IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Is CEng of any value?
Topic Summary: Has CEng been of use to you in your career?
Created On: 05 December 2006 10:23 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous 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.
 23 February 2007 09:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4472
Joined: 06 May 2002

Originally posted by: kasese

Graham,

Well you are right - I would have stayed with the IET as an IEng - I am very well trained / experienced with a resonanble academic background - some friends (CEng / Fellows of the IMechE) say that I am a better trained engineer than them - all are graduate trained / company schemes. I have worked with and supervised a lot of CEng (IMechE / IEE) - presently have one undergraduate MEng (4 year) under my care.

I cannot be that bad - just annoyed that the route to CEng seem to be very dependent on an accredited degree (I can understand the reasoning though). We drop back to the thread of why isn't GCGI any good for CEng (not EngC approved)
I would like to see things open up a lot more for the very experienced non-"accredited graduates" who are working at the right level.

I think there's a bit of a problem with International Agreements, though, so even if we assess and award more CEng without an accredited degree, there's still another "hold point" for these people at that stage. Not that this should prevent us awarding CEng to those who are working at the right level with the right experience !

Thanks for the best wishes - Graham & mbirdi - but if I am good enough I should be it - all in the hands of the interviewers -
I'm sure confidence is the key. Also, have in mind "standards and practices", "assurance", "verification and validation" as all good Engineers do anyway !

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET
 24 February 2007 07:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: jcolquhoun
As we were both put up in lights in the recent article in the IET Management journal [...] Nice to see some of the other usual suspects in the article as well

Out of interest, which edition was that? (I seem to have mislaid Dec/Jan without reading it, and don't know if I've had Feb/Mar yet. So much for tidying - it just makes things vanish...)

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 24 February 2007 07:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Found it! (Feb/Mar) Although what it was doing on the dishwasher I have no idea. Unusual for journalists to get my first name wrong rather than my second

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 25 February 2007 10:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kasese

Posts: 183
Joined: 31 March 2006

Andy,
It wasn't quite what I said but the context was about right - I am a Maintenance Manager working in the Oil/Gas + process plants for 20 years..
Reagrds,
Tim Guy
 26 February 2007 09:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcolquhoun

Posts: 487
Joined: 21 September 2001

Originally posted by: amillar
Unusual for journalists to get my first name wrong rather than my second


I was surprised that he got mine right. Probably spent that long on my surname that he missed your first name

Was a bit worried about whether or not my comments would be taken in context. Contentious subject sucessfully dealt with

-------------------------
Eur Ing John Colquhoun CEng MIET
Si Je Puis
Clarior Hinc Honos
Operations Manager - Telecommunications (Scotland) <img src="/forums/forum/i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif" border="0">
 28 February 2007 09:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



gerrygreensmith

Posts: 21
Joined: 23 May 2002

Sorry, I've come in the middle of this debate. Like others, unless you follow the "preferred" route of accredited degree, company graduate development scheme and UKSpec, it's somewhat confusing what the rules are concerning "mature" experienced applicants with no first degree as they do not appear to be widely publicised. But, in checking the IET website http://www.theiet.org/membersh...ls/experiencemiet.cfm, it clearly states that for membership other academic qualifications are acceptable with appropriate experience. C.Eng then builds on this using evidence of professional competency development. So an alternative route exists for applicants who just might never have intitally considered charteredship. As I'm mentoring just such a candidate, I'd like confirmation through Beverley, that my understanding is correct
 28 February 2007 11:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kasese

Posts: 183
Joined: 31 March 2006

Gerry,
I am lead to believe that the old mature candidate route has now gone but you can follow the Technical Report route if you don't have an accredited Dgree - however, the other avenue is a qualification review by the Individual Case Panel to approve non accredited degrees or similar qualifications - I used HND + MSc + experience which were approved by the ICP (MSc had engineering content - HYSIS, Matlab / Simulink, Design etc.) - the IET did give very good advice on the matter.

Regards,
Tim Guy
 28 February 2007 07:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerlorna

Posts: 5
Joined: 27 October 2003

Greetings,
Re. the value of C.Eng... I graduated decades ago in EE and my first introduction to the then IEE was from the late Prof. Sir Willis Jackson who said (paraphrased) "This is it and this is what you do to apply". I never questioned this and I'm glad I took his advice. Later in my career I emigrated to Canada - here the we have what is called "reserve of title". Only members of the provincial association that licences engineers can call themselves "engineers". Way back I found that my UK EE degree plus the C.Eng was a very fast track to licencing in the province of Quebec (I was in Montreal then.) A decade or so ago I moved to the province of Ontario and my Quebec "Ing" was rapidly and seamlessly transferred into "P.Eng."
My company supports our qualified technical professionals (mostly EE's but some Mechanicals) getting the P.Eng designation - they are from all over the globe from a myriad of technical institutions. We regard it as both a profesional recognition and an incentive for continuing educations leading to maintained competence. We win, they win.
So, my advice: go for it (the C.Eng), build and support the profession and be proud to say "I am an Engineer".
Roger Jones, C.Eng, P.Eng, SMIEEE
VP Engineering and Chief Engineer
An instrumentation Company in Ontario
 01 March 2007 12:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



woochy

Posts: 1
Joined: 01 March 2007

Hi Beverly

My company, my Industry and associated industries all recognise the need for my role to be at CEng level. Unfortunately, this has proved to be very difficult for anyone not holding accreditted and integrated BEng and MEng degrees without more than four years in-between.

There are some alternatives routes still available to achieve the academic competence requirements, one of which I am currently undertaking but it requires a huge amount of personal time and commitment. The motivation for this is very difficult to maintain when you already hold an MSc and a comprehensive CPD history.

As a recently awarded IEng, I regularly give advice to engineers who achieved CEng when the requirements were less than the current IEng standard. It almost prompts the inclusion of a date next to it because anything less than a Senior Manager can no longer fulfil the experience competence requirements of the current CEng when the award was meant to be for engineers not managers.

Please feel free to include my comments in the journal if you so choose but I need to stress to anyone thinking of attaining EngTech, IEng or CEng that they are both valuable and achievable and working towards them is CPD in itself and so personally rewarding while also looking good on the CV! (I just wish that the CEng goalposts could be changed to a more reflective size)

John Baxter
Engineering Specialist
Coventry
 01 March 2007 03:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



deleted_1_cjeds

Posts: 1
Joined: 16 April 2002

Even asking the question - is CEng still worth while - indicates a problem. It means there must be a significant enough part of industry asking that question or feeling that it isn't.

I am a fairly recent graduate (5 years ago) who has always had ambitions on becoming Chartered. I have to say that the experience I have so far, is that no - its not worth it. I was never told about or encouraged academically through school or university to pursue CEng. Only having a Senior Engineering Manager as a parent taught me the (then)IEE and CEng even existed in the first place. Of the two companies I have worked for, one (a large telecoms company) had internal CPD but no CEng training/assistance. The other, an engineering consultancy, has more active interest but are still establishing CPD and CEng mentorship programmes. Not enough is done with schools, further education or industry to promote CEng and its benefits. As a result, a large proportion of my peers are not interested in it. Maybe you can argue that it is more worthwhile because less people have it. Maybe it becomes pointless if less and less people are aware of its existence.
I feel the IET should be pushing CEng/IEng more than it does. I also believe that the title 'Engineer' should be protected and tied to these qualifications (even if that meant I could not yet call myself an Engineer). My (relatively) little experience of this industry is that more and more of the general public and other professions see Engineering as less professional all the time. Any job title that needs "dressing up" seems to have engineer inserted at the end of it by default these days. That has devalued our industry.
It is quite easy to find people that used to have a passion for engineering that have moved away to other fields such as finance, sales, etc because that is where the money is, where the red tape and budgets stop strangling your projects, or because they get more respect from associates that are possibly in less-challenging but more respected roles in these professions.
The Chartered scheme has the potential to help reverse such trends.
 03 March 2007 04:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mafaustus97

Posts: 136
Joined: 02 November 2001

Dear Beverly Laferla - and Dear Engineer-Managers,

My reply to 'Is C.Eng. of any value?' to Engineers (and Technologists) is "Yes!". Especially when I was non-employed, C.Eng. provided remanent self-esteem. And support given by the IEE at Savoy Place continued to provide certification of CPD. I'm aware of the idiosyncracies of Human Resource Managers and Consultancies, but even then difficulties due to age/etc discrimination were understood in the UK by "personnel management" professional cum academic expertise. My own insight into re-employment problems have been reasonably publicised: all C.Eng./I.Eng. Engineers are Managers (hence must be aware of their profession, its ethos and its responsibilities). With some experience in CPD and ongoing developments in Sartor requirements, I was in favour of at least (opportunities for) taught M.Sc., or MBAs CPD opportunities to match-up with EU equivalent Dipl.Ing. status of real competence. On the problematic of academic versus practice dichotomy, I never held that equation valid. One needs to integrate both via CPD, as both needed in professional progress. My objections against NVQs at Level 5 (for "Management" to prove competence) may seem outdated. But it must be ongoing for projects, depending both on team-competencies and situational environment. Now the Univ. Library is closing, so will have to abandon earlier CVs. Except for - is it still active as truism - if the MIET has arrived late for assessment, then accreditation delays will (ipso facto at least) take much longer than for high flying career progressions to C.Eng./I.Eng.. Hence we should all favour an optimally-fairer evaluation out of earlier vocational impasses: not resulting in even more having to wait longer.

At least here: slowly I remembered my username and password at the IEE/IET!

Stefan PETER (Mature Student-Citizen, UK-in-EU).

How about after 50 years: R.Eng., MIET. (Retired).

-------------------------
mafaustus97

Edited: 03 March 2007 at 04:32 PM by mafaustus97
 03 March 2007 08:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4472
Joined: 06 May 2002

Anyone seen the new CDM Regs and Draft ACOP ?

Adds to the credibility of professional registration.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET
 04 March 2007 10:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



deleted_student101

Posts: 221
Joined: 21 April 2006

I hope to get my CEng one day. To me it speaks for the highest standard of what an engineer has achieved. Same as those of you who got a BEng (1st class), Master or Doctorate degree, or OBE etc.

I bet you don't get re-assessed on your BEng etc qualifications and you have absolute faith in the standard governs by the University of Cambridge's Royal Charter of conferring the degree to you.

Yes, CEng is the diamond standard of world class engineers, I want it.

Edited: 04 March 2007 at 11:01 AM by deleted_student101
 04 March 2007 04:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: student101
I bet you don't get re-assessed on your BEng etc qualifications and you have absolute faith in the standard governs by the University of Cambridge's Royal Charter of conferring the degree to you.


I wouldn't pass my BEng again if I took it today! Some of it I would do much better at, most I wouldn't have a clue (Transistors are something to do with electrons and holes aren't they? And a squirrel cage motor is some sort of big spinny thing?)

CEng is different as it should suggest that we are competent to work at a certain level now, that's why we have to keeping paying for it. I know I keep whinging on about this, but if all that's assessed is where we were in, say, 1995, then why do we have to pay for it year after year?

Re CEng was meant for engineers rather than managers, even when I got mine (in 1995ish) most of the requirements were to do with management rather than engineering. As a design engineer, however innovative and world class your output, it has long been well nigh impossible to gain CEng, which I think is part of the reason for its low regard in one area of the profession at least.

I agree totally that CEng should be the diamond standard, and I think 30-40 years ago it was, but I believe it has gone a bit awry and needs to be pulled back. My father (a non-graduate and every inch a practising engineer rather than an engineering manager) was much prouder of his CEng than I am, which is sad and wrong - we should be able to be equally proud.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert

Edited: 04 March 2007 at 04:10 PM by amillar
 05 March 2007 04:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mafaustus97

Posts: 136
Joined: 02 November 2001

Originally posted by: mafaustus97

Dear Beverly Laferla - and Dear Engineer-Managers,

My reply to 'Is C.Eng. of any value?' to Engineers (and Technologists) is "Yes!".

'Now the Univ. Library is closing, so will have to abandon earlier CVs. Except for - is it still active as truism - if the Member Institution of Engineering and Technology has arrived late for assessment, then accreditation delays will (ipso facto at least) take much longer than for high flying career progressions to C.Eng./I.Eng.. Hence we should all favour an optimally-fairer evaluation out of earlier vocational blocks and impasses: not resulting in even more having to wait longer.'

When I got 'Associate Member of the Institution of Electrical Engineers' (AMIEE) in 1963 it was 16 years after leaving school. I had been a "Graduate Member" of IEE since 1957! My one year as "Graduate Apprentice" was followed by three years in a "responsible position". I had then applied for AMIEE, but was required to further wait another two years until the renewed application was successful. My father did at least see in print that the associated 'corporate membership' had been late but at last approved - he died in July 1963. What I want to underline: this new AMIEE was appreciated by me - because it represented belonging to our profession, also so "becoming" an 'Electrical Engineer'. That indeed had been my aim in 1947: in my Scottish Higher Leaving Certificate I had been confident in Maths and Physics, but managed to just get through in English/Lit. by extra attempt. And 1970s, going onwards, I'm sure we were all glad to become designated MIEE, i.e. Members of the IEE. One thing of importance was, to belong to this Institution. Another might well have been, to get the '... and is a Chartered Electrical Engineer' certification.

The next automatic equalisation within the EU was the C.Eng., MIEE qualification - and for me it was always from then on equivalent to the de/at Dipl.Ing., of course different in its initial professional development (IPD). But importance as C.Eng.: it integrated the necessity of continuous professional development (CPD) with what gave the Dipl.Ing. its valued status. Also via FEANI/Eur.Ing., the EU's formulations (seven years of Higher Education, post-graduate practice, and responsibility level) seem valid for professional co-formation cum EU memberstate career mobility. In my simplification, only on reaching C.Eng./M.Sc. or I.Eng./MBA is then an ongoing CPD incumbent per se to assure ongoing competences. For MIET chartered status, by ipso facto professional responsibilities, such an anchor then surely remains in the IET's code of ethical conduct. CPD has thus become a first glueing together of our whole E&T community. Perhaps such foundations become ever more difficult in globalised contexts. However for belated me, that was the real value of C.Eng.!

Nevertheless for new Student-MIETs, my limited insight would feedback: motivate your goodselves to progress as quickly as possible towards C.Eng./I.Eng. - it may well be a sequential I.Eng. to C.Eng.! However, for fresher and for undergraduate it is vital, not to waste early privileges enabling the laying of adequate foundations for a.s.a.p. C.Eng./I.Eng. achievement. And for later career progression - do not just scrape through each advanced study-level; aim for 60% plus, for a 2.1!

But I'd expect an ever-new IET-global to consider if MIETs with delayed IPD could well be accorded a modicum of end-acceleration towards their not too late C.Eng. or I.Eng./MBA corporate membership. It can result in available best achievement for all concerned. Possible at least, by some lateral thinking: the IET's co-ethos of solidarity may find its young FIETs/MBAs willing to accord proportionate supported time for final IPD by mentoring or by helping in assessment for such IET NVQ-5s.

Stefan PETER (Mature Student-Citizen, UK-in-EU).

How about after 50 years: R.Eng., MIET. (Retired).

-------------------------
mafaustus97
 05 March 2007 10:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: student101
I hope to get my CEng one day. To me it speaks for the highest standard of what an engineer has achieved.

You mean like:

Prof Joe Bloggs Bsc(Hons), Msc(Double Hons), PhD(3* michelin) CEng, FIET.

All this says to me is the bloke is pretty clever (especially with a PhD in catering)

But it doesn't say what they've achieved in their career?

I remember at one of my HND classes in Electrical Principals, a group of us students, waiting for the rest of the students to enter before the start of class, chatted with our lecture who happened to be the Deputy Head of dept.

Someone dared to ask him a cheeky question. "Sir (as it was then), have you achieved anything in your career"? "No!" came the answer. "Didn't achieve anything" and looking pretty satisfied with himself. He's qualifications were, MSc CEng MIEE.

If you were in a position to ask Sir Norman Foster a question, it wouldn't be about his qualifications. You'd be too busy finding out what he's achieved and how difficult it was to achieve them.

Originally posted by: student101
Same as those of you who got a BEng (1st class), Master or Doctorate degree, or OBE etc.

They're only titles with no real evidence of outstanding achievement except perhaps with a PhD in relation to a scientific breakthrough.

Originally posted by: student101
I bet you don't get re-assessed on your BEng etc qualifications and you have absolute faith in the standard governs by the University of Cambridge's Royal Charter of conferring the degree to you.

If I had a degree form Oxford or Cambridge, I wouldn't worry about keeping up with any standards or with the Jones. I'd just have a smug look on my face and made sure that people know where I'd been. That's all the status I'd ever need.

Originally posted by: student101
Yes, CEng is the diamond standard of world class engineers, I want it.

When I look back to the good old days when I was a student I don't remember being impressed by any of my lecturers, except for the one who taught me Electronic Eng up to the level of CEI/EC pt 2 exams where I scored an A grade. Nearly all of them were CEng and boring as hell.

I'll give you an example of what did impress me. It was a documentary I saw on the Apollo moon landings. Seconds before the Lunar Module (Eagle) was due to touch down on the surface of the Moon, one of the Astronauts announced that their instruments was indicating (approx), a Memory Buffer Overflow and asked Mission Control what it meant?

Apparently nobody knew the answer, because that situation never occurred during tests on Earth.

Things became desperate and the Mission Director had only seconds to abort the landing or risk a crash landing killing everyone on board.

Just when the Director was about to cancel the mission, a voice came over the communications channel with the words (to the effect of) "This is Huston calling Eagle! You have a go for landing!"

Those words provided the re-assurance and authority to the Astronauts (and to the entire mission control) that it was safe to proceed with the landing, despite an alarm indicating otherwise. The success of which was a relief to Mission Control, America and entire the world.

This one man showed incredible courage in overriding his Director's judgement and authority and saved a multimillion dollar project from disaster and helped to make history.

On that day, he was the only person who knew the relevance of that alarm and was prepared to face major consequences if he'd got it wrong. This is an outstanding demonstration of dedication to one's profession and no CEng title under any circumstances could ever compare to that level of competence.

That is what I call Professional Engineer of the highest calibre. That's what I look up to. You don't have to have a BSc, MSc or CEng to achieve that. It's all down to your drive, ambition and talent of course.
 06 March 2007 01:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



bkirby

Posts: 475
Joined: 23 September 2002

Is CEng of any value? In my opinion, Yes!

It tells me that the person with it has
A) had a certain amount of applicable experience after their degree.
B) Their peers/management agree and respect that they meet the criteria
C) they themselves are committed to CPD in their field
D) They have undertaken to contine a High standard of Professional conduct

It does not tell me:
What their experience is, and what their particular expertise is, for that I want their CV as no two people are the same.

Because CEng (and IEng) is a Peer review qualification, we are responsible for its standards, and it is up to us to ensure tse standards remain high.

I fully agree that there are many engineers who are better than me who do not have the CEng qualification. And they will have their reasons for not doing it (usefulness in their field, cost etc etc) but I feel in striving for and gaining my CEng, I feel I have made a ststement about my intentions and it is down to my personal integrity to ensure I keep those standards.


By the same token, if you come across a CEng who you do not feel has been keeping up the standard, what do you do about it?

Barry

-------------------------
Barry Kirby BEng (Hons) CEng MIET(MIEE)

"There is no engineering problem that can't be fixed with an appropriate sized hammer"

"At the end of the day.....It gets Dark"

Systems Engineering TPN
 06 March 2007 03:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: bkirby
Is CEng of any value? In my opinion, Yes!

It tells me that the person with it has

A) had a certain amount of applicable experience after their degree.
B) Their peers/management agree and respect that they meet the criteria
C) they themselves are committed to CPD in their field
D) They have undertaken to contine a High standard of Professional conduct


A) Who doesn't have experience?
B) Peers/management also respect non-CEng Engineers. The funny thing is that you'll find the Head of a Dept. or organisation is usually a CEng who then relies on the technical expertise of their staff who aren't CEng/IEng, MIET or anything else. Why is that?
C) Maybe for a few years after their CEng but given the poor salary in the market, I'd doubt it if they follow those principals into their later years.
D) Again for the first few years. But once they move into other areas such as management or teaching they move away from their original goals.

Originally posted by: bkirby
It does not tell me:

What their experience is, and what their particular expertise is, for that I want their CV as no two people are the same.


If you look at an experienced no-CEng person's CV you'll be equally impressed which is why employers don't necessarily appoint a CEng just on the basis of their CEng status.

I've come across at least one CEng applicant whose experiences were not directly relevant to what was required and besides they had applied for posts that were below their standards. Commitment to CPD and professional code of conduct didn't stop them from applying for jobs they didn't have direct experience of and unfortunately they were also not invited to attend the interview.

Originally posted by: bkirby
Because CEng (and IEng) is a Peer review qualification, we are responsible for its standards, and it is up to us to ensure tse standards remain high.

What standards? pin striped suit, financial times, (bowler hat even?), only to be seen drinking out with Lawyers and Accountants? or do you mean being a member of BSI, HSE or other committees?

Originally posted by: bkirby
I fully agree that there are many engineers who are better than me who do not have the CEng qualification. And they will have their reasons for not doing it (usefulness in their field, cost etc etc)

How would you know there are others better than you if you've already established the requirements above for judging what is standard? Can't have it both ways you know.

Originally posted by: bkirby
but I feel in striving for and gaining my CEng, I feel I have made a ststement about my intentions and it is down to my personal integrity to ensure I keep those standards.

Fine. I have no argument with you about that. But I'm not sure that your standards necessarily relate to other CEng members?

You're only saying that because you've committed yourself to a high standard and that you have no reason to believe that other CEng members aren't following that same standard unless proven otherwise. I can't argue with that.

However I make my decisions based on my experience and observations. One of my criticism was that the majority of CEng and IEng members didn't vote for or against the merger between the IEE and IIE. That for me contradicts the notion of CPD and professional code of conduct.

If you're keeping up with your CPD and maintaining a high level of professional code of conduct then why you not take part in the future of your profession and vote? It makes no sense.

Originally posted by: bkirby
By the same token, if you come across a CEng who you do not feel has been keeping up the standard, what do you do about it?

Depends on what you mean by keeping up with standards? My Director is a very senior figure, a CEng and a Fellow of an Institution and that's all I'll reveal. He is a highly respected figure within the University and also throughout the UK academic community and probably even internationally. He's also a Professor of Networks, Can stand up in front of hundreds of delegates and gives an impressive speech on the future of IT, Networks, Video conferences, etc etc. He's like a General with an impressively loud commanding voice which scares the hell out of me.

By those standards, my Director is an example of professionalism at the highest level. Yet when it comes down to knowing the IP address of his PC or how to setup wireless on his laptop or using broadband to access the service from home or from abroad, like all other Professors, he's not in the same league as myself and my colleagues who provide the Network and Systems service to the college.

Yet by his standards I don't have what it takes to do what he does. So How can I or anyone judge him or anyone else (Chartered or not) on what is competence or standards?
 06 March 2007 05:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4472
Joined: 06 May 2002

Mbirdi,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but . . .

1. Full of sweeping generalisations intermingled with obvious statements.

2. Hopefully you are fully aware of the "standards to be maintained" ? If not, might explain why the majority of your post makes no sense to me ?

3. (and finally):

However I make my decisions based on my experience and observations. One of my criticism was that the majority of CEng and IEng members didn't vote for or against the merger between the IEE and IIE. That for me contradicts the notion of CPD and professional code of conduct.
How does someone's ambivalence or abstinence on a single issue contradict CPD (when in this case both IIE and IEE share the same CPD web-site) and "Professional Code of Conduct" (which certainly does not say "thou shallt vote") ?

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET
 06 March 2007 08:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

I was agreeing with mbirdi a few messages back, but I'm afraid now I have to echo Graham's comments, and in particular:

Originally posted by: mbirdi
When I look back to the good old days when I was a student I don't remember being impressed by any of my lecturers, except for the one who taught me Electronic Eng up to the level of CEI/EC pt 2 exams where I scored an A grade. Nearly all of them were CEng and boring as hell.

There is nothing in CEng (or IEng!) that says you have to be interesting. Perhaps I would find you boring if you lectured to me, doesn't affect your engineering competence.

Originally posted by: mbirdi
Originally posted by: bkirby
Because CEng (and IEng) is a Peer review qualification, we are responsible for its standards, and it is up to us to ensure tse standards remain high.

What standards? pin striped suit, financial times, (bowler hat even?), only to be seen drinking out with Lawyers and Accountants? or do you mean being a member of BSI, HSE or other committees?

I think you are letting your prejudices show here. (The only one of these that relates to any CEng I know is that I once sat on a BSI committee. And a very impressive group of experienced, competent and down to earth engineers they were too.)

Originally posted by: mbirdi
However I make my decisions based on my experience and observations. One of my criticism was that the majority of CEng and IEng members didn't vote for or against the merger between the IEE and IIE. That for me contradicts the notion of CPD and professional code of conduct.

If you're keeping up with your CPD and maintaining a high level of professional code of conduct then why you not take part in the future of your profession and vote? It makes no sense.

Totally agree with Graham here. The IET is not the engineering profession, it is a body in which some of its members may or may not be interested in how it is run. It could be called "Fred the Institution" and include hairdressers in its members (or, sorry, even disappear of the face of the Earth) and it would make no difference to my professional work and CPD. My job is to stop trains crashing into each other (no, I don't do points) not to play with committees.

Originally posted by: mbirdi
By those standards, my Director is an example of professionalism at the highest level. Yet when it comes down to knowing the IP address of his PC or how to setup wireless on his laptop or using broadband to access the service from home or from abroad, like all other Professors, he's not in the same league as myself and my colleagues who provide the Network and Systems service to the college.

Yet by his standards I don't have what it takes to do what he does. So How can I or anyone judge him or anyone else (Chartered or not) on what is competence or standards?

This one is important because it is the most common misunderstanding. Just because you are at a senior level in an organisation does not mean that you should be able to do the work of everyone under you. I don't know where this myth arose - it's been around for years - but a brief amount of thought shows that it must be untrue. Any professional engineering job, at any level, should stretch the employee's capabilities; if not, the manager will feel he isn't getting his money's worth! So why, on promotion, should you suddenly have additional mental capacity and stamina to do extra work in addition to your past capabilities? You haven't, so you drop some work, and - inevitably over time - skills. I don't suppose your Director needs to do any of these tasks as part of his job, so why should he know how to do them? Now, to pretend you have skills and expertise when you haven't (due to lack of use) is unnacceptable, but to lose - or rather exchange - skills is part of moving on. A brain surgeon would probably be totally lost if he had to work as a GP, doesn't stop him being owed respect as an expert.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
IET » Management in engineering » Is CEng of any value?

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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