> "Will it be necessary to study up and get licensed to remain competitive?"
Only if you intend to work for code sweatshops and "consultancies" that value credentialing above track record/experience.
In other words, if you're stuck at the bottom of the programming jobs barrel, it may behoove you to get this. For those of us lucky enough to avoid that fate, we'll spend more time laughing at it than studying it.
It could be necessary to be licensed for government jobs or jobs in large companies building real time critical systems (ie power grid control software, avionics, etc). I doubt it'll ever catch on for programming jobs in mobile/web/etc
I think it will become necessary for the areas you outline, particularly in industrial control. Although best practices and standards have been established for electrical systems and mechanical systems, my observations in factory control show that the programming components continue to be the most fragile and buggy. And currently the legislation here lags as well since software systems are typically __not__ certified, except in certain military cases.
This isn't something for Web 2.0 programmers, who can carry on as they have been doing. Instead, it's for folks like myself who have designed the clean-room door locking logic for the CDC when contamination is detected (see "Walking Dead" for a grossly exaggerated example of such a system).
You sound like someone I know. I agree with the above. This cert is definitely applicable for engineering tasks at my place of business and something I will probably pursue. It's very beneficial when proposing on harder tasks. Web dev, which I do as well, generally doesn't reach this level of rigor.
It's funny you should mention avionics. Because I remember writing test scripts for one such system merely because I had "basic" on my resume. I had no idea what a FADEC was. Granted, we ended up doing these many thousand line copy-paste jobs (i.e. figure out which of a few test functions to call for each of about 10,000 inputs)
I ended up learning VBScript for that job, automating some of the testing, and turning the scripting tool they gave us into a music player.
The new exam just gives states a way to evaluate applicants for licenses in software engineering. I haven’t heard that any state—not even Texas, which sponsored development of the exam—has changed its engineering practice laws or regulations.
If and when such changes are made, I expect the result would be something like the situation for electrical engineers now: a nominal requirement for licensure coupled with broad exemptions that make it practically irrelevant for most people working in the field.
In most states, only a licensed (registered) engineer may use the title “electrical engineer,” practice electrical engineering, or offer electrical engineering services to the public, but there is usually a so-called “industrial exemption” from these requirements; this section of the California Business and Professions Code is typical:
6747. (a) This chapter, except for those provisions
that apply to civil engineers and civil engineering,
shall not apply to the performance of engineering work
by a manufacturing, mining, public utility, research
and development, or other industrial corporation, or
by employees of that corporation, provided that work
is in connection with, or incidental to, the products,
systems, or services of that corporation or its
affiliates.
(b) For purposes of this section, “employees” also
includes consultants, temporary employees, contract
employees, and those persons hired pursuant to third-
party contracts.
As I understand it, this exemption exists because employers convinced the Legislature that corporate liability, including strict liability for product defects, would be an adequate substitute for licensure as a means to protect the public from professional incompetence.
Practically speaking, the only electrical engineers who must have licenses are those designing electric power systems for buildings or working for public utilities, which often choose to employ only licensed engineers in positions of responsibility, even when this is not legally required.
As a licensed engineer myself, I’m not sure this state of affairs is best for the public or for the engineering profession, but I’m also not convinced that software engineering, as a discipline, is sufficiently mature that even a nominal requirement for licensure would provide enough real benefits to justify the burden on practitioners.
Essentially all software we've ever produced has been grossly defective (yes, including mine) and I hesitate to even call it engineering. Doing this at the current stage of the profession is like doctors formally specifying best practice for bloodletting and leeches.
I wouldn't be surprised if state government and possibly federal government programming jobs required it for all but entry level jobs as they currently do with things like civil engineers.
I think ntkachov is probably right and that this will augment hiring practices by some companies as a key indicator for HR to bring someone in for an interview. There could also be a trend for companies working on critical infrastructure (power, water, transportation, etc), government contracts (Boeing, Lockheed Martin and hundreds of others) to start requiring you to have a PE to work on critical or real time systems.
I don't think the majority of companies hiring programmers will care at all about a PE or even require it. For most programming jobs the varied level of knowledge required to complete the exam probably isn't necessary.
I guess a more direct question would be how and if this will help a self-taught developer be more competitive. I'm self-taught. I've been studying and "practicing" programming since I was a kid but I never finished a BSCS and I often feel that hurts me. So recently I re-enrolled in school but I'm a long ways away from finishing and want to continue building iOS apps while going to school. This seems like it could be a quicker road to establishing credibility (other than experience) before earning my degree. Thoughts?
This may not be of any benefit for those that are self taught. If you look at current licensing requirements which vary by state some require that you have a BS from an accredited engineering program. It's likely this will also be the case for this new PE license. Of course it all depends on the state, in some states for some licenses only a high school diploma is required.
I think it might augment the private sector in that anyone with a licence is probably worth interviewing. I can't see it being required (not in this market) but I can see it being valued.
Probably nothing. But companies that either choose or are "forced" into this will probably start to differentiate "software engineers" from "programmers" (treating the latters as just a "technical labour").
