Regarding the title of "engineer", let me ask this question:
Are you an "engineer" because of your training or are you an
"engineer" because of what you do? At what point does experience
trump training? At what point does not working in the field of your
qualification override your title of "engineer"?
Let me use myself as an example. I've had "engineer" as part of my
title (audio engineer, application's engineer, design engineer,
network planning engineer, etc) for over 15 years of my profesional
career. But I have no degree. I've had years of vocational training as
well as on-the-job education, but no formal program with the pathway
towards the fancy plaque on the wall.
If I could sit still long enough, I could go back to school and get my
degree, but to what end? What will it gain me? Theoretically it should
give me an easier time getting a different job (and more money), but
the reality is, as a person progresses up the career ladder, you get
farther away from applied knowledge into management and planning.
To be honest, though, it has always bothered me to have a title of
Engineer through these years as I've felt that it's something that
needs to either be degreed or or acquired through a journeyman
process. With the number of years and type of work I've done as well
as the formal education I have had, I'd probably consider myself now
to be a journeyman engineer in two fields (broadcast/recording audio
engineer, and telephone network engineer). Obviously, I can't put that
on my resume as official designation, but I can as a matter of
functionality.
But I don't play a doctor on television.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|