To use your analogy no surgeon is allowed to cut until he or she does have a solid grounding in biology.
To use your analogy no surgeon is allowed to cut until he or she does have a solid grounding in biology.
Maybe a better analogy would be choosing someone to represent you in a lawsuit about programming patents. You would want a lawyer representing you, not a programmer. Ideally the lawyer would have some previous experience with these kinds of cases and would lean on programming experts for their knowledge. Maybe they are even a former programmer turned lawyer! But I certainly wouldn't hire "a programmer" to represent me no matter how experienced in programming they are. Linus Torvalds would be a great expert witness, but he isn't going to be my general counsel.
>I think it's easier for the right kind of engineer to get into management rather than a lifelong manager to gain competence in engineering
IME, it's the opposite. It depends on your specific goal (are we trying to train someone to be CISO or are we training them to be a SOC team leader?), but it's ridiculously easier (and more effective) to take a person with existing management abilities and teach them about security than it is to take an engineer and teach them security management skills.
>Having someone with no background in engineering running a department is suspect.
It's really not, because again, engineering != security. It's no more suspect than the CFO not having a background in engineering.
I take it you're unfamiliar with the content of the MCAT exam, which is a prerequisite to admission to American medical schools.