>>What do you think (which of course will be "just what you think", as you say) are the qualifications for calling oneself a software engineer?
Are you asking me to find out what I think, or are you just asking in order to prove a point? It's unclear, as you've mentioned yet again how you have no particular interest in Ms. Wenger...
>> What is it that bothers you about people who have jobs coding calling themselves "software engineers" when you don't think they qualify?
I can't imagine that three months of experience makes anyone particularly qualified for anything but to learn that they like something, which is not necessarily bad. But why three months? Why not at least a year, like the Udacity Android developer programmer?
>>I think a survey of job postings would confirm that even entry-level job postings, for which someone with 3 months of training might qualify, are routinely advertised as 'software engineer' positions. So it may not be "just what I think".
Have you done a survey of entry-level postings? Given that reading comments in an article already constitute "research" to you, so I'm guess the answer is no. Thus it is indeed "just what you think" (And perhaps what some HR personnel think). It's just unfortunate that somewhere in the hiring process, people with a 3-month bootcamp experience can get hired but older software engineers/developers can't. Seems that the valley can't keep female CS/EECS/SEng grads in tech and can't hire older developers after age 30. But web bootcamps can certainly pop up and try to sell the myth that one can become a fully-contributing software engineer after three months.
Your only interesting point was the sharing of the accordion story and generosity of spirit. Thank you for that exchange.
Why do you assume I researched Ms. Wenger? Why does that bother you? FYI, someone who was a classmate of hers mentioned it in the comments to some article on her.
>>I think anyone who has a job writing code can legitimately call themselves a software engineer, it's just a synonym for programmer these days, and if you program, you're a programmer.
That's exactly it: what you think. Anyway, it's not clear because people do ask (this time I just did my research...even the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics differentiate).
Btw, I'm not talking about appearance when I ask what a software engineer looks like, I'm talking about whether three-month experience from a web development academy makes a software engineer. That bothers me.
Maybe because Isis Anchalee Wenger is not an engineer, despite what her inflated job title ("platform engineer") and 3-months of web development bootcamp may tell her to the contrary. That doesn't mean she doesn't face real sexism -- just one comment about her appearance is one too many. The more interesting question, however, is what does a software engineer actually look like? Does a 3-month web bootcamp give you the rights?
>>I think a survey of job postings would confirm that even entry-level job postings, for which someone with 3 months of training might qualify, are routinely advertised as 'software engineer' positions. So it may not be "just what I think". Have you done a survey of entry-level postings? Given that reading comments in an article already constitute "research" to you, so I'm guess the answer is no. Thus it is indeed "just what you think" (And perhaps what some HR personnel think). It's just unfortunate that somewhere in the hiring process, people with a 3-month bootcamp experience can get hired but older software engineers/developers can't. Seems that the valley can't keep female CS/EECS/SEng grads in tech and can't hire older developers after age 30. But web bootcamps can certainly pop up and try to sell the myth that one can become a fully-contributing software engineer after three months.
Your only interesting point was the sharing of the accordion story and generosity of spirit. Thank you for that exchange.