IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Is the IENG qualification an associate professional award?
Topic Summary: Is the IENG qualification an associate professional award?
Created On: 30 July 2012 07:47 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 4 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 30 July 2012 08:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for DavidParr.
DavidParr

Posts: 242
Joined: 19 April 2002

Yes, there is still a lot of work to be done in educating people, some in "high places".

From the IET's perspective, IEngs and EngTechs are most certainly professionals! I would define an associate professional as someone who is an associate of the institution, rather than a full member.

-------------------------
David Parr BSc.CEng MIET
PRA
 30 July 2012 10:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1920
Joined: 01 April 2006

Associate Engineer AEng MIEI = Incorporated Engineer I Eng (EC).
One is transferable to the other by agreement.

Although title needs level 7 education, this AEng title hangs around the neck of I Eng. Now if it was not transferable Engineers Ireland may have to change title to registered Incorporated Engineer or something better.
Registered Graduate Engineer might cover all.


http://www.engineersireland.ie...titles/associate.aspx


Dreaming, nothing will change of course. Money still coming in
99.9% of Chartered Engineers registered with some other professional bodies are from overseas.

Regards
 30 July 2012 01:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for DavidParr.
DavidParr

Posts: 242
Joined: 19 April 2002

Where do these "thought leaders" get their ideas from? If your assumption is correct, they need re-programming

I have been trained by the IET's "thought leaders", and the clear message is that IEng candidates are most definitely professionals. There is no doubt in my mind that they are 100% correct.

-------------------------
David Parr BSc.CEng MIET
PRA
 30 July 2012 03:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

British Engineering Institutions and Societjes operating in ASIA :


http://www.hcl.hk/intl-member.htm

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 30 July 2012 09:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for DavidParr.
DavidParr

Posts: 242
Joined: 19 April 2002

I have just read the paper, and I agree with a lot of what they say, particularly about the confusing array of qualifications available, and the difficulty any prospective employer may have when trying to understand them.

I definitely disagree with their statement that IEng indicates the holder is an "associate professional" though. It would be interesting to hear the views of someone at the IET.

-------------------------
David Parr BSc.CEng MIET
PRA
 30 July 2012 09:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



MAWilson

Posts: 48
Joined: 22 February 2006

These debates make me a little sad as a young engineer and a bit disheartened at a profession which should be based on logical thinking. I say this as this tier system which the original Royal Academy of Engineering statement implies is not based in reality or industry. It seems institutions seam only to look at engineering from the bases of a design house (Tye wearing Engineer) and is not interested in the engineering fraternity in the manufacturing or alternative sectors.

As someone from manufacturing/heavy industry who's met technicians that are paid and do very high level technical work earning 3x what an engineer would earn and frankly their skill base being so rare they are internationally in demand, even the thought of being called associate professionals is highly insulting in my book. I also sees companies focusing so highly on graduate uptake while there is a vacuum of engineering practitioners (IEng level) to properly main the asset, project manage modifications to design codes and have the functional as well as theoretical knowledge of plant. The old school apprentice schemes are no longer there to train up to this level and I don't believe the new scheme's can provide for the requirement. Just not the same in terms of teaching I believe though there are some outstanding youngsters I'm sure will come through the ranks, not at the level needed though. I've had the experience of having to sit down with a graduate engineer from a top ten university and explain how 415V distribution and switchgear operate with an uneasy feeling.

Accepted that formal professional assessment is something that should aspired to and is needed. But if the focus of the Engineering Council and the institution is to focus on what you are not with a constant reminders with every literature it publishes, then who would want to join such fraternity. GP's are not specialist surgeons, but there is no paper I recall saying they're not Doctors.

David, I've read many of your post and firmly believe that you are truly enthusiastic about the profession but in both my academic and professional life I've seen IEng look down on. With a BEng (Hons) and no real desire for a masters I've broached the topic of IEng with many and all seem to think it was not worth it. I don't know any IEng registrants who actively uses the title; I've worked with 2 individuals for 2 yrs before I learned they were indeed registered IEng and this only came up when discussing the CEng application of their junior engineer who would readily admit that he only knows 1/2 of what they know. To put this into prospective, I saw a program on TV highlighting the German manufacturing sector where they were speaking to two 1st year apprentice with MSc's discussing how they wanted to build up their technical skill set. That's when I'll believe the equal but different mantra.

Edited: 30 July 2012 at 09:35 PM by MAWilson
 31 July 2012 11:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

I too find the term "associate professional" an unhelpful one as it seems to have condescending overtones. I have seen and heard it being used by those around government education policy, quangos, etc. as a shorthand phrase to describe the majority of practitioners, rather than those who would prefer a very restricted "elite" access to professional titles. Therefore in contributing to these policy debates, the agenda is not always set by the engineering profession, although by its nature membership the Royal Academy is an elite.

I find much in MAWilson's comments that is reasonable and also fair criticism, but our challenge is to make progress.

Engineering Council's UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence includes all the categories of registration and IET (and IMechE) offer full and equal membership to all registrants. The competency based nature of UK-SPEC has allowed IET to offer registration to those who can demonstrate the standard now, rather than be judged by the educational opportunities that they had in in their teens.

Each of the type of professional registration has an important and potentially equally valuable role to play and as has been mentioned elsewhere, economic rewards may reflect this. We have made progress by increasing the numbers of IEng, Eng Tech & ICT Tech registrants, who I very much hope will become role models and spokespeople.

If we look at the UK professional standards dispassionately, we don't find any reference to "status" only a generic description of what engineering professionals do and the benchmark qualifications that they would ideally hold in order to demonstrate their knowledge.

At present the title CEng and the exemplifying qualifications associated with it hold higher "status" (a sociological concept) than IEng and Technician. However for much of the period during which the numbers of IEng registrants was declining the focus of the profession was on the "status" of the profession, especially with relation to medicine.

The argument for equal status was typically based on being equally learned. However I would argue that society values professionals for the good that they do. In the 19th century when engineers were revered it was because they improved society through their achievements. The rest of society isn't interested in petty and often semantic arguments between different types of engineers, or whingeing about domestic appliance repairers calling themselves "engineers". If we are able to gain the support of the majority of those practitioners who are currently competent enough to register, then we will have a much stronger profession.

In an international context it is much more difficult (and arguably even inappropriate) to exercise significant social/political influence and each nation state has the right to regulate its own professions. However any holder of a UK professional registration, demonstrates that they have met the standard set out by UK-SPEC through a fair and reasonably rigorous way.

Overall therefore, my call would be for a profession that respects the different contribution of each type of professional. To earn IEng I had to demonstrate an ability to understand, manage (and at the time also teach) others engineering. At an earlier time I could repair, make replacement parts, diagnose and troubleshoot using practical "nous" - i.e. a Technician. I expect Chartered Engineer colleagues to have developed a stronger deeper technical capability and mastery of their discipline, able to provide quality alternatives when my "standard solutions" won't do.

Perhaps "equal but different" was the wrong slogan, but united and mutually respectful of the value of each type of activity is a must! This is the IET policy and in my experience it is adhered to by senior representatives, if members come across genuine examples of this not being pursued then they should challenge it through the institution. But I would encourage my fellow IEng and Technician members to focus on the quality of their argument, criticism has a role but positive action to promote registered professionals is needed and everyone can be a role model or advocate for their registration category. Prejudices that can lead to snobbery (included inverted) and/or cynicism are just human nature, as IET members we need to work past these.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 31 July 2012 05:53 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



olcay

Posts: 73
Joined: 03 July 2007

Originally posted by: MAWilson



.....in both my academic and professional life I've seen IEng look down on. With a BEng (Hons) and no real desire for a masters I've broached the topic of IEng with many and all seem to think it was not worth it. I don't know any IEng registrants who actively uses the title;.


Very well stated.

I have used IEng title and regreted using it. I have totally removed them from my CV.
Now I only use academic title plus MIET . If I use IEng I risk being perceived as a non-engineer handyman.
EC-UK's international compromises (IEng = Technologist) have created this perception.
Engineering Council has in fact compromised all British First Cycle Degrees to zero.
Prof. Wolf's statement is yet just another degradation blow to British Bachelor degrees.
United Kingdom will have many happy returns of getting fewer foreign students and fewer graduates registering as an IEng.
After all ;
Who wants to be an "associate professional with a British Bachelor's degree" when their equivalents from other countries will be true "professionals" .?
 01 August 2012 01:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

Here are some strictly very personal thoughts.

Drawing on parallels with health care in Britain, the GMC (www.gmc-uk.org) registers Medical Doctors (only), & the HPC (www.hpc-uk.org) (name changing today) registers some 20 other Health Professions.

In engineering, the EC seems to do both the broadly equivalent roles above, so confusing the matter.

If Chartered Engineers wish to remain "aloof & exclusive", perhaps they need a registration body of their very own, with (an) other body or bodies for the rest!

Otherwise, confusion & excess choice may prevail, but not to promote the common activities (of marketing, sales, & profiteering) in this case...

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 01 August 2012 03:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

When IEng was at the height of its popularity it was regarded as the "practical professional engineer" who typically completed a four or five year apprenticeship and studied part-time at higher level. More people probably followed this pathway than were studying engineering at university, but their propensity to join professional bodies and seek registration was lower. IEng registration numbers declined with the reduction in the number of these (often very high quality) apprenticeships and the move towards mass university attendance.

If IEng is defined in purely academic terms then it appears to be achieved by following the same pathway to a lower level of attainment. In many minds (especially those of overseas regulators) attainment is measured purely by the length of time spent in an academic environment or under academic supervision.

In defining the academic exemplar for IEng from 1999 as a bachelors degree, Engineering Council probably intended to reflect demographic trends and increase international recognition of IEng as a "degree level" standard. However the distinctive capability of IEng professionals was their blend of work-based knowledge with theoryand there were very few ways of recognising the work-based element in an academic context. Higher level NVQs were introduced but didn't gain academic acceptance. Some employers continued to invest in part-time routes, but I had to invest a huge effort of time and money to bring together a willing coalition of Employer, FE College and University to deliver a bachelors degree alongside a four-year training scheme. Some employers "plugged into" 5 year day-release bachelors programmes but this is relatively inefficient through lack of integration.

We have to take a long term view, but the pendulum has for several years been swinging towards a more vocational approach. A number of universities, further & higher education institutions, sector skills councils and employers have supported Higher Level Apprenticeships that may begin to replicate the quality of past schemes. For example SEMTA have ambitious targets. The current recession is an obvious handicap, but when policy makers refer to the importance of "associate professionals" we might dislike this language, but the effect should be positive for IEng, Eng Tech & ICT Tech.

We now have a competence based standard (not an academic one) covering all the registration categories, CEng should always be the most technically demanding, but it is certainly not some separate "elite". I take the view that these are positive times to rebuild IEng as something of distinctive value, but the task can only succeed through Incorporated Engineer activism. An articulate IEng will find no stronger supporters than many of the active CEng members and fellows of the IET, who understand and value the contribution of all registrants.

The glass is half full not half empty!

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 02 August 2012 04:25 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



alamatec

Posts: 73
Joined: 04 January 2007

Originally posted by: roybowdler

When IEng was at the height of its popularity it was regarded as the "practical professional engineer" who typically completed a four or five year apprenticeship and studied part-time at higher level.

but when policy makers refer to the importance of "associate professionals" we might dislike this language, but the effect should be positive for IEng, Eng Tech & ICT Tech.



I take the view that these are positive times to rebuild IEng as something of distinctive value, but the task can only succeed through Incorporated Engineer activism. An articulate IEng will find no stronger supporters than many of the active CEng members and fellows of the IET, who understand and value the contribution of all registrants.



The glass is half full not half empty!


Roy I couldn't agree more with your view on re-building the Ieng brand and your wording "the practical professional engineer " is appealing and in general a good description of many potential Ieng.

However I can't see anything positive in using the word "associate" when refering to Ieng. I have seen how devisive this is in Australia where anyone with the associate rank is not even allowed to be a proper member of Engineers Australia or even allowed to practice engineering in Queensland. It's the thin end of the wedge in degrading the Ieng brand and the IET will never be able to market Ieng as an associate in my opinion.
 02 August 2012 05:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



olcay

Posts: 73
Joined: 03 July 2007

Originally posted by: roybowdler


.......when policy makers refer to the importance of "associate professionals" we might dislike this language, but the effect should be positive for IEng, Eng Tech & ICT Tech.

.......An articulate IEng will find no stronger supporters than many of the active CEng members and fellows of the IET, who understand and value the contribution of all registrants.





Dear Mr Bowdler,
From your messages I assume that you have never worked abroad.
IEng may be considered as "Professional Engineer" in UK but as long as EC-UK declares it as "Technologist" internationally it has absolutely no value in rest of the world.If we accept statements of policy holdres to be correct "associate professionals" that is all British Bachelor degree holders are not professionals but in fact associates.
Try to use IEng outside UK .Only then you will be able to find out what it will be perceived as. The effect will never be positive if one is an associate.
It is not just a "dislike" of just a wording of English language, it is dislike of what it stands for.
In my opinion all British degrees are degraded by your "policy holders" .For this reason (in 2013) I am sending my son to USA for his Doctoral degree.(we are EU citizens and I studied in UK).
AND if I was young and had to study again , I will certainly not choose to study in UK .
NOBODY really cares how "Incorporated Engineer" is described in UK-SPEC or how it is obtained. I have enough experience to prove this to be correct.
Since you claim " IEng will find no stronger supporters than many of the active CEng members and fellows of the IET" please try to withdraw from all international arrangements that describe IEng as "Technologist" .
 04 August 2012 01:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



olcay

Posts: 73
Joined: 03 July 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006


If someone asks what do you do, you would be foolish to say I am an 'incorporated engineer' because you would have difficulty in explain how is relates being a professional engineer without reference to chartered engineer and how it is different.


Couldn't agree more.
What British "policy holders" and "decision makers" at high up places such as Royal Academy of Engineering and Engineering Council dont want to understand is that "It is their policies and wrong decisions" that has brought IEng to this soreful perception.
If a person from EC-UK international affairs finds it useful to compromise IEng = Int. Technologist internationally and overlooks that they have only registered 25 person from UK ( applied for immigration purposes ) then, IEng is reduced to nothing .
All bachelor degree holders from other countries can apply for EurIng and for IntPE but EC only allows CEng to apply.
Also, if one makes a google search, all info retrived suggest IEng is not a "Professional Engineer" BUT a " Technologist" .
How can IET and EC-UK explain this paradox ?
Because of negative perception I now refrain from using IEng. If I use IEng I risk being treated as a "fake engineer" .
This means ;
All British first cycle degree holders are NOT PROFESSIONALS.
If, you are still not convinced, Please also look at Prof.Wolf's statement that IEng , Eng Tech ITTech are "associate professionals".
It is neither the media nor public who is to blame for the wrong perception , the responsible individuals are British Policy makers , and the professional bodies like IET and EC-UK.
 04 August 2012 01:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



olcay

Posts: 73
Joined: 03 July 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006


If someone asks what do you do, you would be foolish to say I am an 'incorporated engineer' because you would have difficulty in explain how is relates being a professional engineer without reference to chartered engineer and how it is different.


Couldn't agree more.
What British "policy holders" and "decision makers" at high up places such as Royal Academy of Engineering and Engineering Council dont want to understand is that "It is their policies and wrong decisions" that has brought IEng to this soreful perception.
If a person from EC-UK international affairs finds it useful to compromise IEng = Int. Technologist internationally and overlooks that they have only registered 25 person from UK ( applied for immigration purposes ) then, IEng is reduced to nothing .
All bachelor degree holders from other countries can apply for EurIng and for IntPE but EC only allows CEng to apply.
Also, if one makes a google search, all info retrived suggest IEng is not a "Professional Engineer" BUT a " Technologist" .
How can IET and EC-UK explain this paradox ?
Because of negative perception I now refrain from using IEng. If I use IEng I risk being treated as a "fake engineer" .
This means ;
All British first cycle degree holders are NOT PROFESSIONALS.
If, you are still not convinced, Please also look at Prof.Wolf's statement that IEng , Eng Tech ITTech are "associate professionals".
It is neither the media nor public who is to blame for the wrong perception , the responsible individuals are British Policy makers , and the professional bodies like IET and EC-UK.
 04 August 2012 01:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



olcay

Posts: 73
Joined: 03 July 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006


If someone asks what do you do, you would be foolish to say I am an 'incorporated engineer' because you would have difficulty in explain how is relates being a professional engineer without reference to chartered engineer and how it is different.


Couldn't agree more.
What British "policy holders" and "decision makers" at high up places such as Royal Academy of Engineering and Engineering Council dont want to understand is that "It is their policies and wrong decisions" that has brought IEng to this soreful perception.
If a person from EC-UK international affairs finds it useful to compromise IEng = Int. Technologist internationally and overlooks that they have only registered 25 person from UK ( applied for immigration purposes ) then, IEng is reduced to nothing .
All bachelor degree holders from other countries can apply for EurIng and for IntPE but EC only allows CEng to apply.
Also, if one makes a google search, all info retrived suggest IEng is not a "Professional Engineer" BUT a " Technologist" .
How can IET and EC-UK explain this paradox ?
Because of negative perception I now refrain from using IEng. If I use IEng I risk being treated as a "fake engineer" .
This means ;
All British first cycle degree holders are NOT PROFESSIONALS.
If, you are still not convinced, Please also look at Prof.Wolf's statement that IEng , Eng Tech ITTech are "associate professionals".
It is neither the media nor public who is to blame for the wrong perception , the responsible individuals are British Policy makers , and the professional bodies like IET and EC-UK.
 04 August 2012 02:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

http://www.theabei.eu/Forum/vi...e4d1701f755f48c#p2845

Here in Italy three-year engineers ( first cycle or section B ones ) don't accept to be considered "Technologists " , they consider
themselves ENGINEERS and nothing else !

It is a good thiing to point out that both Section A & B Engineers may practice Professional Engineering without before maturing
any Practical Training & Experience : It is sufficient, after gaining the corresponding university degree, to sit and successfully pass
the prescibed purely theoretical State Examination

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 04 August 2012 05:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: sunnyboy
Here in Italy three-year engineers ( first cycle or section B ones ) don't accept to be considered "Technologists " , they consider themselves ENGINEERS and nothing else !

In the UK anyone who sits in front of a PC or Laptop is regarded as an Engineer. No kidding.

I know of people who started out as computer receptionists, putting printouts in users pigeon boxes. Years later they are now referred to as senior engineers. No degree, just experience.

What does the word Engineer mean in Italy?
 04 August 2012 06:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

Having a three-year or five-year university degree in Engineering Science .
You may go in Professional Practice only if you sit and successfully
pass the prescribed State Examination .
In this case you are inscribed in the State Professional Register called
here Ordine ( Order ) or Albo of Professional Engineers .
None may be here considered an Engineer only by Practical Experience :
a University degree is essential !

Both Professional Qualifications Dott.Ing (B) and Dott,Ing (A) are
protected by State law .

Section A Engineers are highly considered ( good social status ) ,
whilst.Section B are obviously less.

So we have two sorts of Engineers : Serial A and Serial B ones !

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco

Edited: 05 August 2012 at 01:03 PM by sunnyboy
 05 August 2012 01:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

http://www.abet.org/engineerin...ngineering-technology/

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 05 August 2012 07:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dlane

Posts: 690
Joined: 28 September 2007

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

The trouble is that there is not distinctive value in IEng when compared to CEng as defined in UKSpec. The IEng competencies are the same as CEng but watered down, i.e. what is the difference between 'leadership' vs 'management' and 'optimise' vs 'apply'.

If someone asks what do you do, you would be foolish to say I am an 'incorporated engineer' because you would have difficulty in explain how is relates being a professional engineer without reference to chartered engineer and how it is different.


I am not sure that I can agree with those comments. For me there are quite distinct differences between management and leadership skills and even more between optimising and applying engineering principles.

I also don't see why you need to constantly compare IEng to CEng. If you are an IEng then what is wrong with giving your job desription and role. If asked how your role fits in with CEng then obviously there is a comparison to be made but I don't see the need to automatically supply that comparison when saying what an IEng does.

Kind regards

Donald Lane
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.