Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: IEng, REng, EngP et al
Topic Summary: Why change the wheel?
Created On: 12 May 2008 02:57 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 12 May 2008 02:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

I've recently been invited to make a choice between a number of post-nominals ranging from EngP to REng to keeping the IEng post-nominals.

Why? Does it really need changing?

I'm out there in the jobs market at the minute and have been approached about a number of positions which require CEng status. When I remind them that I'm IEng, they don't really seem that bothered citing something along the lines of "well, it's just about Chartered" to "same difference really".

What with the introduction of IntET and now the proposed changes to IEng, it makes me wonder just what is happening in the world of the IET and EC(UK).

The recruitment and HR world is already completely confused with the term Engineer, (usually Enjuneer),without causing more confusion.

 12 May 2008 03:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 36
Joined: 19 May 2006

I have also responded to this and think it a mistake to change the name from I.Eng, as it was originally T.Eng and the public and employers have just about got used to the I.Eng.

One big snag with the survey is that you can only make one choice. It would have been better if I.Eng's could have been able to score the options from 1 to 4 say. I would prefer I.Eng, but would have liked to express a second choice of R.Eng!!

Conrad Freezer I.Eng, FIET, MCIPR!!!
 12 May 2008 04:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

I agree with keeping IEng and I thunk we should have a RIGHT to keep it. We've expended not a little effort achieving it, for what purpose? So that the powers that be can change it after receiving "poll results"?

Can one honestly put this to poll? Don't think so.

I agree whole-heartedly with your comments about the nature of the poll - the "voter" had, in effect, only one choice and was not able to rank the preferences.

Keep the faith.
 12 May 2008 05:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 642
Joined: 30 August 2005

I think that this is the last chance in order to have,as other "professionals", the "chartered status".
I have voted for "Chartered Certified Engineer"
 12 May 2008 06:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 4646
Joined: 06 May 2002

I am very disappointed that the IET has decided to canvass only a small number of its Registered Members on this important decision.

And with so much else needing doing with Prof Registration, I'd like to see that this was not the ONLY initiative to try and get more Registrants - at all levels, not just IEng.

EUR ING Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
Principal and Proprietor,
G Kenyon Technology

 13 May 2008 05:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 17
Joined: 04 April 2006


i agree with you. Since i am the MD for 2 companies and fit in on item 5 as you ve mentioned.

Afterall the my P.Engr is doing the job and i monitor their work...only.


 13 May 2008 11:26 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 184
Joined: 14 August 2003

If you are not aware of it, you might be interested in the the thread on Chartered Certified Engineer in the Savoy Place Virtual Club forum, which has been running for some months.


Katy Turff
Programme Manager
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
 13 May 2008 12:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

steve shakeshaft

Posts: 118
Joined: 20 September 2007

Thank you Katy, a very worthwhile prompt towards a thread that has dissected these topics in minute detail.
 14 May 2008 07:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 3
Joined: 17 February 2008

I am an IEng and proud of it. The engineering profession is one of the least recognised and misunderstood of any. I think that some of the problem is due to the changes to institutions, titles, post-nomimals etc, that have taken place so many times over the past years. Stop medling unnecessaraly with somthing that is fine, and start making a fuss about how important it is.
 15 May 2008 06:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

I sometimes get the feeling thst we're not helping the cause here. There is a lot of confusion about what CEng/IEng is or was or could be or should be.

The question remains, "Why is it being changed?". I, for one, am not sure.

We could end up with members using the post-nominals of:

Joe Bloggs, CCE (ex IEng), MIET, (ex MIEE)

Preposterous, really. That said, the post nominals as a general rule, are not really recognised by most 'outsiders' anyway.
 15 May 2008 10:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 620
Joined: 14 December 2004

Conrad iie13351

I used to be a T.Eng and much preferred the change to IEng.

However, back in those IIE days, one stumbling block was the complete lack of Chartered status even when the IIE became a Chartered body. I note that you are a Member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. That Institute at least includes Chartered in its title and postnominal.

One issue that I have with IEng is trying to explain to an 'outsider' what an Incorporated Engineer is, when a dictionary offers:-

Chartered - An accountant, engineer, etc qualified as a member of a professional body that has a Royal Charter.

Incorporated - Constituted as a legal corporation.

Not easy, especially when the IIE/IET has a Royal Charter and IEng MIETs have no reference to it.

If CCE becomes available, take it.

Clive S Carver GCGI IEng MIET MITP
 16 May 2008 06:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

It's a tricky one though, isn't it?

Practically speaking, an existing IEng with n years of experience who is quite 'bookish' could be deemed as being 'as good as' any CEng, i.e. would meet 'the requirements'.

I think it's all rather (uneccesarily) messy.

For an organisation setting standards, it must be embasrassing.
 16 May 2008 09:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

steve shakeshaft

Posts: 118
Joined: 20 September 2007

I really think the change to CCE is the last chance saloon with regards getting this right. IEng has failed it's registrants and it is failing to attract any new registrants. Retaining the status quo will see virtually zero IEng registrants within 10 years. While it (IEng) was "equal but different" to CEng, it stood a chance. Briefly ECUK declared "IEng is the new mainstream Engineer". It didn't last long, it soon became "2nd class citizen" in many peoples view and perception. My own views are here on line in this forum and I'm not going to repeat it all again here. But if CCE fails (and it may well fail, in my opinion, unless seriously large resources are allocated to promoting and recruiting into it) then the 3 tier membership model fails and much more radical changes will have to take place (a 2 tier model). Please support CCE as the "least bad" option going forward.
 16 May 2008 02:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

A very short story....

There once was a pupil at school who went to complain to his teacher for receiving a gold star in his exercise work book.

When asked what the matter was? The pupil complained that the gold star he had received had spoiled the aesthetic look of his book which contained lots of silver stars.

The pupil said that he was very happy with his silver stars, but couldn't see why there should be any need to change now to gold stars? He explained that he had always received silver stars in the past and was thought of by teachers and pupils as being one of the brightest in his class. In his opinion, this meant that silver stars are just as equal, but different to gold stars. And since he was content with the status quo, requested that the teacher replace the gold star for a silver one.

The pupil was admired by some for sticking to his principles, but thought of by many for being a fool for turning down a gold star.

End of very short story.....

Edited: 16 May 2008 at 10:45 PM by mbirdi
 16 May 2008 09:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 17
Joined: 24 July 2003

I'm a little confused too. I was in process of getting IEng all lined up when I get my cheque back with some odd words about "Meeting between IET and ECUK". My organisation had come to an agreement with IET about certain career milestones being pre-accepted and I was duly following the agreed process. This is the kind of thing that could have got IEng off and running again; Maybe? Perhaps I haven't heard the whole story, although I was assured that this meeting was to happen at the end of April. No news yet.

Does the panel think this is related to the new news (to me) that there's ideas afloat about name or postnominal changes?
 19 May 2008 02:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 31
Joined: 19 January 2004

I am following up your recent message posted on the IET Forum and am unsure about the exact details of your enquiry. Please could you e-mail me on so that I can investigate further. Many thanks, Claire Williams, Senior Registration Co-ordinator

Claire Williams
Standards Manager, Registration
The Institution of Engineering and Technology
 28 August 2008 02:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message

Frank Peacock

Posts: 61
Joined: 29 August 2006

IEng was originally authorised by the former UK Engineering Council by incorporation of the holder into its Charter. IEng was valid as long as the holder remained on the register and for CEng whilst the holder was in membership of an appropriate chartered institution. As an aside if anybody knows of an appropriate chartered institution let me know and I will pop along present my card and join up.

CEng on the other hand was authorised by the Chartered Institutions to full members by Incorporating the Member into the Charter of the Appropriate Institution to which the member belonged.

Hence equal but different.

When the new Engineering Council was formed (ECUK) it took over the registers and all post nomials were awarded by the ECUK.

Amongst the Institutions hence forth unable to award CEng from their own Charters were there were those who had previously excluded all but university graduates from obtaining full membership with its accompanying CEng post nomial. I am of the opinion that this was a good move possibly taken to overcome criticism from the Engineering bodies in other EEC countries (Now the EU) but somewhat marred by excluding polytechnic graduates. In Germany my qualifications were asked about because my German colleagues said UK Engineers had in their ranks those who had not earned their status but were Chartered Engineers because they MDs or owners of big companies who were in fact lawyers or chartered accountants or even tradesmen who owned engineering firms which had grown large and had made donations to the UK professional institutions benevolent funds. In fact they were not Engineers at the entire picture painted not good. I was asked if my qualifications were a gift or if I bought them. When they checked they were OK with my qualifications which were not via university degree but via an EITB approved apprenticeship and polytechnics courses. I was seen to be properly trained and approximated to a German VDE. Thankfully those days are in the past.

When the ECUK took over many of us IEng registrants expected a better outcome than we got which is a situation where the EU and UK Govt recognises professional engineers in two different designations. After all how stages of final are there?? Had I been given any say at the start of ECUK governance I would have the badged all IEng and CEng registrants who were already on the books as Chartered or Professional Engineers. Within a short number of years they would all be dead and gone. Watch this space I am not getting any younger. I would have instituted a new intermediate grade of Associate Chartered or Professional Engineer for the up and coming generation. Thereby emulating the former chartered institutions who had well respected associate memberships e.g. AMIEE, AMIMechE and AMICE.
 29 March 2011 01:13 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Posts: 7
Joined: 14 September 2010

I have been reading the various discussions on this topic with regard to post nominals with interest and have some sympathy to the author about why to change them.
One possible solution is to grant the designation of PEng to all members who have the required experience and a science/engineering degree. This would then do away with the confusion that IEng CEng REng etc nominals can sometimes create, which in some countries are not always easily recognised anyway.
There is one society in the UK that has this designation already and that is the Society of Professional Engineers.
If you have the evidenced experience/documentation and a science/engineering degree one can submit his/her CPD/CV and by interview if deemed to be necessary can obtain the PEng post nominals.
Because of my wife, I often travel to Colombia in South America where there is a very strong professional engineering society and alot of building work going on.
I was talking to some engineers on a large construction site and a few of them had met North American engineers in conferences/seminars who had the PEng post nominals.
I also noticed and was told that the engineers in Colombia were held in similar high esteem as to a doctor, as they were entitled to use the pre-nominals Ing followed by their name as they do in all Latin countries!
I know of course about the Eur Ing designation here in Europe but not all engineers have or want this.
Perhaps Ing as a pre-nominal is another discussion/debate, which may or maynot have been discussed in this forum before.

See Also:

FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2016 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.