It irks me (but only a little), because almost every licensing FAQ now has to have some caveat and say something to the effect of "by the way, Combat Engineer does not actually qualify as Engineering work." Maybe the answer is to simply add a similar caveat to Software Engineering in all of the FAQs until Software Engineering develops its own licensing process (which it should, since unlike some people I actually do think Software Engineering work is Engineering).

For example (note "combat engineers" is in quotes):

"Military experience?

All branches of the military have engineers doing genuine engineering work. In this regard, the military is just like any other employer, and the engineering work experience counts. However, work performed by "combat engineers", electronic repair technicians, and so on is generally not true engineering work." [1]

[1] http://ppi2pass.com/faqs/qualifying-to-take-the-licensing-ex...

Personally, not really, because there is no real ambiguity. For example, at a company like apple (or anywhere else that makes devices), they might have 'real' qualified engineers working alongside software engineers.

The liberal use of the term 'engineer' to describe technicians or mechanics does irk many in the engineering fields, however.

In Germany, the term is protected, so it is illegal to use the label without holding full qualifications, like 'doctor' or 'lawyer'.

Not as much as those posers who manage train engines. Who, by the way, should be angry at these Civil and Chem engineers who never saw an engine in their lives.

Let's acknowledge that language grows and changes as new concepts are invented.