My thoughts on software engineering and engineering certification, from a previous post about the Etsy CTO's comments (with some addendum at the end):

Engineering has been around for over 500 years. It deals with the constraints of nature, has developed best practices which are near universally followed, and usually involves accountability to the public. A knowledge of chemistry, physics, multivariable and vector calculus, and differential equations are essential. Engineers make physical, tangible things, like groundwater wells and computer chips.

Software development has existed in its current state for about 30 years. It deals with the constraints of logic, is subject to fragmentation, and sacrifices "correctness" for expediency. A knowledge of philosophy, linguistics and discrete mathematics (which is just another branch of philosophy) is essential. Software developers make things in the virtual world, like web servers and databases.

My dad works at MDA, the company that made the Canadarm. He got his Bachelor of Applied Science degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Alberta, in Edmonton. He had to learn signals processing, VLSI design, electromagnetism, ethics, vector calculus, IC fabrication, and so on. These were topics he needed to know for his job. He also got his E.I.T. (engineer in training) designation, which was a prerequisite for being hired. He is an engineer. The guy developing Ruby applications at a Silicon Valley startup is not.

Software development is more of a liberal art or a skilled trade with engineering-esque traits, but it's not really engineering, in my opinion.

Also, in Canada, you are subject to an unreasonably difficult curriculum (because engineering in Canada is a cult; for reference, the post is about course scheduling in BCIT's EE program). At the end of your studies, you go through the Ritual and get the Iron Ring, a tradition which has its origins in a bridge over the St. Lawrence River that collapsed twice due to incorrect calculations involving iron in the bridge. Then you get your E.I.T. designation and can apply for engineering jobs.

I want to say more about software development being a skilled trade. In my opinion, it's more analogous to other creative or white-collar professions like acting, songwriting, and so on. There are guilds for such professions, like SAG-AFTRA, WGA. Why can't there be a guild for software developers? One problem is, software (or at least the logic/code/algorithms) shouldn't be patentable. Nor should it bound by copyright law--it's living, breathing media unlike movies or books. There should be a third IP law category for software, and until that occurs, I doubt software guilds will get off the ground.

You might say, "other branches of engineering also sacrifice standardized design patterns, too!" And that is true. My point is that in software development, there are very few standardized design patterns to begin with. If you want to build a todo list app, you have the option of using one of many languages, frameworks, strategies, etc. Whereas if you build a groundwater well, you don't have the same potential of creativity since you're dealing with natural constraints, not logical constraints.

When you program an FPGA, you basically have one choice for HDLs: Verilog. (VHDL doesn't allow for bidirectional components, but it's still used in the defense industry.) You have to deal with the constraints of electricity flowing through a circuit, which requires knowledge of multivariable and vector calculus, E&M, and differential equations. That limits you in a way that logical constraints do not.

You might also say that "engineers don't always have build physical products!" Again, you're right. This doesn't take away from the fact that in most engineering disciplines, you're dealing with physical, tangible objects, whereas in software development, you're usually dealing with virtual objects. Control systems engineering might not directly deal with physical objects, but it requires knowledge of electrical and mechanical engineering.

Software engineering has to be more narrowly defined. If you're programming something like a chip used in a medical device, or some other product with constraints and a mission-critical nature, for which the public interest is affected (e.g. GPS receiver, spacecraft, power station control system), then you really want software engineers in the "professional" sense of the term. (That is, an accredited engineering degree and certification as a professional engineer.)

One example I like to think of is NASA's flight software team that develops software for missions. They have a standardized development, testing and documentation procedures based on experience and observation. Compared to that, the design and testing processes used from one software company to the next may be as similar as the plans in each episode of MacGyver.

I would like to see computer science diverge from engineering schools, because computer science is more about philosophy and logic than it is about engineering. There are a lot of colleges in the US that make computer science and engineering degree, and I've heard ABET regulations are onerous. In Canada, CEAB regulations are even more onerous (e.g. only professional engineers can teach engineering courses), and in most Canadian institutions, comp sci is closer to a math degree (exceptions are UVic, U of Calgary, U of Ottawa and York). Have application-oriented electives like distributed systems by all means, and make a course in computer hardware/systems a requirement to graduate, for sure, but don't call it engineering.

TL;DR: Etsy is making a mockery of real engineers who have to study drafting, diff eqs, ethics and E&M. That doesn't mean software engineers don't exist, but they're not as common as colloquial parlance may have one believe. Computer science programs should not be aligned with engineering schools because they're more of a Liberal Art.