> it's fair to say that if you don't like it, then don't speak about it
I would like to see the status quo changed, which is why I do discuss it. Of course it's fair that I hold an opinion and discuss it. There is no obligation for you to respond if you disagree :-)
> that's your definition of engineering, or whatever officials that define it
It's not my sole opinion:
> As with many other professions, the professional status and the actual practice of professional engineering is legally defined and protected by law in some jurisdictions. [3]
It's understood that if someone holds the title 'Engineer', they went through a certification process from a regulated body, traditionally. You can see this for example in countries and per state. [0] [1] [2]
> In Canada the designation "professional engineer" can only be used by licensed engineers and the practice of engineering is protected in law and strictly enforced in all provinces. [3]
In Canada (and I believe some states), it is illegal to sign off an email or other correspondence as a "Professional Engineer" if you're not actually licensed as such. [4]
---
> is it up to you to decide whether they can be hired?
When did I mention hiring? All I said was the term 'engineer' is loosely used in the software industry, and it has absolutely no standard around it.
> employer [...] why should he care about your title?
I wasn't talking about my employer at all. I only referenced skills because I was responding to a portion of the parent comment.
> It's just a title for god's sake
It isn't. How we frame something is very important in my opinion–just as important as the concept itself. [5] If it's "just a title", then people should have no problem calling themselves programmers or developers. However one can see that we call ourselves "engineers" because it sounds prestigious, despite the software industry being a total joke when it comes to standardization or even following basic modern practices consistently.
[5]: Consider for a moment the term "Global Warming" versus "Global Pollution Epidemic". I strongly believe if we had gone with the latter instead of the former, there would not have been pushback to the scale that we've seen. It certainly would have avoided the confusion of "oh, but this winter is so cold, global warming must be a hoax"! It also shifts the focus from an effect of pollution, to the pollution itself. This example is quite different than the software engineer/developer example, but I think it illustrates my point that how things are framed is very important.
We are not software engineers, and we won't be until regulatory bodies exist, and we develop codes of ethics.
> We are not software engineers, and we won't be until regulatory bodies exist, and we develop codes of ethics.
Nobody said that you are software engineer, you can just call yourself whatever you want
Those who called themselves software engineers are indeed software engineers, no one can forbids it
Fancy term like engineer is for marketing purposes, just like you said it's prestigious, they use it because they want to impress people, anything wrong with that? No, it's correct.
And it's also correct if anyone think they don't fit the title engineer, because it's his/her opinion which the software engineers won't likely give a fuck.
No one can stop them from using the term.
As for the Canada's law, the earth is bigger than that AFAIK. China and US software engineers are waiting for arrest. Except for Texas FYI
Standardization/basic practices mean shits by the way, it's research and development phases during engineering, people can invent what they want in their own ways as long as their products are legit
From Wikipedia:
> Engineers, as practitioners of engineering, are people who invent, design, analyse, build, and test machines, systems, structures and materials to fulfill objectives and requirements while considering the limitations imposed by practicality, regulation, safety, and cost.
> It's understood that if someone holds the title 'Engineer', they went through a certification process from a regulated body, traditionally. You can see this for example in countries and per state. [0] [1] [2]
I think you're misinterpreting the intention of the title of "Professional Engineer". As far as I can tell, it's for accountability for public projects (buildings, power, etc.). It's not strictly limiting what job titles can have the word "engineer" in it.
Most engineers in the aerospace industry don't even take the FE exam. Would you refuse to call most aerospace engineers "engineers" then?
I would like to see the status quo changed, which is why I do discuss it. Of course it's fair that I hold an opinion and discuss it. There is no obligation for you to respond if you disagree :-)
> that's your definition of engineering, or whatever officials that define it
It's not my sole opinion:
> As with many other professions, the professional status and the actual practice of professional engineering is legally defined and protected by law in some jurisdictions. [3]
It's understood that if someone holds the title 'Engineer', they went through a certification process from a regulated body, traditionally. You can see this for example in countries and per state. [0] [1] [2]
> In Canada the designation "professional engineer" can only be used by licensed engineers and the practice of engineering is protected in law and strictly enforced in all provinces. [3]
In Canada (and I believe some states), it is illegal to sign off an email or other correspondence as a "Professional Engineer" if you're not actually licensed as such. [4]
---
> is it up to you to decide whether they can be hired?
When did I mention hiring? All I said was the term 'engineer' is loosely used in the software industry, and it has absolutely no standard around it.
> employer [...] why should he care about your title?
I wasn't talking about my employer at all. I only referenced skills because I was responding to a portion of the parent comment.
> It's just a title for god's sake
It isn't. How we frame something is very important in my opinion–just as important as the concept itself. [5] If it's "just a title", then people should have no problem calling themselves programmers or developers. However one can see that we call ourselves "engineers" because it sounds prestigious, despite the software industry being a total joke when it comes to standardization or even following basic modern practices consistently.
[0]: https://engineerscanada.ca/accreditation/about-accreditation
[1]: https://ncees.org/engineering/
[2]: https://www.ncbels.org/
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_and_licensure_in_en...
[4]: http://www.occupationalhealthandsafetylaw.com/ontario-man-fi...
[5]: Consider for a moment the term "Global Warming" versus "Global Pollution Epidemic". I strongly believe if we had gone with the latter instead of the former, there would not have been pushback to the scale that we've seen. It certainly would have avoided the confusion of "oh, but this winter is so cold, global warming must be a hoax"! It also shifts the focus from an effect of pollution, to the pollution itself. This example is quite different than the software engineer/developer example, but I think it illustrates my point that how things are framed is very important.
We are not software engineers, and we won't be until regulatory bodies exist, and we develop codes of ethics.