Being an engineer, I find threads like this a bit disconcerting - yes, an engineering degree is a tool box, a vast tool box, it also teaches you how to learn, how to get information and how to handle that information 'the scientific way'. It is not a detailed course in every aspect of reality. Then it is up to the individual if he/she continues to learn new things or not. Standards are there to be read, data to be analysed, drawings to be revised. I'd go so far as saying it's the responsibility of an employer to
make sure people learn the necessary things for their particular job.
I started as a computer programmer, nothing to do with GD&T, but when I came to C.E. Johansson to be part of the development team there, the company made sure I went through all the relevant courses that were necessary for the job - GD&T of course, reading a print, but also the 'old, traditional' methods for measuring hands on - even though I would still only program computers.
It's all in good fun, at least on my end. I was in a Mechanical Engineering program, until Calculus kicked my butt. And, I've worked with many awesome, intelligent, on-the-ball engineers, and then I came to automotive... where engineer apparently means something different. It seems to be a term just handed out to anyone without any real consideration for training, knowledge, schooling, etc.
It's all in good fun, at least on my end. I was in a Mechanical Engineering program, until Calculus kicked my butt. And, I've worked with many awesome, intelligent, on-the-ball engineers, and then I came to automotive... where engineer apparently means something different. It seems to be a term just handed out to anyone without any real consideration for training, knowledge, schooling, etc.
