Engineering Boffin wrote: :: I believe that the title of Engineer should be protected. A :: 'qualification', or 'experience' does not make you an engineer. The :: title should only be awarded to those who have demonstrated :: competancies in their field against a recognised benchmark. Only then :: will the ambiguity be resolved. Although this is somewhat addressed :: in the UK by the title of 'Chartered Engineer', few people aim for :: this title as it only holds weight in certain circles. :: :: Best regards, Alan. (Working towards Chartered Engineer - view my :: profile)
Whilst I agree that specific titles such as Chartered Engineer, EurIng and MIEE should be protected and given appropriate status in society and pay in employment, I disagree that the title Engineer as generally used should, or even could, retrospectively be protected. It is a very old word, dating back to the time when all machines, inventions, contrivances, etc. were known as engines, e.g. beer engine= beer pump, difference engine= mechanical calculator and, historically, refers to both the people with the ingenuity involved in designing them, and the people responsible for operating and maintaining them. So, yes, even though I would prefer to call them Mechanics, it can even include grease-monkeys!
There are more modern and precise titles which employers can use, but then there is still great confusion. For example, depending on the employer, job, and industry, someone like me with an old IEE-accredited HND in Electrical & Electronic Engineering, could well be called almost anything, including Technical Officer, Instrument Mechanic, Engineering Technician, Electronics Technician or Technician-Engineer or Engineer, Electrician, and Service Engineer. In any of these situations, the employer would be aware of my qualifications, capabilities and limitations, and I would in no way be trying to pass myself off as a holder of any of the protected titles. Martin.