The Semantics of MCSE
Re: Microsoft Changes Stance on Title Infringement,
APEGGA Executive Director Neil Windsor, P.Eng., is quoted
as saying: "The agreement in 2001 was a reasonably acceptable
means of resolving the problem." The agreement he referred
to is to allow use of the acronym MCSE, but not the spelled
out version, Microsoft certified systems engineer.
I strongly disagree. Using MCSE is merely playing with words
and not fooling anyone. The engineering profession chose appeasement
instead of fully protecting the title, always a dangerous
route. It's the thin end of a very big wedge. Now that Microsoft
has changed its position, so should the engineering profession,
which should now challenge both the acronym and the full spelling.
Perhaps Microsoft's change will prove a blessing in disguise.
I trust we will get none of this nonsense in geology and geophysics.
Life Member Michael Day, P.Geol.
(Former member of Discipline and other committees)
(R.P.T.) Eng. Designation
Represents Corporate Pressure
Re: Technologists Further Careers, September
I was appalled to see George Lee's article front and centre.
The story and photo symbolize the threat to all "traditional"
members of APEGGA. The R.P.T.(Eng.) designation threatens
our livelihoods and our position of trust with the public.
This is in the name of corporate profit or cost cutting.
The photo of a major corporation's employee underlines the
special interests are served by this designation. Major corporations
can cut costs by promoting assistants to the level of the
expert professionals in their organization. And Council, whose
ranks are often filled with managers/executives from these
organizations, promotes and condones this threat to the membership.
To paraphrase the old saying about General Motors: "If
it is good for (fill in your own corporate name here) it must
be in the public interest." This photo is the future,
and the story the sugar coating so that the membership buys
into it. The propaganda department worked overtime.
I don't see dentists allowing dental hygienists into their
profession. I don't see doctors allowing nurses to practice
medicine. And the biggie: imagine lawyers allowing their legal
practice law. But we engineers do now. We let our assistants
practice our profession.
This, as many other issues, was not debated, reviewed or approved
by the general membership. APEGGA has few forums for members
to express their views or wishes. A lack of information and
selective nominations around elections prevent true debate,
review or referendum on the issues.
There is no voice for the individual member. The ones who
impose stuff on the membership use the election to legitimize
their positions. They claim they were elected to do so afterwards.
Dave Kachorowski, P.Eng.
Personal Information Reused,
I received at work a copy of Edmonton Engineering Directory
- 2002/2003 Edition by CCS Marketing Resolve. This publication
contains the names and addresses of professional engineers
When I contacted CCS Marketing Resolve, I was told they obtained
this information, plus phone numbers, from the APEGGA website. I am disturbed that anyone could obtain my name, home
address and phone number without my permission. I am equally
disturbed that APEGGA would make this information available
without my consent.
When I tried the site, I was able to obtain my name, address,
year of graduation, employer and position. I believe this
exceeds what is required for the public "to help identify
the professional status of APEGGA members, as well as to provide
other information that may be of use to individuals for the
services of professional engineers and geoscientists."
I know of other members that are disconcerted about this issue.
APEGGA should change their policy regarding the availability
of personal information.
M.P. Wagner, P.Eng.
Editor's Note: CCS Marketing Resolve
used the information without APEGGA's permission. In fact,
the directory's publishers were expressly told they could
not publish the information. The Association is investigating
what actions it can take.