[sp4rki]

I'm sorry but that assertion is a farce in itself in my opinion. I enrolled in the best University in my country for Civil Engineering and dropped after my second semester. I did the same for Computer Engineering and International Business. I made a boatload of money selling final projects (I know...) for people from year one to year five. It's pretty easy to go through the motions and get those three to five years done if the paper motivates you.

My experience (YMMV) is that all these "Engineers" go out into the world as rookies anyways. I've dealt with rookie Civil Engineers that couldn't understand the blueprints for a two story house and "Computer Engineers" that couldn't code their way out of a React Todo List.

Experience trumps all if you ask me and if we really want to regulate the "Title" then it should be based on experience and achievements vs a paper that says you went to X or Y.

I might be biased because I decided to drop out and go build experience, but I've hired from both sides and I've come to the conclusion that raw talent and experience dictate how much of an "Engineer" you really are.