3 ms·
That, but more to the point, the value of the term is based on the strong history of regulation and common use, which SWEs as an industry have taken advantage o
by beerandt 2y ago
That, but more to the point, the value of the term is based on the strong history of regulation and common use, which SWEs as an industry have taken advantage of and diminished.
Which, I get that not everyone agrees on licensing law and philosophy, but it should at least signify mastery of the topic via formal education or apprenticeship.
Most PEs have both of those, engineering degree and licensing internship.
How many SWEs have either? I honestly don't know.
If you don't have either, you are at best senior technician, which should be respectable enough, but for title inflation.
- AlotOfReading 2y agoMastery of what topic? What I consider important for my work in safety critical systems is probably very different from whatever you use in your presumably different field. Both of those are different again from e.g. GameDev, HPC, or operating systems and all of them encompass domain knowledge not adequately captured by existing degree programs. How would a useful certification be realized, as opposed to mere credentialism?
- duped 2y agoI strongly disagree that SWEs have "taken advantage of and diminished" anything. The practice of ignoring PE licensure extends well beyond software and was well established as nonsense before the dotcom boom. > How many SWEs have either? I honestly don't know. Almost all of them, in practice. > If you don't have either, you are at best senior technician, which should be respectable enough, but for title inflation. Engineering as a discipline is much older and nuanced than PE licensing bodies. If you are applying the science and practice of problem analysis and design synthesis you are an engineer.