Calling yourself an Engineer without having graduated from a CEAB-accredited institution is also illegal, just that people don't care nearly as much as bout this. You will occasionally see job postings and titles for "software engineers" from companies that don't know about this particular legal snag, and for the most part it's not policed.

You will sometimes see this dodged as "Engineering". "Junior Engineering" is a common moniker for someone who hasn't graduated yet, for example. The verb isn't protected, only the noun is.

For example - at my school Comp Sci were allowed to take physics for physics majors instead of physics for engineers. For both electromagnetic physics and mechanical physics. Typically most engineers are required to take some courses in the some basic courses, ie Dynamics, Statics, and others depending on your major. This all assumes that your ABET accredited. Maybe it's because I don't see an accrediting agency/society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABET#Members

(2) Every person who is not a holder of a licence or a temporary licence and who,

(a) uses the title “professional engineer” or “ingénieur” or an abbreviation or variation thereof as an occupational or business designation;

(a.1) uses the title “engineer” or an abbreviation of that title in a manner that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering;

(b) uses a term, title or description that will lead to the belief that the person may engage in the practice of professional engineering; or

(c) uses a seal that will lead to the belief that the person is a professional engineer,

is guilty of an offence..."

As can be plainly seen, it is perfectly legal to call yourself a software engineer, audio engineer, sanitation engineer, or any other term which isn't holding yourself out to be a licensed professional engineer. The fine is $10,000.

An audio or sanitation engineer is unlikely to run afoul of this, a software engineer is less clear... I've yet to hear of anyone going after software engineers for the term though.

Source: My dad has served on local APEGGA boards and holds P.Eng and FEC designations.

I think it's one of those things in Canada where nothing happens until a complaint has been filed. Having said that, even though my job title is "Platform Engineer," as somebody with a CS degree living in Canada, I avoid using it when I'm away from the web, lest it prompt somebody to complain against my employer.

I addressed this in another post, but this is not true. Microsoft temporarily advised holders to use the abbreviation instead of the full name, but then reverted to the full name (see my other post on this for a story on this from the PEO themselves). Years later they changed the whole program to "IT Professional" worldwide in a new marketing push to split the development track from the administration track.

I think it's one of those things in Canada where nothing happens until a complaint has been filed.

The Professional Engineering groups have absolutely no success in trying to coopt the dictionary, nor should they.

There is currently no widespread recognition of the profession in the IT community. We almost never see any job posting requiring the title, or any company giving additional compensation/responsabilities because of the title. For this reason, very few software/IT engineers are going through the process as it is quite costly (~400$ per year + cash spent on minimum Continuing Education Units).

The main difference between a comp sci. degree and a software eng. degree when I graduated in Quebec (circa 2007) was mostly courses about rational rose and the waterfall process. Software Engineer is a nice title and all, but I don't see its advantages over a comp sci. degree.

But I must admit I haven't studied the curriculum of a CS program. Am I wrong to say you can do it in 3 years while SE is 4 years? If we could study a few programs from a few university offerings, I'm sure we could see what is different. I ought to think it is generally an engineering approach to building software, that is a mix of science, people and integrity.

I think that a lot of what you learn in the SE curriculum can be learnt (and probably is better learnt) on the job, as opposed to the very theoretical courses in a CS curriculum that a) cannot be learnt easily by one's self or on the job and b) will last a lifetime.

In 2006-7, it would have been much more useful nowadays for someone to learn about machine learning in an AI class than about rational rose and the waterfall process, and I suspect the same applies now in the CS vs SE debate, except with updated technologies.

CS: This program is the standard Major program offered by the School of Computer Science. It provides a broad introduction to the principles of computer science and offers ample opportunity to acquire in-depth knowledge of several sub-disciplines. At the same time, its credit requirements allow students to take an additional minor.

SE: This program provides a broad introduction to the principles of computer science and covers in depth the design and development of software systems.

For example, I recall that my SE program had some common courses with other engineering branches (ethics and technology, entrepreneurship, communication, finances for project manager), which were common to all engineering disciplines.