My diploma says that I am an EE, but that was only based on the courses that I took in college. I have made it a point to continue learning, and as a result I have been able to do quite a few mechanical designs, create hydraulic and pneumatic systems that function very well, and develop a few industrial processes.
But the most fun engineering area has been in diagnostics of systems that don't function as desired or as they did when they functioned correctly. Understanding all of the varied disciplines well enough to know how they should be functioning is a requirement to understanding when they are "not functioning quite right". That sort of insight has been rewarding and entertaining as well.
But I do not wish to be called a "Service Engineer" or a "Maintenance Engineer", even all the way to the bank. Not that those titles don't deserve a lot of respect, but it is more fun to be "the man who always has the answers".
Jack, you put it well. All such things are helpful only for entry level positions; they can act as a key factor to get in to the first job. There after experience, skill and ability are the driving parameters for promotion and growth. Once we are in job, educational credentials are not going to be referred unless and until it mediatory for certain posts in government services.
Richard, you are right. EE, Civil, ME are the core engineering braches and the other branches are derived from this core with different nomenclatures. I had completed electronics and communication in 1996 and now I heard that they had further split the same in to different branches like communication, satellite and telecommunication etc. Another thing is they had merged some of the core subjects like electronics & mechanical to form Mechatronics.
How you identify yourself depends upon what you are trying to accomplish and where you are are doing your identifying. Your company may want you to identify yourself in a particular way to indicate rank.
I have been through a signficant process of a job search and have altered my titles to highlight one part of my skills for a company that would use them and another set for a different type of position (e.g., Development Engineering Manager, Project Manager, Controls / Automation Engineer). My degrees simply say BSEE and MBA, which don't give the whole picture.
In fact, the degree by itself may not be all that useful. Two people graduating from the same school at the same time might have the same degree, but took drastically different electives. Ten years down the road, even people with identical degree backgrounds, might be qualified for totally different things due to work experience and continuing education, which doesn't get wrapped up in a nice package of a degree.
Rich, I hope it is alright to comment on an article in which I am quoted.
I belong to the IEEE (I hope you are a member) and the various publications typically have detailed author bios at the end. There generally give the schools and degrees attained by the author. Many of the authors have advanced degrees. I am always interested in what degrees people involved in some of these activities studied. Some list Engineering as their discipline. Nothing else, just Engineering. This is mostly from other countries, so may be an artifact of the language issue. Others have very specific degrees. One I am looking at now, in a robotics article, has a BE in Mechanical Engineering (so far fairly common) and an MS in Information Engineering. That's one you don't see here very often.
Another thing I have found over the years is engineers, especially in aerospace and robotics, who have a BS in Mechanical or Electrical engineering and an MS in the other (or both). Robotics is definately a multidisciplinary field.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.