RE: Definition of Engineer (was: What to do?)

[k k <turnleftatnowhere -at- yahoo -dot- com>]

Chuck Martin:
> I'd venture to say that most
> people--including decision
> makers--probably
> believe that if someone walks in claiming to be,
> say, an electrical
> engineer, that the claim is backed by some minimum
> amount of education. Too
> many of the same people believe that if someone
> walks in claiming to be a
> technical writer, that, well, how hard can writing
> be?
> 

How is this perception problem going to be solved by
licensing? The problem comes from the other people
comparing what they know to what they think tech
writers know. If they believe the tech writer's
training has not been as complete and arduous as
theirs, or that the writer's training has been in
subjects that are not as relevant, they'll still
consider the tech writer a lesser being no matter how
many initials he has behind his name. The only way
licensing could possibly have any effect on the minds
of these people, is if they believe it certifies the
tech writer as having gone through training equal to
theirs. But the fields are so different there is no
way to form a valid comparison. 



Walden Miller:
> However,
> certification is not a way to
> achieve better writers.  It might even lead to weird
> hiring situations in
> which a very good writer could not be hired because
> he lacked the
> certification necessary to be considered a tech
> writer.
> 

Amen. As I pointed out in an earlier post, if we
restrict the number of "certified" writers without
closing off other means whereby companies can hire
writers, we will just limit our employment
possibilities and at the same time give companies
incentive to explore alternative hiring. Licensing
would be nothing but an expensive PR ploy. It would
give employers no incentives and it would place no
requirements on them. The laws that restrict use of
the word "engineer" are effective for engineers
because they're laws, not just image polishing. Coming
up with some procedure where we do nothing but meet
our internal licensing requirements would cost money
but cannot possibly have anywhere near the same
effect. 

My response to the licensing idea is also emotional.
To reiterate what I wrote earlier, requiring licenses
would put out of work some people who are perfectly
capable, but they just don't have the requisite
sheepskin. I cannot and will not support any idea that
would cost the jobs of some of my compatriots. The
idea of thinning our ranks as a way of addressing our
problems is the idea of taking the first step on a
downward spiral. If we are indeed in an image trap, we
will not be served in the long run by gnawing off our
leg to escape. The next time we run into a
problem/trap, will we gnaw off the other leg as well?



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ROBOHELP FOR FRAMEMAKER TRIAL NOW AVAILABLE!

RoboHelp for FrameMaker is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to online Help, intranet, and Web.  
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! Call 800-718-4407 for 
competitive pricing or download a trial at: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l4

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.