[mcmancini]

If we're talking about someone that passed the software engineering PE, then yes, I think they get plenty of (well-deserved) respect. I'm guessing that's not whom the article is referring to however...

I met a lot of "software engineers" that think their mad coding skills are singularly notable or worthy of respect in business. They're wrong. Technical ability is but one aspect of business. The developers who get that, who have other business skills and/or are willing to learn other business skills I greatly respect and value. A developer who is competent at coding and has one of good communication skills, project management skills, interpersonal and conflict resolution skills, is of much greater value to me than a developer who is excellent at coding and mediocre elsewhere.

[csbrooks]

What is the software engineering PE? Been programming professionally 18 years, never heard of it.

[mcmancini]

In this context, PE is the professional engineering exam. You take it in a specialty area, and software engineering was added last year. It's one of the last steps for licensure as a professional engineer.

Some states, like Texas, are extremely picky about who calls themselves an engineer, irrespective of industrial exemption (which the vast majority of people fall under). PE licensure in other engineering areas (like civil engineering) is required to offer services to the public, helps when offering expert testimony, and can be required for principals at consulting firms. The software engineering PE is an extension of IEEE's efforts in software engineering, and is probably a good thing for safety-critical industries.

Since passing the fundamentals of engineering (FE) exam is (usually) a prerequisite, someone who has a PE in software engineering probably knows their way around a free body diagram or Laplace transforms or MSD systems, i.e., stuff the other engineering fields do.

[angersock]

Huh. Now that's fascinating.

So, if my FE is still valid, I could look into the PE for software? I'm intrigued.

EDIT:

Link for Texans: http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/software.html

[ColinDabritz]

I think the parent post is referring to the "Practice of Engineering" exam: http://ncees.org/about-ncees/news/ncees-introduces-pe-exam-f...

While I take the point that there is a difference between code-monkeys who don't have deep understanding and serious well grounded engineers, I don't agree that a two year old exam in a field that's had a history of failed certification attempts is a reasonable benchmark.

I think part of the problem in the field that contributes to the article is that the field is young and we don't have strong, well accepted professional organizations and licensure yet. We're still figuring out what those look like, and dealing with some serious challenges in breadth as we do so.

[kec]

Engineering as a profession has a licensing system similar to medicine and law. In the US this involves several years of on the job training as a Jr Engineer and then passing two exams: the generic FE (Fundamentals of Engineering) and then a field specific PE (Principles and Practice of Engineering). Passing these exams and becoming licensed is all but required to practice civil engineering, but much less important in most other fields.

The "software engineering" PE is apparently pretty new (first offered in 2013) and kind of an oddball since this industry didn't grow out of any engineering tradition and doesn't really place too much value on certification.

[michaelochurch]

If we're talking about someone that passed the software engineering PE, then yes, I think they get plenty of (well-deserved) respect.

(Edit: On first read, I didn't know what the PE was. I thought you were just talking about the typical tech-company interview process.)

Difficult interviews (which many focused on, more than I did in the original article) aren't the problem. In fact, I think that difficult interviews are generally a good thing. My problem is that passing the difficult interview doesn't necessarily confer respect.

If I have to spend a whole day at a whiteboard proving my intelligence, fine. I'm confident that I'll pass. If after proving myself, I'm still offered 0.05% (at 50 people) and no relocation package, then I'm going to be pissed. I've already proved myself qualified for a real job with a real package, so either come up with one, or don't waste my time in the first place.

Challenging interviews are a good thing. Challenging interviews with no upside (i.e. even if you're smart, you still get the default shitty/take-advantage-of-clueless-people-in-their-20s engineer offer) are a total waste of time.