From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Testing Computer Professionals (whatever that is)
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:08:56 GMT
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <bhayden.724086271@teal> bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden) writes:

>mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>I'd be all in favor of seeing a certification area for software
>>engineering being added to the PE boards, and then treated the same
>>way that the other specialities are (certification is voluntary, and
>>only limited and very specific things require the signature of a PE;
>>and I don't know of anything that requires the work to be done by a PE
>>-- bridges, for example, can be designed by anyone, as long as a PE is
>>willing to sign off on the design before it's built).  However, I
>>think requiring a certification for anything other than the final
>>approval signature for designs and such of 'life critical' software
>>would be a mistake.

>The problem with the PE test as far as software goes is that you would
>have to know quite a bit about stuff that has little or no relevance to
>software. For example, you need to know about things like building 
>bridges and heat flow. My memory of the test (which I did not take
>since I didn't have the mechanical & civil classes) was that it had
>little on electrical, and nothing on software. I would rather hire
>the person who spent the classtime that would normally be required
>(if ultimately taking the PE exam) taking software releated classes
>thank taking thermodyics, or materials, etc. In 15+ years in the
>field, I have never needed those latter classes. Yet another data
>structures class, etc. might be helpful. 

Actually, from talking to people who have taken the exam, I've been
told that most people get most of their points in their area of
specialization and that you can get by with only the most general of
knowledge if you score reasonably well there.  Of course, the fact
taht there is no special area test for SOFTWARE sort of makes it
impossible for software people to become PE's.  I would suspect
that even hardware types who had spent most of their careers doing
software might have trouble, since they would have more difficulty
scoring well in their area of specialization test.

>I think that one indication of the uselessness of PE certification
>in these circumstances is in the state of Texas, where the licensed
>engineers have convinced the state governement to impose a monopoly
>on the use of the term "engineer". Many hi-tech companies have opened
>in Texas, especially around Austin have a brother who works for
>Motorola there. Everyone that he works with has two or more EE degrees.
>Yet, out of several hundred people (unofficially called "engineers")
>with EE degrees, he only knows of one that can be called an engineer
>in the area. Note, his job title had always been engineer, through
>Arizona, Calif., Colo., until he moved to Texas. So, how does it feel
>to have your processors and memories being designed by persons who
>almost invariably can not be called "engineers" in Texas. (Before
>you mention the 6300, the same is true at TI, IBM, Intel, etc.).

Actually, the third largest concentration of high tech in the country
is in the Dallas/Forth Worth area (vice Austin), or so I am told.
What I've always wondered about is -- what do they call the guys who
drive the trains?  ;-)

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Xref: sparky comp.org.eff.talk:7779 alt.privacy:2687 alt.comp.acad-freedom.talk:3804 comp.security.misc:2332