Academic snobbery

Looking up the definitions of engineers and engineering, I see no reference as to the necessity of achieving any academic level in the subject to qualify as one

I was saddened to read the letter "Strange bedfellows" posted by Dr C L Murray.

I would like to think that our discipline is above such academic snobbery, but it would appear I am wrong.

Looking up the definitions of engineers and engineering, I see no reference as to the necessity of achieving any academic level in the subject to qualify as one.

I think that Sir James Dyson has shown himself an engineer through other channels than academia.

I may be wrong, but Sir William Armstrong was not an academically qualified engineer. Engineering was a hobby for him, which he made into a very successful career. He studied law, but still managed to be appointed President (thrice, 1861,1862 and 1869) of the IMechE and of the Civil Engineers (1881). Like Sir James Dyson, he understood the value to the nation of the subject.

After reading out Dr C L Murray's letter to fellow engineers (and a physicist pretending to be an engineer - he is not qualified in our elitist discipline) in the office, it was pointed out that the letter was probably written to to make my blood boil. If so, congratulations Dr Murray, it has worked.

Please, Dr Murray, look at what these people have achieved in their lives and what they have created directly and indirectly for those around them. I think we as "qualified engineers" should salute these people, as they have proved themselves worthy within the discipline.

Peter Garnett

Next letter: Market demands