[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
With all due respect to the software engineers, as much as I admire their profession (I am studying database design and interface design) I have always been baffled by the misnomer of “engineer.”
“Programmer” would be more accurate, as I consider the traditional engineering disciplines that deal with the physical sciences to be more deserving of the “engineer” label.
Just like when I see “education engineer” or “customer support engineer.” Dude, unless you studied heat of reaction shit and mechanics and fluid dynamics, etc, AND you at least have to recall SOME of that shit for your job, you are NOT an engineer. I studied engineering - switched out, didn’t like it - and that is some different shit.
Programmers are wicked smart, and I understand many of them are computer engineering majors - and therefore have to study the core engineering stuff - with an emphasis on software, but they just don’t get their hands dirty with engineering-level stuff in their 9-5s.
Now, if someone can convince me otherwise, I’m all ears. Not trying to shit on anyone’s talents at all, and I was born and raised in the Silicon Valley…[/quote]
Not going to try to convince you otherwise, but here’s my take, as a dude who does need to recall that shit on an everyday basis. Master’s in Mechanical Engineering, currently being paid by the military as a civilian to finish a PhD. Yes, I am a student, yes, it pays the bills.
I have been convinced that the title “Engineer” needs to be a state regulated title, like “Doctor”, or “Lawyer”. And in the eyes of the law in most states, it is. If a guy with a PhD in engineering goes into a court of law to testify as an expert witness in the state of Michigan, if he is not a state-certified PE (Professional Engineer), and he is asked,
“Are you an engineer?”
he is required to respond,
“No, but I do the job of an engineer.”
There are a couple other times when it really matters that you’re a PE, mostly in civil engineering applications.
The airplane industry has its own certifications, which I believe are state-run. Don’t quote me on that last bit, but suffice it to say, they are rigorous. This is good…you don’t want just any jackhole designing a commercial airliner.
Licensure doesn’t solve every problem, but it does two things; it ensures a certain minimum standard of knowledge for someone using the title, and renewal testing ensures a certain knowledge upkeep that is not required today.
An important caveat is railroad engineers. These guys know their shit, and are licensed. A little overlap is fine.
So back to the original question of computer dudes. If they want to come up with a standard that satisfies a state engineering board, test for it, and enforce it, they’re welcome to the title, at least in my book.
Ponce, you must be a carpenter, because that was a fine soapbox you built me. 
