westonpa,

I was referring to the old school BSc lot. (1960s - 80s). There are plenty of examples from past IEE member's letters online including some recent comments from members representing the face of IET, that subtly hint at snobbishness.

To give you sample. Over 5 years ago I attended an IET CEng registration event, where members can discuss with IET staff about suitability for registration. I brought with me about 40 pages of my job description, which was used to justify my upgraded pay rise with my organisation. A young representative from the IET spoke with me of my situation. After explaining what I had been doing over the years, he suggested I was the perfect candidate to apply for CEng. When I eventually met with a mature representative and briefly discussed my career over the years, including academic achievement and mentioned I brought with me a job description portfolio. Like a school master, he immediately responded with the view that I would be suitable for IEng registration, without even looking at the details of my job description.

That is the difference between the old school BSc (headmaster mentality) and the newer school graduate. I saw another example on these forums from the IET head of membership to a college educated CEng who asked if his qualification (CEI Part 2) could be recognised by the IET as degree level, so that employers could match his CV with explanation on the IET website. The response to the query was an example of blatant snobbery.

Edited: 15 December 2011 at 04:04 PM by mbirdi

Things have changed quite a lot over the last five years and although I appreciate that 2006 may feel like yesterday to some (myself included) there is a lot of historical "baggage" in these forums. I have made comments in another thread.

http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...=43947&highlight_key=y

I accept fair and/or constructive criticism of the IET position around promoting IEng, or on member and staff behaviours, costs etc. The IET is a membership body and members will hold a variety of opinions and beliefs, as demonstrated through these forums and many other channels.

Stats can hide as much as they reveal, but the IET registered close to four times as many Incorporated Engineer members than the next nearest institution over the last year and twice as many Technicians. Together with the even greater number of Chartered Engineers they should all expect respect for their professional accomplishments.

Snobbery like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. My experience of the IET and its members is that only very few perpetuate what I would see as real snobbery, perhaps reflecting the society they grew up in. People bring different life experiences and someone like myself who began their career as an apprentice in heavy industry may have a different perspective to someone with a private education "top-university" and "fast track" to CEng. This brings potential for misunderstanding of, or ignorance about, each others experience. But surely the point is that we engage through the IET as professional peers to advance the profession.

In my opinion we should focus on how the profession can serve society. "Status" flows naturally to those who earn it through service to society, not to those who expect it for their own cleverness. Engineers and Technicians are clever people, but sometimes not clever enough to rise above petty rivalries.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards

Sticks and stones comes to mind. You and I give our opinions in a strong way and so we should not be suprised if we pick up some in return....it's life.

Regards.

I'm really glad that someone has said this, it encapsulates my view completely. I have no sympathy for the position that seeks to "protect" engineers' status; let's get out there and, by doing great things, let society see what we stand for.

Keith

-------------------------
Keith Parr
Council 2006-10
Consultants' Professional Network - 2009
Benelux LN - 2009
http://keithparr.tel/

roybowdler,

As ever it's a nicely put response. The only problem is that it's the sort of response that always come from members who are practically the same qualified myself. For once I would love to read a response from a member who's a University Professor, PhD and all, telling me what I have been doing wrong. Then I might sit up and take notice.

For you success for an engineer is being recognised by one's peers in the form of CEng or IEng registration. For me, it's leaving behind a legacy (product or reputation) that gives rise to public recognition. That could be in the form of an honorary degree, or an international recognition such as the Nobel prize. I think that agrees with Keith Parr's comments above.

Just handed in my membership resignation this evening.

Cheers,

As one who you obviously refer to in your stereotyping, I received a BEng in 1972 and have achieved CEng, I take exception to your comments about snobbishness. So far as I am concerned I am more interested in what the individual does and is capable of rather than what letters they have after their name.

In any organisation you will come across people who are snobbish about letters and yes I have come across a few but I still believe they are in the minority.

-------------------------
Clive Maude
Honorary Secretary
Mersey and Western Cheshire Network

Clive,

You are probably right, thankfully those who practice snobbery are in the minority. However within the IET they seem to be in positions of authority.

Roy,

It would be interesting to see a further breakdown of your stats. How many of these new Eng Tech and I Eng came through the traditional route - Enginering apprenticeship and how many came through the academic route?

Jim

I would take issue with this assumption.

I have not personally come across anyone in authority who I would consder a snob! In fact the institution is doing all in it's power to be inclusive - being a competent and capable engineer is what matters, and standards absolutely must be maintained, but that is not snobbery!

The institution exists for the benefit of ALL its members and, for me, it was getting involved that made me able to realise the truth in this.

Regards

-------------------------
David Parr BSc.CEng MIET
PRA

I recently quit after 18 years as an MIEE and CEng. I resigned because of the IETs unquestioning support for the green agenda. It's publications are now full of one-sided green propaganda like the following articles:

** Shale gas should be left where is it!
** Baseless scaremongering about 5oC global warming when temperatures haven't risen atall his century.
** Arguing for economic stagnation
** Branding members who question global warming hysteria as "Deniers in denial"
** And so it continues in the latest issue

Sorry - but I'm not going to fund an organisation that is actively seeking to double my energy bills and bomb the UK economy back to the stone ages.

In my humble opinion the IET has become nothing more than a lobby group for the Big Green subsidy farming industry and misanthropic environmentalists.

My subscription now goes to Nigel Lawson's Global Warming Policy Foundation- who argue for a sane energy policy based on sound engineering principles and sensible cost-benefit analysis - an argument which the IET should be making but have repeatedly failed to do.

*I* recently resigned from the IET on the basis that their policy of charging retired members full whack without tax relief, compared to employers footing the bill, is diabolically *stupid* when retired members do a large part of the work of local organising.

However I am not going to let this dumb denialist response go unanswered.

The IET is a science-based organisation, and climate change is so well established that even the denialist organisation are disbanding.

Climate change is so frightening that reactionaries put their heads in the sand. I will not accept that my children and grand-children have to live in a world where agriculture becomes doubtful and sea-level rises threaten many major cities. I have seen in the Alps and New Zealand how great the effect has been The first time in Austria I was disoriented by my 20-year-old map showing the glacier 1km shorter
but the Fox Glacier and the Concordia Hut staircase have reinforced that message. If you are self-obsessed with the value of your short-term life then you are free to doubt, but if you have any respect for your children you will do your best to make sure they have some quality of life.

If you do as you say, ipayyoursalary, you have wasted your potential to do some good for the world.

-------------------------
regards, Rod Dalitz (CEng MIEE FInstP)
rod.dalitz@blueyonder.co.uk

Hi Rod, discussing record high crop yields and glaciers which have been melting at more or less the same rate for hundreds of years seems a bit off-topic. This thread is about members' reasons for leaving the IET. Mine is the IET's one-sided reporting and lobbying on climate change & energy issues. Regards

If you had a good and professional argument then you would not have to resport to calling people 'dumb'. This is often the problem with people who are passionate about their subject, rather than put a good argument they have to 'insult' those who disagree. The climate change lobby are particularly good at scaremongering and using extreme language.

The IET uses its propoganda machine to make it's argument on the environment and yet does little to put a counter argument. The climate change lobby are quite happy to accept all the publicity which is in their favour but want to result to 'insulting' language to try and shout down a few opinions who disagree.



My children are having a great quality of life thanks and not worrying too much about the environment, they are just living and having fun. It's up to them if they wish to have their own children and they will have to make that decision based upon whether they think their children will have also a great quality of life.



Prove it.

Regards.

The climate has changed very significantly in the past, is changing now and will almost certainly continue changing in the future. On a geological time scale glaciers are whizzing back and forth across the landscape and the sea level is bobbing up and down vigorously.
It is very unlikely that we will be able to do anything to change this.

The output from the surviving solar panels will be rather reduced by the dust cloud from the eruption of the super volcano under Yellowstone Park. I doubt that most of the wind turbines over quite a large radius would survive either. The amount of natural radioactivity scattered over the surface by this would dwarf anything we could do. Nature will always be more powerful.

I don't believe that we have sufficient knowledge of the 'external' effects on the climate or accurate data over a long enough period to really make predictions. Mathematical models will always fit the existing data because that is what they are based on, but different versions will always have different results outside of the existing data. They may shoot off to infinity, oscillate steadily, decay away to a stable state or anything inbetween.

I agree entirely that we should reduce our use of finite resources and minimize our impact on the planet, but I disagree with attempting to force this into place based on what is at the best dubious science. The 'Man Made Climate Change' supporters believe in their cause with a religious fervor and with a religious blindness. If you don't believe you are at the very least stupid. No other options exist.

Best regards

Roger

The troll is back! Westonpa had his contributions deleted from this forum some time ago, after he admitted that he was deliberately trying to wind people up.

I don't need to "prove it" any more than I need to prove General Relativity, that HIV causes AIDS, or that the world is more than 5641 years old. Sure, the world could have been created 5641 years ago or even yesterday with all the fossils and red-shifted quasars ready in place, just to fool us humans, and again yes, I have never measured the red-shift of a quasar or even identified one with a telescope. The world is complicated enough that no one single person can test every idea. It is reasonable to accept a consensus of experts, unless you are the sort of person who harbours dark doubts about everyone else's integrity. But then I have learned that those who accuse others of dishonesty and hidden motives most often themselves turn out to be the worst.

The Guardian today put it thus:
"Instead we live in a bizarre place where it seems almost every half-baked opinion - no matter how stupid or irresponsible - must be broadcast to the world as valid and equal. In this polluted environment, attitudes to things like 'facts', 'evidence' and 'science' range from indifference to open hostility ..."

I find it absolutely frightening that people, and especially Tea Party politicians, can hold power without any concept of science and the methods of science. I find it strange that there seem to so many among the IET, where I would have expected to find more informed people.

-------------------------
regards, Rod Dalitz (CEng MIEE FInstP)
rod.dalitz@blueyonder.co.uk

So here we go again and now even spreading falsehoods about my contributions being deleted and my admitting I was deliberately trying to wind people up. So much for your professionalism and ethical code.



Now what is that lot of uneducated waffle. How on this Earth does that relate to my point about proving "if you do as you say, ipayyoursalary, you have wasted your potential to do some good for the world." I am quite confident that ipayyoursalary has done a lot of good in the world and if you wish to make such statements then back them up with facts, as you suggest. You cannot have it all ways Rod, resorting to experts, facts and all and then not offer some facts yourself.



Maybe you need to go learn a bit more, I mean they accused Stalin and Hitler about dishonesty and most of those accusers turned out to be decent people.



And of course it is the likes of Guardian who are doing the broadcasting. There are few facts about what will happen in 50 years time because it has not happened yet......so trying programming that little fact into your thinking. You are the one trying to shout opposing opinions down with 'insulting' comments so do not be trying to claim the moral high ground.



Agree fully with that.



Time will tell who is informed, or otherwise.

Best regards

Rod,

You have raised what for me is one of the key problems with Man Made Climate Change, what are you proving?

Einstein proposed a theory that had a number of precise testable predictions. The tests have been carried out and have been correct within the limits of experimental error.

People who carry the HIV virus tend to develop AIDS. People who don't carry the virus don't seem to develop AIDS. Good correlation and if I remember correctly there are some reasonable mechanisms that have been proposed.

The theory of the Earth (Universe) having been created less than 6000 years ago with all the appropriate nuclear decays, quasar red shifts, etc. is actually much harder to prove or disprove. It's highly unlikely that all the initial conditions could be set, but if they could how would we tell the difference? Are we in the real thing or in a highly sophisticated simulator?

What is Man Made Climate Change? As I understand it is a prediction that various man-made activities have increased the levels of various gasses (CO2, Methane, etc) in the atmosphere. It then goes on the predict that these increased gas levels will cause an increase in global average temperatures. From this prediction it then goes on to predict various effects such as rising sea levels. There is a correlation between man's industrial activities and global temperatures over a certain time frame (the hockey stick curve). There is also correlation with solar output and global temperatures over a different time frame which has the major influence? We are also coming out of an ice age. The glaciers have retreated quite a long way from where my office is now but they have left quite a large (small lorry) sized boulder in the next village. It is quite likely we are still coming out of this ice age. Are we really affecting a warming process that has been running for 20 000 years or more?

Where are the testable predictions? What I see is a lot of data from both sides (some of which may well be 'cherry picked' or simply made up) which each claims supports it's predictions.

What is it, precisely, that you don't have to prove?

Best regards

Roger

I just posted an example of what made me quit the IET in the Energy Section - The IET's reporting on shale gas.

Since your post was deleted, it is difficult to point to it. However it was on or about 10 December 2010.

-------------------------
regards, Rod Dalitz (CEng MIEE FInstP)
rod.dalitz@blueyonder.co.uk

In my opinion we should respect our environment and look after it and I am in favour of recycling, energy efficiency and the development of alternative and more sustainable forms of energy.......but not at any price. There should always be free and open debate on these matters because none of us can claim to have all the correct answers.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/gore.html

Regards.

With regard to the OP

Has the IET considered employing a reduction in fees on a sliding scale for retired IET members based on their volunteer work?

For example a 20% reduction in fees for every 10 hours of volunteer work, so that a retired member carrying out over 50 hours volunteering would effectively pay no membership fee.

It is a system I have seen used with other bodies that utilise volunteers and seems to work well. It acknowledges the efforts of their volunteers and cost the organisation very little.

Kind regards

Donald Lane