The actual order [0] which the article links to is pretty clear about the fine being for describing himself as an engineer and practicing engineering, despite not being a registered professional engineer. The article eventually gets to saying that, but the headline isn't accurate, and most of the article is just making hay.
Actually, it was for calling himself an engineer and presenting the results of the math for a particular application; doing the math wasn't the issue.
OTOH, this (that is, recommending the new formula for the public purpose for which it is recommended) would seem to pure protected political speech (and exercise of the right of petition) under the First Amendment: if he was commercially offering this work professional regulation could certainly apply, but making a recommendation to the public and public representatives on public policy is core First Amendment protected activity. Other than the "calling himself an engineer" part, which is perhaps outside of the protected scope of the first amendment, what this cites him for seems Constitutionally dubious.
On the third hand, since he's apparently not contesting the charges, none of that will be addressed in the context of this case.
If you want to be pedantic, paragraph 14 covers doing the math and exercising his first amendment right to tell other people about it. Not a huge difference. It doesn't include when he calls himself an engineer, which are separate violations described in other paragraphs.
I don't think you can separate out the "doing math" bit from the rest of paragraph 14:
"and submitting the critique and calculations for his modified version of the ITE formula to members of the public for consideration and modification of Beaverton, Oregon's and 'worldwide' traffic signals..."
(Edit: Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree? Maybe I've been unclear, or something, but it seems obvious that paragraph 14 isn't about doing the calculations, it's about doing the calculations and presenting them as engineering work. The first clause of the sentence doesn't stand on its own.)
What you've quoted does not describe anything that a member of the general public should not be allowed to do. Making informed proposals to your government is not something that requires a professional license. It would behoove the government to get a relevantly licensed professional to evaluate proposals before they are enacted, but that's the responsibility of the governing body, not the citizen making a proposal.
The only thing that would make his traffic analysis and proposal fall under any sensible purview for the engineering licensing board would be if in presenting his proposal to the government and the public, he had misrepresented his qualifications. Paragraph 14 does not allege any such misrepresentation; it cites him for doing math and science.
I don't disagree with you. But it's still disingenuous to claim that the board is punishing him solely for doing math. Maybe the law should be changed, but the law isn't against doing math.
Doing the math and telling anyone about it, then, if you want to be unnecessarily pedantic. They're counting it as a separate offense from anything relating to the use of the word "engineer". It's not disingenuous to claim that the board is punishing him for doing the math. It would be wrong to say that doing the math is the only offense they're citing him for, but it is an independent offense that they're complaining about.
The law is pedantic. Perhaps unnecessarily so, but an awful lot of law is there specifically to address issues that have come up due to prior ambiguities. That old saying comes to mind: "Don't tear down a fence until you know what's on the other side."
On that note, I think there is a real and significant difference between just doing the math and doing the math and then telling people about it, especially when you're telling people about it under the guise of your engineering expertise. Similarly, there's a difference between me reading this document, and me reading this document and then writing this comment, especially if I were claiming to have expertise in the law. (Though just to be clear, I am not a lawyer.)
You're right that there are separate offenses: asserting that he is an engineer, and practicing engineering. But the practicing engineering goes beyond simply doing the math. As section 8 of the document describes, it involves "Applying special knowledge of the mathematical, physical and engineering sciences to such professional services or creative work as consultation, investigation, testimony, evaluation, planning, design and services during construction, manufacture or fabrication for the purpose of ensuring compliance with specifications and design, in connection with any public or private utilities, structures, buildings, machines, equipment, processes, works or projects."
So doing the math is not independent. The statute makes explicit that "special knowledge of the mathematical... sciences" must be "[applied] to such professional services or creative work as [examples]."
Again, I'll agree that the law may be more pedantic than it ought to be. But "doing math without a license" genuinely misdescribes the issue in a way that should be clear with a reading of that paragraph. I'd expect better from a news agency that tries to be reputable, rather than trying to simply draw clicks and generate outrage.
> especially when you're telling people about it under the guise of your engineering expertise.
Paragraph 14 of the board's complaint makes no claim that he was presenting his analysis under the guise of engineering expertise. Paragraph 14 is solely about him publicizing an analysis whose subject matter the board claims regulatory jurisdiction over. The board makes no reference to the manner of presentation being a factor at all, either as an aggravating factor or a prerequisite for the publication to be an offense at all. The board also does not feel the need to cite any context that made the publication qualify as providing a professional service or otherwise qualifying as professional engineering activity under their own rules (but this aspect may end up being another Oxford Comma case), nor do they attempt to provide evidence in support of the claim that doing this kind of work (even in this non-professional context) requires special engineering education, training and experience.
The board is claiming broad authority to punish anyone who gets caught doing the wrong kind of math problem in the state of Oregon without a license, whether or not they call themselves an engineer in the process. The doing of the math problem is in the board's eyes sufficient to make the activity fall under their regulatory domain.
They do not recognize the possibility for anyone lacking one of their licenses to legally do the math in question; there's no amateur category, no exemption for a layman to do preliminary analysis prior to retaining the services of a licensed engineer, no provision for a student to do work of this kind for any purpose without professional supervision from a licensed engineer. If you do the math and show your analysis to anyone in any context, you need a license. So yeah, it's not a stretch to say that they're considering it an offense to do the math without a license.
Paragraph 14 of the board's complaint makes no claim that he was presenting his analysis under the guise of engineering expertise.
Yes they do. Specifically: to advise members of the
public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing - page 7, lines 3 and 4.
I think the thing is pretty ridiculous, and a result of an over-litigious society. The point isn't so much to shoot this guy down. It is to make sure that next time somebody pretends to be an engineer (and starts building a bridge or designing a powerstation or something) and they want to stop him, this person wouldn't be able to point at this case and say "but he pretended to be an engineer, and you didn't do anything". This organisation must be seen as to uphold their monopoly on deciding who gets to use the terms engineer and engineering.
It is a result of not enough common sense in court cases, and too many frivolous suits.
> Yes they do. Specifically: to advise members of the public on the treatment of the functional characteristics of traffic signal timing - page 7, lines 3 and 4.
That's only asserting that he communicated his findings. It's not asserting that he did so under false pretenses of being a licensed professional engineer or any other kind of regulated or certified traffic authority. The board could make the same claim against any average Joe who does some math relating to traffic and tells anyone else that he thinks there might be a better solution. There's still nothing in the charge leveled by paragraph 14 that narrows its scope so that it doesn't apply to everyone who makes a complaint about a traffic light that is more specific than "it sucks".
That's only asserting that he communicated his findings. It's not asserting that he did so under false pretenses of being a licensed professional engineer or any other kind of regulated or certified traffic authority.
Actually, Paragraph 14 specifically states that according to the law, the guy pretended to be an engineer. You can be as obtuse as you like about this, but it doesn't say "you are sanctioned for doing math", it says "you are sanctioned for engaging in the practice of engineering" to the general public", the rest of paragraph 14 simply explains how they came to that conclusion. It isn't about doing the math. It is about what he did with the math.
Let me explain it to you LY5: If I do some math that calculates the required gauge for wire required to carry a 250A load for 400V, I am not breaking any laws anywhere in the world. I can amuse myself with doing this math all day long, anywhere I like. If I communicate my findings in public, I have again broken no laws. If I communicate my findings, and say "you know, I know a lot about electricity and stuff" I have still not broken any laws. However, should I communicate my findings and state "Here are my findings, fix your inefficient power supply, and by the way I am an engineer" I will be in trouble in most countries (and rightly so).
Would someone who is downvoting me care to explain why they disagree
The idea of downvoting for not contributing to the discussion left HN a while ago. You are downvoted because you said something somebody doesn't agree with which is human nature: "our opinions differ, and I have the power to punish you for this, so you will be punished". Human nature, we suck as a species. They are just imaginary internet points. Don't worry about it.
Or, I could genuinely be interested in having my false beliefs corrected, communicating more effectively next time, or promoting a good conversation that will be informative to others. You're right that the downvotes are an expression of disagreement, but I'm calling it out specifically because I think elucidating that disagreement is valuable.
He is an engineer schooled in a country does not strictly licence engineers. When he mentioned this, they cautioned him not to practice engineering. He did so by submitting the calculations, even though in that further report he mentioned that he was not licenced.
Someone else probably wouldn't have been fined only because they previously held themselves out as an engineer.
It seems like "something needs to be done" is the motivation behind most of these licensing/regulations rather than "we should do this to have x result". A vast amount of these debates/flame wars are typically around does something need to be done rather than does this specific solution (centralized administrative oversight) actually help the problem. Not to mention the costs of unintended side effects that may outweigh the benefits of the oversight.
Nah. I think it's more like you attaching some mythic significance to a title as if "science" doesn't/shouldn't have rigorous processes associated with it and engineering does. Computer Science/Engineering descriptions are often a historical accident given that, in many schools, CS grew out of the math department and, in other cases, it's part of engineering. (Although I'd note that MIT for example calls it CS even though it's part of the engineering school.)
I agree that there is a base level computer programming that is neither science nor engineering but that doesn't seem to be what you're arguing.
MIT for example calls it CS even though it's part of the engineering school - agreed, but it's not an engineering discipline. The school just manages it, because it's closer to engineering than it is math. However, many math departments control computer science programs still - but it's a general classification in order to put it some place for administration.
I went to school for software engineering and they cautioned us that we weren't really engineers without a licence. However it isn't offered in my state. So some people went to Canada to take the test for fun, simply to be able too call themselves legally professional engineers.
CS is a sub-set of specialization from math - ergo a science. A scientist is one thing, as with an engineer is a very distinct animal separate from this. Opinion still holds.
Computer Science is in no way a subset of Electrical Engineering.
I was in Computer Engineering, which is a subset of Electrical Engineering, and looked at transferring to Computer Science since I was more interested in software than hardware.
The two disciplines are enormously different and I'd basically have to do-over two years. Engineering forces everyone through the same fundamentals, you learn about physics, chemistry, and do outrageous amounts of math. In Computer Science it's a whole different track apart from the small amount of overlap in the programming courses.
At my university the Engineering Department was a separate entity from the entire school. Any engineering graduate was also on track to get their P.Eng. Computer Science students cannot get this without an engineering degree.
At MIT, Course 6 is Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. 6-3 is Computer Science and Engineering and corresponds to a classic CS degree. 6-1 is more of a classic EE degree.
Historically and in practice at many schools the CompSci program came out of the EE school. To say it's not a subset is simply wrong. You think math professors were the ones wiring up early experimental computer hardware?
Sounds like a strange computer science track at your school. And subpar, to be honest.
tl;dr: he was fined, correctly, for claiming a professional licensure and authority to which he's not entitled. Not for "using math".
professional engineers are real in the same way board-licensed specialists or bar-admitted lawyers are, and you can't claim to be one unless you are one. end of story.
particularly advertisement of services as an expert witness, etc, all are problematic under oregon law. In particular, you cannot be an expert witness without being a PE.
They go into this in the complaint PDF with relevant sections of law, etc.
>particularly advertisement of services as an expert witness, etc, all are problematic under oregon law. In particular, you cannot be an expert witness without being a PE.
> They go into this in the complaint PDF with relevant sections of law, etc.
None of the quoted regulations in the complaint mention being an expert witness or even use either of those words.
> separate to his email about traffic lights, his website offers his services as an engineering consultant. that's a major no-no.
If the state board has a legitimate complaint about the language used on his web site, they shouldn't undermine their own authority by also bringing up bullshit complaints about doing math without a license. It makes the state board look like they've got a vendetta against the guy.
bullshit complaints about doing math without a license
Which is not what they are complaining about. They are complaining about him presenting himself as an engineer, which is something he did, and shouldn't have done in Oregon. They gave him a warning about it, and he continued doing it. That wasn't smart on his part.
This may be a reason why, but it's not a great one. The vast majority of people employed in the US with "engineer" in their job title are not Professional Engineers.
I'm talking about folks that call themselves engineers, where they clearly are not. A PE has an exam with credential requirements and an apprenticeship under another PE for a period of time + having to retake that PE exam in order to get that designation. I COMPLETELY understand the PE part of it. It's the software developers that use the title of engineer that irks me. Or HR folks baiting software developers with a title of "engineer" when they clearly are NOT qualified to be that - both by credentials or by the PE designation. Engineers are engineers, scientists are scientists (and equally less qualified in comparison to engineers). Are scientists important? Absolutely .. for me, it's more about the semantics of use and the validation of it.
I wasn't particularly talking about software engineers. I have a mechanical engineering degree, and none of the ~20ish engineers at the first place I worked had a PE licence. If you want "engineer" in a job title to mean "has a PE licence", you're going to need to change the title of perhaps 95% of people currently employed in mechanical or electrical engineering. Probably more than ninety percent of aerospace engineers too. There is maybe an argument to be made that programming shouldn't be called "software engineering", but this really isn't it.
Also for whatever it is worth, I've now worked in mechanical engineering for 5 years and software for about 1 year, and they both feel the same to me. Software is sometimes faster and sloppier, but I think that's just because the build process for a program takes minutes and the build process for the CVD machines I used to design takes months.
Well, good luck with that. Back when I was in the oil business, there were even mud engineers--or mud salesmen as the toolpushers called them.
I certainly don't favor the idea that every software engineer/consulting engineer/etc. should have to get a PE before they can call themselves by that title.
You're welcome to feel differently but don't expect a lot of support.
Not really. But there are specific situations, e.g. signing off on things related to regulatory agencies, where PEs are required. Lots of engineers in a variety of engineering professions have no need for PEs but some do.
Fair enough. In the US, "engineer" is used pretty widely--including by people who are clearly not engineers. (I could name a number of examples from the oil business.)
PEs are mostly about certifications needed to sign off on things in some cases. I got an Engineer-in-Training certificate but never had the need to get a PE.
See, it's not divisive at all to me. There are two types of degrees - a computer science degree and a computer engineering degree. If you are an engineer - your paper says so. If you are a scientist ... you are a scientist. There is a very BIG difference. Folks that write software can be both engineers and scientists. However, there are key differences in the applications of being an engineer. Just because I write E=mc^2 on a board and apply it to some problem in front of me, doesn't make me a theoretical physicist - it just makes me a guy writing on a board, a formula that a physicist might use. In the case of the story, he's a mechanical "engineer". He isn't a guy off the street calling himself an engineer. He has the education to match the claim. HUGE difference. Software engineers have degrees that state they are. Software / computer scientist can be thrown around more liberally, but a software ENGINEER cannot.
"Software Engineering" and "Computer Engineering" are different degrees. I think you're actually talking about software engineering; computer engineering has a heavy focus on hardware, and wouldn't be the first choice for someone who's mainly interested in programming.
Software engineers w/o degrees are just software developers. They are not engineers, by any stretch of the term. Engineering principals applied to software, including performance analysis and validation are done by engineers. There is a big difference. Actually a HUGE difference. This isn't most likely going to be popular here, because a lot of industry folks who are in the epicenter of SF just like the title more than the job .. but it's fact, IMHO. I don't mind having discrediting titles all the time, but it's more ego that pushes it. I could care less about a title, so I'll call it out all the time. Scientists are not engineers.
[0] http://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/OR-Math-Jarlstrom-F...