In the US, maybe, but your statement is rather insulting for engineers in Quebec.

Here, software engineers must follow an engineering program at university, spend at least 2 years working under an Ordre des Ingénieurs member's supervision, and pass a test before they can use the title of (software) engineer. The mandatory courses cover things like ethics, sociology, physics, electrical and electronic circuits, computer architecture, differential equations and numerical methods, and vector calculus.

Even Microsoft's MSCEs can't use the word "engineer" here: http://www.microsoft.com/canada/learning/quebecmcse/default....

Now, it's true that "programmers" don't require certification. The Ordre des ingénieurs and Quebec are thinking about ways to make the programmer profession more regulated, but it's of course hard to implement without an international agreement on the matter.

I, for one, do not want any kind of regulation for our trade. People can wrangle over the term "engineer" if they'd like. I don't use it for myself, as I am quite content to be called a programmer. One could argue that a guild/regulatory body would put us in a stronger position to negotiate salaries, via a kind of artificial shortage (since some individuals won't get certified). But the last thing that I want, personally, is to have to answer to any kind of guild that tries to tell me that I am or am not a "proper" programmer.

When it comes to the use of the term "engineer" in the states, it's not about regulating the trade or determining what's "proper," it's about making sure that people who use a title have the minimum knowledge and qualifications implied by the title.

I understand what you're saying, but what will we consider an "engineer" to be, in the case of programmers?

A "programmer" can be someone who picked up PHP in their spare time, and may have a degree in art history, for all anyone knows. It can also be someone with a solid background in CS, with a degree to boot. Both of them can get jobs as "programmers" (though in this case, probably very different wage scales) if they are good enough to get hired.

It's true in many parts of the world, and indeed I went through a similar ordeal to have "Software Engineer" in my diploma. However, I find all this does nothing to improve the quality of the talent, and these credentials are useless as a predictor of future performance.

So if software engineering certification is institutionalized worldwide tomorrow, my bet is it won't change a thing in practice. The problem is with the discipline itself, not with what is written on the credentials.

The idea that one is not an engineer without state licensing is a presumption of the right of the state to determine one's vocation.

What the hell does that even mean? Of course the state has the right to accredit professional bodies who can then accredit professionals. It's not some deterministic whim of the state deciding who can and can't be a "", it's simple quality assurance for people who are employing the services of said professional.

Libertarians, sheesh!

I believe the argument is not that those without certifications cannot be engineers, but that engineering professions are regulated by the state (via certifications) and thus professions that do not require a state licence must not be 'true' engineering.