Man I'm sorry but everything you are saying, at least in the US, is completely contradicted by reality.
Some engineering fields have all those things you describe but it is usually because there is a high degree of physical risk to the public, like structural engineers for example.
Mechanical and Electrical engineers, for example, at most companies are hired without any such certifications, unions, oversight, or any of what you've mentioned. I have a degree in EE and CS and have worked in both fields doing everything from IC design to app development and the hiring process, oversight, etc has been the same in almost every case - no membership or union required. I have friends who work as ME, Chemists, physicists, etc and the same is true for all of them except in the exceptional cases where they are working on a medical device or something.
Really all those things you mention at most companies for most fields of engineering come down the the company culture itself and the technical leadership at those companies.
The really funny thing about your take is that in most cases I find that high level software developers have a much stronger cult of engineering excellence that any of those other fields. If you saw the "process" most EE's used to ensure high quality engineering at large companies like Intel you would be horrified. And definitely don't ask those EE guys to write any code, it will almost certainly be terrible.
Also, usually I hear this line of reasoning from people in other engineering fields who, in my opinion, are just being babies about the fact that software is so accessible and there are brilliant people doing great work who nonetheless didn't go to university. It is really surprising to hear this come from someone who is actually a developer themselves.
I hear you. I was more just ranting and did not expect this to be the top comment; I need to be more careful about that. There are a changes in the industry I'd like to see and this seemed like a rhetorically punchy way to get that across, but I'm not really fundamentally opposed to the term "software engineer", I just wish we had the institutional rigor and care for the craft that I see (or at least, perceive) elsewhere.
Yeah, don't do this in Canada, or the professional engineers association can come after you. Only certified members of an engineers professional association can use the title.
To be clear, it is illegal, for example, to pass around business cards that say 'Software Engineer' if you're not certified.
As an amusing example, in the province of Ontario, people with the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer certification are allowed to use the title 'MCSE', but not its expansion, because it contains the word 'Engineer'.
However, you are always allowed to state your degree, so you can say, {name}, B. Eng., or M. Eng., as the case may be.
*At least, in Quebec and Ontario - the legislation is province-scoped, I assume other provinces are similar.
Interesting. I can look in the corporate address book, and we've got people in Burlington, Ontario who have titles like "SW Quality Engineer" and "Group Leader-SW Engineer". I wonder if that means that they can't put their official titles onto business cards.
Coming from a US perspective, I feel like "engineer" on its own is a descriptive word. "Professional Engineer" is a trademarked title, and that seems reasonable. Do I have certification as a PE? No. Do I think it's reasonable to describe what I do as software engineering? Yes. To me, it implies that I take part in planning, designing, implementing, supporting, and retiring software. "Programmer" connotes that I took someone else's design, wrote to that spec, and handed the results off to someone else, rather than taking part in the entire lifecycle.
While there is an exam and better employment prospects may be had for those with a license, getting a license usually requires "acceptable, progressive, and verifiable work experience in the industry."[1] This often requires an engineering mentor to assess your work which usually happens if you work under a licensed engineer. Licensed engineers are hard to come by in many high tech and computer industries and with many companies strict rules on secrecy (i.e. NDAs) it can be difficult to get a licensed engineer in your field that is outside your company to assess your work.
I tried to see if there was an opportunity for an engineering mentor at my job (One of the big four) and I was unable to get anywhere. It seems that it is better for our job prospects to get a job at a prestigious/interesting company and gain experience there than try to go through the licensing process.
Some engineering fields have all those things you describe but it is usually because there is a high degree of physical risk to the public, like structural engineers for example.
Mechanical and Electrical engineers, for example, at most companies are hired without any such certifications, unions, oversight, or any of what you've mentioned. I have a degree in EE and CS and have worked in both fields doing everything from IC design to app development and the hiring process, oversight, etc has been the same in almost every case - no membership or union required. I have friends who work as ME, Chemists, physicists, etc and the same is true for all of them except in the exceptional cases where they are working on a medical device or something.
Really all those things you mention at most companies for most fields of engineering come down the the company culture itself and the technical leadership at those companies.
The really funny thing about your take is that in most cases I find that high level software developers have a much stronger cult of engineering excellence that any of those other fields. If you saw the "process" most EE's used to ensure high quality engineering at large companies like Intel you would be horrified. And definitely don't ask those EE guys to write any code, it will almost certainly be terrible.