Dear Yuyutsu,

As one society after another has industrialised over the
course of the past two centuries, there has been a major
global change in family patterns - a change that involves
a fundamental shift in people's loyalties.

Essentially, people have come to focus less on their
responsibilities toward their kin and their families, and
more on their desires for self-fulfillment as individuals.

This shift in loyalties has had dramatic effects on family
life. The extended family had tended to be replaced by the
nuclear family; the ideal of polygamy has steadily given
way to the ideal of monogamy; neolocal residence has rapidly
replaced patrilocal ir matrilocal residence; and
patrilocal unions have become more egaliterian.
Above all, people's entire way of thinking about marriage has
changed. It is now viewed less as an economic arrangement
or a kinship alliance, and more as a companionship based on
the emotional commitment of two individuals.
This transformation is, of course, a general trend, not a hard
and fast fulre.

Dear Foxy,

I had already seen that Wiki on Andrew Bolt. It only says that he started in Arts at Adelaide. It doesn't say he finished it.

I found another article that says he joined The Melbourne Age as a cadet journalist in 1979. This means he was 19 years old when he started his career in journalism, which would have been too early by a couple of years to have graduated (usually 21 years of age). So going on that bit of evidence it would appear that he has not completed a degree (unless of course he had started uni at the age of 15). Would you agree?

MrOpinion, "When I started work (many years ago) about 70% of engineers did not have a degree. Today I am guessing that the figure is around 50%"

Who signs off their work do you say?

What about government regulatory and insurance requirements?

Sure, one continually meets those who call themselves 'engineers' and highly specialised surgeons too.

There are many among migrants and their lobbyists that we as taxpayers are obliged to fund, who are continually demanding that government remove the claimed onerous conditions, academic and demonstrated supervised experience TO TREAT PRACTICE RISKS set in place government itself and the relevant professional colleges

Eventually the trail of malpractice and victims they leave behind them forces investigation that confirms the usual qualms and complaints expressed to government regulators (all politically correct diplomats) of the professional colleges.

Many here might remember the sad losses in (say) Queensland's health system where the Labor administration allowed and directed unqualified surgeons near patients in the public health system. The constant informal and formal complaints and medical professionals refusing to operate with them were no problem to Labor who covered up of course, but finally the weight of public complaints forced action.

Government and private industry cheat the public by having lower paid workers without professional recognition do a lot of work that should be done by properly qualified professionals. Affirmative action and multicultural policy impinge negatively as well. For example the generalist where a properly qualified professional should be managing and advising policy.

Then they expect the few qualified professionals in their employ or more likely as short-term contractors, to sign off on the work. That is unethical and unprincipled, but government especially has raised it to an artform.

My, "Eventually the trail of malpractice and victims they leave behind them forces investigation that confirms the usual qualms and complaints expressed to government regulators (all politically correct diplomats) of the professional colleges"

should be,

"Eventually the trail of malpractice and victims they leave behind them forces investigation that confirms the usual qualms and complaints previously expressed by professionals and their professional colleges to government regulators (all politically correct diplomats and slow).

Dear onthebeach,

The best engineers I have worked for did not have degrees while the worst engineers I have worked for did have degrees.

But that's not the point I am making. What I am saying is that a large proportion of the engineering profession (my guess being 50%) do not have degrees. Which means that it is not necessarily essential for an engineer to have a degree to perform the tasks required by the employer. Which I think is good because it allows employers access to a range of engineering skills: from those who are trained outside of a university in practical hands-on application to those who are trained at university in using mathematical and scientific applications.

Plus there are all sorts of engineers ranging from welders and boiler makers, to locomotive drivers, to marine refrigeration mechanics, to site coordinators, to designers, to project managers. It's a very broad profession of which the graduate engineer is just a part of.

Totally illogical for people to believe engineers designed/built things and at the same time the human brain came by chance. Such stupidity with no logic even if you put a Mr at the start.