baud@eedsp.eedsp.gatech.edu (Kurt Baudendistel) (08/06/90)
In article <1008@stca77.stc.oz> nick@stca77.stc.oz (Nick Lochrin) writes: >Following the discussions on the engineering profession, I couldn't help >but notice the comparisions between engineers and "lawyers and doctors" >(which have been grouped together in the discussions). > > ... > >It is also a sad fact that there is a shortage of qualified engineers, >but I think the profession is not perceived in the same light as that of >the lawyers in this country. Does anyone know of other surveys ? Well, my all-time favorite commentary on this subject appeared in the Editor's Comment of Digital Design, February 1986. John Bond, Editor in Chief, writes the following: Professionals ------------- I have often wondered why engineers ar considered less ``professional'' than doctors and lawyers. After all, it takes as much intelligence and perseverance to become an engineer as it does to become a doctor and much more than a lawyer (my own prejudice). A recent article in the December {\em Atlantic Monthly} (``The Case Against Credentialism,'' by James Fallows) gave me some insight into the engineers' sdilemma. Quoting sociaologist Randall Collins, the article states: ``A strong profession requires a real technical skill that produces demonstrable results and can be taught. The skill must be difficult enough to require training and reliable enough to produce results. But it cannot be too reliable, for then outsiders can judge the work by its results.'' The article notes that engineers have never gained the prestige and independence of doctors and lawyers because the engineer's compentence is too clearly on display. So patients die and the innocent get jailed without tarnishing the medical or legal reputations. But let the building fall down, the bridge collapse, the gas tank explode, the airplane crash or the TV catch fire and guess who gets blamed. I'm not sure I would want it any other way. Most engineers don't relish falling out of the sky or other disasters caused by poor engineering. Nor would most of us conspire to protect the less competent of our fellows as the medical profession commonly does. Nonetheless, society's insistence on compentent engineering is a real burden to our professional aspirations. We can't blame God, nature, judge or jury for our failures, thus taking the mystery out of the process. This puts us squarely in the ranks of plumbers, electricians, aircraft mechanics and other craftsmen who do the world's work. That's not a bad place to be but it doesn't get the respect that the world's more nebulous professions command. My son the junior partner in a legal firm sounds more impressive than my sone the junior engineer. Of course, professional status waxes and wanes according to the notions of the times. Shamans and clergymen have each, in their time, exerted a powerful professional presence only to lose some of that status as knowledge advanced and some the the mystery was dispelled. New professions spring up to replace the old, however. Economists and MBAs are a good example. They require training and sometimes even produce results, although not too reliably. They are the shamans of our time, since reading the entrails of goats is no longer in vogue. Naturally, they have more status than engineers. I suspect that economists will be around longer than the MBAs who may eventually be judged by the results they produce. Economics, on the other hand, produces results that are hardly ever right. But it doesn't matter because no one can understand or agree upon either the methods or the results. Thus it is the perfect shamanistic priofession and since computer modeling is less disgusting than reading entrails, it appeals to a wider audience. Despite such flaws, most of the professions have as a goal the search for and practice of truth within a limited field. Only the practice of law violates that principle. Engineers develop new technology based on scientific knowledge or empirical evidence---that is, on the closest approximation to truth available. Our legal system, how3ever, is adversarial in nature and truth is important only if it advances the case for either side. Thus, the society that honors the professional status of lawyers is not likely to appreciate the value of engineering as a profession or to grant status to craftsmen of any stripe. As the doctors, lawyers and MBAs make big bucks, engineers can console themselves with the technological pursuit of truth and the American way. Forget justice. There ain't no justice. ------------- -- Kurt Baudendistel --- GRA Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA 30332 internet: baud@eedsp.gatech.edu uucp: gatech!gt-eedsp!baud
tjhorton@ai.toronto.edu ("Timothy J. Horton") (08/09/90)
baud@eedsp.UUCP (Kurt Baudendistel) writes: >[from] Editor's Comment of Digital Design, February 1986. >Professionals [by John Bond] >------------- > >I have often wondered why engineers ar considered less ``professional'' >than doctors and lawyers. After all, it takes as much intelligence and >perseverance [...] A recent article [...] gave me some insight into the >engineers' sdilemma. Quoting sociaologist Randall Collins, the article states: >``A strong profession requires a real technical skill that produces >demonstrable results and can be taught. The skill must be difficult enough >to require training and reliable enough to produce results. But it cannot be >too reliable, for then outsiders can judge the work by its results.'' The >article notes that engineers have never gained the prestige and independence >of doctors and lawyers because the engineer's compentence is too clearly on >display. [...] That's not a bad place to be but it doesn't get the respect >that the world's more nebulous professions command. [...] >Of course, professional status waxes and wanes according to the notions of >the times. Shamans and clergymen have each, in their time, exerted a >powerful professional presence only to lose some of that status as >knowledge advanced and some the the mystery was dispelled. > >[...] Economists and MBAs are a good example. They require training and >sometimes even produce results, although not too reliably. They are the >shamans of our time, since reading the entrails of goats is no longer in >vogue. Naturally, they have more status than engineers. I suspect that >economists will be around longer than the MBAs who may eventually be judged >by the results they produce. Economics, on the other hand, produces results >that are hardly ever right. But it doesn't matter because no one can >understand or agree upon either the methods or the results. Thus it is the >perfect shamanistic profession and since computer modeling is less disgusting >than reading entrails, it appeals to a wider audience. I agree that nebulism has important effects on how people judge results, but is not the determinant of how they *value* those results. The above article states an opinion which, I think, partly confounds the determinants of respect for the various professions. While I agree that professions in nebuous domains (held in any credence) receive undue respect, I do not think that this is the major determinant. What is NOT noticed is that all the domains that are put foremost in the article, (medicine, law, economics) are nebulous PRECISELY because they center on human issues, with all the concommitant nebulism of human affairs and human biology and human sociology. Could it be that the respect these professions receive can be directly correlated with subjectively perceived *human relevance*? Further, as a disproof, medicine is more and more respected as it becomes more and more scientific, and is much more respected than psychology (or horroscopes), which most people believe while the field remains very mystical. Nobody has ever produced an equation for `thought', or explained the neural mechanisms of any higher thought, etc etc, but psychologists are not highly respected, in my experience. To the average joe, his health is much more important than nebulous descriptions of what goes on in his head. Again, I agree that nebulism has important effects on how people judge results, but is not the determinant of how they value those results. The value of a field, and the desire that people display to enter into that field, is determined mainly by the perceived benefit -- financial, social, relevance, ... etc. Human success, not technical success.