Engineering as a Profession

Some characteristics of the Engineer and of his Profession that are not generally know - extracts from an address to the University of Toronto Engineering Society, October 15th 1913.

By Walter J. Francis, C.E., Consulting Engineer, Montreal

ENGINEERING is such a material thing, such a practical thing, and such an engrossing thing, that it is very difficult to talk about it in the abstract. Moreover, the engineer is known as a man who does things, and one who is doing things is too busy to talk. You will, therefore, appreciate the greater difficulty experienced by one who is supposed to be an engineer talking in the abstract on such a subject as engineering.

In order that we may have some appreciation of the subject, it is necessary for us to arrive at some definite understanding of the two words “Engineering” and “Profession,” although I cannot promise you that these definitions will entirely sweep away the mist.

“Professions.”—We all have our ideas what a profession is, yet it might be very difficult for us to name many professions and, having named them, to state the reasons why they are professions. Probably the first of the professions that would come to our mind would be that of law, medicine and theology. Later we would add pedagogy, dentistry, architecture, and surveying. Some might even go so far as to add engineering. The predominating characteristic of all these callings is their protection by law and their recognition as lawfully constituted bodies by the powers that be and by the people themselves. The distinguishing feature of a profession is that it requires its members to have special training and to perform mental rather than physical labor. Custom has decreed that an individual member must earn his livelihood by his chosen profession. The representative society or societies of each profession have a written or an unwritten code of ethics. This code requires, amongst other things, that the remuneration received by a member for his services shall not be in any way contingent upon the result of his work, or, in other words, the professional man may not share in the profits. Thus, a lawyer may not, theoretically at least, accept a case on the understanding that he will be recompensed only in event of a victory over the opposing party, or a doctor may not perform an operation on the understanding that his fee will be greater if his patient should live than it would be if he should die. Further, the law recognizes, more or less, certain fees that must be paid in court for the services of certain professional men, the surveyor, for example. You will doubtless be pleased to learn that the law allows a surveyor six dollars a day for attendance at court, while engineers and other ordinary mortals receive one dollar and a quarter as an emolument for such service.

The standing of the professions in the popular mind is due largely to the character, ability and dignity of the men engaged therein. The societies representing the professions are the result of the interest that the leaders of the professions have taken in order that the professions may be recognized as such by the world at large.

Generally speaking, a man is no longer considered a member of a profession when he ceases to earn his livelihood by the practice of the profession. A dentist leaving his calling to become a vendor of real estate is no longer considered a dentist, although he has had his training and may still be holding his diploma. A doctor may have received all his degrees and may have practiced for decades, but let him devote his energies to commercially exploiting, say, some well-tried prescription, and the medical profession no longer recognizes him as a member. And so we see that the connection of earning that which is needful to purchase food, clothing and the necessities of life is intimately connected with the recognition of a person as a member of a profession.

“Engineering.”—It is much more difficult to define engineering. What is an engineer? I confess I have been trying for twenty-five years to find out—and I am still trying. I remember two boys, now both on the list of graduates of this university, arguing about whether a civil engineer should know all about a locomotive or not. He thought he should. I didn’t know. The other fellow is now practicing surveying. Once I heard a judge of the Supreme Court of the United States struggle with the definition of an engineer in a brilliant twenty minute speech, and he wound up by concluding that he didn’t know anything definite about engineers excepting that they were jolly good fellows. In the daily press we often read of engineers, but before we get through the description we are fully aware that the person referred to drove locomotive No. 522 between two given stations at seventy miles an hour, or that he was the man who turned the throttle valve of the engine in the hold of the excursion boat.

The term “engineer” is very much overworked. It is not surprising that the great public gets confused in the multiplicity of engineers that are sometimes referred to. There are the civil engineer, the mechanical engineer, the military engineer, the electrical engineer, the hydraulic engineer, the sanitary engineer, the municipal engineer, the production engineer, the publicity engineer, the mining engineer, the chemical engineer, the structural engineer, the bridge engineer, the elevator engineer the harbor engineer, the stationary engineer, the government engineer, the city engineer, the town engineer, the tunnel engineer, the county engineer, the marine engineer, the railway engineer and the consulting engineer.

Mr. Dunn, the president of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers, in Boston last year referred to twenty-seven recognized classes of engineers, and I understand that someone of a statistical turn of mind has succeeded in isolating over one hundred and ten separate and distinct varieties of the bacterium Engineerious Universalis. Is it any wonder the public gets confused?

Compared with the professional men of law, medicine and theology, the engineer never comes to the attention of the public as a learned man doing things. Let a man be a member of one of the other professions and as soon as he begins to accomplish things he will be heard of. Let a geologist make a speech on his chosen subject and the newspapers of the land will blaze forth with startling headlines that Professor Geologus has unlocked the great secrets which Mother Earth has hidden in her bosom for millions of years. Professor Haultain accounts for this by the fact that the geologist takes time to tell the people what he is doing and what he thinks he has discovered. Let the lawyer defend some celebrity, whether famous or notorious, and before many hours the whole world will know it and will be gazing upon indifferent pictures of that lawyer. It is, probably, safe to say that the engineer may devote his life to the service of the world and die doing his duty, and yet never be heard of during his career, unless he unfortunately make an error in judgment or a slip of some kind. I venture to suggest that Quebec Bridge was more widely known by its failure than it or any other bridge will be in its success. I do not know that the engineer cares particularly about publicity, for he is too busy doing things. I am referring now only to the recognition or non-recognition of his professional existence by the great public. Anyway, he is too busy doing things to stop for the sake of publicity. One of the powers that the engineer under-rates is the power of the press. Summing up, it would appear that the public has, at the best, a very hazy idea of what engineering is. Every engine runner of the country is an engineer, no matter whether he operates a locomotive or a threshing engine. Even the plumbers try to play on the title and have in our own country succeeded in getting an association incorporated under the name of the Canadian Society of Sanitary Engineers. All respect to the man who can wipe joints and collect his bills of world-famous magnitude, but it looks very much like trespassing on the dignity of the name of the great recognized engineering body of Canada, the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers. It is, indeed, a most fortunate thing that the motorman does not term himself a street car engineer, that the chauffeur does not call himself an automobile engineer, and that the aviator does not wish to be known as a monoplane or biplane engineer. I was just wondering, if the analogy were carried on, what the man would call himself who runs a wheelbarrow.

Engineering Societies and Engineering Defined.— There are in every country recognized engineering societies having for their object the betterment of the profession and the uplifting of its members, all of whom are required to have certain pre-requisites of training and experience. In Canada there is the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, in Great Britain the Institution of Civil Engineers. In the United States the American Society of Civil Engineers takes a corresponding place with, however, the addition of very strong societies known as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, the American Institute of Electrical Engineers and the American Institute of Mining Engineers. We have in Canada also the Mining Institute of Canada. In the constitution of the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers and of the Institution of Civil Engineers the art of engineering is defined, but, so far as I know, no definition is given by the other bodies I have named. The definition used by the Institution is that devised by Tredgold, well nigh a century ago. He calls engineering “the art of directing the great sources of power in nature for the use and convenience of man.” The Canadian Society of Civil Engineers has based its definition on the same formulae in the words “the profession whereby the great sources of power in nature are converted, adapted and applied for use and convenience of man.” With definitions such as these given us by two of the leading English speaking engineering organizations, it is not surprising that the public has some difficulty in comprehending what an engineer really is ; that is, assuming that these definitions ever reached the public. I think it may fairly be said that you could not be considered much of an engineer when you first learned to overcome the law of gravity and stood on end to direct that great source of power in nature to your use and convenience. It has truly been said that the greatest source of power in nature is the tongue of a woman, nevertheless, to your engineering ability could not be applied any other definition than that of “contriving” when you succeeded in getting your mother to persuade your father to buy your first rubber boots. We are told that this definition of Tredgold was primarily intended to distinguish the military engineer from the civil engineer. I think there might be some difficulty in endeavoring to apply Tredgold’s definition of a civil engineer to the military engineer, because that military engineer would not find it easy to convince his enemy that the cannon balls were for the use and convenience of said enemy, even if there were any enemy left to argue with. Maybe my lack of soldier enthusiasm prompts the remark. The conflicts for the necessities of life are surely serious enough without adding other struggles blazing with uniforms, glittering with cold steel and reeking with blood. But we must not forget that in the olden days much of what is now known as “public work” was done under the direction of the military authorities who possessed the only complete organization of the time.

Professor Swain has perhaps unconsciously given a definition which, it seems to me, excels all others, where he calls engineering “the application of the laws of nature, the principles of mechanics and materials of construction to the business of the world.” It seems to me that we have in these words a definition of engineering in its broadest sense.

Engineering Training.—This definition brings me right up to the present moment speaking to you as a body of young men who have entered one of the great engineering schools to learn something of how to apply “the laws of nature, the principles of mechanics, and the materials of construction to the business of the world.” You have come to a great institution. Its graduates are to be found everywhere making good. Go from Tyrrell on the north to Laschinger on the south, start with Lash in Java and encircle the world, and you will find the alumni of Toronto. I myself am proud to be on the same list as Duggan, Stern, Thomson, Wright, Ross, Deacon, Mitchell, Fairbairn, Speller, Angus, Chalmers—I should not have started to name them personally, because they should be named by the hundreds —an honor list of which everyone should be proud. It has been said of Sir Christopher Wren in St. Paul’s, “If you would see his monument look around you.” I say to you, if you would .see the monument of John Galbraith just look around the world at the engineering alumni of Toronto.

The definition necessarily implies broad-mindedness. You cannot be a good engineer and be narrow-minded. So, do not forget that this broad Dominion has other universities, older ones in the Old East and newer ones in the New West. Queen’s and McGill are great universities. There are many great universities in the States. England has a great number of the highest engineering schools in the world. So has France. Germany was well advanced with engineering training before some of the other countries began to be serious about it.

But your university training will not make you an engineer. It will equip you to become an engineer—if the engineering spirit were born in you. By hard work and the application of the training you will here receive you will, I trust, all become engineers.

You are now, doubtless, realizing the difficulties surrounding “engineering as a profession.” Eliminating all those engineers who share in the profits of their labors, it will be seen that it reduces the number to a comparatively small number of men—small as compared with the number composing the profession of law or medicine. Yet, it cannot be said that those eliminated are not engineers. On the contrary, they are engineers in every sense of the word, and they are so recognized by all the great national engineering organizations. Many of the leading ship builders, bridge builders and contractors are amongst the best engineers of the world, and they have and are occupying the topmost positions of honor in the engineering world.

The idea of a part of the engineers taking a stand shoulder to shoulder with the other professions is growing fast. Already a powerful movement is taking place in this direction, and it is interesting to note here that the indefatigable secretary of the only really professional organization of engineers was a member of the class of 1884. I refer to Eugene W. Stern, secretary of the American Institute of Consulting Engineers. Let me, in passing, call attention to the pre-requisites of membership with these professional engineers. A member must be at least 35 years of age, he must be actively engaged in the independent practice of the profession, he must be a full member of one of the great recognized engineering bodies, he must have a high character, he must have attained a degree of eminence in the profession, and he must not be engaged in contracting. When you come to realize the requirements for admission to any of the great recognized engineering bodies and add to that all the other stipulations that have been named, you will see that the standard set upon by the American Institute of Consulting Engineers is one of which the engineering world should be proud. The membership is jealously guarded and, of course, it is not great in numbers. At present I think there are less than 70. This organization illustrates to some extent the difficulties surrounding “engineering as a profession.” One is forced to conclude that “engineering” is too great and too comprehensive to ever be confined within the narrow limits of a “profession” in the same way as law and medicine. As it looks at present, we should associate ourselves with the recognized engineering bodies first and, later, if our choice take us in that direction, the Institute of Consulting Engineers. In the meantime study the work that the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers is doing.

As I look at the whole question that there are in this world two classes of people, the producer and the non-producer. At the bottom of the non-producers I place the real estate men and the speculators. At the top of the producers I place the agriculturist and the engineer. Between these extremes live all the other callings, and I shall leave you, each for himself, to place them according as they may, in your judgment, be producers or non-producers. Under our present social system the agriculturist must come first, because we must have food and clothing. Next in order in the world’s progress is the engineer. The Indian in his native state, the Arab with his caravan has no need of the engineer. The farther we get from the primitive the greater the need of those who are able to apply to our use and convenience the great sources of power in nature. The marvelous advances of the last century are engineering advances. The other professions are older than engineering. Art is centuries old, yet it is a question if the art of to-day is on the same plane as that of Greece and Rome centuries ago. The grandest examples of the work of modern architects are based on the ancient orders, and the advances of architecture in modern times are due to the engineer in introducing steel skeletons and reinforced concrete. In surgery wonderful progress has been made within a lifetime, but the skill of noted surgeons was developed only through the medium of the engineer’s handiwork in fine instruments and electrical appliances. The physician heals the sick and deals with individuals, while the engineer holds in his hand the health of towns, cities and nations. The preacher has no particular use for the engineer excepting as illustrations in sermons. The lawyer lives on the engineer’s quarrels and on the relations which by his ingenuity he has set up between others. The teacher helps to prepare the embryo engineer for his admission into a cold-blooded world and promptly forgets him in the future pursuit of embryology.

It is the engineer who harnesses the Niagaras of the world to transform the night of our cities into noon- day and to turn the wheels of commerce. It is the engineer who develops the mining and furnishes the metal with which he builds machines that by their ingenuity compel us to stand in awe and admiration. It is the engineer who produces the steel to form a network of highways over our continents and that makes possible the myriads of floating palaces on our oceans. It is the engineer who has abolished famine and pestilence. It is the engineer who has annihilated distance with his telegraph and his telephone. It is the engineer who has made possible the conquest of the air. It is the engineer who places in the hand of the president of a nation the power whereby he is able with a touch to remove from a point thousands of miles away a barrier of nature separating two oceans. It is the engineer who furnishes the worker in the golden west with the machines whereby millions of bushels of wheat are each year made ready to enter the hopper that the engineer has constructed. It is the engineer who has made Canada of to-day what she is.

In concluding, Mr. Francis referred to the foregoing generalities as being accomplished by the summation of the efforts of individuals, and he impressed upon the members of the society the necessity of upholding the high ideals of the engineering profession.