3 ms·

> the primary difference between an 'engineer' (a person with a Professional Engineering certification) and an 'engineer' (a person who touches a computer for m

> the primary difference between an 'engineer' (a person with a Professional Engineering certification) and an 'engineer' (a person who touches a computer for money) What about an 'engineer' (a person who designs components for a large corporation for money)? How are they a different bunch than a 'software engineer'? > There has never, ever, ever, been a programmer who has been barred from programming for selling shitty code. There have absolutely been engineers barred from engineering for selling shitty designs. There have been engineers who have had their licenses permanently revoked, but nobody has ever been "barred from engineering". Those are not the same thing (though I doubt a company is likely to hire an engineer who is so bad as to get their license revoked). > The only way to make this (frankly uninteresting) argument end is to either hold programmers accountable for quality, or stop holding engineers accountable for quality. Until then, you're using one word to refer to two groups of people with wildly different work requirements, and there will always be people complaining about that. The way I think it should end is for software engineering to be separated from computer science at the university level. ABET-accredited BSCS programs are practically that already, but most CS programs don't give a crap about ABET. So, scrap the BSCS and replace it with a full-ABET BSSwE and let the people with academic interest in CS get a BACS. As for non-degreed programmers, other engineering fields already have established practices for advancing a non-degreed technician to full engineer and those can be adapted to this field.

stonogo 11y ago
> What about an 'engineer' (a person who designs components for a large corporation for money)? How are they a different bunch than a 'software engineer'? I can't answer this question, because "components" is too vague a word. You could be talking about software components, or mechanical components, or financial instruments... sorry, I just don't know what you're getting at here. > There have been engineers who have had their licenses permanently revoked, but nobody has ever been "barred from engineering". Those are not the same thing (though I doubt a company is likely to hire an engineer who is so bad as to get their license revoked). An unlicensed engineer is not allowed to identify as the engineer-of-record for contractual purposes; that is, they can no longer 'stamp the drawings.' Sure, a company could hire a defrocked ex-PE to do the work, but they would still need an active PE to sign off on the work ('stamp the drawings'). So while obviously nobody is physically restraining them from installing AutoCAD, they are not able to meet (common) contractual requirements in engineering work. > The way I think it should end is for software engineering to be separated from computer science at the university level. I completely agree with your assessment, except that I don't see CS as being B. A. material, since it's basically applied mathematics, which has traditionally been B. Sc. territory.
- vonmoltke 11y ago
  > I can't answer this question, because "components" is too vague a word. You could be talking about software components, or mechanical components, or financial instruments... sorry, I just don't know what you're getting at here. I meant literal electronic and mechanical components. > An unlicensed engineer is not allowed to identify as the engineer-of-record for contractual purposes; that is, they can no longer 'stamp the drawings.' Correct. However, firms operating under a Certificate of Authority do not require a specific engineer to 'stamp the drawings'; the firm itself can do so. This is common with respect to mass-produced consumer goods and things of that general nature. None of the engineers who actually did the work need to be licensed, but they are still engineers. The CA thing may be unique to the US, though. > I completely agree with your assessment, except that I don't see CS as being B. A. material, since it's basically applied mathematics, which has traditionally been B. Sc. territory. I was getting confused by the BA in Physics. You are right, in that the BS in Physics is what you take if you want to "do physics", so a BSCS would still be appropriate for those who want to "do computer science".
WorldMaker 11y ago
«The way I think it should end is for software engineering to be separated from computer science at the university level. ABET-accredited BSCS programs are practically that already, but most CS programs don't give a crap about ABET.» The deeper problem is that most of the industry doesn't seem to care about degrees, much less ABET accrediting. I have two ABET accredited degrees (BSc, MEng), but that doesn't seem to matter in the slightest to a large number of the companies that I've applied to/interviewed with. The bootstrapping problem here is that accredited degrees and licensure don't matter until companies say they matter and companies won't feel they matter until other companies decide to start requiring them. In my current job I've started to see first hand a bit more that I previously saw as to how accreditation and licensure matter to other engineering fields and what that means, and it is eye opening to compare to software right now.

stonogo 11y ago

> What about an 'engineer' (a person who designs components for a large corporation for money)? How are they a different bunch than a 'software engineer'? I can't answer this question, because "components" is too vague a word. You could be talking about software components, or mechanical components, or financial instruments... sorry, I just don't know what you're getting at here. > There have been engineers who have had their licenses permanently revoked, but nobody has ever been "barred from engineering". Those are not the same thing (though I doubt a company is likely to hire an engineer who is so bad as to get their license revoked). An unlicensed engineer is not allowed to identify as the engineer-of-record for contractual purposes; that is, they can no longer 'stamp the drawings.' Sure, a company could hire a defrocked ex-PE to do the work, but they would still need an active PE to sign off on the work ('stamp the drawings'). So while obviously nobody is physically restraining them from installing AutoCAD, they are not able to meet (common) contractual requirements in engineering work. > The way I think it should end is for software engineering to be separated from computer science at the university level. I completely agree with your assessment, except that I don't see CS as being B. A. material, since it's basically applied mathematics, which has traditionally been B. Sc. territory.

vonmoltke 11y ago
> I can't answer this question, because "components" is too vague a word. You could be talking about software components, or mechanical components, or financial instruments... sorry, I just don't know what you're getting at here. I meant literal electronic and mechanical components. > An unlicensed engineer is not allowed to identify as the engineer-of-record for contractual purposes; that is, they can no longer 'stamp the drawings.' Correct. However, firms operating under a Certificate of Authority do not require a specific engineer to 'stamp the drawings'; the firm itself can do so. This is common with respect to mass-produced consumer goods and things of that general nature. None of the engineers who actually did the work need to be licensed, but they are still engineers. The CA thing may be unique to the US, though. > I completely agree with your assessment, except that I don't see CS as being B. A. material, since it's basically applied mathematics, which has traditionally been B. Sc. territory. I was getting confused by the BA in Physics. You are right, in that the BS in Physics is what you take if you want to "do physics", so a BSCS would still be appropriate for those who want to "do computer science".

WorldMaker 11y ago

«The way I think it should end is for software engineering to be separated from computer science at the university level. ABET-accredited BSCS programs are practically that already, but most CS programs don't give a crap about ABET.» The deeper problem is that most of the industry doesn't seem to care about degrees, much less ABET accrediting. I have two ABET accredited degrees (BSc, MEng), but that doesn't seem to matter in the slightest to a large number of the companies that I've applied to/interviewed with. The bootstrapping problem here is that accredited degrees and licensure don't matter until companies say they matter and companies won't feel they matter until other companies decide to start requiring them. In my current job I've started to see first hand a bit more that I previously saw as to how accreditation and licensure matter to other engineering fields and what that means, and it is eye opening to compare to software right now.