Lots of industries have licensing requirements. My friends that are all of the above (except CEOs), need to have licenses (and often, specific schooling). They work hard for these licenses, and generally have to pass lots of difficult tests. They usually also have to keep working to stay current.

The mere thought of doing that, in the tech world, though, brings about collective apoplexy. I'm not especially a fan of how licenses can be used to protect incumbents, and bar entry to otherwise highly capable people. They do, however, go a long ways towards ensuring that a building doesn't fall down, the first time a hot rod drives by.

But hiring always has been "pot luck." Been that way, for -literally- thousands of years. That's why hiring good managers has always been important, and there's really no way to test for that. For whatever reason, we seem to think we get to play by different rules.

" good managers has always been important, and there's really no way to test for that. For whatever reason, we seem to think we get to play by different rules."

I presume one reason may be because tech industry may be a bit insular, and full of people who enjoy creating complex models of the world - trying to find a perfect technological solution to everything (when they should just try to find a good hiring manager in stead).

The software engineering profession is moving at light speed compared to any of those other careers. It is specific to us and not engineering as a whole too - as you point out, structural engineering does have qualifications required (chartered status).

Medicine does move on, but a lot of what a doctor needs to do doesn't. And the bits that do are actually a problem with there not being a good way of ensuring that doctors use up to date techniques.

The difference is that structural engineers and doctors are safeguarding safety, and (most) software engineers aren't. If someone suggested people should need chartered status to work on medical device software I don't think that would be as controversial, and will get progressively less so as the discipline is less brand new and progress slows down a bit.

But I think anyone that handles PID should be held to account, as to what happens to that data. We have been doing a terrible job of that.

Many apps that I encounter, are pretty much bald-faced, unapologetic, data harvesters. That’s clearly their main purpose, and their stated purpose is really just the lure on an anglerfish.

“Move fast and break things” sounds good, until you realize that said “things” may be people’s lives.

Our profession has no code of ethics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering_ethics

I don't know why it's not in that article but, e.g. from the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM). https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics

This is absolutely true, but it's a function of the business, not the individual engineer. It's not just about engineering at all - one of the biggest GDPR fines was to H&M for some internal data that managers were keeping on some employees.

The role of a programmer is really weird in the sense that the complexity of tasks you are expected to do is in no way limited by your job title or domain.

I presume technology sector pays more attention because the task of programmer is ill defined, and that it's quite hard to define exactly what you are looking for based on external standards.