From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_50 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 8 Apr 93 16:02:22 GMT
From: 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)
Subject: Re: Is General Kind the harbinger of doom for the Mandate?
Message-ID: <1993Apr8.160222.8576@cs.rit.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

|> 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