Peter P. It seems that you have given a great deal of thought to the engineering community with regards to the political economy and individual opportunity versus merit. I have to concurr with much of what you have said. I think meritocracies are rare any more. Thank you for your well thought out and articulated ideas. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter P." To: Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2007 4:11 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Non-degree holders as an engineer > Sorry for breaking the thread, I have no option. When I can help it I help > it, now I can't. > > Rich rochester.rr.com> writes: >> I wonder how one becomes an engineer without a degree. In the US, I >> think, >> it would be very unusual. I know many engineers who have a degree in >> math >> or phusics, usually a graduate degree. But I cannot think of anyone I >> have >> met with no degree, at least in recent years. > > I do not know how it works in the US but in most places it is fairly easy: > anybody who studied the relevant subjects sufficiently and practices them > sufficiently is able to perform 'engineering' tasks (including design and > more). If the relevant person has missed any requirement necessary to > become a > recognized engineer, such as, but not limited to, taking the final few > courses > or exams or paying some stupid taxes, then the relevant person is 'not an > engineer' for pay and status purposes. Note that 'studying the relevant > subjects' does not necessarily imply taking courses in a university. In my > experience, the 'study' period is 2 to 3 times longer than that of an > engineer who learns in a university, but the result is better because it > is backed by solid experience and a hands-on type of approach that leads > to results as opposed to crazy equipment purchasing and lab bills as is > often the case with relatively inexperienced 'trained' engineers. (like > 'we need that 1Gsps LeCroy scope because of our one 60MHz ARM project we > will have this year' and so on and on). Of course not every technician is > made to become an engineer, or to act like one. Those who neglected the > theoretical and inter-disciplinary aspects are definitely not made to be > engineers, and this usually shows as soon as they try to tackle some > design work from scratch. Then one starts to > see a modified copy of a well-known thing or a usually almost working > thing that could see a lot of optimization to be manufacturable and > eventually a commercial success. Still, it will be cheaper than the LeCroy > scope for the small businesses which employ such people, and relatively > inexperienced engineers are definitely not inter-disciplinary anyway. > > The 'organized' trades on the other hand, are necessary in > life-threatening situations (medicine, structural engineering, energy, > etc), but not necessary enough to justify a clan type of monopolistic > institution with national (or often only regional!) scope and no recourse. > Most places that have such 'organisms' regulating their trades end up > importing everything relevant to that trade before too long (including > people!), because the market forces will drive anybody who employs such > people out of the market system in due time. Being 'organized' > automatically means being more expensive than unorganized work, and at the > same time, maintaining this by artificial scracity when competition (like > immigrants and temporary labor) appears. There is a balance point where > the wages that the market will bear and the amount of regulation that > keeps increasing them breaks the 'back of the camel', and after that's > it's a deluge of imports that will sink the 'organized' trades, whether > they like it or not. Some disband and disappear, others go down noisily > clinging to their brass nameplates, or become relics with have beens and > symbolic meetings at chalets over beer and old stories. The alternative is > the hypocritical approach where the dinosaurs coexist peacefully with the > H1B coolies who do the hard work for half the money. This also exists > elsewhere in the form of banana republic balkanic style countries where > neither the dinosaurs nor the coolies have status, and it's a kind of > free-for-all melee in which the usually corrupt state or ministry or > whatever the Tontons Macoute's home base is that week always wins by > definition. > > Ironically, this applies equally well to non-paying membership exclusive > trade > organizations. The simple fact of certification and of being 'secluded' > from the open circuit of evolution seems to be sufficient to be called a > step back, > given due time, as long as the relevant organization is a singularity or a > monopoly. What applies to economic monopolies seems to apply equally well > to > any form of monopolistic organization. I'd call it the dinosaur factor > (although there is no proof that indicates that the dinosaurs were > hampered by > such problems, if any). > > I think that it is interesting to notice that one would expect a large, > organized workforce, to represent a powerful electrorate that would > prevent the tipping of the system towards free imports and mercantilism, > yet, this does not occur in most cases. A typical example of stubborn > resistance is probably Germany, where the work force is highly regulated > and organized, and represents a powerful electorate, and yet the country > has very serious economic problems caused by external competition. As > expected, keeping one's own 'yard' regulated will not exempt one from the > market forces that reign outside it, and one tends to become too expensive > by over-regulation. I am not implying that over-regulation exists in > Germany, but only that it is too high by comparison with its other > external competitors. This greatly affects German industry which is (or > was) strongly export oriented. And, Germany is just an example I give > here, because I know a little about it. There are probably > many others. > > Of course countries that have it both ways and shut their eyes win here > (see United States of A. in the context of the H1B visa discussion that > occurred > some time ago on this list) have the best of both worlds: 'organized' > trades > and slaves to do the actual work (no offense meant here). I believe that > it is precisely the more hypocritical issues raised by that organized vs. > new/temporary/slave dichotomy that have caused the H1B/immigration > scandal/conflict that rages now in the US. Here, 'slave' is to be > understood as a very willing economic/labor immigrant, whether legal or > not. > > The only thing that is very clear is the fact that the lowest common > denominator that sets the pace of competition, is the country that has the > lowest wages and at the same the highest production capacity. > > Even that would not be a problem if the market forces would operate > normally everywhere, but they do not. In particular, the currency of the > country with the lowest wages and highest production numbers, China, is > pegged by its central government at a level that is considered > inappropriate by most other countries, and they have said so much more > than once. > > It is considered that the floating of that currency should cause the > current serious imbalance in trade to eventually fix itself, and with that > the wage and interest (as in, engineering students) situation too, > including in engineering. Perhaps not last, for the people of that country > themselves, as a more powerful Yuan would give them (the wage earners) > more buying power over night, and increase their standards of living (and > implicitly change the value of their exported goods in a direction that > should better reflect their market value - and with this, automatically, > make their manufacture (and engineering) elsewhere feasible (again) - and > with that, return to the subject of this discussion, that of wages and > certification in the manufacturing and engineering trades. Of course China > and the Yuan is in focus here because it is the major manufacturing > country with the lowest wages. If it would be another country in such a > situation, then that other country would be in focus. > > I don't think that politics can be viewed separately from education and > from wages. The 'glass ceiling' that prevents talented people from working > at the best level they can achieve in their trade is a political barrier, > just like the barrier between H1Bs and local certified engineers in the > US is, and the same thing applies for the subtle barriers between BSc > degrees and engineering degrees that open the further path to PhDs and > academic achievement. The same thing can be said for the steep > remuneration difference between plain assistants and professors and > tenured ones and so on and so on. > > This discussion is, in my opinion, a lot more about politics than about > engineering. The engineering side of the problem can be cleared by a > thorough set of interviews and practical tests in any case, especially for > someone with > a lot of work experience. The glass ceiling cannot be cleared like this, > and that matter is out of the examining (engineer's) hands. It it pure > politics. > > Back to the subject, I found that the only way 'up' for people like me is > working for small companies where there is no HR department (and often > take a lot of c**p due to micromanagement and other's ineptitude), or > becoming a 'consultant'. There one again faces the same glass ceiling > others face. Certain jobs require the credibility of engineering degrees > and there is no way around it. In small companies, the Peter principle is > doubled by the Paul principle, which states that any self-anointed > manager, engineer, technician or tradesman driven by ambition and > unchecked by any superiors, will rise to the highest level he can achieve, > thus guaranteeing the fact that he will have risen to the level where he > is incompetent or incapable to raise any further, and where he will devote > the majority of his efforts to maintain that level instead of being > productive (I hink that this is the real Peter principle - I made up the > Paul principle in case it isn't). > > In large companies the Paul principle still exists, but it is hidden in > the upper levels of management where company BMWs are driven by people who > probably don't deserve them, technically speaking. Lower levels are > chaperoned by chaperons called managers and supervisors who keep the > sheeple in the place they (believe!) they deserve. > > So, finally, yes, it sucks to be an overqualified technician, no matter > how that position was achieved, and I believe that there should exist a > set of equivalence exams or similar that should open the way for such > people to higher certification(s) and to recognition (and remuneration). I > also wish I was a millionaire and that I was 20 years young again (but > with today's experience and brains - otherwise rather not - in despite of > what women think about men, there are other things besides getting laid > and getting drunk on their minds from time to time). Who doesn't want to. > The world does not work that way. > > Peter P. > > > > --------------------------------- > Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web > links. > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist