done without license. I know a few people that aren't licensed but work on condos as engineers. I'm guessing a lot of the stuff has to be reviewed/approved by a licensed engineer, but that could be 1 to 5 licensed:unlicensed for example.

Definitely! Engineers don't do all the work. But if you're working in the field, you don't call yourself an engineer unless you're licensed.

(For context: I work in the field and am not a registered engineer, though I studied it in university. I would never call myself an engineer)

You have an engineering degree, but you wouldn’t call yourself an engineer?

What do you call yourself?

An engineering graduate, or an engineer-in-training. You can call yourself an engineer once you have several years of experience, pass some exams on law and ethics and whatnot, and get a professional designation.

Do the ethics courses focus on when you’re allowed to call yourself an engineer?

That is downright ridiculous, sorry. You are an engineer, just not a "certified" or "accredited" one for some sub-set of tasks/things/requirements. The fact that we have to even discuss this as if saying you're an engineer is some ultra-taboo because people might "mistakenly" allow you to do mission critical or potentially dangerous work without asking for your specific accreditation is disturbing and Orwellian-like policing of plain language.

No, it’s why actual engineering isn’t currently suffering the influx of unskilled dilettantes like software is.

Getting an engineering license doesn't require much in terms of skill beyond what you'd learn in undergrad.

The work experience requirement is pretty important, though. That's how you learn the practical side of the field.

I have a degree in EE, but there's a 0% chance I could safely design electrical equipment. In school they taught me how to analyze circuits, but I know nothing of the electrical code, let alone practical matters like mechanical stresses on wires. Without somebody to learn from, I would learn a lot of things the hard way—when the design fails.

You learn those things the same whether you will get an engineering license in the future or not. The engineer exams don't actually test this kind of knowledge.

You have to have 4 years of accredited experience working under an already-certified professional engineer. This experience get audited, and references get called to confirm the types of experience and whether it is adequate. The auditor is free to say "this two month period and that six month period were not adequate experience. You have to get 8 more months experience before you can qualify." It's not the exam alone, but rather the combination of multiple factors: required education, required experience, examinations, and ongoing professional training (required to do several dozen hours per year of certified professional training to stay current).

In my jurisdiction there are no technical exams for applicants with a degree from an accredited program. I regard the exams as much less important than work experience under the supervision of someone who knows what they're doing.

I am a licensed professional engineer with a B.Sc. in EE, so I've gone through every part of the process for designing electrical equipment except for acquiring work experience in that subfield. The only thing preventing me from signing off on an electrical drawing is that I do not believe I am qualified.

I guess this confusion is why a lot of professions use "chartered" to signify this.

Chartership for engineering most certainly exists, and there are many good reasons it should be more popular within software engineering.

There's only one state in Australia that has mandatory registration of engineers. There are several more states that are currently starting up mandatory registration schemes, and of course the national professional bodies operate voluntary registration and accreditation schemes.

Now of course that doesn't mean that you can just start building bridges as a non-accredited engineer, I expect the courts would look unkindly on you in a negligence lawsuit if your company had engineers that couldn't demonstrate their professional qualifications and development.

This is seen as a problem and the professional bodies are pushing more states to adopt mandatory registration, so we'll see more of that in the next few years, but it's not like Australia is a land where bridges fall down weekly without mandatory registration.

The funny thing is that civilingenjör (engineer) is a protected title in Sweden.

Also amusing that it's a Swedish person fighting with the American mindset (My Constitutions!). It's very rare to see those.

I could at least pretend that might happen if there was only one kind of engineer. But someone that incompetent at hiring might also hire the wrong kind of engineer. The rule doesn't do anything to help.

A P.Eng. is professionally obligated to refuse work that they're not competent to perform. You can't hire the wrong kind of engineer, because the engineer knows if they're the right kind or not.

Then the wrong engineer just also shirks professional obligation.

Which would result in their license to practice being revoked by the professional association.

It takes ~8 years to fulfill the requirements to acquire a professional license. It's not worth the risk of being caught.

Just to expand, I've never heard of an engineer from the wrong field signing off on a document (e.g. an EE signing off on a structure), but here's a lesser example of unskilled practice and the corresponding disciplinary action: https://www.apega.ca/assets/PDFs/discipline-decisions/18-011...

Well they couldn’t sign off on the part that requires a registered engineer... soooooo

I am a network engineer and as far as I know there is no professional board for this.

That means you’re not an engineer.

That’s not an insult, I’m sure you’re quite skilled. But outside of the software industry “engineer” is a term that signifies certification.

>I think it's reasonable to protect certain titles (engineer, doctor, lawyer, dentist).

I've always wondered this: why are software engineers allowed to use the title "Engineer" but aren't at all required to do FE or any certification?

It's very strange. I always thought certification was about being able to be employed as an engineer, not use the title.

Many times software engineers fall under the 'industrial exemption' for most states' professional practices acts. That's how many folks without a PE are able to be engineers - as long as they're not selling engineering services to the general public, but only to their employer.

Things get trickier with software as well - with many engineering disciplines, the public can be placed in harm's way by the malpractice of engineering - that's why many civil firms require PE's. In other areas, it's less desirable - for defense contractors, many purposely avoid PE's due to our ethical obligations around harming the public.

Surrounding software, I think a major part of it is just that the laws haven't caught up with the times. NCEES now has a Software PE available but no clue about the contents of the exam. It seems like a tricky one to test for.

Looks like it got axed https://ncees.org/ncees-discontinuing-pe-software-engineerin...

The last time I saw the areas covered by a PE exam for Software Engineering was maybe 25 years ago, in California. Over half the exam was electrical engineering. Less than a third was actually about anything related to software.

Near as I could tell, it was a rent-seeking and exclusionary agenda of some entrenched parties. The proposed exam requirement for software engineers didn't go anywhere.

ABET has a Software Engineering program now - https://www.softwareengineerinsider.com/abet/abet-software-e...

It has little to do with languages and frameworks and more on principles and practices.

I'm biased as my undergrad was one of the first to become certified.

I mean, so was mine, and it was Not Great.

This is why I will never call myself a software engineer, despite having a master's degree with a specialization in "software engineering." It's kind of an insult to actual engineers. Software Developer works just fine.

Why would it be an insult? I agree that if you went to a boot camp for 3 months and then began calling yourself a software engineer, it's a bit misleading. But what's the cut off line?

My CS program was in my school's college of engineering, which had a much more rigorous application process than the lib arts school. The first two years were essentially the same for CS, CE, MechE, ChemE, etc - lots of math and physics.

Maybe I'm just a bit sore. While society doesn't stereotype us as badly as before - the typical low status nerd - most of that improvement is due to SV engineers making such good money. But it still feels like we're not respected the same as other higher paying careers like law, medicine, or even other types of engineers. I mean I've actually had managers who probably make less than me assign me remedial tasks like fixing their laptop or resetting their password.

Feel exactly the same. We just don't need so many engineers in the industry but we need busloads of software developers that learn Git and the latest design pattern.

It's a shame, because it's only one of them that I feel will stand the test of time.

You can get a professional engineering license as a software engineer... a software engineer is an 'actual engineer'.

> It's kind of an insult to actual engineers.

Most “actual engineers” do trivial shit just like most software engineers/developers.

At least in Belgium, software engineering at university is as much an engineering degree as is civil engineer, electrical engineer etc. You have largely the same maths, physics, ... and you get the same protected title (ir.). In fact I know some civil engineers who claim other engineering studies are harder.

But I do agree that developing software is usually more of an art than a science and a lot of software engineers just make business apps where not much of the engineering background is required.

Just FYI many people with doctorates (not MDs) do call themselves doctors. I've known many Finance, Philosophy and Econ doctors in my time and they all use that title and their name plaques all had "Dr. So-and-so" on them. I'm sure it is common in other areas as well.

I know a few with PhDs, and they don't. Usually post-nominal credentials, rather than "doctor" before the name. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a whole lot.

The giving-medical-advice thing was a dig at a formerly popular television host.

There is a difference between PhDs typically not introducing themselves as "Doctor" and saying that it is a falsehood when they do.

That said, a doctor misrepresenting themself as a physician and giving medical advice where not licensed to do practice medicine, as done by Dr. Phil, is wildly unethical.

Definitely, and if you read my original comment, I defended the engineer because he wasn't using the title as a deception or in soliciting business. Though he was potentially commenting outside his realm of expertise.

When we graduated from law school a friend of mine called our state bar association and asked about the ethical rules regarding an attorney calling themselves "doctor" since we have JDs. The answer for our state is that it's fine unless you practice in the area of medical malpractice, in which case it might cause confusion with clients and will be considered on a case-by-case basis if there is a complaint.

I don't know how it works in America, but in Europe (or at least in the European countries I know) that's actually the formal standard. If you have a PhD, you earn the right to be called Dr. (name). If you get a degree in medicine, you are colloquially addressed as "doctor" but formally you aren't one, unless you get the PhD in medicine.

In those countries there are also separate registries for MD's which are the guide for allowing you to practice medicine.

There are however many, many more professions which require specialty training and are protected: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/regprof/index.cf...

"Lawyer" doesn't tend to be a protected title (with some exceptions). Mostly it is used as a colloquial term for the protected professions e.g. attorney, solicitor, advocate etc.

And this is why the U.S. has notoriously expensive doctors, lawyers, dentists.

And so dental tourism is a thing.

While yes the quality will be very high, that's not summation of all that matters.

If I am contesting traffic ticket, I might accept a lawyer without $300k in student debt. Same if I want a tooth cleaning or a strep test.

By all means have bodies of accreditation but don't force me to use them, especially in common low-risk scenarios.

? I live in Canada. Professionals of all stripes are expensive everywhere, but the US is exorbitant for other reasons.

Canada (and many other countries) also have required accreditation.

Yes, we have accreditation and professional societies. And yet, our doctors and dentists are not "notoriously expensive". I'm saying the one does not necessarily cause the other.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com