4 ms·

> I lean against the idea of formal exams (a "bar" for software). I'm not completely opposed to it, but if it happens, I'd prefer to establish it completely in

> I lean against the idea of formal exams (a "bar" for software). I'm not completely opposed to it, but if it happens, I'd prefer to establish it completely independently of any professional engineering accreditation, since I just don't think computer science, or even the modern practice of writing software, is sufficiently similar to engineering to be considered a subset of the PE exams. Too late, the first NCEES software PE exam was in 2013. It uses the IEEE/ACM Software Engineering Book of Knowledge as a base and seems close to what the old IEEE CSDP certification was trying to do. It's intended (as I see it) for formally trained engineers who are working on software-intensive projects rather than developers who want to do engineering work. Your point about having someone besides NCEES do the licensure was tried (IEEE) and at least for now will not be happening going forward. To your earlier point, I do expect someone calling themselves an engineer to have a basic grounding in chemistry, physics (mechanics, E&M, thermo), heat and mass transfer, calculus, etc.—basically, the first 2 years of engineering education common to all disciplines. I also expect that they're respecting professional standards and ethics. I realize that "software engineers" feel like they're an exception and it irritates me to no end, but I also don't see the cat being stuffed back into the bag at this point. edit: One frustration I've had recently was in hiring an engineer on a software-intensive medical device project, and getting a bunch of web developers applying for the role. I needed someone with an actual engineering background, and tried filtering by including engineering undergraduate degree as a requirement and "professional engineer" as a preferred requirement, to no avail. If Silicon Valley wants to call everyone off the street a software engineer, that's fine, but I need a job title to use in hiring for safety critical software projects.

geebee 11y ago
Thanks for your response. I feel ambivalence about the use of "engineering" in software. We do have "sound engineers" and "special effects engineers", consistent with a vernacular use of engineering to mean "the ingenious use of technology" (made up by me). Within that context, the term software "engineering" really isn't especially outrageous. I think that the public is not threatened by this use of the word, since they are not confused by the difference between a sound "engineer" and a licensed structural engineer. However, software "engineering" could slip into that grey area. One thing that makes me worry less is the restructuring of the FE exams to reflect the body of knowledge in the various fields. For instance, Industrial Engineering is now substantially different from Mechanical even at the FE level. Another interesting thing I learned is that certain fields are just title based - I believe that this means you can't represent yourself as an "Industrial Engineer" in a professional context if you aren't a PE, but there isn't a practice restriction (at least that is how I interpreted it, because I don't do either it doesn't really affect me). But one other thing I would like to mention - while I phrased my argument in the context of not wanting PE to gain control over software licensing, I do agree with you about the term "engineering". I do agree that you should have a background in those things you mentioned to be using the title where "engineer" implies this sort of background, and it is hard earned. So I'd agree that software engineers may be grabbing a title they don't really have rights to, though I would still argue that software has far more in common with math (even math theory, like abstract algebra) than heat and mass transfer. Oh one more thing - your description for the intended use of "software engineering" as "formally trained engineers who are working on software-intensive projects" sounds reasonable - it covers software for specific engineering systems. My worry is of scope creep - the initial process is limited, highly relevant, and justified, but it later morphs into an "I'm licensed and you"re not" situation. If that happens, I'd almost want to see some math body establish a degree requirement and math background (including things like abstract algebra and real analysis), along with very intensive algorithm questions, as a counterbalance (au contraire, mon frere, you're not licensed). I read Milton Friedman's bit on "abolish the AMA" and enjoyed it, but ultimately, I support limited licensing and credentials to protect the public - however, I do feel that scope creep really is a serious risk here.
- lambdaelite 11y ago
  > We do have "sound engineers" and "special effects engineers", consistent with a vernacular use of engineering to mean "the ingenious use of technology" (made up by me). And railroad engineers! Can't forget them! :) > One thing that makes me worry less is the restructuring of the FE exams to reflect the body of knowledge in the various fields. I don't know anyone that took their discipline-specific FE exam instead of the general one. Way back in undergrad, it was suggested that the general exam was easier. Do you know what the advantage is of the discipline-specific FE exam? > Another interesting thing I learned is that certain fields are just title based - I believe that this means you can't represent yourself as an "Industrial Engineer" in a professional context if you aren't a PE, but there isn't a practice restriction (at least that is how I interpreted it, because I don't do either it doesn't really affect me). That's certainly the case for systems engineering, which feels related to IE, but IE has a PE exam and systems engineering doesn't. You look at the projects that systems engineering is applied to, and they're certainly the sort of critical things (like aerospace) that you would want oversight over. I guess those in charge see the systems engineering trade association handing things fine without NCEES getting involved. Long live the industrial exemption I guess. I'm curious to see what happens to software consultancies, and if perhaps principals are going to need a PE like you would see at other engineering firms even if they're not handling safety or mission critical projects. A PE certainly helps in qualifying as an expert witness. This point goes towards your concern over scope creep, certainly a valid one.
  - geebee 11y ago
    The FE exams changed very recently - I'm not sure if there even is a general FE exam anymore, though there probably is an FE common core to each exam. http://ncees.org/about-ncees/news/ncees-announces-changes-to-fe-exam/ http://ncees.org/about-ncees/news/ncees-announces-changes-to...

geebee 11y ago

Thanks for your response. I feel ambivalence about the use of "engineering" in software. We do have "sound engineers" and "special effects engineers", consistent with a vernacular use of engineering to mean "the ingenious use of technology" (made up by me). Within that context, the term software "engineering" really isn't especially outrageous. I think that the public is not threatened by this use of the word, since they are not confused by the difference between a sound "engineer" and a licensed structural engineer. However, software "engineering" could slip into that grey area. One thing that makes me worry less is the restructuring of the FE exams to reflect the body of knowledge in the various fields. For instance, Industrial Engineering is now substantially different from Mechanical even at the FE level. Another interesting thing I learned is that certain fields are just title based - I believe that this means you can't represent yourself as an "Industrial Engineer" in a professional context if you aren't a PE, but there isn't a practice restriction (at least that is how I interpreted it, because I don't do either it doesn't really affect me). But one other thing I would like to mention - while I phrased my argument in the context of not wanting PE to gain control over software licensing, I do agree with you about the term "engineering". I do agree that you should have a background in those things you mentioned to be using the title where "engineer" implies this sort of background, and it is hard earned. So I'd agree that software engineers may be grabbing a title they don't really have rights to, though I would still argue that software has far more in common with math (even math theory, like abstract algebra) than heat and mass transfer. Oh one more thing - your description for the intended use of "software engineering" as "formally trained engineers who are working on software-intensive projects" sounds reasonable - it covers software for specific engineering systems. My worry is of scope creep - the initial process is limited, highly relevant, and justified, but it later morphs into an "I'm licensed and you"re not" situation. If that happens, I'd almost want to see some math body establish a degree requirement and math background (including things like abstract algebra and real analysis), along with very intensive algorithm questions, as a counterbalance (au contraire, mon frere, you're not licensed). I read Milton Friedman's bit on "abolish the AMA" and enjoyed it, but ultimately, I support limited licensing and credentials to protect the public - however, I do feel that scope creep really is a serious risk here.

lambdaelite 11y ago
> We do have "sound engineers" and "special effects engineers", consistent with a vernacular use of engineering to mean "the ingenious use of technology" (made up by me). And railroad engineers! Can't forget them! :) > One thing that makes me worry less is the restructuring of the FE exams to reflect the body of knowledge in the various fields. I don't know anyone that took their discipline-specific FE exam instead of the general one. Way back in undergrad, it was suggested that the general exam was easier. Do you know what the advantage is of the discipline-specific FE exam? > Another interesting thing I learned is that certain fields are just title based - I believe that this means you can't represent yourself as an "Industrial Engineer" in a professional context if you aren't a PE, but there isn't a practice restriction (at least that is how I interpreted it, because I don't do either it doesn't really affect me). That's certainly the case for systems engineering, which feels related to IE, but IE has a PE exam and systems engineering doesn't. You look at the projects that systems engineering is applied to, and they're certainly the sort of critical things (like aerospace) that you would want oversight over. I guess those in charge see the systems engineering trade association handing things fine without NCEES getting involved. Long live the industrial exemption I guess. I'm curious to see what happens to software consultancies, and if perhaps principals are going to need a PE like you would see at other engineering firms even if they're not handling safety or mission critical projects. A PE certainly helps in qualifying as an expert witness. This point goes towards your concern over scope creep, certainly a valid one.
- geebee 11y ago
  The FE exams changed very recently - I'm not sure if there even is a general FE exam anymore, though there probably is an FE common core to each exam. http://ncees.org/about-ncees/news/ncees-announces-changes-to-fe-exam/ http://ncees.org/about-ncees/news/ncees-announces-changes-to...