>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.