From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Software as PE
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:21:02 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

Jim.Riddle@inns.omahug.org (Jim Riddle) writes:

>In a message dated 15-DEC-92, Jack Winslade writes:

>>In a message dated 15-DEC-92, Jim Riddle writes:

>>>I've been working, although only nominally to date, with the concept of
>>>software becoming an engineering discipline.  When I say working with, I
>>>mean I have frequently been discussing this with other PEs and at my
>>>professional society meetings.  I am working to get a better ear on a
>>>couple of the state boards where I'm registered.
>> 
>>I can see how an optional certification like this might add some
>>credibility to the profession of software engineering.  However, the way
>>state PE exams go, I can just see it full of questions about such things
>>as beam stress.
>> 
>>Good day      JSW


>Back in the old days (1970) when I took the Engineer In Training exam it
>was state-specific (rather than 1 national exam as now) and contained
>your choice of 1 problem from algebra/trig, 1 or 2 calculus problems, 1
>or 2 chemistry problems, 1 or 2 physics problems and 3 to 6 engineering
>problems from civil, mechanical, electrical, structural, fluid mechanics
>and thermodynamics.  Each of the sciences had 6-8 questions to choose
>from, engineering had something like 30.
> 
>The PE exam (Principles and practices) was your choice of any 10 problems
>from 110, comprising 5 from each of the Colorado-recognized 22
>disciplines of engineering.

Except that there are basically no software questions on it.
. 
>This was kind of a fair way of doing it.
> 
>now there is the uniform national PE exam which is heavily
>civil/mechanical oriented.  We are working on a specific environmental
>engineering exam, for example, which is less heavily c/m oriented.  Even
>the new mining exam is one that I personally wouldn't relish taking,
>although that's what I am.
> 
>It would be altogether possible to construct a software ENGINEERING exam,
>though, as compared to a code-generation exam, which would be fair to
>whatever systems and languages a particular candidate might be trained
>in.

Well, the ICCP certification exams are a step then in the right direction.
The systems programming and procedural programming specialty tests do
a fairly good job at testing fairly detailed knowledge of those disciplines.
Unfortunately, the core test still has a strong business (accounting) 
programming orientation. I would guess that 1/3 of the test tested obtuse
accounting principles, with zero applicability to much of programming.
I passed it only because I also have an MBA.

We still come down though to the question of what is being tested in those
exams, whether it be EIT, PE, or ICCP CCP/CDP/CSP exams. Are you being
tested for ability to remember obscure trivia in the discipline, or 
are you being tested on your ability to produce quality software?

Possibly the difference between software, and the EIT/PE testing 
is that in the latter, you can possibly determine at least some
level of expertise by posing engineering problems to the applicant.
For example, you may be required to do a heat transfer problem. 
In EE classes we used to laugh at the simplicity of the electrical
questions on the EIT test - any 1st year EE student would be able
to answer them. The situation changes with software. One's ability 
to write a 50 page program, or even to debug it has little if any
relation to being able to bring a complex system online, on time
and with an acceptable level of errors. 

So - posing simple problems is out. Also irrelevant is one's ability
to memorize trivia. So - What can you test?? I don't know.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk