This may be a reason why, but it's not a great one. The vast majority of people employed in the US with "engineer" in their job title are not Professional Engineers.

Ya, it's just a made up title to make people feel important, to be honest.

It's a professional certification. You can argue about how much significance it has but it's certainly not "made up."

I'm talking about folks that call themselves engineers, where they clearly are not. A PE has an exam with credential requirements and an apprenticeship under another PE for a period of time + having to retake that PE exam in order to get that designation. I COMPLETELY understand the PE part of it. It's the software developers that use the title of engineer that irks me. Or HR folks baiting software developers with a title of "engineer" when they clearly are NOT qualified to be that - both by credentials or by the PE designation. Engineers are engineers, scientists are scientists (and equally less qualified in comparison to engineers). Are scientists important? Absolutely .. for me, it's more about the semantics of use and the validation of it.

I wasn't particularly talking about software engineers. I have a mechanical engineering degree, and none of the ~20ish engineers at the first place I worked had a PE licence. If you want "engineer" in a job title to mean "has a PE licence", you're going to need to change the title of perhaps 95% of people currently employed in mechanical or electrical engineering. Probably more than ninety percent of aerospace engineers too. There is maybe an argument to be made that programming shouldn't be called "software engineering", but this really isn't it.

Also for whatever it is worth, I've now worked in mechanical engineering for 5 years and software for about 1 year, and they both feel the same to me. Software is sometimes faster and sloppier, but I think that's just because the build process for a program takes minutes and the build process for the CVD machines I used to design takes months.

Well, good luck with that. Back when I was in the oil business, there were even mud engineers--or mud salesmen as the toolpushers called them.

I certainly don't favor the idea that every software engineer/consulting engineer/etc. should have to get a PE before they can call themselves by that title.

You're welcome to feel differently but don't expect a lot of support.

Just like "Doctor" and "Prime Minister".

Not really. But there are specific situations, e.g. signing off on things related to regulatory agencies, where PEs are required. Lots of engineers in a variety of engineering professions have no need for PEs but some do.

Keep in mind that "not really" may be dependent on where you're at. It is divisive in some places. More so Europe than the United States.

Fair enough. In the US, "engineer" is used pretty widely--including by people who are clearly not engineers. (I could name a number of examples from the oil business.)

PEs are mostly about certifications needed to sign off on things in some cases. I got an Engineer-in-Training certificate but never had the need to get a PE.

Strangely, the first software dev title I got with "Engineer" in the title was from a European company. "Applications Engineer"

See, it's not divisive at all to me. There are two types of degrees - a computer science degree and a computer engineering degree. If you are an engineer - your paper says so. If you are a scientist ... you are a scientist. There is a very BIG difference. Folks that write software can be both engineers and scientists. However, there are key differences in the applications of being an engineer. Just because I write E=mc^2 on a board and apply it to some problem in front of me, doesn't make me a theoretical physicist - it just makes me a guy writing on a board, a formula that a physicist might use. In the case of the story, he's a mechanical "engineer". He isn't a guy off the street calling himself an engineer. He has the education to match the claim. HUGE difference. Software engineers have degrees that state they are. Software / computer scientist can be thrown around more liberally, but a software ENGINEER cannot.

"Software Engineering" and "Computer Engineering" are different degrees. I think you're actually talking about software engineering; computer engineering has a heavy focus on hardware, and wouldn't be the first choice for someone who's mainly interested in programming.

Software engineers would typically have Computer Science degrees, not Computer Engineering degrees.

Software engineers w/o degrees are just software developers. They are not engineers, by any stretch of the term. Engineering principals applied to software, including performance analysis and validation are done by engineers. There is a big difference. Actually a HUGE difference. This isn't most likely going to be popular here, because a lot of industry folks who are in the epicenter of SF just like the title more than the job .. but it's fact, IMHO. I don't mind having discrediting titles all the time, but it's more ego that pushes it. I could care less about a title, so I'll call it out all the time. Scientists are not engineers.

> "but it's fact, IMHO"

That's not how facts work.

> I could care less

Obviously not an engineer.

Software "engineers" have Computer Science degrees.

"Software Engineers" have Engineering degrees.

Example is University of Waterloo Software Engineering: https://uwaterloo.ca/find-out-more/programs/software-enginee...