10 ms·

>When Järlström brought the issue to the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, the state board opened an investigation in 2015 and

>When Järlström brought the issue to the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying, the state board opened an investigation in 2015 and fined him $500 the following year for practicing engineering without a professional license. What a bunch of pricks. Vogons couldn't have done any worse than the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SECProto 7y ago
While on this issue I mostly agree with the defendant, I think it's reasonable to protect certain titles (engineer, doctor, lawyer, dentist). For a parallel situation, imagine a hypothetical person named Phil, who has a doctorate in psychology. They call themselves "doctor" and give medical advise to the unwitting public, despite having no relevant training. In this case, the guy had training as an electric engineer, but was commenting outside of his proven realm of expertise. However, he wasn't deceiving the public by representing himself as an engineer-for-hire, though, which I think makes it forgivable. I just found the free speech ruling to be over-broad.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  The courts very much got it right in this case. Joe Shmoe has health problems and will listen to a "doctor" but they don't have a bridge half-built in their backyard or an automotive manufacturing setup. There's just no risk to letting people say they are engineers, and the first amendment should only be infringed upon for good reason. Let's take this case as an example. Anyone can send a letter saying "The traffic light is too short; here's the math to prove it". Saying "I'm an engineer" might help you get that letter noticed, but it would almost certainly be illegal to reprogram the light without a professional engineer's sign-off independent of that letter no matter the person's qualifications. The state was never at risk of acting on his advice no matter how he represented himself. So why not let him say it?
  - grepthisab 7y ago
    No pretending to be an engineer can have deadly consequences. Imagine someone saying they're an engineer and being contracted to build a bridge or building. That could (and has) have disastrous consequences.
    - NOGDP 7y ago
      You can be an engineer without an engineering license. Safety-critical jobs usually require a professional engineering license, but there are a lot of engineering work which is not safety-critical.
      - SECProto 7y ago
        When it comes to civil stuff (i.e. the safety critical thing people think of when they hear engineer - bridges, buildings, highways, flood protection...) you absolutely can't call yourself an engineer without professional accreditation in every jurisdiction I know.
        NOGDP 7y ago
        Even then (buildings for example), I believe some of the work can be done by non-licensed engineers. Stuff like land surveying, some electrical, CAD/modelling work, design of plumbing, heating, etc. can be done without license. I know a few people that aren't licensed but work on condos as engineers. I'm guessing a lot of the stuff has to be reviewed/approved by a licensed engineer, but that could be 1 to 5 licensed:unlicensed for example.
        SECProto 7y ago
        Definitely! Engineers don't do all the work. But if you're working in the field, you don't call yourself an engineer unless you're licensed. (For context: I work in the field and am not a registered engineer, though I studied it in university. I would never call myself an engineer)
- madamelic 7y ago
  >I think it's reasonable to protect certain titles (engineer, doctor, lawyer, dentist). I've always wondered this: why are software engineers allowed to use the title "Engineer" but aren't at all required to do FE or any certification? It's very strange. I always thought certification was about being able to be employed as an engineer, not use the title.
  - benzofuran 7y ago
    Many times software engineers fall under the 'industrial exemption' for most states' professional practices acts. That's how many folks without a PE are able to be engineers - as long as they're not selling engineering services to the general public, but only to their employer. Things get trickier with software as well - with many engineering disciplines, the public can be placed in harm's way by the malpractice of engineering - that's why many civil firms require PE's. In other areas, it's less desirable - for defense contractors, many purposely avoid PE's due to our ethical obligations around harming the public. Surrounding software, I think a major part of it is just that the laws haven't caught up with the times. NCEES now has a Software PE available but no clue about the contents of the exam. It seems like a tricky one to test for.
    - WA9ACE 7y ago
      Looks like it got axed https://ncees.org/ncees-discontinuing-pe-software-engineering-exam/ https://ncees.org/ncees-discontinuing-pe-software-engineerin...
    - kabdib 7y ago
      The last time I saw the areas covered by a PE exam for Software Engineering was maybe 25 years ago, in California. Over half the exam was electrical engineering. Less than a third was actually about anything related to software. Near as I could tell, it was a rent-seeking and exclusionary agenda of some entrenched parties. The proposed exam requirement for software engineers didn't go anywhere.
    - caseysoftware 7y ago
      ABET has a Software Engineering program now - https://www.softwareengineerinsider.com/abet/abet-software-engineering-programs.html https://www.softwareengineerinsider.com/abet/abet-software-e... It has little to do with languages and frameworks and more on principles and practices. I'm biased as my undergrad was one of the first to become certified.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  And this is why the U.S. has notoriously expensive doctors, lawyers, dentists. And so dental tourism is a thing. While yes the quality will be very high, that's not summation of all that matters. If I am contesting traffic ticket, I might accept a lawyer without $300k in student debt. Same if I want a tooth cleaning or a strep test. By all means have bodies of accreditation but don't force me to use them, especially in common low-risk scenarios.
  - SECProto 7y ago
    ? I live in Canada. Professionals of all stripes are expensive everywhere, but the US is exorbitant for other reasons.
    - paulddraper 7y ago
      Canada (and many other countries) also have required accreditation.
      - SECProto 7y ago
        Yes, we have accreditation and professional societies. And yet, our doctors and dentists are not "notoriously expensive". I'm saying the one does not necessarily cause the other.
- eikenberry 7y ago
  Just FYI many people with doctorates (not MDs) do call themselves doctors. I've known many Finance, Philosophy and Econ doctors in my time and they all use that title and their name plaques all had "Dr. So-and-so" on them. I'm sure it is common in other areas as well.
  - SECProto 7y ago
    I know a few with PhDs, and they don't. Usually post-nominal credentials, rather than "doctor" before the name. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a whole lot. The giving-medical-advice thing was a dig at a formerly popular television host.
    - MereInterest 7y ago
      There is a difference between PhDs typically not introducing themselves as "Doctor" and saying that it is a falsehood when they do. That said, a doctor misrepresenting themself as a physician and giving medical advice where not licensed to do practice medicine, as done by Dr. Phil, is wildly unethical.
      - SECProto 7y ago
        Definitely, and if you read my original comment, I defended the engineer because he wasn't using the title as a deception or in soliciting business. Though he was potentially commenting outside his realm of expertise.
  - LiquidSky 7y ago
    When we graduated from law school a friend of mine called our state bar association and asked about the ethical rules regarding an attorney calling themselves "doctor" since we have JDs. The answer for our state is that it's fine unless you practice in the area of medical malpractice, in which case it might cause confusion with clients and will be considered on a case-by-case basis if there is a complaint.
  - Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
    I don't know how it works in America, but in Europe (or at least in the European countries I know) that's actually the formal standard. If you have a PhD, you earn the right to be called Dr. (name). If you get a degree in medicine, you are colloquially addressed as "doctor" but formally you aren't one, unless you get the PhD in medicine.
- james_in_the_uk 7y ago
  "Lawyer" doesn't tend to be a protected title (with some exceptions). Mostly it is used as a colloquial term for the protected professions e.g. attorney, solicitor, advocate etc.
vkou 7y ago
1. Being a P.Eng carries with it weight. When you are one, you can make arguments from authority on the subject of engineering. 2. He claimed to be a P.Eng, without being one. This undermines the profession, at loss to the public. I can go around, giving unsolicited medical advice all I want. I can't go around, giving unsolicited medical advice, while claiming to be a MD - and for good reason.
- larkeith 7y ago
  > 2. He claimed to be a P.Eng, without being one. [Citation needed] He claimed to be an engineer. The ruling preserved license requirements to claim yourself a "professional engineer" and "registered professional engineer" [0]. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/02/oregon_engineer_license_laws/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/02/oregon_engineer_lic...
  - vkou 7y ago
    The state of Oregon does not recognize a distinction between an Engineer, and a P.Eng. Other states do, but it does not. It's not an unreasonable position.
    - fnordfnordfnord 7y ago
      That is totally unreasonable, especially given the liberty at which companies and people use and misuse the word "engineer" today.
- escape_goat 7y ago
  From what I am reading in the articles linked above, he does not seem to have identified himself as "professional engineer." Rather, Oregon's state law is unusual in restricting the use of the term 'engineer' itself to licensed "professional engineers" (as they are referred to elsewhere). Perhaps a person who is trained as an electrical engineer and who has a history of employment as a researcher and developer of audio electronics (in Oregon) should not think of or refer to themselves as an 'engineer' unless they are licensed in the jurisdiction they happen to be in, but this is a problem with a simple fix, and it is a problem unique to Oregon.
scarejunba 7y ago
Predictable. This is exactly what people are trying to ensure happens when they say "Software Engineers should get certifications". They want to have this power to squelch reasonable people.
cryptonector 7y ago
However, thanks to the Vogons of Oregon, we might now get longer yellows, fewer red light accidents and fatalities, fewer automatic red light running tickets, and great material for appealing those bogus tickets. No, hats off to the a-holes on the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying. They need to be humiliated even more thoroughly than this. This needs to be national and international front-page news. Let these petty tyrants know that heroes exist. This story keeps popping up with updates. What a great saga. And, of course, Mr. Järlström deserves all the kudos, free beer, pizza -- a few $$ that might help defray costs? Where to send?
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  I am in favor of replacing the automatic red light ticket fine with a Pizza-for-the-Not-Engineer-Guy payment. Would be interested in the dude's paypal or other info too.
- balabaster 7y ago
  I disagree that longer yellows will mean less accidents. I've always held a fascination with behavioural psychology and I spend a great deal of time observing people's behaviour and it's my hypothesis, which I feel will bear out in time, that people will get used to longer yellows and begin to think... "I've got plenty of time to get through that without stopping" so they'll just keep going and people will still run reds and still cause accidents... They'd do better to change it for a countdown just like they do with the crosswalk sign that counts down from 15 seconds or something before going to a solid amber for a couple of seconds before going red. They'd also do well to have some kind of markers on the road indicating a safe distance from the traffic lights to come to a stop in an average family car (whatever that means) in current weather conditions.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    Is the posterior you hold on your hypothesis different from your prior after being presented with https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.06.011 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.06.011 ?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

SECProto 7y ago

While on this issue I mostly agree with the defendant, I think it's reasonable to protect certain titles (engineer, doctor, lawyer, dentist). For a parallel situation, imagine a hypothetical person named Phil, who has a doctorate in psychology. They call themselves "doctor" and give medical advise to the unwitting public, despite having no relevant training. In this case, the guy had training as an electric engineer, but was commenting outside of his proven realm of expertise. However, he wasn't deceiving the public by representing himself as an engineer-for-hire, though, which I think makes it forgivable. I just found the free speech ruling to be over-broad.

henryfjordan 7y ago
The courts very much got it right in this case. Joe Shmoe has health problems and will listen to a "doctor" but they don't have a bridge half-built in their backyard or an automotive manufacturing setup. There's just no risk to letting people say they are engineers, and the first amendment should only be infringed upon for good reason. Let's take this case as an example. Anyone can send a letter saying "The traffic light is too short; here's the math to prove it". Saying "I'm an engineer" might help you get that letter noticed, but it would almost certainly be illegal to reprogram the light without a professional engineer's sign-off independent of that letter no matter the person's qualifications. The state was never at risk of acting on his advice no matter how he represented himself. So why not let him say it?
- grepthisab 7y ago
  No pretending to be an engineer can have deadly consequences. Imagine someone saying they're an engineer and being contracted to build a bridge or building. That could (and has) have disastrous consequences.
  - NOGDP 7y ago
    You can be an engineer without an engineering license. Safety-critical jobs usually require a professional engineering license, but there are a lot of engineering work which is not safety-critical.
    - SECProto 7y ago
      When it comes to civil stuff (i.e. the safety critical thing people think of when they hear engineer - bridges, buildings, highways, flood protection...) you absolutely can't call yourself an engineer without professional accreditation in every jurisdiction I know.
      - NOGDP 7y ago
        Even then (buildings for example), I believe some of the work can be done by non-licensed engineers. Stuff like land surveying, some electrical, CAD/modelling work, design of plumbing, heating, etc. can be done without license. I know a few people that aren't licensed but work on condos as engineers. I'm guessing a lot of the stuff has to be reviewed/approved by a licensed engineer, but that could be 1 to 5 licensed:unlicensed for example.
        SECProto 7y ago
        Definitely! Engineers don't do all the work. But if you're working in the field, you don't call yourself an engineer unless you're licensed. (For context: I work in the field and am not a registered engineer, though I studied it in university. I would never call myself an engineer)
madamelic 7y ago
>I think it's reasonable to protect certain titles (engineer, doctor, lawyer, dentist). I've always wondered this: why are software engineers allowed to use the title "Engineer" but aren't at all required to do FE or any certification? It's very strange. I always thought certification was about being able to be employed as an engineer, not use the title.
- benzofuran 7y ago
  Many times software engineers fall under the 'industrial exemption' for most states' professional practices acts. That's how many folks without a PE are able to be engineers - as long as they're not selling engineering services to the general public, but only to their employer. Things get trickier with software as well - with many engineering disciplines, the public can be placed in harm's way by the malpractice of engineering - that's why many civil firms require PE's. In other areas, it's less desirable - for defense contractors, many purposely avoid PE's due to our ethical obligations around harming the public. Surrounding software, I think a major part of it is just that the laws haven't caught up with the times. NCEES now has a Software PE available but no clue about the contents of the exam. It seems like a tricky one to test for.
  - WA9ACE 7y ago
    Looks like it got axed https://ncees.org/ncees-discontinuing-pe-software-engineering-exam/ https://ncees.org/ncees-discontinuing-pe-software-engineerin...
  - kabdib 7y ago
    The last time I saw the areas covered by a PE exam for Software Engineering was maybe 25 years ago, in California. Over half the exam was electrical engineering. Less than a third was actually about anything related to software. Near as I could tell, it was a rent-seeking and exclusionary agenda of some entrenched parties. The proposed exam requirement for software engineers didn't go anywhere.
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
    ABET has a Software Engineering program now - https://www.softwareengineerinsider.com/abet/abet-software-engineering-programs.html https://www.softwareengineerinsider.com/abet/abet-software-e... It has little to do with languages and frameworks and more on principles and practices. I'm biased as my undergrad was one of the first to become certified.
paulddraper 7y ago
And this is why the U.S. has notoriously expensive doctors, lawyers, dentists. And so dental tourism is a thing. While yes the quality will be very high, that's not summation of all that matters. If I am contesting traffic ticket, I might accept a lawyer without $300k in student debt. Same if I want a tooth cleaning or a strep test. By all means have bodies of accreditation but don't force me to use them, especially in common low-risk scenarios.
- SECProto 7y ago
  ? I live in Canada. Professionals of all stripes are expensive everywhere, but the US is exorbitant for other reasons.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    Canada (and many other countries) also have required accreditation.
    - SECProto 7y ago
      Yes, we have accreditation and professional societies. And yet, our doctors and dentists are not "notoriously expensive". I'm saying the one does not necessarily cause the other.
eikenberry 7y ago
Just FYI many people with doctorates (not MDs) do call themselves doctors. I've known many Finance, Philosophy and Econ doctors in my time and they all use that title and their name plaques all had "Dr. So-and-so" on them. I'm sure it is common in other areas as well.
- SECProto 7y ago
  I know a few with PhDs, and they don't. Usually post-nominal credentials, rather than "doctor" before the name. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean a whole lot. The giving-medical-advice thing was a dig at a formerly popular television host.
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    There is a difference between PhDs typically not introducing themselves as "Doctor" and saying that it is a falsehood when they do. That said, a doctor misrepresenting themself as a physician and giving medical advice where not licensed to do practice medicine, as done by Dr. Phil, is wildly unethical.
    - SECProto 7y ago
      Definitely, and if you read my original comment, I defended the engineer because he wasn't using the title as a deception or in soliciting business. Though he was potentially commenting outside his realm of expertise.
- LiquidSky 7y ago
  When we graduated from law school a friend of mine called our state bar association and asked about the ethical rules regarding an attorney calling themselves "doctor" since we have JDs. The answer for our state is that it's fine unless you practice in the area of medical malpractice, in which case it might cause confusion with clients and will be considered on a case-by-case basis if there is a complaint.
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
  I don't know how it works in America, but in Europe (or at least in the European countries I know) that's actually the formal standard. If you have a PhD, you earn the right to be called Dr. (name). If you get a degree in medicine, you are colloquially addressed as "doctor" but formally you aren't one, unless you get the PhD in medicine.
james_in_the_uk 7y ago
"Lawyer" doesn't tend to be a protected title (with some exceptions). Mostly it is used as a colloquial term for the protected professions e.g. attorney, solicitor, advocate etc.

vkou 7y ago

1. Being a P.Eng carries with it weight. When you are one, you can make arguments from authority on the subject of engineering. 2. He claimed to be a P.Eng, without being one. This undermines the profession, at loss to the public. I can go around, giving unsolicited medical advice all I want. I can't go around, giving unsolicited medical advice, while claiming to be a MD - and for good reason.

larkeith 7y ago
> 2. He claimed to be a P.Eng, without being one. [Citation needed] He claimed to be an engineer. The ruling preserved license requirements to claim yourself a "professional engineer" and "registered professional engineer" [0]. [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/02/oregon_engineer_license_laws/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/02/oregon_engineer_lic...
- vkou 7y ago
  The state of Oregon does not recognize a distinction between an Engineer, and a P.Eng. Other states do, but it does not. It's not an unreasonable position.
  - fnordfnordfnord 7y ago
    That is totally unreasonable, especially given the liberty at which companies and people use and misuse the word "engineer" today.
escape_goat 7y ago
From what I am reading in the articles linked above, he does not seem to have identified himself as "professional engineer." Rather, Oregon's state law is unusual in restricting the use of the term 'engineer' itself to licensed "professional engineers" (as they are referred to elsewhere). Perhaps a person who is trained as an electrical engineer and who has a history of employment as a researcher and developer of audio electronics (in Oregon) should not think of or refer to themselves as an 'engineer' unless they are licensed in the jurisdiction they happen to be in, but this is a problem with a simple fix, and it is a problem unique to Oregon.

scarejunba 7y ago

Predictable. This is exactly what people are trying to ensure happens when they say "Software Engineers should get certifications". They want to have this power to squelch reasonable people.

cryptonector 7y ago

However, thanks to the Vogons of Oregon, we might now get longer yellows, fewer red light accidents and fatalities, fewer automatic red light running tickets, and great material for appealing those bogus tickets. No, hats off to the a-holes on the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying. They need to be humiliated even more thoroughly than this. This needs to be national and international front-page news. Let these petty tyrants know that heroes exist. This story keeps popping up with updates. What a great saga. And, of course, Mr. Järlström deserves all the kudos, free beer, pizza -- a few $$ that might help defray costs? Where to send?

blaser-waffle 7y ago
I am in favor of replacing the automatic red light ticket fine with a Pizza-for-the-Not-Engineer-Guy payment. Would be interested in the dude's paypal or other info too.
balabaster 7y ago
I disagree that longer yellows will mean less accidents. I've always held a fascination with behavioural psychology and I spend a great deal of time observing people's behaviour and it's my hypothesis, which I feel will bear out in time, that people will get used to longer yellows and begin to think... "I've got plenty of time to get through that without stopping" so they'll just keep going and people will still run reds and still cause accidents... They'd do better to change it for a countdown just like they do with the crosswalk sign that counts down from 15 seconds or something before going to a solid amber for a couple of seconds before going red. They'd also do well to have some kind of markers on the road indicating a safe distance from the traffic lights to come to a stop in an average family car (whatever that means) in current weather conditions.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Is the posterior you hold on your hypothesis different from your prior after being presented with https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.06.011 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.06.011 ?