Recently, instead of using entrepreneur as a bio, I tend to introduce myself as an engineer. This is because my main job right now isn’t my business, rather is an engineering position in a company. But I was thinking to myself, am I an engineer because I’m practicing it or because I hold a degree?

So if someone has an engineering academic degree but practices medicine or philosophy or maybe is a salesman, is that person still an engineer or not? I’ve been called an engineer even when I was not working an engineering job, so I think people really don’t care about the title, as opposed to doctors who I think really care, but the question remains, is someone with an engineering degree who doesn’t practice, still entitled to be called an engineer?

I know in some places you should get a special license to practice or be called an engineer, and I think it makes sense somehow, but in general, what should we do? Should we call people with an engineering degree (who don’t practice it) an engineer? What about those with experience and those who practice an engineering job but don’t have a related academic degree?

I personally think we should call both engineers. Wikipedia calls engineers “professionals who invent, design, analyze, build and test machines, complex systems, structures, gadgets, and materials to fulfill functional objectives and requirements while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, regulation, safety and cost.” So I think it’s that simple, one who fits in this description is an engineer.

In 1961, the Conference of Engineering Societies of Western Europe and the United States of America defined “professional engineer” as follows:

A professional engineer is competent by virtue of his/her fundamental education and training to apply the scientific method and outlook to the analysis and solution of engineering problems. He/she is able to assume personal responsibility for the development and application of engineering science and knowledge, notably in research, design, construction, manufacturing, superintending, managing, and in the education of the engineer. His/her work is predominantly intellectual and varied and not of a routine mental or physical character. It requires the exercise of original thought and judgment and the ability to supervise the technical and administrative work of others. His/her education will have been such as to make him/her capable of closely and continuously following progress in his/her branch of engineering science by consulting newly published works on a worldwide basis, assimilating such information, and applying it independently. He/she is thus placed in a position to make contributions to the development of engineering science or its applications. His/her education and training will have been such that he/she will have acquired a broad and general appreciation of the engineering sciences as well as thorough insight into the special features of his/her own branch. In due time he/she will be able to give authoritative technical advice and assume responsibility for the direction of important tasks in his/her branch.

(source)

I wonder what majority of people think? And is there such confusion or disagreement in other titles and fields?