4 ms·

> So why is there so much resistance? Because, 1) a PE license is useless for software/computer engineering. 2) the FE exam covers a bunch of irrelevant mat

> So why is there so much resistance? Because, 1) a PE license is useless for software/computer engineering. 2) the FE exam covers a bunch of irrelevant material. 3) once you pass the FE exam, there's no real mechanism to advance because there are no apprenticeships available in computer engineering. And you can't take the PE exam without the apprenticeship. My college spent a lot of money getting an ABET accreditation for their CS/CE programs. As such, they pushed students really, really, really hard to take the FE exam. I went down the path to getting it and realized those aforementioned points. The study guide covered electronics theory that I had no idea about. It also covered silicon chemistry, which was only briefly covered at very high levels. So I'd be learning pretty complex topics on my own, which have no professional value. Then, if I wanted to take the PE exam, I'd have to find a job where I could apprentice for four years. And, as we know, sticking with a job that long is terrible for your lifetime earnings. So yeah, PEs are never going to be a thing in software unless they fundamentally change how engineers are licensed. Maybe if it was like nursing or law school where there's a big exam afterwards that you can take, and if you pass, you're licensed. But as it stands now, four years of apprenticeship after 4-5 years of schooling is ridiculous.

WorldMaker 5y ago
Most companies already have the "apprenticeship" half-codified in "Junior Developer" versus "Senior Developer" distinctions or "Level Ranks" or other ladders like that. If you switch jobs mid-"apprenticeship" today in the software industry depending on who you interview with and how well you can negotiate you either "start over" at a low rank/level/job title or luck/bs into "skipping that step" and jumping to a higher rank/level/job. Standardizing that across the industry wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the industry. Similarly, PE licenses would be so hugely worth it to the industry if it saved everyone time in "technical interviews", both interviewees and interviewers alike. How many collective labor hours as an industry are we wasting annually on "technical interviews"? For most classic Civil Engineering firms the "technical" part of the interview is almost entirely "Is your PE license valid and up to date?" "Yes." "Great, you're hired." The software industry would rather waste multiple hours (if not entire days) of wages of everyone involved instead, and it's rather sad when you think about it.
- lmm 5y ago
  > Most companies already have the "apprenticeship" half-codified in "Junior Developer" versus "Senior Developer" distinctions or "Level Ranks" or other ladders like that. If you switch jobs mid-"apprenticeship" today in the software industry depending on who you interview with and how well you can negotiate you either "start over" at a low rank/level/job title or luck/bs into "skipping that step" and jumping to a higher rank/level/job. Standardizing that across the industry wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the industry. In my experience no-one cares who's "junior" or "senior" day-to-day, and no-one can compare levels across multiple companies, and that's good for the industry; I've worked with plenty of "juniors" who were better than corresponding "seniors", standardising and formalising some years-of-experience metric would make the industry much less meritocratic. > Similarly, PE licenses would be so hugely worth it to the industry if it saved everyone time in "technical interviews", both interviewees and interviewers alike. How many collective labor hours as an industry are we wasting annually on "technical interviews"? For most classic Civil Engineering firms the "technical" part of the interview is almost entirely "Is your PE license valid and up to date?" "Yes." "Great, you're hired." The software industry would rather waste multiple hours (if not entire days) of wages of everyone involved instead, and it's rather sad when you think about it. I've yet to find any software-related qualification that wasn't an active negative. I've worked in a place that applied the acknowledged "best practices" of 10 years ago and it was a terrible environment for producing good code.
wheelinsupial 5y ago
Thanks for providing the US PE perspective. There are definitely people practicing as PEngs and apprenticing as EITs up in Canada under both the software engineering and computer engineering disciplines. So there is some value up here to those. Undergrad covers irrelevant material such as humanities, social sciences, and communication that add cost and time to an education. Or at least that's the argument people enrolled in computer science majors where I graduated put forth. Again, the American perspective is useful. I had no idea you would be bound to one employer during the apprenticeship process. In Canada, employees are free to move around.
- mywittyname 5y ago
  > In Canada, employees are free to move around. I think you can here as well, but the problem is finding an apprentice program in Computer & Electrical engineering is next to impossible. My school had one option for people looking for an apprenticeship. It might be better elsewhere in the country.
908B64B197 5y ago
> My college spent a lot of money getting an ABET accreditation for their CS/CE programs. Why? Even here Stanford isn't even ABET and nobody seems to care.

WorldMaker 5y ago

Most companies already have the "apprenticeship" half-codified in "Junior Developer" versus "Senior Developer" distinctions or "Level Ranks" or other ladders like that. If you switch jobs mid-"apprenticeship" today in the software industry depending on who you interview with and how well you can negotiate you either "start over" at a low rank/level/job title or luck/bs into "skipping that step" and jumping to a higher rank/level/job. Standardizing that across the industry wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the industry. Similarly, PE licenses would be so hugely worth it to the industry if it saved everyone time in "technical interviews", both interviewees and interviewers alike. How many collective labor hours as an industry are we wasting annually on "technical interviews"? For most classic Civil Engineering firms the "technical" part of the interview is almost entirely "Is your PE license valid and up to date?" "Yes." "Great, you're hired." The software industry would rather waste multiple hours (if not entire days) of wages of everyone involved instead, and it's rather sad when you think about it.

lmm 5y ago
> Most companies already have the "apprenticeship" half-codified in "Junior Developer" versus "Senior Developer" distinctions or "Level Ranks" or other ladders like that. If you switch jobs mid-"apprenticeship" today in the software industry depending on who you interview with and how well you can negotiate you either "start over" at a low rank/level/job title or luck/bs into "skipping that step" and jumping to a higher rank/level/job. Standardizing that across the industry wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for the industry. In my experience no-one cares who's "junior" or "senior" day-to-day, and no-one can compare levels across multiple companies, and that's good for the industry; I've worked with plenty of "juniors" who were better than corresponding "seniors", standardising and formalising some years-of-experience metric would make the industry much less meritocratic. > Similarly, PE licenses would be so hugely worth it to the industry if it saved everyone time in "technical interviews", both interviewees and interviewers alike. How many collective labor hours as an industry are we wasting annually on "technical interviews"? For most classic Civil Engineering firms the "technical" part of the interview is almost entirely "Is your PE license valid and up to date?" "Yes." "Great, you're hired." The software industry would rather waste multiple hours (if not entire days) of wages of everyone involved instead, and it's rather sad when you think about it. I've yet to find any software-related qualification that wasn't an active negative. I've worked in a place that applied the acknowledged "best practices" of 10 years ago and it was a terrible environment for producing good code.

wheelinsupial 5y ago

Thanks for providing the US PE perspective. There are definitely people practicing as PEngs and apprenticing as EITs up in Canada under both the software engineering and computer engineering disciplines. So there is some value up here to those. Undergrad covers irrelevant material such as humanities, social sciences, and communication that add cost and time to an education. Or at least that's the argument people enrolled in computer science majors where I graduated put forth. Again, the American perspective is useful. I had no idea you would be bound to one employer during the apprenticeship process. In Canada, employees are free to move around.

mywittyname 5y ago
> In Canada, employees are free to move around. I think you can here as well, but the problem is finding an apprentice program in Computer & Electrical engineering is next to impossible. My school had one option for people looking for an apprenticeship. It might be better elsewhere in the country.

908B64B197 5y ago

> My college spent a lot of money getting an ABET accreditation for their CS/CE programs. Why? Even here Stanford isn't even ABET and nobody seems to care.