|
Home > Archive > alt.certification.cne > July 2005 > Engineering Certifications
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Engineering Certifications
|
|
| Harsha Raghavan 2005-07-27, 6:46 pm |
| Hello,
I'm trying to understand the various certifications for engineers.
This does not include software engineering - there are a ton of
websites for that! What I'm not able to find out are the various
certifications for engineers. Can someone help me with either
information or websites? I'm looking to also learn the number of
engineers who're certified and who took what certification exams! All
that good stuff !! Thank you!
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:46 pm |
| On 2 Jun 2004 07:54:41 -0700, harsharaghavan@yahoo.com (Harsha
Raghavan) wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm trying to understand the various certifications for engineers.
>This does not include software engineering - there are a ton of
>websites for that! What I'm not able to find out are the various
>certifications for engineers. Can someone help me with either
>information or websites? I'm looking to also learn the number of
>engineers who're certified and who took what certification exams! All
>that good stuff !! Thank you!
Quick question. Do you mean real engineers, psuedo-engineers (who
arguably do perform *some* engineering tasks but are not certified by
state government as "engineers"), or the completely fake engineers who
make a joke out of the real term "engineer" by attaching it to people
who pass silly Prometric exams?
--Bernie
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:6qrrb0labbs24i0b473f0h40a
jit260u3d@4ax.com...
> Quick question. Do you mean real engineers, psuedo-engineers (who
> arguably do perform *some* engineering tasks but are not certified by
> state government as "engineers"), or the completely fake engineers who
> make a joke out of the real term "engineer" by attaching it to people
> who pass silly Prometric exams?
>
> --Bernie
Engineer is a Job Title! Meaning if you have the job as an engineer then you
are an engineer! On the other hand you can have an education as an engineer
but not have a job as an engineer. In this case I would not consider you as
an engineer. Complicated? Could be, but that's life!
The original question is too wide to even try to answer.
AT
| |
| N. Funk 2005-07-27, 6:46 pm |
| The one and only true engineer has a PE (Professional Engineering)
registration.
Harsha Raghavan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to understand the various certifications for engineers.
> This does not include software engineering - there are a ton of
> websites for that! What I'm not able to find out are the various
> certifications for engineers. Can someone help me with either
> information or websites? I'm looking to also learn the number of
> engineers who're certified and who took what certification exams! All
> that good stuff !! Thank you!
| |
| TechGeekPro 2005-07-27, 6:46 pm |
| "N. Funk" <nfunk@rtconline-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:40BE54AC.1060601@rtconline-nospam.com...
> The one and only true engineer has a PE (Professional Engineering)
> registration.
You mean once I get my MCSE I won't be a "true" engineer? What a jip.
Now I suppose you're going to tell me that once I get my CIW I won't really
be a "true" Master of the Web.
Hmmph.
> Harsha Raghavan wrote:
>
| |
|
| On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 17:29:00 -0500, N. Funk extemporised:
> The one and only true engineer has a PE (Professional Engineering)
> registration.
>
Go down to the union hall and tell those guys that drive trains they're
not 'real' engineers.
Humph!
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:43:50 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:6qrrb0labbs24i0b473f0h40a
jit260u3d@4ax.com...
>
>Engineer is a Job Title! Meaning if you have the job as an engineer then you
>are an engineer!
Correction. Today it is a job title and a professional degree which
also has governmental controls (e.g. state board certification etc.).
It used to only be the latter. The title engineer has been so
cheapened by cheesy jobs and lame vendor certifications that adopted
that title to grant an automatic (and cheaply bought I might add)
elevation in status.
So ten years from now when "engineer" no longer carries even the
pitiful status it retains has today, are we going work the word
"doctor" into our titles to get a further cheaply bought elevation?
I'm a "network doctor" (not an MD).... scratch that, I'm a "senior
network doctor." Oops now that everyone is calling themselves a
senior network doctor, I am now a "level three senior network doctor."
Maybe after that we will start calling ourselves scientists or lawyers
etc.
See how ridiculous that is? It is a slippery slope when you start
cheapening titles that used to mean something.
>On the other hand you can have an education as an engineer
>but not have a job as an engineer. In this case I would not consider you as
>an engineer.
But what does it matter what you consider someone if the state board
considers someone a civil engineer, electrical engineer, etc?
>Complicated? Could be, but that's life!
>
>The original question is too wide to even try to answer.
Yes it is! That was partly my point.
--Bernie
| |
| John Agosta 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news 4vsb01hksed3oat9ocoqm434
n59p9gf69@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:43:50 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>
you[color=blue]
>
> Correction. Today it is a job title and a professional degree which
> also has governmental controls (e.g. state board certification etc.).
> It used to only be the latter. The title engineer has been so
> cheapened by cheesy jobs and lame vendor certifications that adopted
> that title to grant an automatic (and cheaply bought I might add)
> elevation in status.
>
> So ten years from now when "engineer" no longer carries even the
> pitiful status it retains has today, are we going work the word
> "doctor" into our titles to get a further cheaply bought elevation?
> I'm a "network doctor" (not an MD).... scratch that, I'm a "senior
> network doctor." Oops now that everyone is calling themselves a
> senior network doctor, I am now a "level three senior network doctor."
>
> Maybe after that we will start calling ourselves scientists or lawyers
> etc.
>
> See how ridiculous that is? It is a slippery slope when you start
> cheapening titles that used to mean something.
>
as[color=blue]
>
> But what does it matter what you consider someone if the state board
> considers someone a civil engineer, electrical engineer, etc?
>
>
> Yes it is! That was partly my point.
>
> --Bernie
The clerk at the record shop will be the
Rock n Roll Doctor
;-)
| |
| Barry Watzman 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| The term "engineer" is so broad that you are going to have to be more
specific.
The only legally recognized "engineer" is one who holds a "PE"
(Professional Engineer) license granted by the state (I believe that all
50 states issue them). This licensing is similar to that for
physicians, accountants (CPAs) and lawyers, and is not easy to get
(usually, there is an educational, experience and exam requirement, and
the exams are not easy). However, this is primarily for civil engineers
and architects who design roads, bridges, buildings, water and power
systems, etc.
The computer and electronics industry mostly ignore this and, in truth,
use diplomas and work history for evaluation of employees. The various
vendor specific certifications are used largely to certify undegreed
"technicians", who really are not "engineers" by most definitions of the
word.
Harsha Raghavan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to understand the various certifications for engineers.
> This does not include software engineering - there are a ton of
> websites for that! What I'm not able to find out are the various
> certifications for engineers. Can someone help me with either
> information or websites? I'm looking to also learn the number of
> engineers who're certified and who took what certification exams! All
> that good stuff !! Thank you!
| |
| Tom MacIntyre 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 20:32:52 -0500, Bernie <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:43:50 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>
>
>Correction. Today it is a job title and a professional degree which
>also has governmental controls (e.g. state board certification etc.).
>It used to only be the latter. The title engineer has been so
>cheapened by cheesy jobs and lame vendor certifications that adopted
>that title to grant an automatic (and cheaply bought I might add)
>elevation in status.
I can add a spin to this. Here in Canada, when a person wants to
acquire their Permanent Resident card, he/she usually needs a
guarantor. One classification of people who can be a guarantor is a
Professional Engineer. Railway engineers and MCSE's don't fill the
bill. That is one distinction to add to this discussion.
Tom
>
>So ten years from now when "engineer" no longer carries even the
>pitiful status it retains has today, are we going work the word
>"doctor" into our titles to get a further cheaply bought elevation?
>I'm a "network doctor" (not an MD).... scratch that, I'm a "senior
>network doctor." Oops now that everyone is calling themselves a
>senior network doctor, I am now a "level three senior network doctor."
>
>Maybe after that we will start calling ourselves scientists or lawyers
>etc.
>
>See how ridiculous that is? It is a slippery slope when you start
>cheapening titles that used to mean something.
>
>
>But what does it matter what you consider someone if the state board
>considers someone a civil engineer, electrical engineer, etc?
>
>
>Yes it is! That was partly my point.
>
>--Bernie
| |
| Tom MacIntyre 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Thu, 03 Jun 2004 20:45:26 GMT, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>The term "engineer" is so broad that you are going to have to be more
>specific.
>
>The only legally recognized "engineer" is one who holds a "PE"
>(Professional Engineer) license granted by the state (I believe that all
>50 states issue them). This licensing is similar to that for
>physicians, accountants (CPAs) and lawyers, and is not easy to get
>(usually, there is an educational, experience and exam requirement, and
>the exams are not easy). However, this is primarily for civil engineers
>and architects who design roads, bridges, buildings, water and power
>systems, etc.
>
>The computer and electronics industry mostly ignore this and, in truth,
>use diplomas and work history for evaluation of employees. The various
>vendor specific certifications are used largely to certify undegreed
>"technicians", who really are not "engineers" by most definitions of the
>word.
>
This will give an idea of the stuff that an electrical engineer has to
be able to handle...for those who are interested. This is the very
basics, the guts of what keeps our computers working.
http://pneuma.phys.ualberta.ca/~gin...es/phys395.html
Tom
[color=blue]
>
>Harsha Raghavan wrote:
| |
| Len Carpenter 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| Bernie wrote:
> Quick question. Do you mean real engineers, psuedo-engineers (who
> arguably do perform *some* engineering tasks but are not certified by
> state government as "engineers"), or the completely fake engineers who
> make a joke out of the real term "engineer" by attaching it to people
> who pass silly Prometric exams?
So, you're saying that Sanitation Engineers and Custodial Engineers ain't real
engineers? 
| |
| Ticking Timebomb 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news4vsb01hksed3oat9ocoqm434
n59p9gf69@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:43:50 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>
you[color=blue]
>
> Correction. Today it is a job title and a professional degree which
> also has governmental controls (e.g. state board certification etc.).
> It used to only be the latter. The title engineer has been so
> cheapened by cheesy jobs and lame vendor certifications that adopted
> that title to grant an automatic (and cheaply bought I might add)
> elevation in status.
>
> So ten years from now when "engineer" no longer carries even the
> pitiful status it retains has today, are we going work the word
> "doctor" into our titles to get a further cheaply bought elevation?
> I'm a "network doctor" (not an MD).... scratch that, I'm a "senior
> network doctor." Oops now that everyone is calling themselves a
> senior network doctor, I am now a "level three senior network doctor."
>
> Maybe after that we will start calling ourselves scientists or lawyers
> etc.
>
> See how ridiculous that is? It is a slippery slope when you start
> cheapening titles that used to mean something.
>
as[color=blue]
>
> But what does it matter what you consider someone if the state board
> considers someone a civil engineer, electrical engineer, etc?
>
>
> Yes it is! That was partly my point.
>
> --Bernie
Totally agree with Bernie.
I work for a consulting company that calls us 'engineers' and I cringe
whenever they say it. I always correct them, even on a conference call with
a big client 'Ahem, excuse me, just for the record I am NOT an engineer; I
am a tech'
When I was hired 5 years ago, I made a big stink about it in a meeting, but
management decided to keep calling us engineers anyway.
I refuse to hand out my cards because my co put 'engineer' on them. I said
that is false reprasentation.
| |
| TechGeekPro 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| "Ticking Timebomb" <ticking.timebomb@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ZT_vc.79609$%Q7.52066@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news4vsb01hksed3oat9ocoqm434
n59p9gf69@4ax.com...
who[color=blue]
then[color=blue]
> you
you[color=blue]
> as
>
> Totally agree with Bernie.
> I work for a consulting company that calls us 'engineers' and I cringe
> whenever they say it. I always correct them, even on a conference call
with
> a big client 'Ahem, excuse me, just for the record I am NOT an engineer;
I
> am a tech'
> When I was hired 5 years ago, I made a big stink about it in a meeting,
but
> management decided to keep calling us engineers anyway.
> I refuse to hand out my cards because my co put 'engineer' on them. I said
> that is false reprasentation.
>
>
Agree with it or not, the "E" in MCSE *does* stand for Engineer.
| |
| Ticking Timebomb 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
|
"TechGeekPro" <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:tKydnTglsfIZ4V3dRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
> "Ticking Timebomb" <ticking.timebomb@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:ZT_vc.79609$%Q7.52066@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
by[color=blue]
> who
people[color=blue]
> then
> you
> with
engineer;[color=blue]
> I
> but
said[color=blue]
> Agree with it or not, the "E" in MCSE *does* stand for Engineer.
>
Ya I know I am a stick in the mud, but just because MS is insulting a group
of professionals by cheapening the word, does not mean I will also.
| |
| TechGeekPro 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| "Ticking Timebomb" <ticking.timebomb@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:c9%vc.79611$nQ7.15921@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "TechGeekPro" <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:tKydnTglsfIZ4V3dRVn-uQ@adelphia.com...
(who[color=blue]
certified[color=blue]
> by
engineers[color=blue]
> people
etc.).[color=blue]
doctor."[color=blue]
lawyers[color=blue]
consider[color=blue]
> engineer;
meeting,[color=blue]
> said
> Ya I know I am a stick in the mud, but just because MS is insulting a
group
> of professionals by cheapening the word, does not mean I will also.
>
>
I don't particularly like it either. I prefer technician.
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:56:07 -0400, "TechGeekPro"
<%username%@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Ticking Timebomb" <ticking.timebomb@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:c9%vc.79611$nQ7.15921@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
>(who
>certified
>engineers
>etc.).
>doctor."
>lawyers
>consider
>meeting,
And what is so disgusting about Microsoft using this same term, is
that this is the SAME company that was forced to change the official
job title of their own employees to remove the word "engineer" after
various state boards got on their case. I should know, I was one of
the people who were affected at the time.
So basically, MS is just being an XXX-kiss (to anyone certified) by
continuing to use that word when they know it is wrong to do so.
[color=blue]
>group
>
>I don't particularly like it either. I prefer technician.
>
--Bernie
| |
| beekay 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| Just curious - does a BA mean you are a bachelor? Or an artist? And can
you be an unmarried portrait painter without a BA? Really, this is just for
laughs, not an attack.
bruce kimball from louisville
==============================
===========
"Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3flsb0libhh1bt6tu128la8rb
gfj65ve1k@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:43:50 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>
you[color=blue]
engineer[color=blue]
as[color=blue]
>
> No, I don't think so. Once you get the title through a tough
> educational circumstance, you have that title. I have a hard-earned
> electronics engineering technology diploma on my wall, and worked for
> many years in the field of electronics. I no longer work in that
> field. I am still an electronics engineering technologist, in name,
> because I earned the title through education and years in the field.
> If the body who granted me the diploma put a time limit on it, then
> that's fine, but they haven't. If an employer decides to base their
> opinions on current employment, time frame, etc., that's fine too, but
> they might get a surprise if they tested my knowledge base.
>
> I also have a BA in music, and no longer perform due to
> medical/physical problems. I still believe my BA is valid, and I
> suspect the university that granted my degree does also. Again, the
> yada-yada-yada clause applies. :-)
>
> Tom
| |
|
|
"beekay" <workspacetech_nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c9q7m3$8cr@library2.airnews.net...
> Just curious - does a BA mean you are a bachelor? Or an artist? And can
> you be an unmarried portrait painter without a BA? Really, this is just
for
> laughs, not an attack.
>
> bruce kimball from louisville
BA means Bachelor of Arts. BS means Bachelor of Science and other things we
won't go into unless you just must.
I have a BME which stands for Bachelor of Music Education.
AG
>
> ==============================
===========
>
> "Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3flsb0libhh1bt6tu128la8rb
gfj65ve1k@4ax.com...
who[color=blue]
then[color=blue]
> you
> engineer
you[color=blue]
> as
>
>
| |
| TechGeekPro 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| Just a thought: What about Sanitation Engineers?
--
I may not be completely certified, but I am completely certifiable.
"Harsha Raghavan" <harsharaghavan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9f541738.0406020654.b562eb5@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to understand the various certifications for engineers.
> This does not include software engineering - there are a ton of
> websites for that! What I'm not able to find out are the various
> certifications for engineers. Can someone help me with either
> information or websites? I'm looking to also learn the number of
> engineers who're certified and who took what certification exams! All
> that good stuff !! Thank you!
| |
| Tom MacIntyre 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:56:07 -0400, "TechGeekPro"
<%username%@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Ticking Timebomb" <ticking.timebomb@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:c9%vc.79611$nQ7.15921@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
[color=blue]
>meeting,
>group
>
>I don't particularly like it either. I prefer technician.
>
Cisco uses "Expert", right? That would/could be appropriate for the MS
certification also.
Tom
| |
| TechGeekPro 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| "Tom MacIntyre" <tom__macintyre@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fak1c01imbi38a1tul1sa83h3
jhhn3s908@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 09:56:07 -0400, "TechGeekPro"
> <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
cringe[color=blue]
call[color=blue]
I[color=blue]
>
> Cisco uses "Expert", right? That would/could be appropriate for the MS
> certification also.
>
> Tom
It would if it didn't already stand for engineer. They really should change
it though.
| |
| J. Q. Etuo, MCSE/CCNA/A+ 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| Aren't housewives now "Domestic Engineers" ?
=============
"TechGeekPro" <%username%@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:QdadnbsnX509KV3d4p2dnA@ad
elphia.com...
> Just a thought: What about Sanitation Engineers?
>
> --
> I may not be completely certified, but I am completely certifiable.
>
> "Harsha Raghavan" <harsharaghavan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9f541738.0406020654.b562eb5@posting.google.com...
>
>
| |
| Hansang Bae 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| In article <c9%vc.79611$nQ7.15921@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>,
ticking.timebomb@sbcglobal.net says...
> Ya I know I am a stick in the mud, but just because MS is insulting a group
> of professionals by cheapening the word, does not mean I will also.
Like how chiropractors call themselves Doctors?
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Hansang Bae 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| In article <xMednQOpEaJadV3dRVn-vw@adelphia.com>, %username%@yahoo.com
says...
> It would if it didn't already stand for engineer. They really should change
> it though.
The E in CCIE stands for Expert.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news4vsb01hksed3oat9ocoqm434
n59p9gf69@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 21:43:50 GMT, "AT" <torgny@@direcway.com> wrote:
>
you[color=blue]
>
> Correction. Today it is a job title and a professional degree which
> also has governmental controls (e.g. state board certification etc.).
> It used to only be the latter. The title engineer has been so
> cheapened by cheesy jobs and lame vendor certifications that adopted
> that title to grant an automatic (and cheaply bought I might add)
> elevation in status.
>
> So ten years from now when "engineer" no longer carries even the
> pitiful status it retains has today, are we going work the word
> "doctor" into our titles to get a further cheaply bought elevation?
> I'm a "network doctor" (not an MD).... scratch that, I'm a "senior
> network doctor." Oops now that everyone is calling themselves a
> senior network doctor, I am now a "level three senior network doctor."
>
> Maybe after that we will start calling ourselves scientists or lawyers
> etc.
>
> See how ridiculous that is? It is a slippery slope when you start
> cheapening titles that used to mean something.
>
as[color=blue]
>
> But what does it matter what you consider someone if the state board
> considers someone a civil engineer, electrical engineer, etc?
>
>
> Yes it is! That was partly my point.
>
> --Bernie
Oh, and the CCIE is a "cheesy" cert right? Those guys aren't real engineers,
right? Whats your CCIE number Bernie? It's so easy and cheesy to get, you
must have gotten one as they ARE valuable.
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:20:59 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news4vsb01hksed3oat9ocoqm434
n59p9gf69@4ax.com...
>you
>as
>
>Oh, and the CCIE is a "cheesy" cert right?
E stands for Expert in case you weren't aware, lol.
>Those guys aren't real engineers,
No they aren't. I'll leave it to you to try to make the case that
they are.
>right? Whats your CCIE number Bernie? It's so easy and cheesy to get, you
>must have gotten one as they ARE valuable.
See above.
--Bernie
| |
| Hansang Bae 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| In article <v8Kwc.50987$oi5.9682@fed1read07>, no@no.com says...
> Oh, and the CCIE is a "cheesy" cert right? Those guys aren't real engineers,
> right?
No they are not. I'm a CCIE and I have an engineering background. I
took the EIT but never pursued the PE route. EIT is the first pre-req
to becoming a PE. You learn far more fundamental topics in college that
a lot of CCIEs never even dream about let alone know. Having said that,
I can't remember the last time I had to draw up a K-map, solve a
Fourier/Laplace transform, or even solve a differential equation. The
closest I ever came to using my math background was estimating the
amount of dirt required to make a ramp while serving in the Army. My
troops thought was it pretty neat trick. Of course, it was freshmen
(high school) geometry only.
> Whats your CCIE number Bernie? It's so easy and cheesy to get, you
> must have gotten one as they ARE valuable.
Not as valuable as you might think. At one point, they were QUITE
valuable. But I speak from experience. In the last year, I helped
interview over 50+ people for 10 positions. 4 in network engineering
(ironic, no?) and the rest in Ops. CCIE certification was never a
factor. It was the people who could pass the interview that got the
jobs.
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Linker3000 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
|
> I also have a BA in music
Strangely enough, that was the main qualification of one of the best
electronic engineers I've ever encountered.
L3K
TEng, MIElecIE (both lapsed 'cos I don't pay the subs!)
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:j367c0lhpbel5koh5ugbur77o
8i56vrjpc@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:20:59 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
by[color=blue]
who[color=blue]
people[color=blue]
then[color=blue]
you[color=blue]
>
> E stands for Expert in case you weren't aware, lol.
>
>
> No they aren't. I'll leave it to you to try to make the case that
> they are.
>
>
> See above.
>
> --Bernie
Please enlighten me on the proper terminology then, Bernie, to replace the
"engineering" in network engineering. If a client wants me to engineer a
solution for them...shall I say I will tech it for them? Please see the
definition of engineer in the dictionary. It does not say "requires an
undegraduate degree in an engineering discipline and state certification as
such". An undergrad in engineering in no way makes you superior to someone
else doing the same job, albeit possibly better, who doesn't have a degree.
Network Engineer and Systems Engineer ( not talking about "MCSE" ) are valid
titles for people in IT who perform roles they specify, JUST AS MUCH as an
EE designing ASIC's. Getting a 4 year degree requires no talent nor large
amount of intelligence. It requires patience and funding. I have a friend
who graudated high school with a 2.6 GPA, got 990 on his SAT, and graduated
college with a BSEE. I am NOT downplaying the good EE's out there, I am just
saying an engineering degree doesn't hold any more water than an IT
certification. The person needs to be put on the job to make the real
judgement.
| |
|
|
"Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b2d92fca44a2fc7989cdf@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> In article <v8Kwc.50987$oi5.9682@fed1read07>, no@no.com says...
engineers,[color=blue]
>
> No they are not. I'm a CCIE and I have an engineering background. I
> took the EIT but never pursued the PE route. EIT is the first pre-req
> to becoming a PE. You learn far more fundamental topics in college that
> a lot of CCIEs never even dream about let alone know. Having said that,
> I can't remember the last time I had to draw up a K-map, solve a
> Fourier/Laplace transform, or even solve a differential equation. The
> closest I ever came to using my math background was estimating the
> amount of dirt required to make a ramp while serving in the Army. My
> troops thought was it pretty neat trick. Of course, it was freshmen
> (high school) geometry only.
>
>
>
> Not as valuable as you might think. At one point, they were QUITE
> valuable. But I speak from experience. In the last year, I helped
> interview over 50+ people for 10 positions. 4 in network engineering
> (ironic, no?) and the rest in Ops. CCIE certification was never a
> factor. It was the people who could pass the interview that got the
> jobs.
>
> --
>
> hsb
>
> "Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
> *************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
> ******************************
******************************
********
> Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
> reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
> ******************************
******************************
********
I suppose it depends on who you work for. I work for a consulting firm that
bills $350/hour for high end Cisco work. We are booked 50 hours a week per
ENGINEER. Sorry, not going to call our senior guys techs. I call people who
fix Windows desktops techs. Now, in an interview, if a CCIE resume hits my
desk, I can be pretty damn sure they are qualified to do our work. A BSCS,
BSEE? How the hell would I know WHAT they are good at? These are IT
newsgroups, so how this stuff relates to IT *is* important. I will call the
CCIE's before the EE's. They also keep us Gold certified.
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:j367c0lhpbel5koh5ugbur77o
8i56vrjpc@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:20:59 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
by[color=blue]
who[color=blue]
people[color=blue]
then[color=blue]
you[color=blue]
>
> E stands for Expert in case you weren't aware, lol.
>
>
> No they aren't. I'll leave it to you to try to make the case that
> they are.
>
>
> See above.
>
> --Bernie
My main point is:
If you do the job, you get the title.
Take John Carmack for example. He is the found and lead programmer for iD
software. ( Doom, Quake, etc ). He writes the 3D engines HIMSELF, and has no
degree. He is arguably the best programmer in the world in his field. Can he
not call himself a software engineer? Since he has no degree? Is he a
software tech, even though he puts all others in field with degrees to
shame? He is alos building a real rocket right now, competing for that 10
million dollar prize. I guess he can't call himself a rocket scientest
either, even though his self learned skills in the field make him just as
trained as one. Not everyone requires a professor.
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:24:25 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:j367c0lhpbel5koh5ugbur77o
8i56vrjpc@4ax.com...
>by
>who
>people
>then
>you
>
>Please enlighten me on the proper terminology then, Bernie, to replace the
>"engineering" in network engineering.
First off, you are obviously punting on the previous issue where you
demonstrated an inability to read a simple sentence. I bashed the
simple certifications that use the term engineer, and unless you are
going to say that MCSE or CNE are on the level of PE, you have to
punt. So lets not forget that you are now changing the point of
contention to something else.
On this present point, there are plenty of alternative verbs to use.
I suggest you consult a thesaurus to answer your question. Words like
design or architect (if you want to alternatively disparage another
profession) would easily fit. The simple fact is that the profession
of engineering was in the past reserved to those PEs and regulated by
state boards. Only recently did this term get borrowed by so many
other fields to grant elevated status to those jobs. You would seem
to imply that because you lack enough command of the English language
to come up with a suitable synonym that we must therefore just use
"engineer." Lack of imagination is not a valid justification.
>If a client wants me to engineer a
>solution for them...shall I say I will tech it for them?
I will resist pointing out your lack of ability to come up with other
synonyms... Ok, perhaps not, the temptation was too great ;-)
As an aside, I remember a stoner friend of mine (from way back) once
stating (in his best stoner voice) that our founding fathers didn't
intend a bicameral system (in reference to the two political party
system we have today). Now he misused the term obviously. Does that
mean that we should change the definition of bicameral to now include
references to a dual political party system as well as dual
legislative chambers? No. Misuse of a word does not legitimize the
misuse. You are arguing with circular arguments and thus they are
dismissed. If a client ask you to "engineer" something for him,
perhaps it is because you first misled him into thinking you were
going to actually do some engineering. Or perhaps he has been fooled
by our job titles. But nonetheless it is not legitimized by such a
request.
>Please see the
>definition of engineer in the dictionary.
The definition of an engineer is thus (skipping the obvious non
applicable definitions):
3 a : a designer or builder of engines b : a person who is trained in
or follows as a profession a branch of engineering c : a person who
carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance
I will leave it to you to try to argue that systems/network
engineering is a valid "branch of engineering", or that certifications
include engineering training in such a branch. For example you can't
find any of the ones you list on Pennsylvania's (e.g.) list of
engineering branches:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/0...r37/s37.34.html
And to further this point, the US Dept. of Labor states this about
Engineers:
"Engineers apply the theories and principles of science and
mathematics to research and develop economical solutions to technical
problems.....Engineers design products, machinery to build those
products, plants in which those products are made, and the systems
that ensure the quality of the products and the efficiency of the
workforce and manufacturing process....."
Now in case you are wondering, the Department doesn't list either
network engineering or systems engineering as an engineering
occupation. So if the DoL, which tracks every occupation in the US,
doesn't recognize it as an engineering occupation, why the hell should
I buy your flimsy, and rather self aggrandizing, explanation?? Now
maybe in your backwoods, you regularly use principles of science and
mathematics to design networks and systems, but I can assure you about
99% of the people performing the same job tasks don't. They throw
gear and bigger pipes at the problem. About the only math involved is
oversubscription ratios.
>It does not say "requires an
>undegraduate degree in an engineering discipline and state certification as
>such".
It also doesn't say building a specific configuration through a
hands-on lab by the tweaking of router knobs does it? You are
actually making my case quite well. Pointing out that the term has
been watered down today in the workplace is my fundamental premise.
So proving that this is the pathetic state of our workforce today is
proving my premise.
In any case, Cisco doesn't blanketly call the CCIE "engineer", so
neither should you. That avenue of argumentation is closed to you.
Now I have never stated that people in this profession don't perform
engineering-like tasks from time to time. Never in the least.
However, I also don't call 99% of what really takes place in the class
of "network design" these days to be an "engineering" task. Most of
that is simply putting bigger pipes here and switches there and using
the generic cookie cutter criss-cross STP redundancy designs.
Throwing bigger pipes at a problem does not require skill.
Also, many of the jobs performed by people who use the title
"engineer" cannot in the least be argued to be engineering jobs. Tech
support is not engineering, yet many adopt that title. Network
installation and maintenance is not engineering, yet many adopt the
title. About the only networking job that can be argued to be
engineering is network design (see above). And not all CCIEs or other
certified individuals are network designers. Many work at Cisco doing
things like tech support in the TAC etc. [and again I will point out
that E is Expert not engineer anyway]
>An undergrad in engineering in no way makes you superior to someone
>else doing the same job, albeit possibly better, who doesn't have a degree.
Why would you assume that because I hold this position that I am
degreed in engineering? I am not I assure you, but that doesn't mean
I cannot be against stealing job titles from other professions to
imply things about my profession that are not true (like the amount of
science and math involved in designing networks).
>Network Engineer and Systems Engineer ( not talking about "MCSE" ) are valid
>titles for people in IT who perform roles they specify, JUST AS MUCH as an
>EE designing ASIC's.
It CAN be. However, if you are seriously equating providing tech
support (one job that typically uses these titles as an example) to
being a PE, then I feel sorry for you for your ignorance. If the
person is truly engineering, then I wouldn't have as big a problem.
But even in the design positions that you would probably use as an
example, 99% of the time there is no real engineering involved.
Throwing bigger fatter pipes at a congestion problem is not
engineering. Throwing up more APs in a building to scale the WLAN is
not engineering. That is simply throwing money and capacity at a
problem and praying it doesn't need more or less. As an example, I
could probably "engineer" a highway if I wanted to. Not understanding
the physics behind it, I'd probably just say to pour the concrete ten
feet thick and put in masses of rebarb. Sure throwing enough
substance at a problem *looks* like I am engineering it, but no that
isn't really engineering.
And if you will refer back to the definition of engineering, it
necessarily requires that subtle skill or craft be involved. Putting
in as big a pipes as your budget will afford is not exactly subtle
skill or craft. Selling as big a pipes as the customers budget will
afford is not subtle skill or craft. Calculating the backbone needs of
a carrier class ATM WAN provider through application of statistics
would be something that would be engineered.
I just cannot imagine in what little ignorant world it can be argued
that most of these tech jobs can be compared to designing an airport
to withstand earthquakes, tornados, and other natural forces.
>Getting a 4 year degree requires no talent nor large
>amount of intelligence. It requires patience and funding. I have a friend
>who graudated high school with a 2.6 GPA, got 990 on his SAT, and graduated
>college with a BSEE.
Which is why PEs are regulated by a state board as an additional
quality control. I am assuming you wouldn't want to work in a
building designed by your friend would you? I wouldn't.
>I am NOT downplaying the good EE's out there, I am just
>saying an engineering degree doesn't hold any more water than an IT
>certification.
Now really. Is that a blanket statement about all or just certain
certifications? I don't want to misunderstand you, so before I laugh
at the proposition of MCSE being equivalent to a four year degree and
state board certification, I will give you a chance to retract this
patently ridiculous statement and/or modify it to something a little
more defensible.
>The person needs to be put on the job to make the real
>judgement.
That is about the only thing I agree with. And if you will make that
statement, then why the hell are you debating about the merits of
certifications, particularly the ones that use "engineer" in their
title??????
--Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:54:00 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:j367c0lhpbel5koh5ugbur77o
8i56vrjpc@4ax.com...
>by
>who
>people
>then
>you
>
>My main point is:
>
>If you do the job, you get the title.
>
>Take John Carmack for example. He is the found and lead programmer for iD
>software. ( Doom, Quake, etc ). He writes the 3D engines HIMSELF, and has no
>degree. He is arguably the best programmer in the world in his field. Can he
>not call himself a software engineer?
That isn't the question at hand. The question at hand is whether
every other hack on the planet can argue himself to be a software
engineer simply because one person such as John Carmack can argue
himself to be one.
I never suggested that only people with degrees could be called
engineers. But I disagree with the vast majority of usage of the term
engineer in our profession, and so does any official resource on the
topic of jobs and occupations....
>Since he has no degree? Is he a
>software tech, even though he puts all others in field with degrees to
>shame? He is alos building a real rocket right now, competing for that 10
>million dollar prize. I guess he can't call himself a rocket scientest
>either, even though his self learned skills in the field make him just as
>trained as one. Not everyone requires a professor.
So if I build an hobby rocket, then I am a rocket scientist too,
right? If I put a tank of highly flammable material on top of a cone
shaped protrusion and light it, I am a rocket scientist, right? Not
all who build rockets are rocket scientists. Some may be. Some
without degrees may be as well. But anyone who simply takes on the
title is not. Even if my boss gives me that title, I may still not be
a rocket scientist.
--Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:34:13 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>"Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1b2d92fca44a2fc7989cdf@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
>engineers,
>
>
>I suppose it depends on who you work for. I work for a consulting firm that
>bills $350/hour for high end Cisco work. We are booked 50 hours a week per
>ENGINEER. Sorry, not going to call our senior guys techs.
Yes for obviously business reasons.... That is also a proof for my
point. It is to artificially jack up the status of the job being
performed that the term "Engineer" has been adopted. You know that
"tech" wouldn't sell as well. So don't use that example as a
justification when the real reason is quite obviously a business one,
not because the term "engineer" really fits the description.
>I call people who
>fix Windows desktops techs. Now, in an interview, if a CCIE resume hits my
>desk, I can be pretty damn sure they are qualified to do our work. A BSCS,
>BSEE? How the hell would I know WHAT they are good at?
You just proved my point. If you don't know how a real engineer would
be good at the job you want to fill, then perhaps the job you want to
fill is not really an engineering job.
>These are IT
>newsgroups, so how this stuff relates to IT *is* important. I will call the
>CCIE's before the EE's. They also keep us Gold certified.
That is great. It is also totally irrelevant to the core of the
discussion. You want Cisco Experts, but not the engineers. But
somehow in that twisted world you live in, that therefore makes the
Cisco Experts into engineers. Bizarre....
--Bernie
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:5pl7c013pguuudfsoifq82oeo
fev54rp39@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:24:25 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
(who[color=blue]
certified[color=blue]
engineers[color=blue]
etc.).[color=blue]
doctor."[color=blue]
lawyers[color=blue]
consider[color=blue]
you[color=blue]
the[color=blue]
>
> First off, you are obviously punting on the previous issue where you
> demonstrated an inability to read a simple sentence. I bashed the
> simple certifications that use the term engineer, and unless you are
> going to say that MCSE or CNE are on the level of PE, you have to
> punt. So lets not forget that you are now changing the point of
> contention to something else.
>
> On this present point, there are plenty of alternative verbs to use.
> I suggest you consult a thesaurus to answer your question. Words like
> design or architect (if you want to alternatively disparage another
> profession) would easily fit. The simple fact is that the profession
> of engineering was in the past reserved to those PEs and regulated by
> state boards. Only recently did this term get borrowed by so many
> other fields to grant elevated status to those jobs. You would seem
> to imply that because you lack enough command of the English language
> to come up with a suitable synonym that we must therefore just use
> "engineer." Lack of imagination is not a valid justification.
>
>
> I will resist pointing out your lack of ability to come up with other
> synonyms... Ok, perhaps not, the temptation was too great ;-)
>
> As an aside, I remember a stoner friend of mine (from way back) once
> stating (in his best stoner voice) that our founding fathers didn't
> intend a bicameral system (in reference to the two political party
> system we have today). Now he misused the term obviously. Does that
> mean that we should change the definition of bicameral to now include
> references to a dual political party system as well as dual
> legislative chambers? No. Misuse of a word does not legitimize the
> misuse. You are arguing with circular arguments and thus they are
> dismissed. If a client ask you to "engineer" something for him,
> perhaps it is because you first misled him into thinking you were
> going to actually do some engineering. Or perhaps he has been fooled
> by our job titles. But nonetheless it is not legitimized by such a
> request.
>
>
> The definition of an engineer is thus (skipping the obvious non
> applicable definitions):
> 3 a : a designer or builder of engines b : a person who is trained in
> or follows as a profession a branch of engineering c : a person who
> carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance
>
> I will leave it to you to try to argue that systems/network
> engineering is a valid "branch of engineering", or that certifications
> include engineering training in such a branch. For example you can't
> find any of the ones you list on Pennsylvania's (e.g.) list of
> engineering branches:
> http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/0...r37/s37.34.html
>
> And to further this point, the US Dept. of Labor states this about
> Engineers:
> "Engineers apply the theories and principles of science and
> mathematics to research and develop economical solutions to technical
> problems.....Engineers design products, machinery to build those
> products, plants in which those products are made, and the systems
> that ensure the quality of the products and the efficiency of the
> workforce and manufacturing process....."
>
> Now in case you are wondering, the Department doesn't list either
> network engineering or systems engineering as an engineering
> occupation. So if the DoL, which tracks every occupation in the US,
> doesn't recognize it as an engineering occupation, why the hell should
> I buy your flimsy, and rather self aggrandizing, explanation?? Now
> maybe in your backwoods, you regularly use principles of science and
> mathematics to design networks and systems, but I can assure you about
> 99% of the people performing the same job tasks don't. They throw
> gear and bigger pipes at the problem. About the only math involved is
> oversubscription ratios.
>
as[color=blue]
>
> It also doesn't say building a specific configuration through a
> hands-on lab by the tweaking of router knobs does it? You are
> actually making my case quite well. Pointing out that the term has
> been watered down today in the workplace is my fundamental premise.
> So proving that this is the pathetic state of our workforce today is
> proving my premise.
>
> In any case, Cisco doesn't blanketly call the CCIE "engineer", so
> neither should you. That avenue of argumentation is closed to you.
> Now I have never stated that people in this profession don't perform
> engineering-like tasks from time to time. Never in the least.
> However, I also don't call 99% of what really takes place in the class
> of "network design" these days to be an "engineering" task. Most of
> that is simply putting bigger pipes here and switches there and using
> the generic cookie cutter criss-cross STP redundancy designs.
> Throwing bigger pipes at a problem does not require skill.
>
> Also, many of the jobs performed by people who use the title
> "engineer" cannot in the least be argued to be engineering jobs. Tech
> support is not engineering, yet many adopt that title. Network
> installation and maintenance is not engineering, yet many adopt the
> title. About the only networking job that can be argued to be
> engineering is network design (see above). And not all CCIEs or other
> certified individuals are network designers. Many work at Cisco doing
> things like tech support in the TAC etc. [and again I will point out
> that E is Expert not engineer anyway]
>
degree.[color=blue]
>
> Why would you assume that because I hold this position that I am
> degreed in engineering? I am not I assure you, but that doesn't mean
> I cannot be against stealing job titles from other professions to
> imply things about my profession that are not true (like the amount of
> science and math involved in designing networks).
>
valid[color=blue]
an[color=blue]
>
> It CAN be. However, if you are seriously equating providing tech
> support (one job that typically uses these titles as an example) to
> being a PE, then I feel sorry for you for your ignorance. If the
> person is truly engineering, then I wouldn't have as big a problem.
> But even in the design positions that you would probably use as an
> example, 99% of the time there is no real engineering involved.
> Throwing bigger fatter pipes at a congestion problem is not
> engineering. Throwing up more APs in a building to scale the WLAN is
> not engineering. That is simply throwing money and capacity at a
> problem and praying it doesn't need more or less. As an example, I
> could probably "engineer" a highway if I wanted to. Not understanding
> the physics behind it, I'd probably just say to pour the concrete ten
> feet thick and put in masses of rebarb. Sure throwing enough
> substance at a problem *looks* like I am engineering it, but no that
> isn't really engineering.
>
> And if you will refer back to the definition of engineering, it
> necessarily requires that subtle skill or craft be involved. Putting
> in as big a pipes as your budget will afford is not exactly subtle
> skill or craft. Selling as big a pipes as the customers budget will
> afford is not subtle skill or craft. Calculating the backbone needs of
> a carrier class ATM WAN provider through application of statistics
> would be something that would be engineered.
>
> I just cannot imagine in what little ignorant world it can be argued
> that most of these tech jobs can be compared to designing an airport
> to withstand earthquakes, tornados, and other natural forces.
>
graduated[color=blue]
>
> Which is why PEs are regulated by a state board as an additional
> quality control. I am assuming you wouldn't want to work in a
> building designed by your friend would you? I wouldn't.
>
>
> Now really. Is that a blanket statement about all or just certain
> certifications? I don't want to misunderstand you, so before I laugh
> at the proposition of MCSE being equivalent to a four year degree and
> state board certification, I will give you a chance to retract this
> patently ridiculous statement and/or modify it to something a little
> more defensible.
>
>
> That is about the only thing I agree with. And if you will make that
> statement, then why the hell are you debating about the merits of
> certifications, particularly the ones that use "engineer" in their
> title??????
>
> --Bernie
Due to the fact you had to make personal swipes throughout your "argument",
I find you to be a child, and not worth any further conversation. Educated
adults don't need to take that route. Thanks for showing your true colors.
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:5pl7c013pguuudfsoifq82oeo
fev54rp39@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:24:25 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
(who[color=blue]
certified[color=blue]
engineers[color=blue]
etc.).[color=blue]
doctor."[color=blue]
lawyers[color=blue]
consider[color=blue]
you[color=blue]
the[color=blue]
>
> First off, you are obviously punting on the previous issue where you
> demonstrated an inability to read a simple sentence. I bashed the
> simple certifications that use the term engineer, and unless you are
> going to say that MCSE or CNE are on the level of PE, you have to
> punt. So lets not forget that you are now changing the point of
> contention to something else.
>
> On this present point, there are plenty of alternative verbs to use.
> I suggest you consult a thesaurus to answer your question. Words like
> design or architect (if you want to alternatively disparage another
> profession) would easily fit. The simple fact is that the profession
> of engineering was in the past reserved to those PEs and regulated by
> state boards. Only recently did this term get borrowed by so many
> other fields to grant elevated status to those jobs. You would seem
> to imply that because you lack enough command of the English language
> to come up with a suitable synonym that we must therefore just use
> "engineer." Lack of imagination is not a valid justification.
>
>
> I will resist pointing out your lack of ability to come up with other
> synonyms... Ok, perhaps not, the temptation was too great ;-)
>
> As an aside, I remember a stoner friend of mine (from way back) once
> stating (in his best stoner voice) that our founding fathers didn't
> intend a bicameral system (in reference to the two political party
> system we have today). Now he misused the term obviously. Does that
> mean that we should change the definition of bicameral to now include
> references to a dual political party system as well as dual
> legislative chambers? No. Misuse of a word does not legitimize the
> misuse. You are arguing with circular arguments and thus they are
> dismissed. If a client ask you to "engineer" something for him,
> perhaps it is because you first misled him into thinking you were
> going to actually do some engineering. Or perhaps he has been fooled
> by our job titles. But nonetheless it is not legitimized by such a
> request.
>
>
> The definition of an engineer is thus (skipping the obvious non
> applicable definitions):
> 3 a : a designer or builder of engines b : a person who is trained in
> or follows as a profession a branch of engineering c : a person who
> carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance
>
> I will leave it to you to try to argue that systems/network
> engineering is a valid "branch of engineering", or that certifications
> include engineering training in such a branch. For example you can't
> find any of the ones you list on Pennsylvania's (e.g.) list of
> engineering branches:
> http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/0...r37/s37.34.html
>
> And to further this point, the US Dept. of Labor states this about
> Engineers:
> "Engineers apply the theories and principles of science and
> mathematics to research and develop economical solutions to technical
> problems.....Engineers design products, machinery to build those
> products, plants in which those products are made, and the systems
> that ensure the quality of the products and the efficiency of the
> workforce and manufacturing process....."
>
> Now in case you are wondering, the Department doesn't list either
> network engineering or systems engineering as an engineering
> occupation. So if the DoL, which tracks every occupation in the US,
> doesn't recognize it as an engineering occupation, why the hell should
> I buy your flimsy, and rather self aggrandizing, explanation?? Now
> maybe in your backwoods, you regularly use principles of science and
> mathematics to design networks and systems, but I can assure you about
> 99% of the people performing the same job tasks don't. They throw
> gear and bigger pipes at the problem. About the only math involved is
> oversubscription ratios.
>
as[color=blue]
>
> It also doesn't say building a specific configuration through a
> hands-on lab by the tweaking of router knobs does it? You are
> actually making my case quite well. Pointing out that the term has
> been watered down today in the workplace is my fundamental premise.
> So proving that this is the pathetic state of our workforce today is
> proving my premise.
>
> In any case, Cisco doesn't blanketly call the CCIE "engineer", so
> neither should you. That avenue of argumentation is closed to you.
> Now I have never stated that people in this profession don't perform
> engineering-like tasks from time to time. Never in the least.
> However, I also don't call 99% of what really takes place in the class
> of "network design" these days to be an "engineering" task. Most of
> that is simply putting bigger pipes here and switches there and using
> the generic cookie cutter criss-cross STP redundancy designs.
> Throwing bigger pipes at a problem does not require skill.
>
> Also, many of the jobs performed by people who use the title
> "engineer" cannot in the least be argued to be engineering jobs. Tech
> support is not engineering, yet many adopt that title. Network
> installation and maintenance is not engineering, yet many adopt the
> title. About the only networking job that can be argued to be
> engineering is network design (see above). And not all CCIEs or other
> certified individuals are network designers. Many work at Cisco doing
> things like tech support in the TAC etc. [and again I will point out
> that E is Expert not engineer anyway]
>
degree.[color=blue]
>
> Why would you assume that because I hold this position that I am
> degreed in engineering? I am not I assure you, but that doesn't mean
> I cannot be against stealing job titles from other professions to
> imply things about my profession that are not true (like the amount of
> science and math involved in designing networks).
>
valid[color=blue]
an[color=blue]
>
> It CAN be. However, if you are seriously equating providing tech
> support (one job that typically uses these titles as an example) to
> being a PE, then I feel sorry for you for your ignorance. If the
> person is truly engineering, then I wouldn't have as big a problem.
> But even in the design positions that you would probably use as an
> example, 99% of the time there is no real engineering involved.
> Throwing bigger fatter pipes at a congestion problem is not
> engineering. Throwing up more APs in a building to scale the WLAN is
> not engineering. That is simply throwing money and capacity at a
> problem and praying it doesn't need more or less. As an example, I
> could probably "engineer" a highway if I wanted to. Not understanding
> the physics behind it, I'd probably just say to pour the concrete ten
> feet thick and put in masses of rebarb. Sure throwing enough
> substance at a problem *looks* like I am engineering it, but no that
> isn't really engineering.
>
> And if you will refer back to the definition of engineering, it
> necessarily requires that subtle skill or craft be involved. Putting
> in as big a pipes as your budget will afford is not exactly subtle
> skill or craft. Selling as big a pipes as the customers budget will
> afford is not subtle skill or craft. Calculating the backbone needs of
> a carrier class ATM WAN provider through application of statistics
> would be something that would be engineered.
>
> I just cannot imagine in what little ignorant world it can be argued
> that most of these tech jobs can be compared to designing an airport
> to withstand earthquakes, tornados, and other natural forces.
>
graduated[color=blue]
>
> Which is why PEs are regulated by a state board as an additional
> quality control. I am assuming you wouldn't want to work in a
> building designed by your friend would you? I wouldn't.
>
>
> Now really. Is that a blanket statement about all or just certain
> certifications? I don't want to misunderstand you, so before I laugh
> at the proposition of MCSE being equivalent to a four year degree and
> state board certification, I will give you a chance to retract this
> patently ridiculous statement and/or modify it to something a little
> more defensible.
>
>
> That is about the only thing I agree with. And if you will make that
> statement, then why the hell are you debating about the merits of
> certifications, particularly the ones that use "engineer" in their
> title??????
>
> --Bernie
BTW, I will continue to carry the title "Network Engineer" at my company,
and draw a great salary and benefits doing so, without a degree. I hope you
can sleep well at night knowing this
| |
| Hansang Bae 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| > On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:34:13 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
[snip][color=blue]
But this argument holds no water. It is like saying when my car breaks,
down, I'll call the mechanic before my cardiologist. Does that make
them MDs? If you want someone to work on your network, of course you
should call someone familiar with your network gear.
Which reminds me a of joke....the cardio-thorasic surgeon is watching
his mechanic work on his car. The mechanic asks him what it's like to
operate on hearts. The doctor just says "I work on valves and try to
open up clogged tubes." The mechanic says...shoot I do that everyday
too! And the doctor murmurs...."yeah, but try to do it while the engine
is running."
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
|
|
"Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b2dbac6819fb2aa989ce1@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> [snip]
the[color=blue]
>
> But this argument holds no water. It is like saying when my car breaks,
> down, I'll call the mechanic before my cardiologist. Does that make
> them MDs? If you want someone to work on your network, of course you
> should call someone familiar with your network gear.
>
>
The argument was for this quote of yours:
"Not as valuable as you might think. At one point, they were QUITE
valuable."
CCIE's are more valuable than you think. Having your CCIE and personally not
finding it as valuable does not globally make the cert less valuable. I know
you have experience HB, but your experiences are different than others. We
find the CCIE certification very valuable, and pretty rare in San Diego. (
CCIE's looking for jobs ).
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:23:36 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
If you hadn't taken the gloves off first, you'd have a point. See:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 12:20:59 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>Whats your CCIE number Bernie? It's so easy and cheesy to get, you
>must have gotten one as they ARE valuable.
And your obviously patronizing tone here:
On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:24:25 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>Please enlighten me on the proper terminology then, Bernie, ...
And for the record, I made no personal attacks. I responded to your
own tone and tenor with a similar tone and tenor. If you cant take
the heat, perhaps you should get out of the kitchen. You not being
able to come up with a valid alternative to the word "engineer" other
than "tech" is a public display of ignorance. There is no other word
for that, unless you want me to falsely substitute "brilliant point"
instead...sort of like you want to do with the word "engineer" for
other more appropriate titles. So if you want to take me pointing out
ignorance for what it is as a personal attack, then so be it.
And educated adults also don't try to prove a general point with a
single example like the Carmack one. Since your education didn't
include logic 101, I can assume that the reason for you making it
personal first was because you are uneducated (according to your
premise below).
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:5pl7c013pguuudfsoifq82oeo
fev54rp39@4ax.com...
<snip>
[color=blue]
>Due to the fact you had to make personal swipes throughout your "argument",
Huh? You are the one that first started with the patronizing, so if
you are so thin skinned that you can't handle having your ludicrous
points be called (correctly I might add) ignorant, then so be it.
>I find you to be a child,
And you the pointy haired boss...
>and not worth any further conversation.
Figures. Code for "my point was so ludicrous and indefensible that I
had to pretend to be insulted to find a way out of the discussion
while looking like I took the high road."
>Educated
>adults don't need to take that route. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Those who live in glass houses....
--Bernie
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:30:00 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:5pl7c013pguuudfsoifq82oeo
fev54rp39@4ax.com...
>(who
>certified
>engineers
>etc.).
>doctor."
>lawyers
>consider
>you
>the
>as
>degree.
>valid
>an
>graduated
>
>BTW, I will continue to carry the title "Network Engineer" at my company,
>and draw a great salary and benefits doing so, without a degree.
I am sure you will. People that have nothing to brag about usually
resort to coat-tail riding on the backs of others.
>I hope you
>can sleep well at night knowing this
I hope you can sleep well knowing I draw great salary and benefits
too, but more importantly that I am right on this issue. ;-)
[Now who is the child if you think saying you make good money is a jab
at someone else, lol. Time to come up with a better line than that if
you don't want to look like a fool.]
--Bernie
| |
| Hansang Bae 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| In article <LlSwc.54423$oi5.33715@fed1read07>, no@no.com says...
> The argument was for this quote of yours:
>
> "Not as valuable as you might think. At one point, they were QUITE
> valuable."
Ah. I see. Now it makes more sense.
> CCIE's are more valuable than you think. Having your CCIE and personally not
> finding it as valuable does not globally make the cert less valuable.
I'll agree with it. FWIW, it was the only cert that I got because I
really wanted it. When I got my CNE, not too many people were CNEs. I
got it because my company needed it. I got the CCIE because I wanted
it. So I see value in it...just not as much as people make it out to
be.
> I know
> you have experience HB, but your experiences are different than others. We
> find the CCIE certification very valuable, and pretty rare in San Diego. (
> CCIE's looking for jobs ).
But that's the point I was trying to make earlier. You find it valuable
to maintain your status with Cisco. Afterall, you too tech people out
before you hire them right?
--
hsb
"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
*************** USE ROT13 TO SEE MY EMAIL ADDRESS ****************
******************************
******************************
********
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
******************************
******************************
********
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:41:15 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>"Hansang Bae" <uonr@alp.ee.pbz> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1b2dbac6819fb2aa989ce1@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
>the
>
>The argument was for this quote of yours:
>
>"Not as valuable as you might think. At one point, they were QUITE
>valuable."
>
>CCIE's are more valuable than you think. Having your CCIE and personally not
>finding it as valuable does not globally make the cert less valuable. I know
>you have experience HB, but your experiences are different than others. We
>find the CCIE certification very valuable, and pretty rare in San Diego. (
>CCIE's looking for jobs ).
And conversely, your education should lead you to realize that your
experience does not define the value either. To the pointy haired
boss who can't discern the difference between two people claiming
skills, using a vendor cert like the CCIE becomes a valuable crutch.
But not all bosses are pointy hairs either, and even some pointy
haired bosses have been bitten by hiring a lab rat CCIE once or twice.
Hansang isn't making a point that isn't supported by every CCIE who
has come through this group. Ask Nrf, for example, how valuable the
CCIE is today compared to yesterday.
--Bernie
| |
| Patrick Michael 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
|
"ec" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:bNQwc.53044$oi5.33001@fed1read07...
>
> My main point is:
>
> If you do the job, you get the title.
>
> Take John Carmack for example. He is the found and lead programmer for iD
> software. ( Doom, Quake, etc ). He writes the 3D engines HIMSELF, and has
no
> degree. He is arguably the best programmer in the world in his field. Can
he
> not call himself a software engineer? Since he has no degree? Is he a
> software tech, even though he puts all others in field with degrees to
> shame? He is alos building a real rocket right now, competing for that 10
> million dollar prize. I guess he can't call himself a rocket scientest
> either, even though his self learned skills in the field make him just as
> trained as one. Not everyone requires a professor.
He's a computer programmer/software developer. "Software Engineering" is
one of those politically correct terms that rose out of a need to
artificially inflate the value of certain professions in the mid-90's.
There are other examples that are even more absurd, such as Custodial
Engineer (janitor), and Sanitation Engineer (garbage). Now before somebody
jumps on me, I think it's only fair to point out that I'm currently a
computer science major. I think computer science/programming is enough of a
respectable enough field that it doesn't need to be artificially inflated.
To each their own, but I will always laugh at people who needlessly attach
"engineer" to the end of their job title to try and make themselves out to
be something they're not.
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:26:09 -0500, "Patrick Michael"
<heismanpat@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"ec" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:bNQwc.53044$oi5.33001@fed1read07...
>no
>he
>
>He's a computer programmer/software developer. "Software Engineering" is
>one of those politically correct terms that rose out of a need to
>artificially inflate the value of certain professions in the mid-90's.
I disagree with you and, dare I say, agree with ec on this one small
point. Maybe that is the history of the term software engineer and
yes most programmers wrongfully adopt the title. But it is a true
title and it is warranted by many.
Consider that the Department of Labor defined Computer Software
Engineer and Computer Programmer differently. The difference is very
intuitive to most people (excepting someone like ec who seems to think
"engineer" simply means expert tech in their chosen field or something
absurd like that). Part of the DoL's description of Computer Software
Engineer is pasted below:
"Computer software engineers apply the principles and techniques of
computer science, engineering, and mathematical analysis to the
design, development, testing, and evaluation of the software and
systems that enable computers to perform their many applications.
.....Software engineers must possess strong programming skills, but are
more concerned with developing algorithms and analyzing and solving
programming problems than with actually writing code."
Programmer is described by the DoL like this:
"Computer programmers write, test, and maintain the detailed
instructions, called programs, that computers must follow to perform
their functions. .....Job titles and descriptions may vary, depending
on the organization. In this occupational statement, computer
programmer refers to individuals whose main job function is
programming; this group has a wide range of responsibilities and
educational backgrounds."
So you can easily see the difference though in some respects the
difference is subtle. As an example Koblitz and Miller are credited
with Elliptic Curve Cryptography. I don't think anyone would have a
problem terming them Software Engineers give all the above. I can
also see how Carmack would also be applying engineering to writing
software that models real environments on a computer. You really
can't do that without getting into the detailed physics principles of
optics and electromagnetic radiation, can you?
However, you are quite correct that so many who are really just
programmers are stealing the title and calling themselves software
engineers.
>There are other examples that are even more absurd, such as Custodial
>Engineer (janitor), and Sanitation Engineer (garbage). Now before somebody
>jumps on me, I think it's only fair to point out that I'm currently a
>computer science major. I think computer science/programming is enough of a
>respectable enough field that it doesn't need to be artificially inflated.
Yes it is. But as I pointed out above, Computer Software Engineering
is also a valid field that is slightly different from just plain old
programming. In fact, you can see many universities offering degrees
in software engineering.
You can't on the other hand find degree programs for Systems
Engineering or Network Engineering. Now why would that be? I
wonder.... If those jobs are science and math based *surely* there
would be need for some advanced education in science/math for those
subjects. Surely vendor certs are testing on those subject as well if
universities aren't offering the training? Oh they aren't you say?
Well, that speaks for itself then.
>To each their own, but I will always laugh at people who needlessly attach
>"engineer" to the end of their job title to try and make themselves out to
>be something they're not.
Exactly. The practice won't go away though. Ec is a tribute to the
mindset that generates this problem. As long as people are simply
trying to justify higher consultant fees, there will be people
wrongfully adopting titles they have no business adopting. Of course
such people should at least have enough honesty and integrity to admit
what they are doing when the subject comes up. Trying to justify it
posthumously with circular arguments and using examples from other
valid engineering disciplines just makes one look silly.
--Bernie
| |
| Patrick Michael 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:8g09c0969evr8o2obr8et1vhd
qjnu8nnea@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:26:09 -0500, "Patrick Michael"
>
> I disagree with you and, dare I say, agree with ec on this one small
> point. Maybe that is the history of the term software engineer and
> yes most programmers wrongfully adopt the title. But it is a true
> title and it is warranted by many.
> <snip>
Yea, I should have clarified that better. I was more or less directing my
comments toward people who refer to themselves as "software engineers", when
they're really just plain old programmers/developers. From what I
understand of software engineering, it's a subset of programming that deals
specifically with making sure programs run as efficiently and as precise as
possible. In that sense, it's definitely engineering...however, using
"software engineer" as a synonym for "computer programmer" is often a
misnomer.
Thanks for the correction.
| |
|
|
"Patrick Michael" <heismanpat@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6U1xc.5429$wS2.762@okepread03...
>
> "Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:8g09c0969evr8o2obr8et1vhd
qjnu8nnea@4ax.com...
>
> Yea, I should have clarified that better. I was more or less directing my
> comments toward people who refer to themselves as "software engineers",
when
> they're really just plain old programmers/developers. From what I
> understand of software engineering, it's a subset of programming that
deals
> specifically with making sure programs run as efficiently and as precise
as
> possible. In that sense, it's definitely engineering...however, using
> "software engineer" as a synonym for "computer programmer" is often a
> misnomer.
>
> Thanks for the correction.
>
>
>
Based on what you "understand of software engineering", John Carmack is MOST
DEFINITELY a software engineer. He is not involoved in the development or
programming of his game. He specifically creates the 3D engine ( insane
amounts of mathematics ), then makes these render 3D as efficiently and as
precisely as possible across a broad range of 3D hardware. He has no degree,
and is not registered in any state. He is, however, a software engineer.
| |
|
|
"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
news:8g09c0969evr8o2obr8et1vhd
qjnu8nnea@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 03:26:09 -0500, "Patrick Michael"
> <heismanpat@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
news:bNQwc.53044$oi5.33001@fed1read07...[color=blue]
iD[color=blue]
has[color=blue]
Can[color=blue]
10[color=blue]
as[color=blue]
>
> I disagree with you and, dare I say, agree with ec on this one small
> point. Maybe that is the history of the term software engineer and
> yes most programmers wrongfully adopt the title. But it is a true
> title and it is warranted by many.
>
> Consider that the Department of Labor defined Computer Software
> Engineer and Computer Programmer differently. The difference is very
> intuitive to most people (excepting someone like ec who seems to think
> "engineer" simply means expert tech in their chosen field or something
> absurd like that). Part of the DoL's description of Computer Software
> Engineer is pasted below:
>
> "Computer software engineers apply the principles and techniques of
> computer science, engineering, and mathematical analysis to the
> design, development, testing, and evaluation of the software and
> systems that enable computers to perform their many applications.
> ....Software engineers must possess strong programming skills, but are
> more concerned with developing algorithms and analyzing and solving
> programming problems than with actually writing code."
>
> Programmer is described by the DoL like this:
> "Computer programmers write, test, and maintain the detailed
> instructions, called programs, that computers must follow to perform
> their functions. .....Job titles and descriptions may vary, depending
> on the organization. In this occupational statement, computer
> programmer refers to individuals whose main job function is
> programming; this group has a wide range of responsibilities and
> educational backgrounds."
>
> So you can easily see the difference though in some respects the
> difference is subtle. As an example Koblitz and Miller are credited
> with Elliptic Curve Cryptography. I don't think anyone would have a
> problem terming them Software Engineers give all the above. I can
> also see how Carmack would also be applying engineering to writing
> software that models real environments on a computer. You really
> can't do that without getting into the detailed physics principles of
> optics and electromagnetic radiation, can you?
>
> However, you are quite correct that so many who are really just
> programmers are stealing the title and calling themselves software
> engineers.
>
somebody[color=blue]
of a[color=blue]
inflated.[color=blue]
>
> Yes it is. But as I pointed out above, Computer Software Engineering
> is also a valid field that is slightly different from just plain old
> programming. In fact, you can see many universities offering degrees
> in software engineering.
>
> You can't on the other hand find degree programs for Systems
> Engineering or Network Engineering. Now why would that be? I
> wonder.... If those jobs are science and math based *surely* there
> would be need for some advanced education in science/math for those
> subjects. Surely vendor certs are testing on those subject as well if
> universities aren't offering the training? Oh they aren't you say?
> Well, that speaks for itself then.
>
attach[color=blue]
to[color=blue]
>
> Exactly. The practice won't go away though. Ec is a tribute to the
> mindset that generates this problem. As long as people are simply
> trying to justify higher consultant fees, there will be people
> wrongfully adopting titles they have no business adopting. Of course
> such people should at least have enough honesty and integrity to admit
> what they are doing when the subject comes up. Trying to justify it
> posthumously with circular arguments and using examples from other
> valid engineering disciplines just makes one look silly.
>
> --Bernie
"excepting someone like ec who seems to think
"engineer" simply means expert tech in their chosen field or something
absurd like that"
Actually thats not what I think, and if you passed reading comprehension in
grade school ( gotta throw some of your jabs back at you ) you'd see very
clearly that I define an "engineer" as someone who performs tasks in a role
that meet the definition of the word itself in the dictionary. degree or no
degree is meaningless. What the person actually DOES is what makes them an
engineer. The word "engineer" and its definition came before the degree. You
mentioned law in your previous posts. I wonder if you are aware you are not
required to have a JD to take the BAR and become certified as an attorney in
any state? Becoming a lawyer actually does not require an education at all.
Granted, the average citizen, who isn't very intelligent, will definitely
need a professor to hold their hand and teach them, but that's besides the
point. There are Electrical Engineers, Software Engineers, Network
Engineers, and many other such titles out there. The field that uses the
title is what sets the conditions for what rates the title. Not you, Bernie.
| |
| Bernie 2005-07-27, 6:47 pm |
| On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:41:58 -0700, "ec" <no@no.com> wrote:
>
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news:8g09c0969evr8o2obr8et1vhd
qjnu8nnea@4ax.com...
>news:bNQwc.53044$oi5.33001@fed1read07...
>iD
>has
>Can
>10
>as
>somebody
>of a
>inflated.
>attach
>to
>
>"excepting someone like ec who seems to think
>"engineer" simply means expert tech in their chosen field or something
>absurd like that"
>
>Actually thats not what I think, and if you passed reading comprehension in
>grade school ( gotta throw some of your jabs back at you )
You might have a point if you hadn't illustrated a clear inability to
read yourself with this previous response:
>"Bernie" <Bernie@weekend.com> wrote in message
> news | | |