From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,bf72ca9e8a6b3cf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "M." Subject: Re: Software Engineering in Florida Date: 1999/11/10 Message-ID: <2x7W3.296$4D5.197614@ratbert.tds.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 546766571 References: <1e0rgtb.6j187t1hibcsaN@[209.132.126.64]> <7vv26t$tju$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <804plo$dvs$1@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net> <3828A2D7.F23C91AE@mitre.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tds.net (TDS.NET help Desk 1-888-815-5992) X-Trace: ratbert.tds.net 942212286 207.1.25.55 (Tue, 09 Nov 1999 23:38:06 CST) Organization: TDS.NET Internet Services www.tds.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 23:38:06 CST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote in message <3828A2D7.F23C91AE@mitre.org>... >4) If we get to the point of having a PE test for software engineers, >which might be a good idea, it should have NOTHING to do with any >academic course of study. Software Engineering and programming >are both crafts, but in the case of programming some classroom >time is helpful if not necessary. But the one thing I have seen >demonstrated over and over in the past twenty years is that >software engineering cannot be taught in classrooms. Electrical engineering can't be taught in classrooms without appropriate design projects on the side (and I mean _design_ projects, with engineering notebooks and design documentation. Not "turn in a circuit/program that works."). Is this what you mean? >> How many people who call themselves software engineers could pass the >> Professional Engineers exam? How many reading this message? That is >> the criteria by which one is allowed to add the initials, PE, to a >> business card or letterhead. If one cannot pass the PE exam, one is >> not, by commonly accepted standards, an engineer. > > I'd guess very few, but many if not most of those reading this message >probably qualify. However, your last statement is incorrect. You can >be considered an engineer without taking the PE exam, You can be considered one, and even call yourself one if you are an employee of a company. But in some states you can't do business directly with the public as an "engineer" unless you have qualified for and passed the exam. (By the way, I am not a lawyer, and these are not professional legal opinions.) > It is an old hornet's nest, but it's time has come again. I >personnally think that what is needed is a guild of sofware engineering, >rather than a professional society, and that when I retire the worldmay >be ready for one. I think this is completely unnecessary, not only because it is too restrictive, but also because it's necessarily vague on the qualifications for a "masterpiece." Furthermore, I think professional societies for software (esp. the IEEE CS) are underutilized. M.