Personally I think engineers and technicians are two different roles and should be named as such, but neither is in any way more important than the other and being an engineer does not mean you know more by any stretch of the imagination. I get very very annoyed at work when I see young grads trying to put across that they know more than some of our technicians who have been here for years and are incredibly skilled. As a young engineer, I try and learn as much as possible off our technicians as they are infinitely more useful to get knowledge out of than my degree was.

Unfortunately, it is generally engineer's attitudes that are the main reason behing a lot of roles which are clearly technicians roles (and as stated, nothing wrong with that at all) but are called engineers just so that they don't get looked down on by engineers. Which is very sad really.

What I object to is everybody calling themselves Engineers when they work in IT FF's. Technician or Programmer yes maybe but Engineer. NO WAY.

What about people calling themselves engineers, when they build products with firmware – they're just glorified programmers really. Or people who build software systems which happen to have a physical electronics element to them, do they get allowed to call themselves engineers?

Nowadays everything is all about designing systems, the software / hardware boundary at least in many areas (e.g. cars, aeroplanes, consumer devices etc.) is so blurred nowadays that it is pretty stupid to pretend that there is a massive difference between hardware 'engineering' and software 'programming'. Although judging from the general standards of most firmware programmer 'electronic engineers', they could probably do with a few people from a computer rather then engineering background involved – they make all the same mistakes that computer programmers have been battling with for years, but don't seem to have any of the systems to cope with them that computer people have developed, relying instead in things from old school engineering, which really don't adapt to a world that is largely software and changes rapidly.

Now, as for computer 'science', if you ask me, that is pretty stupid – it is blatantly engineering not science (and I work in a CS department!).

Joe

"Hello Mr LHS"

"Yes an engineer will be right with you"

NO!

A technician will. Did he spend 4 years at university to get a professional qualification?

NO! Therefore he is not an Engineer.

Vent over.

No, I spent 5 years serving a very well rounded apprentiship, working 40 hours a week and spending the rest of my free time studying for an ENGINEERING ONC, HNC and HND. Working much harder and longer with far less free time than any of my mates who chose to go to uni and from what I could see, toss it off and party for the first few years. I've since spent another decade and far more time at collage studying even further to achieve yet another HNC and HND in electrical engineering to broaden my skills set and adapt to modern technologies that integrate a lot more electronic process control than ever before.

You want to get over yourself LHS, many "Technicians" as you call them are far more capable than some snot nosed kid straight out of his degree, and just as capable of designing and commissioning machines and systems as you would like to think. nob end.

I agree that the title should be protected; it's bandied about with no clear distinction of the role. I also agree that it's not solely about the degree, but I do believe that some form of comprehensive education should be a part of it.

Having been an IT technician, an IT Engineer, an IT Manager and having just (fingers crossed) graduated with a fist class Masters in Aerospace Engineering, I think that there are and always should be clear boundaries between the roles.

As an IT technician I was trained to do a smallish number of jobs very well.

As an IT engineer I was educated to understand a much broader range of topics and applications and to understand the complexities of myriad different aspects of IT systems/software and their interaction both with each other and their users.

Having now worked at Technician level within both Rolls Royce and BAE Systems during summer placements, I can say that my broader range of skills learnt during my degree, allow me to tackle problems with far greater understanding of the entire system than I may have had, had I just been trained for the role.

The whole thing is like nurses and doctors.

Surely 'manager' is the most egregious misuse of a title.

The term "Consultant" is just as bad.

See we have nice people on here…

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-biggest-idiot-on-facebook

I did an unfocused rant trying to highlight that engineering is undervalued in this country compared to the time spent learning the job, whether on the job, through university, day release, apprenticeships etc compared to other countries.

I will now move on with my sad lonely life and not bother this site again.

Surely you're not an engineer unless you wear a boiler suit?

nob end

Well when you put it that eloquently who am I to argue!!?

🙄

There is a clear definition in my eyes between a Technician (the guy who came to replace a broken fridge door) and an Engineer who can design a gas turbine engine.

Technicians and Engineers share equally as important roles in our land. However the time taken to study for years, then become a chartered engineer from practical experience is not recognised and is vastly different than someone who can come and fix your vending machine for you.

As someone who has a protected title I'd suggest that all you grease monkeys shouldn't worry too much as all it seems to offer me is the opportunity to pay £90 a year just to be on the register (required by law). I'm also chartered which doesn't offer much either except for a monthly magazine and a president who can't say the name of the institute correctly.

The whole thing is like nurses and doctors

So engineers spend all their time trying to shag technicians!

I agree that the title should be protected; it's bandied about with no clear distinction of the role.

Maybe the second half is true, but why should the government get involved to do what you suggest in the first half? Who's losing out, apart from touchy uni-qualified engineers?

IIRC (and I could be talking out my arse here), "teacher" and "therapist" are also not protected titles in the UK and I would have thought that misuse of those titles is going to lead to more damage/risk to the public.

There is a clear definition in my eyes between a Technician (the guy who came to replace a broken fridge door) and an Engineer who can design a gas turbine engine.

That's the thing, the guy who is replacing the fridge door may well have done a 4/5 year apprentiship in refrigeration, and be more knowledgable about it than a designer with a generic mechanical engineering degree.
And what would you call the guy who troubleshoots and repairs the gas turbine?
Engineer does not exclusively mean designer.