Random trivia: the "iron version" picture is of my own ring, uploaded a few years back when I was messing around with my friend's new camera. Pleasant surprise not only to see this on HN, but to see that the picture is still there after all this time :)
As far as I know my year (2005) was one of the last years that U of T still offered an actual iron version, as opposed to stainless steel (most other schools no longer did at that time). I'm not sure if it's still possible to get one today. Another option was to get an old ring from retired engineers who were no longer practicing and returned their ring to be used by the next generation... something that I thought was pretty amazing and humbling.
It is still possible to get a ring made out of iron at all Camp One Universities (Toronto/Ryerson, and I believe now York and UOIT as well). I graduated in 2009 from UofT and got one, and I have friends who received their iron one this past March, 2013.
There's an important difference between mild steel (which is basically pure iron) and wrought iron (which has slag inclusions); the slag inclusions in the latter actually make for significant rust resistance.
You should put something in the picture for size reference (a ruler maybe). I couldn't tell if these were finger-sized rings or if these were more like bangles/bracelets. It doesn't say anything about size in the article.
The explanation I heard for this (from an engineer coworker) was that it's meant to be a reminder that whenever you sign off on a design or report, you are doing so as an Engineer, not merely as yourself, and that it's therefore a reminder to take things seriously.
I think I had the choice of stainless or iron back in 2003 (U of S). They probably just had an old box of iron ones hanging around. They were pretty clear about the tradeoffs, the iron ones were traditional and symbolic, but they rusted and tended to leave orange marks on your fingers (as you might expect).
There was no option to get an Iron version back when I graduated in '97. The story was the iron ones turned your finger black so they stopped selling them.
Still have mine after all these years and it doesn't come off anymore, so I think I'll be taking it to the grave.
I guess it could be cut off if I really needed to :) But other than that, no it doesn't come off. You tend to gain weight as you get older, even on your fingers.
It's not tight enough to be a real concern, just enough that I can't remove it. I think it's more symbolic than anything...the only reason I made it through school was to get the ring and it's a big part of who I am as a person.
We can usually get new ones for about 15$. I don't think the adjustment costs less. There is also the option of not wearing it, as wearing rings that keeps touching a mouse is annoying sometimes.
I was thinking of the stainless steel version, but looking that up looks like the answer is "depends". Depends on the definition of "magnetic" (since all materials are to a degree) and the type of stainless steel.
I just noticed that my own "iron" ring (which is stainless steel) doesn't seem to respond to typical magnets you'd find around the office.
Clearly _iron_ is though, considering it's the element with the symbol "Fe" which is short for Ferrum.
Usually (but not always) higher quality stainless steel is not magnetic, while the lower quality is slightly magnetic.
However even slightly magnetic can be a problem in an MRI - and worse, there is no practical way for the MRI tech to tell how the stainless steel will act, so they will err on the side of caution.
Perhaps we should have a silicon ring for software engineers. And in case you are thinking "that would break too easily", well that's part of the point: to remind you that software can also be very easily broken, sometimes without even trying :)
I'm a Software Engineer in Canada and I have an iron ring but that is because our Software Engineering programs (at least the ones that I know of) are accredited engineering programs - i.e. you must go through much of the same hell as other engineers.
Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board is the authoritative body as far as I'm aware and in order to title yourself an "Engineer" you need to be a member of your provincial regulatory body since the title "Engineer" is a protected title under law. It isn't really enforced in any way but to call yourself a "Software Engineer" without having P.Eng. in Canada is technically illegal.
EDIT: Its pointed out in a different post that "Engineer" as a protected term is not concrete and varies province to province while "Professional Engineer" or "P.Eng." is however protected.
This is correct. I graduated from UBC as a Software Engineer and have applied as an EIT with APEGBC. I haven't followed through to apply for P. Eng. status though as the process is a little more difficult for software folks.
You are supposed to submit work experience under supervision of another P. Eng. which are not very common place in our industry. I believe you can apply for exceptions to this rule though.
I personally haven't bothered following through with my P. Eng. status as I am not yet convinced it buys much in our profession (vs. the other fields of Engineering).
My thoughts are that I'm going to be in this industry for another 30 years if not longer so I want the title to hold and have when I need it. I work directly alongside P.Eng. engineers so its much easier as my work is a lot closer to electronic engineers than most software.
For someone not requiring it there are often provisions on each regulatory body's to get it down the line by providing cases of past work experience validated by a P.Eng. no matter when it happened.
I suppose I am lucky, my immediate supervisors are both P.Eng because of the nature of what we do. I agree though, I don't think it matters much in the software field. I don't have the required amount of work experience yet, but as a Computer Engineer working in and interested in the software field I am on the fence.
There are very many "Software Engineers" that are not actually Engineers though and many job postings looking for a Software Engineer don't actually care if you actually went to an Engineering school. I think that is what that person meant.
Wasn't talking about parent post but rather a more general dump of information. I'm a Canadian Software Engineer myself needing ~11months more experience before I get my P.Eng.
I can see it now: two rings, one rubber to represent user requirements, and the other silicon to represent the systems we have to implement those requirements in.
I am getting somewhat jealous now – people should make wearable cyclic particle accelerators or something like that for those hacking nature rather than mere computers :-)
Diamond made out of isotopically pure carbon-14. Ring laser gyroscope. Negative-refractive-index metamaterial. A single giant LED. Nanolithography to produce structural coloration.
I've wanted a cool physics ring for quite a while.
Sort of relevant: In Canada the word "Engineer" is protected. While I am a Computer Scientist, I can not call myself a Software Engineer (or any form of Engineer), unlike in the US. In Canada you must have graduated from an Engineering College of a University to use the title.
I actually don't think that's strictly true. Although there might be a stigma associated with calling yourself an Engineer if you didn't go through an Engineering program, it is only illegal to call yourself a Professional Engineer if you're not properly licensed.
Graduating from an Engineering degree (and/or receiving an Iron Ring) has no real legal protection or obligation. The licensing requirements to become a Professional Engineer (or P. Eng) are as follows:
* Graduate with a degree from an accredited program in engineering or applied science, accredited by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB).
* Complete an Engineer in Training or "Engineering Internship" program under the direction of a P.Eng. (This is a minimum four-year program with the exception of Quebec)
* Review of work experience by the Association,
* Pass a Professional Practice Exam(content and format of which differs by province).
edit: based on the "Title Usage: Canada" section in the same article, it does look like there were lawsuits and attempts to try and restrict the usage of the word Engineer, but it seems results were mixed at best, and vary widely from province to province, so I'll stand by my point that the only actual protected term is Professional Engineer
Calling yourself a P.Eng without actually being a licensed P.Eng is very, very illegal.
Calling yourself an Engineer without having graduated from a CEAB-accredited institution is also illegal, just that people don't care nearly as much as bout this. You will occasionally see job postings and titles for "software engineers" from companies that don't know about this particular legal snag, and for the most part it's not policed.
You will sometimes see this dodged as "Engineering". "Junior Engineering" is a common moniker for someone who hasn't graduated yet, for example. The verb isn't protected, only the noun is.
As a licensed Professional Engineer I worry about the state of engineering in the US. I feel the word "engineer" is diluted to mean any job that requires technical know-how. Yet there are important ethical considerations if one practices as an engineer. I wish the true engineering professions could have the "Engineer" title differentiated from these other technical professions but it looks like it won't happen anytime soon, if ever. For instance you couldn't practice law or medicine without specific accreditation but for some reason engineering is not differentiated. Sure you can't design a bridge unless you are an accredited Professional Engineer. But the engineer with that title is not differentiated in the marketplace unless the organization knows it.
For those of us who are not Engineers, can you elaborate (or point us to more info) on the Important Ethical Considerations? I've always struggled to explain why programming is not engineering.
Good question. The Engineering profession holds certain code of ethics for the public at large. For instance when you step into a high-rise building, board a cruise ship, or travel across highways they are required to have rigorous testing and design protocol to ensure public safety. I believe NSPE says it best http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html
Typically there's a subtle difference in courses taken.
For example - at my school Comp Sci were allowed to take physics for physics majors instead of physics for engineers. For both electromagnetic physics and mechanical physics. Typically most engineers are required to take some courses in the some basic courses, ie Dynamics, Statics, and others depending on your major. This all assumes that your ABET accredited. Maybe it's because I don't see an accrediting agency/society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABET#Members
As a programmer who was once an engineer by trade, I would say the difference is that engineering implies manipulation of the pysical sciences, where programming is just logic.
"Just logic" I think really underplays things. That logic ends up in flight control systems, valve control for oil rigs, power grid management, robotics, factory automation, satellites, etc. A lot of software programming has very physical implications.
"Offence, use of term “professional engineer”, etc.
(2) Every person who is not a holder of a licence or a temporary licence and who,
(a) uses the title “professional engineer” or “ingénieur” or an abbreviation or variation thereof as an occupational or business designation;
(a.1) uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;
(b) uses a term, title or description that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering; or
(c) uses a seal that will lead to the belief that the person is a professional engineer,
is guilty of an offence..."
As can be plainly seen, it is perfectly legal to call yourself a software engineer, audio engineer, sanitation engineer, or any other term which isn't holding yourself out to be a licensed professional engineer. The fine is $10,000.
Sort of - the CEAB has in recent years expanded its definition of professional engineering into software engineering also. There are now CEAB-accredited software engineering degrees.
An audio or sanitation engineer is unlikely to run afoul of this, a software engineer is less clear... I've yet to hear of anyone going after software engineers for the term though.
The results may be "mixed," but it does happen. MCSE was renamed in Canada, thanks to the Quebec case as well as intense pressure from Professional Engineering associations across Canada.
Source: My dad has served on local APEGGA boards and holds P.Eng and FEC designations.
I think it's one of those things in Canada where nothing happens until a complaint has been filed. Having said that, even though my job title is "Platform Engineer," as somebody with a CS degree living in Canada, I avoid using it when I'm away from the web, lest it prompt somebody to complain against my employer.
MCSE was renamed in Canada, thanks to the Quebec case as well as intense pressure from Professional Engineering associations across Canada.
I addressed this in another post, but this is not true. Microsoft temporarily advised holders to use the abbreviation instead of the full name, but then reverted to the full name (see my other post on this for a story on this from the PEO themselves). Years later they changed the whole program to "IT Professional" worldwide in a new marketing push to split the development track from the administration track.
I think it's one of those things in Canada where nothing happens until a complaint has been filed.
The Professional Engineering groups have absolutely no success in trying to coopt the dictionary, nor should they.
In Quebec, the title is simply "Engineer". Upon finishing an accredited program, the ring is delivered in a ceremony. After graduation and deliverance of the diploma, one can register with the professional order and call himself "Junior Engineer". This gives the right to practice engineering under supervision by an Engineer for a minimum period of 2 years (3 years min. without supervision). Before requesting the right to use the "Engineer" title, you have to pass an exam, mostly on deontological ethics.
There is currently no widespread recognition of the profession in the IT community. We almost never see any job posting requiring the title, or any company giving additional compensation/responsabilities because of the title. For this reason, very few software/IT engineers are going through the process as it is quite costly (~400$ per year + cash spent on minimum Continuing Education Units).
> There is currently no widespread recognition of the profession in the IT community. We almost never see any job posting requiring the title, or any company giving additional compensation/responsabilities because of the title.
The main difference between a comp sci. degree and a software eng. degree when I graduated in Quebec (circa 2007) was mostly courses about rational rose and the waterfall process. Software Engineer is a nice title and all, but I don't see its advantages over a comp sci. degree.
In regards to Rational Rose, maybe you're friends missed the point that they learned software analysis and design, and that instead of waterfall process, they learned software development methodologies. At least, that is what I learned from SE.
But I must admit I haven't studied the curriculum of a CS program. Am I wrong to say you can do it in 3 years while SE is 4 years? If we could study a few programs from a few university offerings, I'm sure we could see what is different. I ought to think it is generally an engineering approach to building software, that is a mix of science, people and integrity.
I had a very good mix of science in CEGEP that, say, a software engineer from ETS completely missed.
I think that a lot of what you learn in the SE curriculum can be learnt (and probably is better learnt) on the job, as opposed to the very theoretical courses in a CS curriculum that a) cannot be learnt easily by one's self or on the job and b) will last a lifetime.
In 2006-7, it would have been much more useful nowadays for someone to learn about machine learning in an AI class than about rational rose and the waterfall process, and I suspect the same applies now in the CS vs SE debate, except with updated technologies.
CS: This program is the standard Major program offered by the School of Computer Science. It provides a broad introduction to the principles of computer science and offers ample opportunity to acquire in-depth knowledge of several sub-disciplines. At the same time, its credit requirements allow students to take an additional minor.
SE: This program provides a broad introduction to the principles of computer science and covers in depth the design and development of software systems.
For example, I recall that my SE program had some common courses with other engineering branches (ethics and technology, entrepreneurship, communication, finances for project manager), which were common to all engineering disciplines.
I was at a networking event once, and handed a gentleman my business card. My title listed on the card was 'Software Architect'. He himself was an actual Architect (who designs physical structures), and he became upset and claimed I had absolutely no right to that title. I had never given it much thought until that point, but some folks are very protective over that sort of thing.
I hate to break it to the guy, but if you architect software systems, you are indeed a Software Architect. You're not "an architect," you did not call yourself "an architect," but it's the word that fits the job.
Now, if the World of Academia could attempt to catch up with technology (I know, it's a mad mad world that travels at high velocity and may even continue to accelerate, but a guy can dream) and start offering detailed courses of study for Computer Engineers & Architects, Data Engineers & Architects, Software Engineers & Architects, etc ... will the physical engineering world still have a problem with sharing their title?
In all fairness, there has never been anything quite like "architecting" software, or "engineering" software. As Brooks put it, software is the most complex thing humans have ever built; perhaps we should find some other term that sets us apart from ordinary engineers and architects. Or we could just continue working, not caring what other people think. That's usually what I do, after I tell people I'm a "code monkey".
I don't see the issue. Software is very abstract and tons of our vocabulary is stolen from concrete counterparts as metaphors, I can't see how you can object to "architect" without it being totally arbitrary or fundamentally not understanding computers.
Just a short list of terms which we've appropriated for software:
Bugs that don't bite, computer mice that don't squeak, bits you can't bite, windows you can't see through, desktops which do not involve desks, perls you can't wear, pythons which are neither British or snakes, rubies which are not red, gnu's which do not roam plains, dog-fooding which involves neither dogs or food, running which does not involve feet, killing things which does not involve death, zombies which are real, frameworks which do not involve lumber, libraries which do not involve books, bricks which cannot be built with, ajax you cannot clean with, bandaids that do not stop bleeding, androids which are not humanoid, chatting without talking, hits that are not violent, etc.
I can't figure out which comment to reply to, so allow me to stick this comment here...
If we're going to perform all these pedantic semantic antics (did I really just do that?), then allow me to ruminate a moment: I do "develop" software. "Develop" has this connotation in my mind of a slow, meandering, possibly goal-free path. You "develop" skills over time - are they ever fully developed? Also, you "develop" film (and its prints) which certainly takes time, but is also kind of a curated, artistic process. Although I do feel that, at times, I sculpt, craft and develop a bit of software, I do this with ideas that are not quite formed; goals which are unknown; a kind of "I'll know it when I see it" project.
I do "architect" systems. I have to decide on a backing store and the shape of the data in the store: RDBMS? KV Store? binary blob on disk? I have to decide on a communication method between the app and the data store: local, native API? Network socket using the store's client libs? HTTP CRUD? I have to consider the ways the user will use this app: touch? mouse? keyboard? does it need new gestures? "hot keys" or "chording"? I'll admit the user interaction is a bit more art, but there's usually some kind of specification for it.
I do "engineer" systems. This feels more like implementation to me: I implement that data design; I implement the communication code (APIs don't plug themselves in to my project); I work around pitfalls and shortcomings continuously ...
I am an artist, a sculptor; I am an architect and engineer; I am a handy-person and problem solver. Hi, I'm delinka and I create software.
> As Brooks put it, software is the most complex thing humans have ever built; perhaps we should find some other term that sets us apart from ordinary engineers and architects.
> As Brooks put it, software is the most complex thing humans have ever built; perhaps we should find some other term that sets us apart from ordinary engineers and architects.
I dunno about software architects, but it's not terribly surprising that people are defensive over the engineering title.
The difference in difficulty between computer science courses and the engineering courses is like night and day, so it doesn't really surprise me when my EE/CE friends are frustrated when compsci majors try to call themselves engineers.
If a University's CS courses aren't hard, their CS grads will be worthless. Not only that, but if their CS program doesn't include at least the same freshman level classes that the other majors have to take (phys, chem, EE, etc), then their CS grads will be ill-equipped to work in the domains they need to.
The attitude you describe of your EE/CE friends very much reminded of a fortune file quote that's been floating around for quite some time:
"Yes, I am a real piece of work. One thing we learn at ULowell is how to flame useless hacking non-EE's like you. I am superior to you in every way by training and expertise in the technical field. Anyone can learn how to hack, but Engineering doesn't come nearly as easily. Actually, I'm not trying to offend all you CS majors out there, but I think EE is one of the hardest majors/grad majors to pass. Fortunately, I am making it."
-- "Warrior Diagnostics" (wardiag@sky.COM)
"Being both an EE and an asshole at the same time must be a terrible burden for you. This isn't really a flame, just a casual observation. Makes me glad I was a CS major, life is really pleasant for me. Have fun with your chosen mode of existence!"
-- Jim Morrison (morrisj@mist.cs.orst.edu)
I graduated with an ME degree and I now work as a software developer. I find that the traditional engineering coursework is more difficult than what I find with regards to CS. It's pretty easy to become a self-taught developer and even go through the online courses coming from MIT, etc. It's significantly more difficult to do the same for traditional engineering.
In addition, as someone mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the cost of failure in software doesn't often result in death.
In addition, as someone mentioned elsewhere in the comments, the cost of failure in software doesn't often result in death.
That's nice; perhaps you should tell it to the victims of the Therac-25. Or maybe I'll remember it next time I'm writing some real-time software to control something silly like missile guidance. More and more software every day goes into controlling vital systems in our world . . .
And how often do certified professional engineers design something critical? Does every circuit that goes into a consumer electronics device need to be ultra-safe?
I'll grant you, there are a lot of shitty "software engineers" that have no business writing critical software. And many CS programs are severely lacking. But I picked up electronics in high school in my spare time, which makes me about as much an EE as your self-taught development skills make you a software engineer or architect.
What gets me is the arrogance, in particular since the Iron Ring is supposed to carry with it a reminder that everyone is fallible, and to have humility in the face of that. More often than not, things like the iron ring set people apart, for better or for worse. There are plenty of hard things that people's live depend upon that nobody gets accredited for. Having some humility, and empathy, would go a long ways towards making Professional Engineers not just better people, but better Engineers.
I agree that there is a lot of arrogance in engineering (I can't say I'm innocent either). I think the big difference is that the term "engineer" gets thrown around in software way more than it does in traditional engineering disciplines. The result is that the term "engineer" gets diluted for both software engineers and traditional engineers. That sort of dilution is not common in fields such as mechanical or biomedical engineering.
Having picked up electronics in your spare time, I doubt you'd go around calling yourself an electrical engineer. On the flip side, it happens all the time where self-taught programmers will call themselves software engineers.
Finally, I don't see how you can disagree that software failures don't often result in death. I never said they "never" result in death. It's just that software applications that have life-threatening consequences aren't nearly as common as in traditional engineering. See: cars, bridges, building structure, ropes, pulleys, levers, bolts etc. I'd argue these are more commonplace than missile guidance systems.
Those three things right there commonly have embedded software monitoring or controlling them. As far as levers and bolts go, a lot of them have sensors monitored by software for stress.
I really don't think most people, even software developers, realize how pervasive software is in their lives.
"As far as levers and bolts go, a lot of them have sensors monitored by software for stress."
That's in the far minority of situations. As part of my ME curriculum, I've worked with these types of sensors. It's very rare you'll find them monitoring bolts and levers.
It's true that software is extremely pervasive, however I believe you're overestimating the critical nature of it in most applications.
Cars, bridges, buildings: Most critical failure points are mechanical. There's certainly a lot of software the goes into regulating a car, but if there's a failure in either the software or mechanics of the car, mechanical failure will most often be the more serious issue.
Given that many mechanical and structural components are designed with the assistance of software that analyzes the stresses they are subjected to (and sometimes little or no analysis is performed beyond software simulation), one might question if it’s even possible to underestimate the role of software.
You make an excellent point. Though I think that the 'responsibility of an engineer' that is discussed in regards to the Iron Ring relates to it. It's up to the engineer to ensure that his design is sound regardless of any other factors.
You can't take a static view of the situation. More and more mechanical linkages are moving to microcontrollers, software and actuators.
The point is that software is an ever-increasing percentage of the most common items around us and as a result, its impact on our lives grows every day.
mechanical failure will most often be the more serious issue
When the software is so tightly interlinked with the sensors and mechanisms that they are otherwise useless, you can no longer make that statement.
"they are otherwise useless"
That's simply not the case for the most common mechanical components or engineering constructions. Bridges are fully functional without software. The same goes for buildings (and the majority of components that make up a building including stairs, doors, windows, walls, floors, thermostats, lighting, etc.). Even cars, which have software integrated to regulate many functions are still driven primarily by basic mechanical functions (ignition, combustion, power transmission, suspension, power generation via alternator, etc.).
At a more fundamental level, all components related to mechanical advantage that are so prevalent in our lives, yet mostly forgotten (gears, screws, levers, pulleys, wedges, etc.) are not being replaced by microcontrollers or actuators. You'd be hard pressed to find a better software+electronic component solution to solve the problem that the screw solves.
I assure you, I love software far more than I've ever loved mechanical engineering, but it's naive to think that it will overtake (or even come close to being more critical than) fundamental mechanics. Aside from information and communication, software only serves as a proxy for control over our physical world. I guarantee you that if you were to take a look around, the amount of pure "stuff" derived from basic engineering greatly dwarfs that derived from software.
While we could live in a shittier version of our world without software, we couldn't live in a world without traditional engineering.
From experience, most of the software engineers working in the defense, automotive or aerospace industries are reconverted EE or ME. No one at <Defense Contractor> read Hacker News or knew what Heroku was..
> That's nice; perhaps you should tell it to the victims of the Therac-25. Or maybe I'll remember it next time I'm writing some real-time software to control something silly like missile guidance. More and more software every day goes into controlling vital systems in our world
Yes. Totally agree. This idea that software engineers (perhaps I should use a different title in this thread :-) can fail without consequence is nonsense these days. I actually find it quite amusing (terrifying?) that so many engineers I know think they are a-okay with only a very basic understanding of CS. In fact, often "CS" is too strong a term to describe their knowledge. There's a very pervasive sentiment among engineers that they don't like programming, don't want to program, and shouldn't need to know about programming, let alone the deeper concepts of CS. Of course, a huge chunk of them go on to work with systems that involve computers. :-/
>And how often do certified professional engineers design something critical? Does every circuit that goes into a consumer electronics device need to be ultra-safe?
Indeed, every PCB that goes into your microwave doesn't need to be EMP hardened and fault tolerant, and likely is not. But then also many of those applications that have become "commodity engineering" are no longer done by north american trained, "certified professional engineers". In any case, I think the point is you need to be trained so that you have the background to deal with a critical situation if it comes up.
>What gets me is the arrogance, in particular since the Iron Ring is supposed to carry with it a reminder that everyone is fallible, and to have humility in the face of that
Well, I have to mildly disagree with this. The ring is there to remind you that you are morally and ethically bound to the public good, at least insofar as your work is concerned. Many engineers are fiercely arrogant and could use a lesson in humility, but that's the job for parents/teachers/themselves/society in general, not a stainless steel torus or their professional association. As with many "old boys club" type groups, there is a serious amount of hazing and dues-paying that happens on the way up, and that has the effect of seriously distorting the perceptions of a lot of engineers. Also, a lot of the folks who are hotheads and spew arrogance are the types who would do that no matter where they were, be it on the soccer pitch or on HN. Being an engineer simply gives these types more opportunities, and an appeal to authority.
>Having some humility, and empathy, would go a long ways towards making Professional Engineers not just better people, but better Engineers.
Having some humility, and empathy, would go a long ways towards making <social segment> not just better people, but better <members of social segment>.
I don't mean to be rude, but that's terribly generalizing. At least at my university, the difficulty is comparable, and the largest difference between a Software Engineering degree, and a Computer Science (well, BSC in the department of CS) degree is that software engineering has a slightly larger emphasis on hardware.
Hell, many of the courses have huge overlaps in material, and both programs allow the courses in the other programs to be substituted for each other. I'm not arguing that CPSC majors should be allowed to call themselves engineers, but I believe you might be mistaken as to how different the two programs/fields may be.
Thanks for that. Whether or not he was "right", it's salutary to be reminded of the relation of what we do to the more established "professions" requiring licensing, passing exams, and continuing education.
My father was a CPA, and he used to occasionally go on a little rant about the distinction between CPAs and accountants.
I know a software architect who was formerly an actual architect. His Facebook profile says: Architect (Buildings, not computers) and Architect (Computers, not buildings)
As a rule, I refer to myself as a "Web Developer". Sometimes the Engineer label gets slapped on me and I decline to make a fuss, but when I have a choice, I don't use it.
After graduation you get the title of EIT (Engineer In Training). After about 4-5 years of professional work you can submit to become a P.Eng. (Professional Engineer) after which you can be called an 'Engineer' at real Engineering companies.
Anywhere else doesn't care and will call the guy taking out the garbage a Sanitation Engineer if they feel like it.
I wish this were the case in the US. Here, any mediocre moron out of a CS program can get a job and call himself a software engineer, and I think it's somewhat insulting.
Same thing in France or Germany, you can't call yourself (or your job position) a "diploma engineer" if you don't have a degree from an engineering college.
Sort of. The PEO in Ontario once threatened Microsoft regarding the MCSE designation, causing Microsoft to temporarily recant. After their lawyers had a go at it, Microsoft decided that they have no risk in the Engineer in MCSE (the Wikipedia link that yurisagalov provided humorously holds that Microsoft renamed it to "IT Professional" to avoid the ire of engineers. Hardly. IT Pro was a blanket marketing term introduced years after deciding to ignore the PEO in Ontario -- http://peo.on.ca/index.php/ci_id/21494/la_id/1.htm).
Similarly, countless people use the title Software Engineer, just as there are Sanitation Engineer and Train Engineers.
So strange to see this popping up on Hacker News. I always thought of it as a sort of obscure Canadian tradition (even many people within Canada have no idea what my ring represents, and ask me about it occasionally).
The ring is a great tradition, it brings engineers together with a sense of obligation and identity; however, in the effort of full disclosure, non-Canadian HNers should be aware that some people decide not to be ringed on ethical grounds, citing possible sexist and elitist connotations in the traditional and the ritual itself.
Upon reading this, I wanted one. With inscriptions reminding me of the theoretical and the practical aspects of my craft. Maybe "λf.(λx.f (x x)) (λx.f (x x))" and "10 PRINT "Hello World" 20 GOTO 10".
But is that really the point? To proclaim how clever (I imagine) I am.
I think the ring is meant to be a reminder that I'm part of something bigger, something important. And that I have a responsibility to other engineers, and also to everyone else. That's why I try to make my code comprehensible to the engineer 5 years down the road. That's the "why" of open-source.
So that's why I think the ring is simple. Because individually I'm fallible and often wrong, and I need reminding.
It's actually not about having "earned" it; it's not meant to be a token of having completed the degree, or having been stupendously good at some technical piece of work.
It's meant as a reminder to the obligation you have to society not to cut corners on safety, and that your responsibilities to your employer do not outweigh those you have to Canadians generally.
The Order has been coming up on HN recently because a number of err... unethical practices are being implemented by engineers who are theoretically "just doing their job". There was a request that engineers refuse to do such jobs on ethical grounds, and this was one of the traditions pointed out as doing exactly that.
I think the ability to explain the meaning of an inscription on the ring could serve as proof that it was earned. Going with the example that was given, if you can explain the meaning and significance of a fixed point combinator, there should be no question about your worth as a computer scientist.
My Iron Ring has been a conversation starter wherever I travel, and I've only had it for 5 years.
Any time I'm in the Valley, people recognize the ring and ask if I went to Waterloo. Funny thing is that I did, but I usually try to explain to them that all Canadian engineering graduates wear it, not just Waterloo.
I was even in Italy with my then-girlfriend-now-fiancee, and I had someone strike up a conversation with me because of the ring; they realized that we were likely Canadian, and started telling us about their son.
The Iron Ring really does establish a type of brother/sister-hood amongst us Canadian engineers. It's a nice feeling.
I was at the grocery store and the cashier motioned to my hand and showed me her ring and we had a short discussion. I felt happy that I had this bond with a person I had never met and then immediately very sad that she was working as a cashier in a grocery store.
I've also had a few interesting discussions. One was also with a cashier, who I discovered had graduated from my alma mater with a degree in geological engineering. She was now working on poetry and other writing and she seemed genuinely happy with what she was doing. More power to her.
Another was when I visited New York for the marathon. Ran into another fellow at the airport who recognized I was from Canada because of my MEC backpack. I then noticed he had on a ring and turned out he was a professor who had once taught at my alma mater.
Curiously, NTNU/NTH got a similar tradition which officially started in 1914, 8-11 years earlier[1, 2]. I wonder if these rings or the "identity crises" (the NTH-ring was designed to give former NTH (now engineering) students an identity, whereas this iron ring represents the obligations and ethics) have some correlation or not.
Agreed. It's quite easy to notice someone wearing one and that easily segues into questions about which discipline they chose, what school they went to and inevitably, how they use relatively little of their engineering/school knowledge in their day-to-day job. ;)
Non-engineers notice mine all the time too. I'm so used to wearing though (and sort of forget that I am sometimes) that usually there's a few seconds where I'm very confused as to how they know I'm an engineer.
It's also great for tapping out a rhythm on any hard surface you can find.
My girlfriend calls it a cult -Which is partially true if you were to attend the ceremony-. There's an unspoken bond with most engineers that we can get along quite easily when we recognize the ring which adds to the "cult" persona
There is an American equivalent to the iron ring, but the organization behind it expressly prohibits membership to CS and Software Engineering graduates last time I checked.
Screw them. I got one on my own. I had a custom jewelist take the cladding off a simple band of white gold. I wear it for the same reason mentioned by others: to remind me of my obligations to my profession, my customers and clients, and to the public at large.
We make the world go round is exactly what the ring is _not_ about. For one, software developers /engineers would be nothing without the computer engineers building the systems the software runs on, and the computer engineers would be nothing without the electrical engineers and device physicists who develop the electrical components from which computers are built... and on and on it goes (turtles the whole way down). Engineering is all about interdisciplinary cooperation, even bridges these days are filled with computer systems for monitoring.
The main idea of the ring is to remind you of your solemn duties as an engineer:
- To put the safety of the public who use systems you engineer first
- To put monetary compensation second to doing quality work (the reason the ring is worn on the pinky finger far away from your gold wedding band - which it will destroy)
- To encourage the next generation of engineers and help them attain mastery
- To encourage those you work with who are not engineers to become technically proficient if they so desire.
>- To put monetary compensation second to doing quality work (the reason the ring is worn on the pinky finger far away from your gold wedding band - which it will destroy)
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this incorrect? The ring is to be worn on your dominant hand as to have it rub against the engineering drawings you create/stamp in a more traditional sense of the engineering discipline (before computer aided design).
We were instructed to wear it on the dominant hand. I know with 100% certainty this is true but the reason why is not so certain.
The ring will cut through a wedding band made of gold over time. Because of this, it is acceptable for a left handed engineer to wear his ring on his right pinky when necessary.
It is true, but at the time they came up with this tradition left handed people didn't really exist :P That is to say if you were left handed you were made to be right handed.
We were instructed that the ring was to be worn on the dominant hand so that it could rub on the page while writing or drafting and serve as a reminder of our obligation. We were also told that the beveled design and iron metal was meant to cut into and destroy gold rings.
There wasn't ever any talk of left-handed married engineers, I assumed that this edge case was not thought of by Mr. Kipling.
If I remember the ceremony correctly ('98) it was to be worn on the pinky finger of the working hand to serve as a reminder that like our work, steel is cold and unforgiving.
It's the code of ethics that put our priorities as society, our profession, our employer, and ourselves.
There was one more layer of symbolism to the ring that was mentioned in the super-secret ring ceremony (which is well-documented on wikipedia). New rings have rough edges due to the bevelled decoration; over time it smooths out, symbolizing one's maturing as a professional.
I heard a friend-of-a-friend story that described a senior engineer who lost his ring and had to get a replacement. He complained that he "felt like a kid" with his fresh ring and was apparently found in the metal shop later grinding down the edges.
I think you may be missing the point. These rings are given to graduating engineers not as a beautiful object of congratulations for their achievements, but as a token designed to remind them of the burden they have taken on.
[This poem](http://www.tricolour.net/som.html) is part of the Canadian ceremony (or was at mine, anyhow), and describes the aforementioned burden. It may be because it strokes an engineers' ego a bit, but I enjoy it.
They do. It might not be direct or even obvious, but when you make a tool that a person relies on, people a harmed when it fails (or perhaps even works). Our death tolls might be small, but it is naive to believe that any product does not have a price in blood. It is our responsibility to understand it, and to make sure the benefit is worth it.
This depends on the university. At UofT, for example, "software engineering" is actually taught outside of the engineering faculty, and is not CEAB approved... and therefore doesn't qualify.
Yes, at MST/UMR the Comp Sci degree isn't applicable to engineering. I don't recall if computer engineering is/was because it's taught by the EE staff and Comp Sci staff.
Even if you had an engineering degree you still didn't get the ring. I believe you had to go to some sort of ethics classes before we'd be given the opportunity to purchase the ring.
Sorry, I study at the UofA and we have a "software option" within the Computer Engineering program. Students graduating from this branch will get the iron ring. I just assumed that Software Engineers elsewhere got them too.
That is a real shame given the UK's fantastic history of engineering. Still, I guess it was something that an engineer came out second in the BBC's poll of the Top 100 Britons:
Well the Chartered Engineer title awarded by the IET was always held high in regard at my uni (which, in theory at least, is focused on Engineering). Unfortunately for me though, there is little point spending time, energy and money to acquire one as a Software Engineer, as it applies to Mech/Civil etc schools more.
While this will like devolve into a trite discussion about why programming computers is just the same as building a bridge, it's offensive that the software industry takes for granted just how much work goes into earning something like this ring versus coding JavaScript.
I worked my way through college doing web development while studying 80 hours per week on top of that for years to get my engineering degrees. Having systematic devaluation of that is deflating, if not wrong.
This is because the industry, like most groups, values outputs, not inputs.
The skills you have, how you use them and where you learned them are inputs which means that on their own they are largely irrelevant.
It's entirely possible to make a good career, delivering genuine value to organisations and individuals, doing work you can be proud of without having any understanding of CS beyond that you'll pick up during your day to day work and a little reading around the subject. I've worked with great programmers who graduated in science, history, psychology, electronic engineering and so on. These were people who could go toe to toe technically with CS graduates and in some cases they bought things to the table that added significant value which were relatively rare in people with a more conventional computing background. Why does the fact of having not studied computer science formally make them any less valuable?
Bottom line: yes you worked very hard to get your degree and made a significant financial investment in it, but what's important now is what you do with it and that's what you'll be judged on. If you can't translate that knowledge into results why should it be significant?
In looking into the United States' adoption of this[1], I noticed that there is actually a fledgling organization aimed at computer scientists, 'The Pledge of the Computing Professional'.
Even though I'm currently living in Silicon Valley, I still where my Canadian engineering ring. Many people ask me what it's for. Usually, people are surprised to learn about it. In contrast, it feels good that in Canada I don't have answer similar questions: most know what it's for.
You deal with the wrong auto mechanics. The local one replaced a plastic part in the door with one he cut out of aluminum and charged 1/4th the cost of a replacement plastic one.
I got mine in 2003 for a B. Sc in Mechanical Engineering, but since I ended up going to work at a software development company, I decided not to wear it - just felt wrong. This was a personal choice, YMMV :)
I wear mine despite not doing professional engineering work. It actually serves as a great reminder of my ethical obligations beyond my personal comfort. I'm sure not everybody needs as constant reminding as I do though ;)
I also got a BS in MechE, then got a job as a software engineer, so now my girlfriend wears my ethics ring. I guess we're exempt from programming morally!
I should clarify: I attended a US university, so we didn't partake in the Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer. Rather, we participated in a similar ceremony for an organization called the Order of the Engineer. The Wikipedia entry on the Order of the Engineer alludes to what you're saying though; it mentions that they tried to bring the Canadian ritual to the US but experienced legal troubles including some related to copyright.
"Illegal" is probably the wrong word to use here, since the iron ring is not governed by any municipal, provincial, or federal law.
I have a B.Sc. EE and yet work mostly in web/mobile software. I don't consider or present myself as a "practicing engineer" but I still wear the ring as a reminder of the obligation I have towards anything I create for other people to use. I probably wouldn't give it to my girlfriend to wear, but to each their own.
Actually it is the right word. The ring is a registered symbol of the Corporation of the Seven Wardens, and wearing or displaying one without their permission (via having been obligated) or attempting to sell one is illegal in exactly the same way that using any other entity's trademark without their permission is illegal.
That said, if you've been obligated and are working in a technical field, but don't really consider yourself an 'engineer' you can still wear it, so long as you hold yourself to the values it represents.
The ring is a registered symbol of the Corporation of the Seven Wardens, and wearing or displaying one without their permission (via having been obligated) or attempting to sell one is illegal in exactly the same way that using any other entity's trademark without their permission is illegal.
UCLA '12, stainless was our only option if I recall. Even amongst my engineering buddies, few actually knew of the ritual/ring and that they could obtain one! I have to say I like mine =)
"Early attempts to extend The Ritual of the Calling of an Engineer to the United States were unsuccessful due to complications including copyright issues."
After introducing the ring, still bridges collapsed in Quebec while in service not at construction and people died. I am not sure how effective is this ring.
What the hell did I just read ? It was not bridges, but a single overpass that fell and it is unrelated to the ring or engineers. The main problem was that two governements failed to identify the weaknesses because they wanted to save money. I despise people like you who try to link two totally unrelated facts to sound smart.
My friend, this is just politics. This is a case of poor leadership trying to blame someone else for their own error (lack of investment in infrastructure). This as nothing to do with the iron ring.
As far as I know my year (2005) was one of the last years that U of T still offered an actual iron version, as opposed to stainless steel (most other schools no longer did at that time). I'm not sure if it's still possible to get one today. Another option was to get an old ring from retired engineers who were no longer practicing and returned their ring to be used by the next generation... something that I thought was pretty amazing and humbling.