IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: CEng Application
Topic Summary: Competency A & B
Created On: 22 July 2009 03:40 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 3 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.
 22 July 2009 03:40 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jwLondon

Posts: 5
Joined: 13 July 2009

Hello,

Do you know if there are any examples of competency A and B from the IET CEng application form that I could look at, please?

Thanks.
 22 July 2009 05:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ArthurHall

Posts: 736
Joined: 25 July 2008

Good luck if you are trying to fill in form MCEPD. I have just about completed mine and it was a struggle. The best help I got was from The Engineering council 'UK Standard for engineering competence' I picked it up at an IET routes to registration evening but you may get one at www.engc.org.uk
 22 July 2009 07:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



manadasor

Posts: 460
Joined: 02 November 2001

Recommend downloading from the IET website under Professional Registration the publication 'CEng. Start a new career path".

In pages 5 to 7 of this publication you will find very useful guidance on what can constitute Evidence.

Ron McMurtrie
 23 July 2009 10:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



kmeghani

Posts: 6
Joined: 18 January 2003

When putting my application together the year before last, I found it took me much time to absorb and understand the competency requirements in each section - this understanding is a part of the application process.

I found some example forms at the time, but can't recall whether they came from the IET or the ECUK websites - I do remember they were not easy to find!

-------------------------
K Meghani MIET AMIMechE
 23 July 2009 10:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jwLondon

Posts: 5
Joined: 13 July 2009

That's great, cheers. I have started the form, its a challenge to say the least but like you say, this is part of becoming a chartered engineer I suspect. I've got all of my evidence, I am just trying to leap over the final hurdle and get the form filled in.

Thanks for your advice.
 27 July 2009 05:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



cblackha

Posts: 79
Joined: 21 January 2003

There was an example document available from IET website earlier this year, titled "UKSpec example of QRPD"

If you PM me an email address, I'll send you a copy

Charlie
 28 July 2009 12:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Be sure to get these absolutely spot on. If there not, then you fail. The rest of the form isn't considered.
 28 July 2009 10:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



manadasor

Posts: 460
Joined: 02 November 2001

All the information on Form M(CEPD) is considered at all 4 Stages of the Professional Registration process together with the Form IF completed by an applicant's supporters.

Ron McMurtrie,
PR Interview Convener, Scotland
 29 July 2009 05:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

I beg to differ.

The A and B competencies have very blurred edges, so to speak.

Because A and B come before C and D, it stands to reason that if the A and B fall down in the some way then the panel aren't going to waste any more time, reading the 'pithy parts' like C and D.

I make no apologies when I say that the whole process is highly subjective.
 29 July 2009 07:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



manadasor

Posts: 460
Joined: 02 November 2001

Wrong again! As previously stated all parts of each applicant's submission is considered at all four Stages of the Professional Registration process.

Having been present at a several hundred UK-SPEC interviews, the interviewers make every effort to ensure candidates have the opportunity to discuss their careers enlarging on aspects of the information provided in Form M(CEPD). The interviewers' task is to make an assessment against all 16 UK-SPEC criteria (A to E) on which to base their Recommendation that goes on to the Stage 4.

In my experience the claim that the "whole process is highly subjective" cannot be substantiated based on the evidence of the interviews I have observed.

Ron McMurtrie,
PR Interview Convener, Scotland
 30 July 2009 06:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

And I beg to differ again. I find it staggering that you opine that I am categorically wrong, when you of all people should know that it just won't do to generalise! Does that say something about the IET Interviewing Panel and it's general approach? In my experience, (not generalising), the information offered wasn't adequately considered or assimilated, i.e. look beyond the print and imagine what's involved. I am staggered but hardly surprised at your generalised opinion. It might be worthwhile if the IET took a step off its pedestal and LISTENED and ASSIMILATED the opinions of members and registered members on this forum. To me it appears as if the IET has been on the same training course as the big corporates out there. There is something fundamentally flawed which is systemic.
 30 July 2009 09:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for hamishbell.
hamishbell

Posts: 288
Joined: 11 September 2001

From my (long) experience as a PRA, Interviewer, Technical Report Assessor, and past member of membership panels, ALL parts of the evidence submitted are reviewed. Contrary to some views, the reviewers seek to find information which will allow the candidate to proceed into Chartership while maintaining standards, not to deny them entry.

There is no "correct" path to Chartership; hence there is no "correct" formula for completion of the forms. You say this results in "blurred" requirements and the process is "highly subjective"; the alternative would be a (never-ending?) series of tick boxes, as everyone's career is different. The process as it has evolved over many years, is based upon peer review against established standards. Experienced engineers review the evidence, interview the candidate (exploring their statements and offering every opportunity to expand on them), and the process is then reviewed further to ensure that all aspects have been covered. Any doubtful or unclear points are covered by asking the candidate (or the interviewers) for clarification or further evidence, before a decision is made. There is then provision for an appeal if the candidate feels there are grounds for this. The whole process is audited by the ECUK on a regular basis to ensure it meets their standards.

Perhaps you have some alternative experience to share with us which drives your assertions. If so, I'd be pleased to hear it, either here or directly via a PM if it requires a more confidential conversation.
Regards
Hamish

-------------------------
Hamish V Bell, BSc, CEng, FIET, FCQI, CQP
2013 - 2016 Elected Council Member
2007 - 2010, Vice President and Trustee
 30 July 2009 12:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Hamish, I would like the opportunity just to talk to a PRA - I've never been afforded this particular avenue of pleasure, alhtough I have requested it. I did receive soem banal advice from a 'third party' PRA through the registration dept. which amounted to no more than I already knew. I am IEng, (which was equal but different to CEng, but isn't anywhere near it now - an altogether different issue which I'm pursuing through the EC(UK)). I applied for CEng since the IEng 'qualification' has been described as a stepping stone, so my 30 years experience as an apprentice, professional engineer in a top tier COMAH orgainsation really does need the CEng rubber stamp of real engineering as opposed to IEng ejuneering. I maintain that competency A and B does tend to meld itno each other, hence the blurring of the edges. I also opine that the process is inordinatley lengthy and one where the candidate appears to be the party pursuing progress and not the IET. I've dealt so many nudges, my elbows have friction sores. I was an original IEE member and did rate the organisation highly. Since the merger with the IIE, (big is better?), it's become a second rate outfit which, in my humble opinion has become too big too quickly. If I could contact you directly by email that would be good.

Edited: 30 July 2009 at 01:44 PM by dvaidr
 31 July 2009 04:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for hamishbell.
hamishbell

Posts: 288
Joined: 11 September 2001

Send me a PM with your contact details, please.
Regards
Hamish

-------------------------
Hamish V Bell, BSc, CEng, FIET, FCQI, CQP
2013 - 2016 Elected Council Member
2007 - 2010, Vice President and Trustee
 01 August 2009 07:29 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Thanks Hamish. PM sent this morning. If you don't receive it, please let me know.
 12 August 2009 10:30 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for hamishbell.
hamishbell

Posts: 288
Joined: 11 September 2001

Unfortunately, you have elected not to receive private messages. Please switch this facility on.
Regards
Hamish

-------------------------
Hamish V Bell, BSc, CEng, FIET, FCQI, CQP
2013 - 2016 Elected Council Member
2007 - 2010, Vice President and Trustee
 12 August 2009 05:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Sorry Hamish. It's now enabled.
 22 August 2009 07:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Originally posted by: manadasor

Wrong again! As previously stated all parts of each applicant's submission is considered at all four Stages of the Professional Registration process.



Having been present at a several hundred UK-SPEC interviews, the interviewers make every effort to ensure candidates have the opportunity to discuss their careers enlarging on aspects of the information provided in Form M(CEPD). The interviewers' task is to make an assessment against all 16 UK-SPEC criteria (A to E) on which to base their Recommendation that goes on to the Stage 4.



In my experience the claim that the "whole process is highly subjective" cannot be substantiated based on the evidence of the interviews I have observed.



Ron McMurtrie,

PR Interview Convener, Scotland



It's down to the opinions of the interviewers and is, as a result, subjective. I speak from experience. All one needs is a couple of academic who don't know anything outside of the Fischer=Price School of Engineering and you've lost.
 02 November 2009 03:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



faramog

Posts: 447
Joined: 25 November 2002

Originally posted by: dvaidr

Be sure to get these absolutely spot on. If there not, then you fail. The rest of the form isn't considered.


Absolute rubbish !! There are candidates who are very strong in A & B and poor in C,D & E who pass the line and vice-versa. Engineering is a broad brush and to say you must be 'spot on' in A & B is wrong

Simplistically, the key differentiators between IEng and CEng are around innovation and creativity and it is these areas that we look critically in A & B. That said, not being of sufficient standard here does not preclude you being chartered proving you have sufficient strengths in the other areas

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Prebble CEng MIEE
 02 November 2009 03:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dvaidr

Posts: 519
Joined: 08 June 2003

Ah, faramog. Another voice of reason at the IET! You obviously have some input. Just why are interviews so defensive of a flawed process?

Simplistically (and realistically), it's a lottery, period. I have come across many CEng's who wouldn't know innovation and creativity if it approached them at the speed of light and smacked them smartly between the eyes.

If 'weaknesses' are permitted in A and B then why the big differentiator. Why aren't IEng and CEng the same taking into account this blurring fo the edges, (that said this blurring has been refuted by some of your learned chums on the panel, assuming that you sit on 'the panel')

From experience, the application isn't perhaps always assimilated which as we all know is rather different to 'read'. Assimilation by 'the panel' would improve the process, manifold. A.S.S.I.M.I.L.A.T.I.O.N. The way forward!

I was told by a number of learned individuals at the IET that A and B had to be spot on or one was lost. Just how good is this outfit nowadays? Inconsistency rules.

But, hey! Who am I to say?

Edited: 02 November 2009 at 03:55 PM by dvaidr
Statistics

See Also:



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