We have had an engineering registration scheme introduced here in my home state. There were a lot of problems with the original proposal (including transphobic elements - see my my political blog for more),but it's now in better shape - although the stresses and strains of the compulsorily online, ID focused procedure have been a key aspect of me deciding to take early retirement when I can (which is for the sake of my health - although that is also related to the effects of nearly half a century in an aggressively alpha male corporate world).
I’ve heard quite a few comments about this, and have made comments myself, and a recent comment by someone else is, in my opinion, quite a good summation:
the peak national professional engineering organisation in this nation has been pushing for greater “recognition” of engineers, which has led to several state-based recognition schemes
Ironically, I would have preferred a single national; scheme where the peak national professional engineering organisation’s register was just given more teeth, but that didn’t suit the desire of people to be seen to be doing something - and the latest drive was partly in response to a building collapse in a New Zealand earthquake by someone who had committed identity theft and claimed to be a structural engineer when they weren’t, so there was, unlike the past driver for “recognition”, other imperatives behind this.
It is those past desires for “recognition”that I wish to consider further, as they concern me:
- there is an assumption that only people with engineering qualifications can think adequately, which is manifestly nonsense: I have worked with intelligent and capable people who, if they had been given the opportunity to study at Uni and chose to do so, would have been excellent engineers - there is NOTHING wrong with their ability to think;
- degrees can come with limitations on thinking - such as the bias, in my field, towards advanced treatment systems such as activated sludge when less intellectually glitzy approaches such lagoons (or lagoons followed by wetlands) may be perfectly adequate (at an open day during my Uni course, I talked to a visiting farmer about what are termed "low energy culverts", and when he asked "what if you don't need one of those?" made the obvious reply that you just stick to a normal, cheaper culvert - and was shocked that other students had apparently tried to justify spending extra money);
- I do not want to be an engineer: I want to be a wastewater treatment specialist - but NONE of the systems make any allowance for that, and insist I have to spend an excessive amount of time staying up to date in all areas of my engineering qualification (even though I refuse to work outside the water treatment industry - and this is one criticism of the registration scheme that has NOT been addressed yet) - which, as all such time has to be in one’s own time, is an anti-family, anti-female bias that will continue to limit the participation of those with families or other carer duties.
It may also be a restraint of trade, but I’ll leave the lawyers figure that out.
From a spiritual point of view, those advocating for “recognition” are on an ego trip, wanting to feel and seem to be superior to others in an almost monarchical way. If they just wanted recognition, the bragging, almost proselytising elements would be absent, and the fact that others may have capabilities - observational and thinking, at the very least - would be recognised.
(The rubbish about this leading to more money would also be absent, but that may be greed.)
Engineering has been tainted with intellectual arrogance about “what is best” - which is an arrogance that has led to problems such as roads rather than public transport, levees rather than not building in flood plains, and dams rather than alternative water sources.
On the other hand, the community not listening to engineers has led to problems such as a growing municipal solid waste disposal problem, and thinking scientists can represent engineers.
Politicians, media, and corporations also have to accept the consequences of their influences as well.
And I’m now left deciding whether to try to force myself through the next few years of engineering under this onerous scheme, which puts my health and physical survival at risk, or leave - which, given the difficulty of changing careers at my age, puts my family's wellbeing at risk. (And, if there is a no scheme, the community is at risk - including lives.)
Way to go, engineering organisations.
Possible flaws
Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:
- there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;
- I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.
I am on Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/Gnwmythr.
