Mathematical Criticism Without a License
- Thread starter Ozclone
- Start date
The 'presumption' is that the government is best qualified to determine what knowledge it takes to stipulate a 'license' and that this person must comply with the procedure to validate that. It further insinuates the formal education process is part of this process. I think both assumptions are flawed.
This person may very well be better qualified than already 'certified' engineers without having had a formal education. Also, I've worked in both sectors and can say unequivocally, 'government' is least qualified to assess a person's capability.
Hmmmm socialism.
The problem with this argument is that it isn't consistent with the way things are structured. There are 1000s of engineers at my company who could be PEs but aren't because it isn't required. The fact that they haven't become PEs doesn't make them any less capable or less of an engineer. The PE is a legal hurdle required for certain jobs, not for defining who is and who isn't an engineer. We have an engineer's union at my company and their requirement to be considered an engineer is an ABET accredited engineering degree and they don't allow anyone to work in a job labeled as "engineer" without one. Not saying their viewpoint is right either, but it is obvious that PE is not a universally accepted standard for the title of engineer.
And there are plenty of people with J.D.s who are not Bar certified that work for law firms. Once one of your engineers leaves your company, if they want to practice on their own they'll have to get a PE or inform their client that they are not a professional engineer.
I'm not talking about capability or talent. I'm talking about the difference between San Francisco after an earthquake and Port au Prince after an earthquake.
It seems to me the state of Oregon is trying to hide behind professional licensure so they can ignore a citizen with a legit b1tch. This story is an Oregon problem, not a PE problem.
Again, we have building codes and professional licensure in this country because for every brilliant person who could be a great engineer/lawyer/physician w/o a "test" there are a thousand charlatans who would prey on the public to make money while lying about their abilities.
Disclaimer: I'm not licensed in Oregon so don't know their specific rules & regulations, but I am a licensed professional engineer in other states.
As long as the guy wasn't putting P.E. (Professional Engineer) behind his name, certifying plans/designs/calculations or otherwise purporting to be a licensed engineer, it doesn't seem to me he's done anything wrong.
From what I understand, the guy isn't designing anything that will be put into use by the public which would require certification, he's just calling into question the design of other (presumably licensed) engineers. That doesn't mean he's practicing engineering without a license; he's just giving his opinion. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it. It just so happens in this case, people are and the licensing board doesn't like it. And again, as long as this guy is not purporting to be a licensed engineer while giving that opinion, I don't see the issue.
There are plenty of people who have engineering degrees and many years of engineering experience who are not licensed. Most of the time that's because it's not required as part of the work they do. Not everything that gets engineered needs to be certified.
As long as the guy wasn't putting P.E. (Professional Engineer) behind his name, certifying plans/designs/calculations or otherwise purporting to be a licensed engineer, it doesn't seem to me he's done anything wrong.
From what I understand, the guy isn't designing anything that will be put into use by the public which would require certification, he's just calling into question the design of other (presumably licensed) engineers. That doesn't mean he's practicing engineering without a license; he's just giving his opinion. It doesn't mean anyone has to listen to it. It just so happens in this case, people are and the licensing board doesn't like it. And again, as long as this guy is not purporting to be a licensed engineer while giving that opinion, I don't see the issue.
There are plenty of people who have engineering degrees and many years of engineering experience who are not licensed. Most of the time that's because it's not required as part of the work they do. Not everything that gets engineered needs to be certified.
Last edited:
I see this issue as derivative from the greater issue of the war on mathematics. Math is integral to modern day society and it's seemingly infinite set of new technologies. Many however object to this progression, and as we get closer to the limits of modern mathematics, those people would prefer to keep things in simplest terms.
I don't know anything about professional certifications but what I do see is this guy seems to be spending an awful lot of time justifying that his wife ran a red light.
What's the saying...Happy wife = happy life. I'm guessing his wife wasn't too thrilled about the fine, but at least he can say, "See! Look at how much I'm willing to go through to defend your honor!" ;-)
I agree there's nothing more irritating than someone arguing against something they know nothing about.
But being illegal is kinda strange. You don't have to be a chef to know if somebody burned your steak.
But being illegal is kinda strange. You don't have to be a chef to know if somebody burned your steak.
So, one should not be able to represent themselves in court because they aren't a lawyer (ie licensed by the state). Sounds like this is the precedent that will defeat the fine.
You do realize that most engineers don't practice "on their own" right? It doesn't mean that they aren't engineers. When one of our engineers leaves, they typically get a job at another company that doesn't require a PE to be an engineer. And the product they turn out has extremely tight certification standards. Civils have a high percentage of PEs and some states, like California, have requirements, but only about 20% of engineers are PEs. And your last line is contradictory, you say that you aren't talking capability or talent and then imply that non-PEs would result in Port au Prince and PEs would result in San Francisco. That is a gross overstatement of the value of a PE certification for many fields of engineering.
For a while, Texas had a hard-on for engineers having to be licensed in Texas to be able to call themselves "engineers". When I first started working there, my boss's title was "Mechanical Engineering Specialist". She was licensed in Oklahoma, but not Texas. They lightened up on it fairly soon after I moved there.
In Wisconsin we are considering to make heckling illegal: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-college-free-speech-bill-20170427-story.html
I think it's called officious authoritarianism.
I think it's called officious authoritarianism.
I can tell you that heckling the opposing bullpen will get you removed from SkyDome. The heckler was saying such terrible, outrageous things as "You throw worse than my mother, eh!" and "Will that even reach the plate?".
Basically anything that is designed only for use within the company that engineered it, and will not be made available to the public. It's generally referred to as an "industrial exemption".
I believe the trend in recent years has been for state licensing boards to try and do away with industrial exemptions as much as practical, but I think they're still around and in use to some degree as far as I know. Just like licensure in general, it varies from state to state.
