Management and Engineering
in [DSP]
|
Prev: Name That Topology
Next: COMP.DSP 2010 update
From: Jerry Avins on 15 Mar 2010 21:17 steveu wrote: >> How much management should be taught in an undergrad engineering >> degree? Or should management be left to industry for you to pick up >> later? > > Management is a pretty broad term. If I look at what my wife's MBA course > covered, I'd say some of the law material should be compulsory in > engineering courses. > > When I was at college we considered the Law for Engineers option to be for > people who couldn't face the tougher alternatives. I later realised this > was a silly attitude. All engineers bump against legal issues regularly. If > you are doing the deepest of technical work, you'll still bump against > patent, copyright, trademark and liability issues, that few engineering > graduates, even today, seem to have been given much grounding in. If you go > into more customer facing work you'll bump against a variety of commercial > laws. An engineer is likely to run up against medical issues during his career. While a bit of self-diagnosis and self-medication may be appropriate, for the most part, (s)he should consult a doctor. Likewise, he should consult a lawyer for questions of law. The adage "Anyone who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client" is as true for engineers as it is for lawyers. Jerry -- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: glen herrmannsfeldt on 15 Mar 2010 21:58 steveu <steveu(a)n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: (snip) > When I was at college we considered the Law for Engineers option to be for > people who couldn't face the tougher alternatives. I later realised this > was a silly attitude. All engineers bump against legal issues regularly. If > you are doing the deepest of technical work, you'll still bump against > patent, copyright, trademark and liability issues, that few engineering > graduates, even today, seem to have been given much grounding in. If you go > into more customer facing work you'll bump against a variety of commercial > laws. This is all true, but there are others around who understand those problems. The tradeoff, then, is that the engineer misses some other technical class that might turn out to be important at the time least expected. After graduation the engineer can learn all the law needed talking to lawyers, but don't expect to learn a lot of engineering from them. -- glen
From: steveu on 15 Mar 2010 22:24 >steveu <steveu(a)n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: >(snip) > >> When I was at college we considered the Law for Engineers option to be for >> people who couldn't face the tougher alternatives. I later realised this >> was a silly attitude. All engineers bump against legal issues regularly. If >> you are doing the deepest of technical work, you'll still bump against >> patent, copyright, trademark and liability issues, that few engineering >> graduates, even today, seem to have been given much grounding in. If you go >> into more customer facing work you'll bump against a variety of commercial >> laws. > >This is all true, but there are others around who understand >those problems. The tradeoff, then, is that the engineer misses >some other technical class that might turn out to be important >at the time least expected. After graduation the engineer can learn >all the law needed talking to lawyers, but don't expect to learn >a lot of engineering from them. I don't expect every soldier to be an expert in disarming a minefield. However, their lives would be problematic if they were not trained in: - The amount of damage a mine can do, so they can grasp the scale of the issue. - How to spot warning signs there may be mines around - How to skirt around a minefield with minimum risk of self harm A law for engineers course is hardly going to substitute for a law degree. However, I have too often seen engineers stumbling into trouble because of a complete lack of legal grounding. This is especially true for people in small organisations, where there is not a strong framework around them to protect them. I don't know as much about my body as a doctor. However, if I lacked the grounding to even grasp what he is talking about, I would feel extremely vulnerable - as indeed I would be in a world where a fair percentage of private doctors are about as trustworthy as politicians. Steve
From: Jerry Avins on 15 Mar 2010 23:09 steveu wrote: ... > A law for engineers course is hardly going to substitute for a law degree. > However, I have too often seen engineers stumbling into trouble because of > a complete lack of legal grounding. This is especially true for people in > small organisations, where there is not a strong framework around them to > protect them. All an engineer needs to know about law is that he needs to ask, not assume. > I don't know as much about my body as a doctor. However, if I lacked the > grounding to even grasp what he is talking about, I would feel extremely > vulnerable - as indeed I would be in a world where a fair percentage of > private doctors are about as trustworthy as politicians. Sure. Where did you learn enough about your body to understand your doctor, in hygiene class? In any class? Probably not. Jerry -- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Rune Allnor on 16 Mar 2010 04:52
On 16 Mar, 03:24, "steveu" <steveu(a)n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: > >steveu <steveu(a)n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: > >(snip) > > >> When I was at college we considered the Law for Engineers option to be > for > >> people who couldn't face the tougher alternatives. I later realised > this > >> was a silly attitude. All engineers bump against legal issues regularly. > If > >> you are doing the deepest of technical work, you'll still bump against > >> patent, copyright, trademark and liability issues, that few engineering > >> graduates, even today, seem to have been given much grounding in. If you > go > >> into more customer facing work you'll bump against a variety of > commercial > >> laws. > > >This is all true, but there are others around who understand > >those problems. The tradeoff, then, is that the engineer misses > >some other technical class that might turn out to be important > >at the time least expected. After graduation the engineer can learn > >all the law needed talking to lawyers, but don't expect to learn > >a lot of engineering from them. > > I don't expect every soldier to be an expert in disarming a minefield. > However, their lives would be problematic if they were not trained in: > > - The amount of damage a mine can do, so they can grasp the scale of > the issue. > > - How to spot warning signs there may be mines around > > - How to skirt around a minefield with minimum risk of self harm > > A law for engineers course is hardly going to substitute for a law degree.. > However, I have too often seen engineers stumbling into trouble because of > a complete lack of legal grounding. One can start with the small stuff: "What is a contract?" At first glance, the "contract" is a ceremonial paper that somehow must be prepared before somebody will give you money, not unlike the stag / hen night prior to the wedding. At a closer look, there might be more to that contract: Not only does *other* people give *me* money, but *I* am supposed to give something *back*! And not just anything - it has to resemble what the contract stated!! At the department where I had my MSc the attitude towards getting a PhD degree was simple. Three factors were required for a student to get into the PhD programme: 1) Have grades above a well-defined level 2) Get funding 3) Get accepted with the PhD acceptance committee at the university Item 1) was only the first screening. People who did not pass the grade level (or just barely passed) never considered to have the degree anyway. Item 2), funding, was the de facto selector. If you had the grades *and* managed to find funding, item 3) was merely a bureaucratic nuisance. The students had to write a formal application where we stated that we had the grades and the $$$, as well as come up with a description of what we intended to do during the degree. We were conditioned to write that application along the lines "Just hack down something that looks impressive. Don't worry about if it has anything to do with the actual plans - the purpose of this description is to obtain the signatures on the student acceptance form." Hardly a good starting point for any kind of carreer involving the slightes legal aspects. Now, I a m not a lawyer, so I don't know how this kind of attitude relates to legal terms like "fraud". The people being decepted by the application did not pay us cash, so if the transfer of $$$ is a condition to 'earn; the label "fraud", then this was in the clear. If, however, it suffices that the applicant achiecves, through deception, an advantage or position (being part of the PhD programme) he otherwise would not have obtained, then these applications might well be classified as "fraud". > This is especially true for people in > small organisations, where there is not a strong framework around them to > protect them. > > I don't know as much about my body as a doctor. However, if I lacked the > grounding to even grasp what he is talking about, I would feel extremely > vulnerable - as indeed I would be in a world where a fair percentage of > private doctors are about as trustworthy as politicians. And of course, one would have an idea *when* to visit the doctor. Rune |