Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Title challenger

ANALYSIS: Letters to the Editor

Mark Hardisty (NCE 2 September) may well, in principle, be justified in his criticism of the overuse of the title 'engineer'. However, the examples he uses are poor and even insulting.

Within firms working in the rail sector, the term 'permanent way engineer', albeit arguably archaic, is nevertheless a recognised title for professional engineers specialising in the engineering of railway track. It is objectionable for Hardisty, even if in jest, to link this respectable, established and recognised engineering sub discipline directly with such as window cleaners.

We engineers should not try and limit the disciplines' many diverse specialisations, but instead widely proclaim the high standards of the education and skills which we must attain to be permitted to use the title engineer.

David Sorton (M), MTR Corporation, Hong Kong,

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.