YAY Engineering Mechanics... not

[kizza01]

Just finished my engineering mechanics exam like an hour ago! Just wondering if there are any other Farkiners that are in the process of/are engineers? If so wat type? - kieran

[fastrider gus]

haha, i didnt even go to my exams... i hate uni.. i was doing mechanical engineering but im just over it. time to get a job in a bike shop!

[rowanr]

i'm doing civil engineering at swinburne. i've only got one more exam, and its on friday- gotta love mechanics of structures! its going to be pretty easy, which is good but i can wait till second year version of it... yuck

[S.]

I'm doing automotive engineering at RMIT, just finished 2nd year (assuming I passed everything). There are worse subjects around than mechanics :)

[NCR600]

I'm an engineer, my business card says so!
Don't have a degree though, don't need one!
I'm doing the same sort of work as my degree qualified brother, getting better money, which annoys him no end.

(I do have 2 trades, and a bunch of TAFE engineering qualifications though)

I didn't even get to year 12.

[toodles]

I'm an engineer, my business card says so!
Don't have a degree though, don't need one!

Ha ha same here. God knows why these people trust me... mwahahaha

[t]

i'm doing civil engineering at swinburne. i've only got one more exam, and its on friday- gotta love mechanics of structures! its going to be pretty easy, which is good but i can wait till second year version of it... yuck

That Subject sucked Ass - i lost a heap of marks coz i did the easy equations in my head and didn't show the workings.

[johnny]

(I do have 2 trades, and a bunch of TAFE engineering qualifications though).
I don't see any difference between that and a uni degree, I'd even say that you're quals are even better.

[rhyno]

I quit mechatronic engineering after 2 years and I had a scholarship that payed my HECS and my rent and left me with change, i hated it that much.
Now i'm wasting time OS figuring out what to do!

[wombat]

I don't see any difference between that and a uni degree, I'd even say that you're quals are even better.
Actually that brings up an interesting point. I've seen some engineers get a little sensitive before when people who didn't have degrees have labelled themselves as engineers, and by the looks of this (http://www.ieaust.org.au/membership/grades.html), to be a "professional engineer" you do need a degree (there's no accredited 4 year TAFE courses in it is there?). Otherwise you're an "Engineering Officer" or an "Engineering Technologist".

So since we have some engineers on here, what are people's thoughts?




NB: NCR, don't take this the wrong way, I'm definately not taking a shot at you or anyone else here (I'd love to have your experience, and I won't be an engineer myself anyway) it was just your post that jogged my memory.

[S.]

I don't see any difference between that and a uni degree, I'd even say that you're quals are even better.

With regards to the TAFE/uni engineering qualifications alone, at least *some* unis simply run the tafe course as being nearly identical to the first two years of the equivalent uni course. I know that's the case at RMIT and I *think* Swinburne too. If you've got a trade behind you too that's probably a better real-world qualification than any degree could offer you.

[shmity]

Yeah, you can do pretty much the first half of a swin eng course in their tafe, but with better facilities.

[Binaural]

I'm an engineer, did 5 the hard way at uni and very glad I did :) I studied a couple of different things, but wound up graduating in mechanical and mechatronics. Nowadays I work as a software and electrical design engineer, which just goes to show that it's the generic skills that matter. Before that, I was an acoustic engineer and designed recording studios and sound systems for the ABC, Sydney Opera house and Taronga Zoo amongst others.

With regards to the TAFE/uni engineering qualifications alone, at least *some* unis simply run the tafe course as being nearly identical to the first two years of the equivalent uni course. I know that's the case at RMIT and I *think* Swinburne too. If you've got a trade behind you too that's probably a better real-world qualification than any degree could offer you.

It's not done like that here in NSW. TAFE mechanical engineering certificates focus on practical engineering skills, rather than the heavy load of basic sciences that occupies the first two years of a university degree. This probably means their dropout rate is less, since they get a taste of the real stuff much earlier in the piece.


Actually that brings up an interesting point. I've seen some engineers get a little sensitive before when people who didn't have degrees have labelled themselves as engineers, and by the looks of this, to be a "professional engineer" you do need a degree (there's no accredited 4 year TAFE courses in it is there?). Otherwise you're an "Engineering Officer" or an "Engineering Technologist".


I have a degree, but I have absolutely no problem with people without degrees calling themselves engineers. The term "engineer" is very old, and depending on which language you think it hailed from (french, latin and old english are all candidates), it means something like "ingenious person". Engineering has been around a lot longer than degrees, and it's pretty stupid to pretend otherwise.

On whether a degree is helpful in the real world, I respectfully disagree with NCR600. I think that while a trade background is possibly more useful for practically orientated engineering tasks (maintenance, construction), the knowledge you gain from a degree is very useful when it comes to large scale engineering design work, which is what I am mainly concerned with. I've been impressed by people from both backgrounds. However, more responsible roles tend to go to those with degrees.

[NCR600]

[QUOTE=wombat]Actually that brings up an interesting point. I've seen some engineers get a little sensitive before when people who didn't have degrees have labelled themselves as engineers, and by the looks of this (http://www.ieaust.org.au/membership/grades.html), to be a "professional engineer" you do need a degree (there's no accredited 4 year TAFE courses in it is there?). Otherwise you're an "Engineering Officer" or an "Engineering Technologist".

So since we have some engineers on here, what are people's thoughts?




NB: NCR, don't take this the wrong way, I'm definately not taking a shot at you or anyone else here (I'd love to have your experience, and I won't be an engineer myself anyway) it was just your post that jogged my memory.

As far as I am aware, engine is a word that was used 100's of years ago to describe any piece of complicated machinery. The term Engineer dates back to this time, and I presume was used to describe one who works with engines.

For the IAE to dictate who can call themselves an Engineer based around a university degree is arrogant and elitist in the extreme. I've had the pleasure to work with Engineers with nearly 50 years experience in the field, who have never been to university, yet run well regarded consultancies. Their opinions on Engineers who left school in year 12 and went straight to University are not suitable for polite discussion!

With Engineering, practical experience is a MAJOR part of it, and not something you can get from a 5 year degree. I have also worked with Degree'd Engineers that have had to have very basic concepts that most 2nd or 3rd year apprentices grasp quickly explained to them in the simplest possible terms.

In short, Engineering (the mechanical side of it anyway, I can't speak for any of the other branches) is something that while not being an art, is something you have to have a 'feel' (for want of a better word) for, and that takes time to develop. It can't be taught at university, and only develops through years of actually doing stuff, then refining the process.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm just a Toolmaker/Fitter Machinist, but if a company wants to pay me Engineer money, and give it to me in a pay slip that says "Engineer' on it, I'll call myself an Engineer. I don't really consider that I have enough experiece yet, but I probably won't until they drag me off to the alzheimer's ward at the nursing home.

Not everyone should be able to call themselves an Engineer, but if a man with no degree can do the same job, for the same money under the same conditions as a man who has the degree, as far as I'm concerned, he has every right to call himself an Engineer (I'm not talking about myself, rather the guy I mentioned earlier with 50 years experience)

My 10c worth anyway.

[NCR600]

TAFE mechanical engineering certificates focus on practical engineering skills, rather than the heavy load of basic sciences that occupies the first two years of a university degree. This probably means their dropout rate is less, since they get a taste of the real stuff much earlier in the piece.

I'd disagree with this. I dropped out of the Adanced Diploma with 1 unit left to complete, because the teachers are mostly (not all of them) frustrated would be university lecturers. It's a long story, but basically 1 teacher in particular decided that there were 4 people in a class of 11 that were capable of passing (in her opinion) and no-one but them would get any of her valuable time. These were all kids straight from school. I let myself get talked out of making an official complaint by the Head Teacher. I should have done it, because there were a few other teachers there that loved the heavy mathematics, but when questioned, struggled to tell you where it could be practically applied. Their sort of elitism is the worst, because they know they aren't good enough for University, but still think they are better than YOU!

There is some practical stuff, but it's of a pretty shallow nature.




On whether a degree is helpful in the real world, I respectfully disagree with NCR600. I think that while a trade background is possibly more useful for practically orientated engineering tasks (maintenance, construction), the knowledge you gain from a degree is very useful when it comes to large scale engineering design work, which is what I am mainly concerned with. I've been impressed by people from both backgrounds. However, more responsible roles tend to go to those with degrees.

In my job I do deal with maintenance, but I have also dealt with high volume production, robotics, A LOT of medical device manufacturers (I never knew there were so many!)
The reason the responsible jobs go to people with degrees is because the people handing out the jobs have degrees themselves! I got my job in the reverse fashion, the guy handing out the job has an almost identical background to me, and I suspect if I ONLY had a degree 'd have never been considered for the job! It really depends on the value placed on the degree by the employer, rather than the degree itself.

[zac]

I completed the coursework for a degree in electrical and computer engineering at QUT this time last year, however there is no way that I would trust myself to actually work in this field, mainly because I don't have the hands-on experience. To be able to graduate from an engineering degree you need 12 weeks worth of industrial experience, however after applying to close to four or five hundred firms I was unable to obtain this because I didn't have enough experience - what the hell? They won't give me work excperience because I don't have enough experience (which was the stated reason for knocking back my application from at least 7/10 firms)? And people wonder why I still work at Kmart doing a job that I enjoy (nightfill for 30 hours per week, if you are interested).

To be honest, I didn't enjoy uni at all. Electrical is very theoretical and I think that out of 32 subjects, 2 were practical based (final year project) and maybe 10 had some non-theoretical relevance to a job that the students could possibly end up in. There weren't enough of the subjects that I really enjoyed (power electronics and RF stuff) as the course seems to be designed to feed bloody Telstra and Energex directly and if you wanted to work in a field other than power transmission and production or control you really needed to be in the industry already to get your desired job.

Anyway, I've had a year off and depending on what happens with work next year I'm going to investigate doing mechanical or infomech part time or have a go at an auto electronics apprenticeship so I can at least get my work experience down and get that bloody piece of paper that right now I really couldn't care less about.

[Binaural]

For the IAE to dictate who can call themselves an Engineer based around a university degree is arrogant and elitist in the extreme. I've had the pleasure to work with Engineers with nearly 50 years experience in the field, who have never been to university, yet run well regarded consultancies. Their opinions on Engineers who left school in year 12 and went straight to University are not suitable for polite discussion!


I've met a lot of engineers as well, some who run consultancies, and practically all of them think a degree is very valuable when combined with the right experience and personal characteristics.


With Engineering, practical experience is a MAJOR part of it, and not something you can get from a 5 year degree. I have also worked with Degree'd Engineers that have had to have very basic concepts that most 2nd or 3rd year apprentices grasp quickly explained to them in the simplest possible terms.


I have dealt with a lot of 2nd and 3rd year apprentices who are as dumb as a box of hammers as well :) as well as many fully qualified electricians who just don't know their stuff either because they can get by with a general understanding. Besides, at the end of a 4 year trade apprenticeship you are often only experienced at a few things as well - there's no guarantee you get anything other than the shit apprentice jobs that nobody else wants to do.


In short, Engineering (the mechanical side of it anyway, I can't speak for any of the other branches) is something that while not being an art, is something you have to have a 'feel' (for want of a better word) for, and that takes time to develop. It can't be taught at university, and only develops through years of actually doing stuff, then refining the process.


I am on the software and electrical side, but I agree with you. Provided you have the right framework to make sense of the things you learn, then engineering is often a case of learning by doing.


As far as I'm concerned, I'm just a Toolmaker/Fitter Machinist, but if a company wants to pay me Engineer money, and give it to me in a pay slip that says "Engineer' on it, I'll call myself an Engineer. I don't really consider that I have enough experiece yet, but I probably won't until they drag me off to the alzheimer's ward at the nursing home.

Not everyone should be able to call themselves an Engineer, but if a man with no degree can do the same job, for the same money under the same conditions as a man who has the degree, as far as I'm concerned, he has every right to call himself an Engineer (I'm not talking about myself, rather the guy I mentioned earlier with 50 years experience)

My 10c worth anyway.

Totally agree. If you have the skills and you do the job, then you're an engineer. I suspect a lot of the drive to define engineering as "degree only" is a game being played by professional bodies such as the IEA in order to restrict entry to the profession. This is a tactic often used by lawyers and doctors etc in order to drive up prices and conditions for their select group. Needless to say, I think this is pretty unethical!

However, I support accreditation for safety critical work such as structural design and heavy engineering of various kinds. I design some pretty large and dangerous machines, and people rightly want to know there are standards that protect them from inept or ignorant designers. Not sure how you'd prove equivalent experience or knowledge (learning on the job tends to mean you only learn things relevant to that job), but I am sure it could be done.

[Binaural]

I'd disagree with this. I dropped out of the Adanced Diploma with 1 unit left to complete, because the teachers are mostly (not all of them) frustrated would be university lecturers. It's a long story, but basically 1 teacher in particular decided that there were 4 people in a class of 11 that were capable of passing (in her opinion) and no-one but them would get any of her valuable time. These were all kids straight from school. I let myself get talked out of making an official complaint by the Head Teacher. I should have done it, because there were a few other teachers there that loved the heavy mathematics, but when questioned, struggled to tell you where it could be practically applied. Their sort of elitism is the worst, because they know they aren't good enough for University, but still think they are better than YOU!

There is some practical stuff, but it's of a pretty shallow nature.


Sounds like a shame that course didn't have a practical focus (where was it?). A few guys I know have done Tafe/short course engineeing education courses and like them for the practicality and the feeling you are doing "real engineering" rather than endless maths.

I think engineering needs both the practical and the abstract, and often they are complementary. When I am troubleshooting a problem with a motor during commissioning, I put on my practical hat and roll my sleeves up and get to it. But when I did acoustics, I gave myself headaches using advanced mathematical techniques in order to model and hence improve design methods for high end studio walls. Just because your old lecturers didn't know any advanced applications doesn't mean they don't exist :)


In my job I do deal with maintenance, but I have also dealt with high volume production, robotics, A LOT of medical device manufacturers (I never knew there were so many!)
The reason the responsible jobs go to people with degrees is because the people handing out the jobs have degrees themselves! I got my job in the reverse fashion, the guy handing out the job has an almost identical background to me, and I suspect if I ONLY had a degree 'd have never been considered for the job! It really depends on the value placed on the degree by the employer, rather than the degree itself.

I disagree :) There are several non-trivial reasons employers would prefer an engineer with a degree to one without, providing both have reasonable experience:

1. For safety-critical work you have to prove extensive competence BEFORE you are allowed to design anything. For example, strutural engineers must have proven competence before they are allowed to design anything. That competence takes a long time to develop and uses a lot of difficult maths that is simply not taught in trade courses, and probably couldn't be without a adding a lot of length to the teaching time.

2. Uni graduates get wider range of exposure to the non-technical side of engineering. Most modern courses offer provide training in communications, economic modelling, management and so on. Engineering is more than technical competency, and it really helps to have some understanding of this before you go out into the real world.

3. Who said you get no experience as a uni student? I did over a year of full-time work during my degree and worked part time for the rest (I did a sandwich course at UTS). Many other universities are now using this as a model, although a many still offer 4 years + 3 months (this is inadequate).

All this said, I am not putting shit on the education you get outside uni (nobody who knows anything about real engineering would!) but I will defend uni as a good start.

[rad rob]

as the course seems to be designed to feed bloody Telstra and Energex directly

considering how extremely small the number of students from qut (read as 1, since telstra took on 0 this year) who actually end up working for either of these companies is, i find that comment rather strange.

i guess the degree is what you make it and where you end up really comes down to yourself.

i'll agree with you on the fact that there is a severe lack of real hands on work.

[rowanr]

well, any bets that someone with a uni degree against a tafe degree, and the uni one will win. not bagging tafe at all, i would have gone if i didn't get into uni. i chose swinburne because its got strong engineering, and part of the degree is a year of industry based learning (IBL) which is, i think, the most important part of it. without IBL you'd have 5 years of theory, and no idea how to use it in the industry. there are a few subjects that strongly focus on professional engineering things, such as public talking, writing reports and looking at issues. these are good subjects as they don't focus on maths and physics for a start, are a good break from the other subjects, and have very important ideas and information on being a professional.
as for uni vs tafe... my dad is a tafe teacher (if ur at swinny lilydale or prahran look out!) and he says the uni teachers look at the tafe teachers as if they're not real academics. my old man is very smart and he loves taching. i wouldn't mind him as a lecturer because there is a passion for what he does, and i know he'd do it well. anyone noticed how passionate physics/electronics lecturers are??? its really scary

[Grip]

Without a doubt the very best "empirical" engineer I've ever met/known/worked with, is an older guy who lives down the road from me whose only qualification is 3/4 of an accounting degree 40 years ago. THE most practical man and the greatest problem solver I have ever known.

By the same token, the very best "theoretical" engineer I've ever met/known/worked with is a much younger man (in his 40s) with degrees in metallurgy, mech engineering and product design who has more info and formulae floating around in his head than I could ever hope to remember, and yet I doubt he could change a light bulb and he has been known to produce drawings of things that simply can NOT be physically made.

I know which one I want to advise me on materials and design...

And I know which one I want to actually make the thing...

[toodles]

I've worked with a real variety of engineers from around the world including Nepalese bridge builders, Saudi military ordinance engineers, Seth Efrican process engineers, swearing German mechanicals and drunk, womanising Italian electronics engineers.

Their levels of qualification range from dubious to MBE, and their experience from nil to 50 years. I find the more experienced engineers tend to come up with the more novel solutions and think "outside of the square" a bit more. However, as far as sheer brilliance goes I'm still amazed by some of the things the well educated guys can calculate, design and construct. In the end, as long as it gets the job done I'm happy.

[October26]

There is no subsitute for practical experience. At the same time there are concepts and methods that you learn through institutions that deal with things that while you might be able to figure out practically aren't always the best solution.

[toodles]

There is no subsitute for practical experience. At the same time there are concepts and methods that you learn through institutions that deal with things that while you might be able to figure out practically aren't always the best solution.

While I do think practical experience is the best teacher, it can be expensive and a bit dangerous sometimes. A healthy combintion of theory (learning from others experience/mistakes is all theory is in reality) and your own experience is the way to go IMO

[scblack]

I have an Accounting degree, and a couple of postgrad qualifications, but a degree and any other qualification is best described as a "depreciating asset".

By that I mean the older your degree is, the more useless it is. It's a means to get your foot in the door of the profession. Once you're actually working on the job, your theoretical stuff means very little. If you can't do the job, you get booted.

I don't know if thats so different in engineering than finance. I have had people work for me with degrees who did not know the most basic concepts, but also others without a degree who also knew squat.

It's not the degree, or trade or whatever you have, it's how you apply the knowledge that matters.

[MasterOfReality]

I think the term 'engineer' should apply to degree qualified people.

'Engineering associate' may be suitable for tafe qualified people.

And also there are simply some jobs you cannot get or apply for if you don't have an engineering degree. Doesn't matter how much experience you have in that field, sometimes its a statutory requirement that you have to have an engineering degree.

Whats next? A postman changing his job title to Paper Insertion Engineer?

It may be elitist? But who cares?

What if nurses started calling themselves doctors? They may perform some tasks in common with doctors, but thats about it. I draw the same similarities with engineers.

[Cave Dweller]

I have an Accounting degree, and a couple of postgrad qualifications, but a degree and any other qualification is best described as a "depreciating asset".

By that I mean the older your degree is, the more useless it is. It's a means to get your foot in the door of the profession. Once you're actually working on the job, your theoretical stuff means very little. If you can't do the job, you get booted.

I don't know if thats so different in engineering than finance. I have had people work for me with degrees who did not know the most basic concepts, but also others without a degree who also knew squat.

It's not the degree, or trade or whatever you have, it's how you apply the knowledge that matters.

This is true.

A university degree is more about training you to think in a certain way. I can't speak for other degrees, but with engineering you are taught to break a problem down into its basic components then apply fundamental laws to solve the problem. This is what you do over, and over, and over again in every subject you do. There is never a need to remeber everything you do at uni as you can always look it up in a book.

As for the whole debate about uni vs TAFE.

They are completely different in terms off the level of complexity and both train you to think in different ways. How do i know? Because before i completed my Mechanical Engineering degree i completed the 2 year full time mechanical technology advanced diploma course. I found the TAFE course very easy, uni is alot harder.

The TAFE course was alot more hands on (and more fun :) ) but it doesn't train you to think at a system level like the university degree does, more at a hands on level.

The best way to describe it is an engineering degree will help you design the best system comprising of components, the TAFE qualification will help you design the best component of part of that system.

That said, sometimes i wish i had done a trade, i love making stuff with my hands.

[October26]

Yes I agree there should be a distinction between University trained and TAFE trained Engineers. It does cause a lot of confusion here where I work.
I would also agree that formal qualifications are needed before you should call yourself an Engineer. You might be very good at what you do but a little study/formal recognition wouldnt hurt. The people I am concerned about as raised ina previous post would be people who aren't qualified calling themselves Engineers bringing everybody elses qualifications into uncertainty.

[MasterOfReality]

Yes I agree there should be a distinction between University trained and TAFE trained Engineers. It does cause a lot of confusion here where I work.
I would also agree that formal qualifications are needed before you should call yourself an Engineer. You might be very good at what you do but a little study/formal recognition wouldnt hurt. The people I am concerned about as raised ina previous post would be people who aren't qualified calling themselves Engineers bringing everybody elses qualifications into uncertainty.

When I was working for good old Pasminco in Western NSW, there was a production superintendant who had worked his way up from mill rat, miner, and shift boss. Knew the place inside out.

Obtained his 2nd Class Mine Managers ticket and was allowed to act as mine manager, for limited amounts of time.

The only reason why he was denied his 1st Class ticket was that he didn't have a BE - Mining. Sure, he knew the place inside out and done some work that the engineers did, but he had absolutely no idea on the theory of ventilation, rock mechanics, stope design etc which you use everyday when you work in a place like that.

So he had way more practical experience, more than any engineer could have, but I still would not have called him an engineer.

[October26]

When I was working for good old Pasminco in Western NSW, there was a production superintendant who had worked his way up from mill rat, miner, and shift boss. Knew the place inside out.

Obtained his 2nd Class Mine Managers ticket and was allowed to act as mine manager, for limited amounts of time.

The only reason why he was denied his 1st Class ticket was that he didn't have a BE - Mining. Sure, he knew the place inside out and done some work that the engineers did, but he had absolutely no idea on the theory of ventilation, rock mechanics, stope design etc which you use everyday when you work in a place like that.

So he had way more practical experience, more than any engineer could have, but I still would not have called him an engineer.

Yes that is an excellent example.

[NCR600]

Yes I agree there should be a distinction between University trained and TAFE trained Engineers. It does cause a lot of confusion here where I work.
I would also agree that formal qualifications are needed before you should call yourself an Engineer. You might be very good at what you do but a little study/formal recognition wouldnt hurt. The people I am concerned about as raised ina previous post would be people who aren't qualified calling themselves Engineers bringing everybody elses qualifications into uncertainty.

As far as I'm concerned if my company pays me as an Engineer, refers to me as an Engineer, and tells everyone I'm an Engineer, that makes me an Engineer.

I'd prefer to refer to myself (and I do if anyone asks) with the much more prestigious title of "Toolmaker" (if the oldest profession is prostitution, then Toolmaking would be the second oldest! Making tools is what separates us from the hairy apes, they might use tools that they find in the normal course of monkey business, but we actually make 'em)

As far as I'm concerned doing a 4 or 5 year degree straight out of school means as much as doing a 4 year apprenticeship, you come out of it knowing a little (admittedly in different areas), but in the scheme of things you actually know squat, and when you've come out of it, it's time for the real learning to begin. That goes for tradesmen too!

M of R, exactly what job's can't you get if you don't have an Engineering degree? Who Says? Wouldn't be the IAE or a similar organisation would it?

You're just being silly about the postman, BUT DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON DOCTORS. I have had doctors mislead me, provide false information, lie, obfuscate, misdiagnose, and take 4 weeks to provide a correct diagnosis (of a VERY common illness- Glandular Fever) I'd rather let a nurse treat me anyday. In fact whenever I need medical advice, I do ask a nurse, because I know a couple of highly exoerienced ones, and I hate doctors.

90% of engineers are not making Aeroplanes, space shuttles or nuclear power plants, they're making fridges, and liquid handling equipment, and millions of other less exciting things. I know, I deal with a vareity of Engineers each day, and believe me most of their jobs are about as exacting as mine ie not very. While there IS a need to be able to get stuck into high powered mathematucs and the like, practical experience is probably the most valuable thing an engineer can have. The 12 months practical experience the sandwich course at UTS offers isn't enough. I know people who have done it too, and they would agree. The pressure is on to make Engineers all things to all men, the Modern Engineer is part accountant, part manager, part HR person, etc, anything but a bloody Engineer! I have seen qualified engineers make schoolboy mistakes, they might be able to calculate horrendous formulae correctly, but they forgot about real basic stuff, like being able to actually get a spanner to a nut, and similar stuff.

I've also made a few schoolboy mistakes myself, but that's ok, I'm JUST a tradesman, and all tradies are stupid and therefore expected to make mistakes.

[MasterOfReality]

As far as I'm concerned if my company pays me as an Engineer, refers to me as an Engineer, and tells everyone I'm an Engineer, that makes me an Engineer.

I'd prefer to refer to myself (and I do if anyone asks) with the much more prestigious title of "Toolmaker" (if the oldest profession is prostitution, then Toolmaking would be the second oldest! Making tools is what separates us from the hairy apes, they might use tools that they find in the normal course of monkey business, but we actually make 'em)

As far as I'm concerned doing a 4 or 5 year degree straight out of school means as much as doing a 4 year apprenticeship, you come out of it knowing a little (admittedly in different areas), but in the scheme of things you actually know squat, and when you've come out of it, it's time for the real learning to begin. That goes for tradesmen too!

M of R, exactly what job's can't you get if you don't have an Engineering degree? Who Says? Wouldn't be the IAE or a similar organisation would it?

You're just being silly about the postman, BUT DO NOT GET ME STARTED ON DOCTORS. I have had doctors mislead me, provide false information, lie, obfuscate, misdiagnose, and take 4 weeks to provide a correct diagnosis (of a VERY common illness- Glandular Fever) I'd rather let a nurse treat me anyday. In fact whenever I need medical advice, I do ask a nurse, because I know a couple of highly exoerienced ones, and I hate doctors.

90% of engineers are not making Aeroplanes, space shuttles or nuclear power plants, they're making fridges, and liquid handling equipment, and millions of other less exciting things. I know, I deal with a vareity of Engineers each day, and believe me most of their jobs are about as exacting as mine ie not very. While there IS a need to be able to get stuck into high powered mathematucs and the like, practical experience is probably the most valuable thing an engineer can have. The 12 months practical experience the sandwich course at UTS offers isn't enough. I know people who have done it too, and they would agree. The pressure is on to make Engineers all things to all men, the Modern Engineer is part accountant, part manager, part HR person, etc, anything but a bloody Engineer! I have seen qualified engineers make schoolboy mistakes, they might be able to calculate horrendous formulae correctly, but they forgot about real basic stuff, like being able to actually get a spanner to a nut, and similar stuff.

I've also made a few schoolboy mistakes myself, but that's ok, I'm JUST a tradesman, and all tradies are stupid and therefore expected to make mistakes.

The job I am referring about is the title of Mine Manager (underound metalliferous). It is a statutory requirement that anybody applying for a 1st Class Mine Managers Ticket hold a BE (Mining Engineering), 1st Aid certificate, and have spent prescribed amounts of time in various mining roles (5+ years). This is a underground metalliferous example and take note I said statutory.

And it is not an organisation or institution that makes these rules up, the state government does. If you look far enough into it, these rules have been in existence since mining started in Australia, and are a continuation of the system England has for its coal mining industry.

I think you will find that this is the same for every state in Australia, if not every country that has a mining industry, maybe except for China.

I am referring to the mining industry, because it's an industry that I work in. Its unique in a way because there is very little room for error given the safety and financial aspects involved. In this industry, engineers are engineers, not part HR people or part accountants. We sit in a office and take care of the design aspects of a mine. Sure, practical experience is helpful, but not 100% necessary. We don't spend 8 hours a day underground doing 'practical' tasks, thats what miners are paid for.

I know what you are talking about when you say that most engineers design liquid handling equipment and fridges etc. I have friends who are fitters and draftmen and they curse the engineers for handing them plans and reckon they have no idea what they are designing. I don't doubt that is the case, but the mining industry is very different as I said above, its not boring or mundane at all.

I'm sorry, but you just can't put nurses on the same level as doctors. I respect nurses for what they do, but at the end of the day, they didn't go through the rigorous study and training to become a medical practitioner. Sure there are dodgy doctors out there, just like there are dodgy engineers.

[wombat]

Wow, can-o-worms eh?
Some good discussion, lets just continue to keep it civil hey guys?:)

[October26]

There is a distinction between classes of Engineers. It doesn't sound like you have a full understanding of what some engineers (The 10%) actually do. I'm not bagging you there are people here that I work have worked with for years and they still don't understand what it is I do.
Universities aren't going to cover less because not everyone gets a job designing things. They expect that you will get your own practical education.

People bag the uni graduates because some of them come out and are arrogant shits thinking they know everything and people bag tradies for not having an understanding of the more complex side of things. It like most things in life is good to have a good balance unless you are specialising in a certain area.

[NCR600]

People bag the uni graduates because some of them come out and are arrogant shits thinking they know everything and people bag tradies for not having an understanding of the more complex side of things. It like most things in life is good to have a good balance unless you are specialising in a certain area.

A truer thing has never been said!

I'm not bagging anyone, my main point is that to be a truly competant engineer you need to temper academia with practicality. Personally I'd like to see an Engineering trade as a pre requisite for entry to a Mech Eng degree, but that's probably a bit fundamentalist!

I'm pretty sure a lot of the legislation regarding certification would have come into place during the 1970's although I don't really know for certain and I could well be talking out my arse. Universities were free back then.

They're not now. I'd love to do a Mech Eng degree, but I couldn't afford it, and I doubt it would particularly affect my earning ability as things stand right now. I can find out anything I need to know fairly easily, and I think I am reasonably competant at my job. So there wouldn't be a lot of point to it.

The mines are certainly a special case, they've definately got their own way of doing things! I've had to visit a couple of mines in the Central West, and being left waiting at the gate for 3 hours while someone tries to get in touch with someone who A) Knows what is going on, and B)is prepared to deal with it and not pass the buck, is par for the course. It's not like I'm a door to door salesman either, they ASKED me to come to help them!

Oh yeah, simple question for everyone:

Engineering at it's heart is basically problem solving. Yes/No. Discuss.

[wombat]

Engineering at it's heart is basically problem solving. Yes/No. Discuss.
Yes, but at what level of the problem?
The role of a designer is essentially to design a solution to a need (or a problem, if you will), and when designers are doing this sort of job it is often the engineer's job to make the designers solution actually work in the physical world. So in that sort of scenario the engineers are problem solvers, but instead of dealing with the consumer's problem they're solving the more refined problems created by the particular design solution.

Of course that is only one sort of scenario and much of the time engineers play the role of designer as well.

So in essence, yes; I believe that the role of an engineer is to solve problems using their knowledge (however they gained it) of physics, chemistry and other sciences.

[Cave Dweller]

I have seen qualified engineers make schoolboy mistakes, they might be able to calculate horrendous formulae correctly, but they forgot about real basic stuff, like being able to actually get a spanner to a nut, and similar stuff.

This is what i was saying before.

Engineers are best designing things at system levels, like, what kind of transport system will i use to get this from A to B.

Designers, drafts people, tradesman, there the ones who are better at thinking of things at a component level, like will my spanner fit in here.

[Binaural]

As far as I'm concerned doing a 4 or 5 year degree straight out of school means as much as doing a 4 year apprenticeship, you come out of it knowing a little (admittedly in different areas), but in the scheme of things you actually know squat, and when you've come out of it, it's time for the real learning to begin. That goes for tradesmen too!

90% of engineers are not making Aeroplanes, space shuttles or nuclear power plants, they're making fridges, and liquid handling equipment, and millions of other less exciting things. I know, I deal with a vareity of Engineers each day, and believe me most of their jobs are about as exacting as mine ie not very. While there IS a need to be able to get stuck into high powered mathematucs and the like, practical experience is probably the most valuable thing an engineer can have. The 12 months practical experience the sandwich course at UTS offers isn't enough. I know people who have done it too, and they would agree. The pressure is on to make Engineers all things to all men, the Modern Engineer is part accountant, part manager, part HR person, etc, anything but a bloody Engineer! I have seen qualified engineers make schoolboy mistakes, they might be able to calculate horrendous formulae correctly, but they forgot about real basic stuff, like being able to actually get a spanner to a nut, and similar stuff.


The point of a year's break for work in a UTS course is not to replace getting a job at the end, but to provide some leavening for the massive amount of learning you cram in in two years. It is not a replacement, it is a supplement. Most people's employment experience is the better for it, so it seems to fit the bill. Better that than no experience at all, surely?

Most engineers with non-trivial roles have to be able to wear a couple of hats. You can't avoid having to deal with people and clients, you have to know how to cost projects, manage tradesmen etc and it is better to have the training so you can do a decent job of it (civil engineers in particular spend a lot of time working out costs and ways to minimize them). Most, if not all engineers I know spend a very significant amount of time on non-techical work, and their projects would be disasters without it.

[Binaural]

I'm not bagging anyone, my main point is that to be a truly competant engineer you need to temper academia with practicality. Personally I'd like to see an Engineering trade as a pre requisite for entry to a Mech Eng degree, but that's probably a bit fundamentalist!


Not much chance of that happening, thank god :) Engineers rarely have to use a lathe and tradesmen rarely need to use finite element analysis programs. By and large, they have divergent career paths.


I'm pretty sure a lot of the legislation regarding certification would have come into place during the 1970's although I don't really know for certain and I could well be talking out my arse. Universities were free back then.

They're not now. I'd love to do a Mech Eng degree, but I couldn't afford it, and I doubt it would particularly affect my earning ability as things stand right now. I can find out anything I need to know fairly easily, and I think I am reasonably competant at my job. So there wouldn't be a lot of point to it.


Many safety-related engineering tasks have been codified for a long, long time. Mines, structural engineering, electrical engineering, road engineering.... there are a lot of things you can't design without appropriate credidentials, for which a degree is usually considered essential.


Oh yeah, simple question for everyone:

Engineering at it's heart is basically problem solving. Yes/No. Discuss.

Yes and no. I would say that engineering is the use of science and technical knowledge to meet human needs and wants.

[Binaural]

I have an Accounting degree, and a couple of postgrad qualifications, but a degree and any other qualification is best described as a "depreciating asset".

By that I mean the older your degree is, the more useless it is. It's a means to get your foot in the door of the profession. Once you're actually working on the job, your theoretical stuff means very little. If you can't do the job, you get booted.


Hah, so true. On the topic of education, most engineering education has a half-life so short that you need specialized equipment to detect it. I know, I write software, and staying on top of _that_ particular mountain of technology is not so easy!

[NCR600]

Not much chance of that happening, thank god :) Engineers rarely have to use a lathe and tradesmen rarely need to use finite element analysis programs. By and large, they have divergent career paths.





Yep, that is the case, but it shouldn't be. I know a few engineers who work for a major manufacturer of vehicles in Australia. The arty-farty design types come up with something that can't be made, but looks nice, the engineers recognise that and a huge shitfight ensues to make the design practical. The polo-necks and engineers arrive at a compromise, and the process starts over again with the people who actually have to make the tooling, resulting in an almighty 3 way brawl as the drawings go up and down the food chain multiple times.

If people had a better understanding of how things actually happen, situations like this could be avoided.

I'm a firm believer in learning to walk before you run. An Engineer SHOULD be able to use a lathe, or a mill, or whatever to actually make what he has designed (the Engineers that can actually do this generally find that they have very little problems with getting things done by machinists and other tradesmen, and generally have a better time of it when dealing with the people who actually do the work)

Like Grip, I've seen stuff come out of engineering offices that can't be made, and I've had to try to explain WHY it was beyond our capabilities, and of course, I was told that it was my fault, and I was a poor toolmaker. Fortunately the senior Engineer came out to see what the shouting match was about and backed me up (former Toolmaker himself, see) The situation could have been avoided totally by the "engineer" being aware of what the machinery we had available was capable of, and by being a little less arrogant about pretending to know about something he didn't.

Engineers and Engineering Technologists, Engineering Tradespersons or whatever you want to call them don't have divergent career paths, they might be on different tracks, and SHOULD (but very often aren't) be pulling in the same direction towards the same sort of goals. The people higher up should know about what the people lower down do, and the best way to do that is by having actually done it yourself.

I'm not saying that an Engineer needs to know EVERYTHING, but knowing a bit more than just the basics goes an awful long way.

[t]

anyone noticed how passionate physics/electronics lecturers are??? its really scary

Especially the electronics Lecturers... did you have Dr Tom Edwards for anything? .... he's one of the most highly animated people i've ever met, we called him the black wiggle.

[Gonzo]

As of 4 o'clock tommorow i will be a process engineer. Can't wait to get out of uni. Been here way too long.

[rowanr]

Especially the electronics Lecturers... did you have Dr Tom Edwards for anything? .... he's one of the most highly animated people i've ever met, we called him the black wiggle.
ahahahaha ,yeah i've had tom for a few thins. he reminds of of harry from lock, stock and 2 smoking barrels. he's awesome though, great lecturer and makes stuff sound interesting coz of his accent

[MasterOfReality]

I'm a firm believer in learning to walk before you run. An Engineer SHOULD be able to use a lathe, or a mill, or whatever to actually make what he has designed (the Engineers that can actually do this generally find that they have very little problems with getting things done by machinists and other tradesmen, and generally have a better time of it when dealing with the people who actually do the work)

Hence the 1 year practical experience usually required upon graduation, but obviously it doesn't cover everything. I don't know what its like in other engineering industries, but in underground mining a graduate is expected to spend at least one year underground with the crew.

(I think) the Qld Mining Council proposed a new education system for mining engineers that involved students going to uni part-time whilst working underground. That way, by the time they graduate, they ideally would have obtained their shift boss/deputy or undermanagers ticket. Its a good idea, but difficult to implement as the length of the program was about 6-8 years, and plenty of mines can close in that time, leaving students in the dark.

Where I last worked, we had a policy of consulting with the production superintendant, shift boss and jumbo operators on mine designs. Saved a huge amount of arguments and finger pointing.