In regards to Rational Rose, maybe you're friends missed the point that they learned software analysis and design, and that instead of waterfall process, they learned software development methodologies. At least, that is what I learned from SE.
But I must admit I haven't studied the curriculum of a CS program. Am I wrong to say you can do it in 3 years while SE is 4 years? If we could study a few programs from a few university offerings, I'm sure we could see what is different. I ought to think it is generally an engineering approach to building software, that is a mix of science, people and integrity.
I had a very good mix of science in CEGEP that, say, a software engineer from ETS completely missed.
I think that a lot of what you learn in the SE curriculum can be learnt (and probably is better learnt) on the job, as opposed to the very theoretical courses in a CS curriculum that a) cannot be learnt easily by one's self or on the job and b) will last a lifetime.
In 2006-7, it would have been much more useful nowadays for someone to learn about machine learning in an AI class than about rational rose and the waterfall process, and I suspect the same applies now in the CS vs SE debate, except with updated technologies.
CS: This program is the standard Major program offered by the School of Computer Science. It provides a broad introduction to the principles of computer science and offers ample opportunity to acquire in-depth knowledge of several sub-disciplines. At the same time, its credit requirements allow students to take an additional minor.
SE: This program provides a broad introduction to the principles of computer science and covers in depth the design and development of software systems.
For example, I recall that my SE program had some common courses with other engineering branches (ethics and technology, entrepreneurship, communication, finances for project manager), which were common to all engineering disciplines.
