4 ms·

“The record before this Court demonstrates that the Board has repeatedly targeted individuals for using the title ‘engineer’ in non-commercial contexts, includi

“The record before this Court demonstrates that the Board has repeatedly targeted individuals for using the title ‘engineer’ in non-commercial contexts, including core political speech such as campaigning for public office and advocacy against a local ballot initiative.” Although I agree with the sentiment of the article, I do think it would be deceptive for a politician to claim to be an engineer if they hadn’t done any engineering. “Unlike an “M.D.” or “certified public accountant,” there is no fixed meaning to the title “engineer,” but many different types of engineers, the judge found.” Haven’t really thought through all the ramifications of this, but it could actually be beneficial for software engineers to have an official accreditation. It could help develop accountability and best engineering practices.

will4274 8y ago
> I do think it would be deceptive for a politician to claim to be an engineer if they hadn’t done any engineering I agree, but this is an argument for newspapers, magazines, and websites to make, not for the state licensing board. Regulating the speech of politicians campaiging for office undermines the democratic process, as it allows those in power to control the speech of those with less power trying to unseat them.
bumby 8y ago
I've seen the need for this in software during hiring. Employer states an engineering degree is needed even for CS dominant positions because, unlike accredited engineering programs, there was just too much leeway in CS programs. E.g., one may require four semesters of calculus, another only one resulting in wide ranges of rigor. Instead of inspecting transcripts, HR just specifies an ABET engineering degree. This attitude is changing, especially as more schools get ABET CS programs, but old ways of doing things change slowly.
SamReidHughes 8y ago
> It could help develop accountability and best engineering practices. Have you ever read books about that? There are multiple layers of awful ideas about software engineering, touted as best practice. It's a cesspit of idiocy. Too many morons are going around trying to say things about engineering practices for it to be possible to make a useful accreditation. It would also end up being a negative hiring signal, like existing certifications and Master's degrees.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  A master's degree is a negative hiring signal? When did that start?
  - lstodd 8y ago
    Isn't it obvious? You study for masters, or, god forbid, work on a PhD - you're missing what's going on in the industry for years while demonstrating that you're not interested in building solutions. I'm not sure I'm being sarcastic.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      Ha! Agree on the not-sure-if-sarcastic part. I bet you can find plenty of people who actually see it the way you describe. I'm doing a working master's program myself (yay OMSCS!) so I'm not missing out on the drudgery known as the current industry while I'm pursuing academic solutions to non-existent problems...
  - SamReidHughes 8y ago
    Getting an MS is completely unimpressive, isn't it? I've read other people such as Google recruiters mention it as a negative signal, in terms of likelihood to pass the interview process.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      Well, as someone pursuing their masters in CS, I can't argue that it is not too impressive. I would like to know before I finish if it is actually a negative signal, though ;-). I'm at the point in my career where it won't make a bit of difference, but I would still figure on it being a mild positive if I were going into the hiring process through the front door. Maybe it will refresh my memory on algorithms enough to do well at one of those useless Google interviews :)
      - merijnv 8y ago
Nasrudith 8y ago
In theory perhaps but in practice it seems a bit dubious right now given existing certifications haven't had the best of reputations. I doubt 'official' will be much better in the US at least given history. Between the Clipper-chip, S-boxes, Elliptical curve, and many embarrassingly easy security breaches I think an official certification would result in the same 'counterproductive to list in most cases' as many private certifications if not worse. They have shown themselves repeatably to be neither trustworthy nor competent and thus have negative credibility. Software engineers have a reputation of being like cats - you don't herd them to an official standard, you lure them unofficially to something with 'tuna' and some may prefer chicken anyway.
abeppu 8y ago
> it could actually be beneficial for software engineers to have an official accreditation I've waffled on this, and I'd be curious to hear input from others. On the one hand, software engineers are building systems which have incredible reach and impact. It's reasonable to want to ensure these systems are being built by people with some solid body of knowledge and skills. However, software engineering as a field changes relatively quickly, and we hardly ever reach a consensus about the best way to do anything. It's often somewhat unclear to me whether we're making forward progress at all (because we keep inventing "new" ways to build the same things). And because software is in every kind of system, two very skilled and productive software engineers might actually have very few overlapping tools in their toolbox. Could we ever agree on what should be part of the official accreditation, and how long would it be good for?
- logicchains 8y ago
  My university had a "Masters of Software Engineering" course that was accredited by some European engineering body, and a significant amount of the content was UML diagrams, OO and writing huge reports. "Engineering" as it is practiced in other fields seems fundamentally tied to the waterfall approach, which makes less sense in software.
scarejunba 8y ago
Yeah, right. Best engineering practices would be from the same guys who somehow find big O notation incomprehensible or hit impossible to use. It’s not that any of this is necessary or good to know but credential-seeking would be the number one place for mediocrity. It would be a great negative signal. I love it.

will4274 8y ago

> I do think it would be deceptive for a politician to claim to be an engineer if they hadn’t done any engineering I agree, but this is an argument for newspapers, magazines, and websites to make, not for the state licensing board. Regulating the speech of politicians campaiging for office undermines the democratic process, as it allows those in power to control the speech of those with less power trying to unseat them.

bumby 8y ago

I've seen the need for this in software during hiring. Employer states an engineering degree is needed even for CS dominant positions because, unlike accredited engineering programs, there was just too much leeway in CS programs. E.g., one may require four semesters of calculus, another only one resulting in wide ranges of rigor. Instead of inspecting transcripts, HR just specifies an ABET engineering degree. This attitude is changing, especially as more schools get ABET CS programs, but old ways of doing things change slowly.

SamReidHughes 8y ago

> It could help develop accountability and best engineering practices. Have you ever read books about that? There are multiple layers of awful ideas about software engineering, touted as best practice. It's a cesspit of idiocy. Too many morons are going around trying to say things about engineering practices for it to be possible to make a useful accreditation. It would also end up being a negative hiring signal, like existing certifications and Master's degrees.

rootusrootus 8y ago
A master's degree is a negative hiring signal? When did that start?
- lstodd 8y ago
  Isn't it obvious? You study for masters, or, god forbid, work on a PhD - you're missing what's going on in the industry for years while demonstrating that you're not interested in building solutions. I'm not sure I'm being sarcastic.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Ha! Agree on the not-sure-if-sarcastic part. I bet you can find plenty of people who actually see it the way you describe. I'm doing a working master's program myself (yay OMSCS!) so I'm not missing out on the drudgery known as the current industry while I'm pursuing academic solutions to non-existent problems...
- SamReidHughes 8y ago
  Getting an MS is completely unimpressive, isn't it? I've read other people such as Google recruiters mention it as a negative signal, in terms of likelihood to pass the interview process.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Well, as someone pursuing their masters in CS, I can't argue that it is not too impressive. I would like to know before I finish if it is actually a negative signal, though ;-). I'm at the point in my career where it won't make a bit of difference, but I would still figure on it being a mild positive if I were going into the hiring process through the front door. Maybe it will refresh my memory on algorithms enough to do well at one of those useless Google interviews :)
    - merijnv 8y ago

Nasrudith 8y ago

In theory perhaps but in practice it seems a bit dubious right now given existing certifications haven't had the best of reputations. I doubt 'official' will be much better in the US at least given history. Between the Clipper-chip, S-boxes, Elliptical curve, and many embarrassingly easy security breaches I think an official certification would result in the same 'counterproductive to list in most cases' as many private certifications if not worse. They have shown themselves repeatably to be neither trustworthy nor competent and thus have negative credibility. Software engineers have a reputation of being like cats - you don't herd them to an official standard, you lure them unofficially to something with 'tuna' and some may prefer chicken anyway.

abeppu 8y ago

> it could actually be beneficial for software engineers to have an official accreditation I've waffled on this, and I'd be curious to hear input from others. On the one hand, software engineers are building systems which have incredible reach and impact. It's reasonable to want to ensure these systems are being built by people with some solid body of knowledge and skills. However, software engineering as a field changes relatively quickly, and we hardly ever reach a consensus about the best way to do anything. It's often somewhat unclear to me whether we're making forward progress at all (because we keep inventing "new" ways to build the same things). And because software is in every kind of system, two very skilled and productive software engineers might actually have very few overlapping tools in their toolbox. Could we ever agree on what should be part of the official accreditation, and how long would it be good for?

logicchains 8y ago
My university had a "Masters of Software Engineering" course that was accredited by some European engineering body, and a significant amount of the content was UML diagrams, OO and writing huge reports. "Engineering" as it is practiced in other fields seems fundamentally tied to the waterfall approach, which makes less sense in software.

scarejunba 8y ago

Yeah, right. Best engineering practices would be from the same guys who somehow find big O notation incomprehensible or hit impossible to use. It’s not that any of this is necessary or good to know but credential-seeking would be the number one place for mediocrity. It would be a great negative signal. I love it.