Re: Is General Kind the harbinger of doom for the Mandate?

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!galileo.cc.roch ester.edu!rochester!rit!mjl@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Michael J Lutz)]

|> In <733834945.AA00788@f262.n620.z3.fidonet.org> tp923021@fir.canberra.edu.au
 (ben elliston) writes:
|> 
|> >Organization: Compact Solutions, Canberra ACT Australia
|> 
|> > > non-issue.  If you find software engineers today who
|> > > don't know Ada,
|> > > it takes a week or two for them to learn the syntax.
|> 
|> >What I would like to know is .. what classifies a "software
|> >engineer"?  I know people with computer science degrees who boldly
|> >claim that they are "software engineers".
|> 
|> >Whatever happened to being a Professional or Chartered Professional
|> >Engineer with a degree in engineering!?

Good question -- for traditional engineering.  In the U.S., according
to Engineering Times (1/93), P.E. licensing rates are:

	Civil		44 %
	Mechanical	23 %
	Electrical	 9 %
	Chemical	 8 %

So, at least in the U.S., I'd suggest that the traditionalists get their
acts together before preaching to software engineers.

-- 

Mike Lutz
Department of Computer Science
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY 14623-0887  USA
+1 (716) 475-2472
mjl@cs.rit.edu