This falls inline with what I was going to respond with, but your response puts a better angle on it. I was going to suggest that the nature of software moves

This falls inline with what I was going to respond with, but your response puts a better angle on it. I was going to suggest that the nature of software moves much faster than many other disciplines, even other STEM ones. At least in industry*, a mechanical engineer isn't as likely to have to un-learn and re-learn like a software engineer. This tends to make those industries a bit more slow moving which, in turn, makes experience in the traditional ways of doing things a bit more valuable. I know NCEES toyed with the idea of a software engineer professional license, but it died on the vine because so few people took it up. I suspect the outcome would have been different if industry or regulation made it a priority, like it is for civil engineers. >My hypothesis is that they are also the ones who have kept up with changing fashions and paradigms.* This is my thought as well, but I think a lot of bias comes because of other life events. The SWEs I knew who felt left out just didn't have enough bandwidth to spend extra hours each week learning when they had many of the other commitments that generally start creeping in in one's 30s onward. *(In academia, there's a bit more emphasis on 'state-of-the-art', I presume).