> there is not a serious place on earth that would let me touch their codebase.
It depends on what you mean by "serious". Software development is very much a free-for-all as far as backgrounds go. It attracts people from all disciplines. There are NO CREDENTIALS needed to be called a "software engineer", and it will remain this way for the foreseeable future. Every organization that develops software has its own rules and standards for how they staff their teams, usually these rules are flexible to almost non-existent. They hire based on whether they think someone can do the work based on some loose evaluation criteria.
But, yeah, a mid-to-late career-changer with a successful business background as highly paid executive is going to raise eyebrows if they go after some software development job-- not because of technical chops (assuming they still got it), but more "wtf are you thinking?" considerations. These people would normally just self-fund their own software projects, or partner with someone in exchange for having some fund with code (it happens).
CEO demographics vary wildly. The article just cherry-picks the top ten market cap companies, which today, happen to dominated by software companies. Most of the CEO's have been SE's? So what? That means almost nothing. Are these 10 companies supposed to be profoundly representative of the world of work in some way?
Likely the company wants to use the same language in US as well as in Canada. Noone I know in Canada is called Software Engineer, we all refer to ourselves as Software Developer.
FWIW the UK has a similar thing for traditional Engineer roles. Nobody is legally permitted to call themselves a "tradtional" Engineer (such as Civil, Aerospace, Aeronautical, etc.) without, typically, at minimum a bachelor's degree or equivalent vocational training in that discipline. These are deemed "protected" roles but they are very specific - i.e. there needs to be some kind of auhtoritative body that wards the title(s). "Software Engineer" has no such protection. Generic/non-descript "Engineer" isn't protected. There are plenty of "Software Engineer" roles and it's entirely feasible to be hired as a SWE before you even get any higher education at all. Most of my previous roles have officially been documented as "(Junior/Senior/Lead/etc) Software Engineer" on my contract(s) of employment.
In Canada that "traditional" engineer is simply called "professional engineer", so it's a bit more grey.
I do know some people who have the title software engineer and they had to do like a whole ceremony where they swore an oath and got a ring and stuff.
They also have real-world legal rights and obligations that it grants them. For instance they can put their stamp on a structural drawing. Because they studied that stuff.
It does seem silly to have real-world building architecture requirements for a Software Engineer but that's where we're at.
Anyways, Software Developer (or even "Product Developer") is a much more common term in Canada as a result. No one wants to tangle with provincial regulations over a job title.
The ring has nothing to do with whether you can call yourself an engineer. There's also no architecture requirements. What could can do as a professional engineer is stamp things if you think you're qualified and have followed a proper procedure for it. If a p eng thinks the architecture drawing is good, they can stamp it. If they think the line of code is nice, they can stamp it too
I admit I don't know much about it, because I'm not one.
I'm a bit baffled on the fact that they can stamp things they aren't formally trained in. That's a surprise.
I had assumed they had some baseline level of training in different areas because a Software Engineer I know stamped an architecture drawing for a shed he was building. Granted a shed isn't a high risk building but still it's surprising he can do that if he's untrained.
Also does the ring really have nothing to do with it? My understanding is you earn the ring at the same time as the ability to call yourself a professional engineer. Maybe the ring itself isn't necessary but it's symbolically related for sure. Am I wrong?
> I’m a ‘Software engineer’ in Canada. Have been at multiple companies. Do not have an engineering degree...
I'm mixing between EGBC (Engineers and Geoscientists British Columbia) and PEO (Professional Engineers Ontario) in links below, but feel free to contact your local engineering licensing body to check if your titles hold up. There is a bunch of weird language through out. Who knows, you may qualify.
From [1]: "In British Columbia, anyone who practises software engineering, or who uses the title “software engineer” (or a similar title that implies that they are a software engineer, like “firmware engineer”, “mobile app engineer”, etc.), must be registered with Engineers and Geoscientists BC."
There is a lot more in [1] including, "Not all software development constitutes software engineering." and "... many individuals who develop software probably do not actually engage in software engineering..."
Someone linked to a Microsoft job using the word engineer in Canada, which seems strange since Microsoft already learned about the protected use of the word "engineer" in Canada in 2001 [2].
Professional Engineers Ontario says, "On July 25, 2002 Microsoft Canada announced that they will continue to use the term 'engineer' as part of the Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer (MCSE) designation."[3]
> Professional Engineer is a protected title in Canada. Is that what you’re thinking of?
I think "engineer" is protected too. I think job titles that contain "engineer" can only be used by those who are registered professional engineers.
From [4], "Can someone call themselves an Engineer/Professional Engineer or P.Eng if they don’t have a licence?
The term Engineer/Professional Engineer/P.Eng. can only be used by those that have been granted a licence by PEO, under the authority of the Professional Engineers Act. The title “Engineer” is restricted to Ontario licence holders under s. 40(2)(a.1) of the Act."
It depends on what you mean by "serious". Software development is very much a free-for-all as far as backgrounds go. It attracts people from all disciplines. There are NO CREDENTIALS needed to be called a "software engineer", and it will remain this way for the foreseeable future. Every organization that develops software has its own rules and standards for how they staff their teams, usually these rules are flexible to almost non-existent. They hire based on whether they think someone can do the work based on some loose evaluation criteria.
But, yeah, a mid-to-late career-changer with a successful business background as highly paid executive is going to raise eyebrows if they go after some software development job-- not because of technical chops (assuming they still got it), but more "wtf are you thinking?" considerations. These people would normally just self-fund their own software projects, or partner with someone in exchange for having some fund with code (it happens).
CEO demographics vary wildly. The article just cherry-picks the top ten market cap companies, which today, happen to dominated by software companies. Most of the CEO's have been SE's? So what? That means almost nothing. Are these 10 companies supposed to be profoundly representative of the world of work in some way?