<p>It seems that people tend to lump CS and SE in as part of the general class of engineering majors. I don’t think this is without good reason; all of these majors usually involve building systems to address technical problems. However, I recently came across the argument that there are a ton of (non-engineering) professions that also involve building systems to address technical problems, and that engineering is really just the application of the natural sciences. Under this definition, CS and SE would not be part of engineering (neither would IE, for that matter), while something like CE would. Do you think this definition is outdated? If so, how would you define engineering?</p>
<p>In that case, Industrial Engineering is not engineering. I dunno, it’s not a very well-defined word but you know it when you see it. I’d say engineering is a mentality and CS and IE are both fields with the engineering mentality. In the end, why does it matter?</p>
<p>It doesn’t have to matter. I’m just interested in how people define engineering.</p>
<p>I think “engineering mentality” is a good points, but what about fields like architecture? Are they suddenly engineering as well?</p>
<p>IMO, engineering can only be ones which is recognize by your national/state/provincial institution</p>
<p>I imagine you’ve read the lengthy discussions various places about whether CS/SwE is or isn’t engineering. There is not really any consensus regarding this; it really depends on your definition. What follows is my opinion.</p>
<p>We could define engineering as “related to the activity of building things”. There are a lot of problems with such a definition, so many that I won’t even go into them; however, I think that any definition will include this bit. Optional parts of the definition, from what I’ve seen:</p>
<ol>
<li>Engineering is a professional activity. It requires specific education and training, and associated credentials, to be considered an engineer. Credentials must be given by a recognized agency and, possibly, be of a specific type.</li>
</ol>
<p>2, Engineering is a technical activity. It applies certain specific methodologies, using certain specific tools, to produce certain specific outputs with certain specific characteristics. In this respect, it is similar to trades and crafts.</p>
<ol>
<li>Engineering applies science to the develop products. Often, “science” is understood to imply empirical, especially natural or physical, science. Sometimes, “science” is taken to mean any natural or formal science. Rarely, science can be understood as any body of systematized knowledge which can be applied to develop products.</li>
</ol>
<p>On count 1, CS/SwE looks a lot like engineering. Professionally, both groups enjoy similar levels of pay and similarly good job opportunities and job security. Both require lifelong learning and maintenance of certain ethical standards. Some may point to differences in accreditation and licensing as the distinguishing factor. I find this unconvincing. First, ABET does accredit CS and SwE programs through the CAC accreditation, not through the EAC accreditation associated with other engineering majors. Not all CS/SwE programs are accredited, but many (most?) are; and not all engineering programs are accredited, either. Many states and countries require some practicing engineers to become licensed, while fewer require CS/SwE professionals to become licensed; but some countries (and states?) do, and many countries and states don’t require licensing for lots of traditional engineers.</p>
<p>On count 2, CS/SwE looks very much like engineering. Without going into a lot of detail, CS/SwE professionals certainly do use models, processes, quality assurance, and related practices to produce outputs. If anything, CS/SwE is more technical than traditional engineering disciplines, and this may be used by some as a distinguishing factor (i.e., CS/SwE is more akin to a trade or craft than other engineering disciplines are). I find this unconvincing since this factor is what, in my mind, distinguishes engineers from scientists; and I doubt that those in favor of distinguishing between engineering and CS/SwE would be happy to admit that engineering is any closer to science than is commonly understood.</p>
<p>It is on count 3 that people might most reasonably argue that CS/SwE and engineering are distinct, but this is also, IMHO, one of the least meaningful arguments there is. Some will claim that natural science is a necessary component. If this is your definition of engineering, then CS/SwE is rightly excluded. Otherwise, if either formal science or any science is allowed, then it seems unnecessary to exclude CS/SwE.</p>
<p>Note that before CS/SwE, there weren’t really any pure applications of mathematics and logic to build products; they nearly universally went through some sort of other art, craft, or engineering process. It’s really only with automated computation that somebody using only mathematics and logic could sit in a room and produce a product that lots of people would pay money to use. This could be part of the problem… historically, “science” in the context of building things has meant “natural science” since that was the only medium with which to make tangible goods. The “building” and “science” components of the definition would have implied “natural science”; that is simply not implied today, and therefore, it seems unnecessary to artificially restrict “engineering” in that way.</p>
<p>EDIT: I’m not familiar enough with what architects do to say whether it satisfies or doesn’t satisfy the above definitions. In that they produce drawings, they make things. I believe it certainly qualifies as a profession. I don’t know about counts 2 and 3; my impression is that architecture involves more art than technique, and I don’t know whether there are any processes, tools, etc. used specifically in architecture.</p>
<p>There’s a social engineering as well as the others, so to say that it’s restricted to the natural science belies the range of activities that engineering involves.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wikipedia’s definition is boss. Just reading it makes me want to take a course in Signal Processing.</p>
<p>Almost.</p>
<p>Oh, if there were a degree in social engineering.</p>