What makes a person
an engineer?
Is it understanding how to code?
The kind of tech stack or language used?
Is it what Github developers think? The comments on Reddit or Discord?
Or knowing CAD?
Creo? Solidworks? Autodesk? What about FreeCAD?
Do you know your skills and shortcuts? The most “efficient” way?
Or knowing electrical systems and development?
Do you know Arduino?
What about Raspberry pi?
Is it passing an array of technical classes from an ABET accredited university?
Who the fuck is ABET anyways?
Is being an engineer my retained knowledge?
Am I still an engineer if I forget the little thermodynamics I learned to begin with?
Is it being employed?
Being a formal employee at a “real” company?
The “engineering” I do at work is very different from what my career counselors discussed.
A job manager’s opinion on whether I fit into the box of the job description?
…am I still an engineer?
Why is so much of the identity of an engineer dependent on these meaningless questions?
yet, questions with so much weight.
So, where does that leave us with the question:
The word “engineer” comes from the Latin word “ingenium,” which means “natural talent or creativity.” So, at the core, “engineer” is about action—about creating, building, and solving.
While scientists aim “to know” and uncover knowledge, engineers aim “to do” by putting that knowledge to use.
Engineers are doers, people of action.
They build, troubleshoot, design, redesign, work with. No wonder why there are so many fields that are considered engineering.
Engineers are problem solvers, who create. Engineers are creatives, solving problems in ways that are unique to themselves.
If you fall into that category, then you are an engineer.
So why is that not talked about? So many people never leave the domain of asking “what makes a person an engineer?” Many remain far from the proverbial table that is engineering and design. Many never get the opportunity to contribute their creative talent.
That is simply unacceptable. Therefore,
This is – A Manifesto: On [redefining] the meaning of being an engineer or technical creator.
Engineers are
creators.
problem-solvers.
humans.
teachers.
students.
curious.
with lived experiences.
ideas.
they see the problems.
a future yet to be.
ARE world-changers.
disruptors.
hopeful.
Ordinary (extraordinary) people who solve ordinary problems, every day.
If this were entirely true and accepted, then we would be living in an entirely different world than the one we live in now.
Let me lay the problems out on the table so it’s explicitly clear where we stand as an industry.
Many schools in underserved areas lack strong STEM programs or teachers with an engineering background. This creates a gap in interest and foundational skills at a young age, leaving many unaware of engineering as a career path.
There’s a deeply ingrained perception that engineering is for certain “types” of people—typically male, often white or Asian, and middle-to-upper class. This discourages interest and participation from underrepresented groups who don’t see themselves reflected in these roles.
Many students from minority or marginalized backgrounds don’t have role models in engineering. This lack of visibility limits their career aspirations and their belief that they can succeed in engineering.
Many engineering programs are highly theoretical and don’t emphasize the hands-on skills or practical, applied knowledge needed in industry, which creates a steep learning curve for marginalized students without external support.
University engineering programs and spaces can feel exclusionary. Subtle biases, stereotypes, and elitism in makerspaces, labs, and classrooms discourage participation from students who already feel like outsiders.
Schools serving marginalized communities often lack access to advanced equipment, materials, and labs, creating a skills gap when these students enter competitive programs or the workforce.
Professional engineering societies, conferences, and networking events often cater to established professionals and don’t offer entry points or mentorship opportunities for people from marginalized backgrounds.
There’s often a preference for graduates from prestigious schools or those with traditional career trajectories, sidelining applicants who may have the skills but not the “right” background. Gaps are perceived as bad.
Engineering leadership lacks diversity, meaning hiring practices, team culture, and innovation priorities are often shaped by a homogeneous group that may (un)intentionally exclude or overlook other voices.
Engineering requires access to costly tools, software licenses, and materials. For low-income students or aspiring engineers, this cost barrier can be prohibitive, hindering skill development and project experience.
Venture capital and other funding are typically concentrated in traditional tech hubs, like Silicon Valley, and often prioritize founders with connections, specific educational backgrounds, and established networks—factors that disadvantage underrepresented entrepreneurs.
Marginalized engineers often report lower pay and fewer promotion opportunities compared to their peers, contributing to burnout and high turnover rates in the industry.
Engineering fields often foster a high-pressure, competitive culture that can be especially challenging for those without strong support systems, leading to imposter syndrome and burnout.
Many engineering firms prioritize high-revenue projects over socially impactful work, which can be demotivating for those who entered the field hoping to address social issues. This discourages retention and limits industry impact.
The myth that diversity initiatives lower standards leads to harmful stereotypes, with minority engineers often facing unfair scrutiny about their qualifications and capabilities.
Emerging technologies like AI, machine learning, and advanced robotics are reshaping engineering. But access to education and resources in these areas is often limited, creating a digital divide that excludes underrepresented groups from cutting-edge fields.
Patent and intellectual property (IP) systems favor established companies and individuals who can afford extensive legal processes, making it difficult for independent engineers and entrepreneurs from marginalized backgrounds to protect their innovations. They are also cost-prohibitive.
Projects that aim to solve local or community issues (e.g., affordable housing, sustainable agriculture) often lack funding and resources because they don’t promise high financial returns, despite their societal value. These projects also lack participatory design from the stakeholders that matter.
Engineers from marginalized backgrounds may feel pressure to choose stable, “safe” career paths over entrepreneurial or innovative pursuits due to economic insecurity or family expectations.
The high stakes and visibility in engineering projects can be daunting, especially for those who lack confidence or feel they are representing their community in a predominantly homogenous industry.
The technical and often inaccessible language of engineering can be alienating. Those who don’t speak English as a first language, or are new to engineering terminology, can feel intimidated, further limiting their participation.
Programs focused on training marginalized groups in engineering often lack long-term funding, consistency, and governmental support, making it difficult for them to create lasting impact or support broad community development.
There is much work to be done.
Things change when we change them. It is only if WE all (or many of us) move in this direction that a new future will be written in history.
If you are moved to move in this direction, please contact me. I want to co-create this future with you.