IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: New Techician Council
Topic Summary: New Technician Council for Incorporated Engineers and Technicians
Created On: 11 April 2010 08:32 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.
 11 April 2010 09:17 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



myluckykk

Posts: 18
Joined: 03 April 2010

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

Is IEng seen more as a technician then an engineer(see extracts from RAE link)?


I hope it's not a step backward. The news on EngC ( http://www.engc.org.uk/about-us/register-news/46.aspx ) clearly indicate promotion/marketing of IEng is necessary for practising/competent engineers. Also similar comments and constructive arguments on another discussion ( http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...id=35123&enterthread=y ) over the news. The marketing effort may be futile should the message be seen as such to reflect IEng to be similar to EngTech rather than to CEng but different. Hmm...

-------------------------
Kah-King MSc. MIET
 11 April 2010 10:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

It's just another NuLabour quango.

Regards.
 11 April 2010 03:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rar

Posts: 642
Joined: 30 August 2005

The end of the IEng as a professional engineer???
 12 April 2010 11:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

I recognise some of the concerns that this will cause.

Engineer, Technologist and Technician are only words but they are very important to many in the profession. It is nearly 30 years since "Incorporated Engineer" replaced "Technician Engineer".

However in the language of policy makers and those outside the profession "Technician" and more recently "Associate Professional" is the language in use.

If we leave aside the "status and rank" argument on the basis that people who register as CEng, IEng or EngTech are all covered by the "UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence" then this has to be seen positively.

I don't know about the politics involved, but I hope that the announcement so close to an election suggests cross-party support.

For me the engineering profession is the stronger if more practitioners feel valued, engaged and "in the tent". The IET is an inclusive organisation that values and respects the distinctive contribution of each type of professional and encourages professional growth.

My view is that the huge increase in full-time student opportunities has led to a loss of focus on and understanding of "IEng territory" in particular. Numbers of Student or Technician Apprenticeships have declined and some have faced recruitment difficulties at times.

For very understandable reasons full-time students often develop a "sense of entitlement" to CEng. However from an employers perspective the need in many sectors is mostly for IEng or EngTech level practitioners, but to compete for graduate recruits there is pressure to offer "CEng training". Therefore moves to offer accreditation for qualifications and training schemes as dual CEng/IEng are a positive step in my view.

If the "council" being proposed leads to IEng, Eng Tech and ICT Tech (or their heirs and successors) being widely held understood and valued this would be good news for the profession and for UK PLC.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 12 April 2010 12:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rar

Posts: 642
Joined: 30 August 2005

Roy,
What does this mean?
The IEng will be considered technician?
 12 April 2010 12:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Publically the IET will agree with almost anything the government does and then where there are disagreements they will be in private.

I would suggest that the new council is only required because the ECUK have done such a dismal job on behalf of 'technicians'.

Regards.
 12 April 2010 02:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Frank Peacock

Posts: 61
Joined: 29 August 2006

Why don't we all stop this moaning and get on with wiring 13 Amp Plugs. Like they want you to.
 12 April 2010 03:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1867
Joined: 01 April 2006

I don't know the date this article was written from The School of Engineering Leeds University but allows insight to what's one university thinks of engineering.
(Only for information).Below is an abstract if you want to read the full article the web site is below.

Engineering has suffered from a long decline in applications, leaving University Engineering departments with fewer students, less money and staff and the threat of closure. "Engineers are seen as dull conformists". This is one of the caricatures, which acts as an unhelpful but possibly recognisable means of reinforcing our collective and frequently ill informed preconception.
Engineering courses are therefore being "re-branded" to make them more attractive to students - and many universities are claiming a dramatic improvement in the applications. Instead of terms such as 'engineering' and 'industry' universities prefer to use the words 'technology' and 'business'. When staff go into schools to encourage applications, instead of talking about 'manufacturing' they say they're technologists in the business of 'creating'. "You can either change the product or you can change the name - and we've decided to keep the same core knowledge, but change the packaging". [Ruxton 99]

http://www.hull.ac.uk/engprogr...rs/LMUgwaterworth.pdf

Regards
John
 12 April 2010 04:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for aramsay.
aramsay

Posts: 76
Joined: 27 January 2002

At the Engineering Council we view the development of the Technician Council as wholly positive for the profession. At the very least it will give a boost to our own efforts to promote the value of engineering technician registration (which have resulted in four years of growth in that grade). The Working Group that developed the proposal was keen to use the EngTech template as the basis for developing registration for science and health technicians.

The question of IEng was seen as peripheral to EngTech. It was strongly agreed that there should be clear opportunities for progression to IEng-level qualifications, but it became clear that it wasn't only the engineering profession that has problems with terminology. As pmiller pointed out earlier today, some professions have succeded in gaining chartered status for their "technologists". However others see them as "higher technicians". The differences in practice across the economy make it unlikely there will be any attempt to force the engineering profession to accept a one-size-fits-all policy.

-------------------------
aramsay
 12 April 2010 04:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rar

Posts: 642
Joined: 30 August 2005

Dear Aramsay,
tell us,please,if the IEng remains as "professional engineer" or will be classified "technician".
Tank you
 12 April 2010 05:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Frank Peacock

Posts: 61
Joined: 29 August 2006

Let's have a rebrand. The UKindustry could group all the final stage engineers in one box then go on and create whatever the government wants as a respectable intermediate. That's to simple so I suppose we are doomed to carry on with this farcical 30 year running sore all dressed up as something new. I cannot wait to see if there is a reissue of all the platitudes along the lines of many IEngs do do useful and responsible things at a high level which does just so slightly take the shine off the qualification by feint praise which has the effect of making IEng seem worth less than it is. Kind of making IEng a sort of a consolation prize for not winning a beauty contest where the stake holders were on the on the judging panel.
 12 April 2010 06:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

The problem nowadays is that these people who create these quangos simply talk and then seize on any piece of data which makes their effort seem successful whilst at the same time taking some 'fat-cat' salary. Of course there are some positives, as always, but the question is are those positives enough or could more have been achieved by actually sorting out the existing schemes and people that run them.....maybe get shot of some of the dead wood for a change instead of re-branding them.

What will happen is a few people who would have gone through one route will now go through another route, and actually there will be no overall increase which could not have otherwise been achieved by giving the same resources to existing schemes, and yet those who set the quango up will claim 'great success'. They will then reward themselves generously with a large salary increase and probably even a knighthood or two thrown in for good measure.

Engineering does not need re-branding it needs explaining by people who have the ability to do it. Both the Tories and NuLabour have allowed engineering to decline and now the country is in a state all of sudden hey presto we need engineers and technicians again......what we need is to get shot of the dead wood lawyers that have been running the country and put the engineers in charge.

I'm voting for mbirdi, for PM, by the way

Regards.
 12 April 2010 06:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Mr. Andrew Ramsey,

Has actually responded to one of our discussion forums with only a few months before his retirement. Is he actually looking for a pat on the back for supporting this endeavour,considering he was part of Lord Sainsbury's team.?

Instead of forever promoting CEng as the Golden Boys of Engineering, (this is not a knock on CEng's), the Engineering Council decided a few years ago to promote Technicians, and IEng is still lost somwhere in between.

As the CEO of the Engineering Council, I think any of the confusion that has come about can in my mind be pointed towards Mr. Ramsey, who is the CEO and obviously gave guidance for the directions that the EngC., should be heading. And reading several of the responses above as well as the links, it appears there will be more confusion ahead.

In response to our friend Frank Peacock, I as a Mechanical Engineer am not a wiring expert , but I can wire plugs and do a few other odd jobs as well.
 12 April 2010 07:35 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: danielscott
And reading several of the responses above as well as the links, it appears there will be more confusion ahead.

Good point, but the thing is these people tell us they are 'simplifying' things and think we are thick enough to believe them. In 20 years time when they have retired, and are sitting pretty, things will be more complicated and then up will stand some puff head and say "hey let's re-brand or simplify" and the next hare brained idea will be born. It's the same old dead wood that allowed it to get messed up that now say they can sort it out......yes quit and go serve fries at McD's and let's get some new blood in to sort it out.

Regards.
 13 April 2010 05:06 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Frank Peacock

Posts: 61
Joined: 29 August 2006

Daniel

I am also a Mechanical Engineer. The wiring plugs was a provacative remark which I hoped would bring out some useful discussions and comments. Which I believe it has done.

We are still the lost ones. For myself after a career spanning 46 years its no longer relevent. However for those who are starting out a better system should be developed that gives them a clear progression path with some certainty of real recognition. No Bull whatsit give them something real.

Originally the Tech Eng (a pre IEng) qualification was to be a UK route like the German VDE Engineers. That is with same status as the degree qualified engineers but via a different route. What went wrong? The Germans don't spend their lives saying that some of their VDEs do usefull things do they. No. That class of self destructive statement is a British speciality. Sort of I all right but my mates well a bit not so good is he. Whatever it was that went wrong, as an observer over 40 years it appears to me that it is going wrong again in just the same way for probably the same reasons.

To all those Engineers who who number youselfs amongst the cream of the cream and don't believe an I Eng can hack it. Who worry about our ability and design competence to work alone unsurervised by your good selves. Every time you put your foot on the brake of a car or truck without jacknifing or skidding out of control it is because an EITB Approved Apprentice who later became an IEng worked out how to sense the load on each axle and adjust the braking power to each accordingly. How many times have I saved your life??

If I hang around long enough who knows they may even rebrand me down again. I could become considered as an apprentice again without being consulted.

Kind regards Frank
 13 April 2010 05:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: Frank Peacock
If I hang around long enough who knows they may even rebrand me down again. I could become considered as an apprentice again without being consulted.
Kind regards Frank

Those at the top need to keep re-branding because it keeps them in a job and glory. When things are stable, and OK, people start to look at those at the top and ask why they are needed and thus they keep changing things in order that we seemingly need them to keep changing things some more. It's all gimmics and 'catch phrases' these days and it devalues engineering as a whole.

Thanks for the brake job, I have used mine to great effect albeit left it a bit late on occasions.

Regards.
 13 April 2010 06:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

There are 3 things that are relevant to an engineer as follows:

1. Education in University or College
2. Experience in industry
3. Professional recognition from the likes of IET and EC

In the case of 1 and 2, those with higher education such as HND/HNC with some years experience are recognised for admission to postgraduate Degrees. Industry also recognises HND/HNC holders with experience for employment in jobs where Degrees are normally required.

However in the case of 3, the IET and EC recognises HND/HNC holders with considerable experience as those with HND/HNCs who have just left College.

Furthermore, the IET and EC want to encourage engineers to 'Get Registered' as they recognise the shortages in skilled Engineers and Technicians, but then set rigorous membership and registration criteria before admitting anyone in. This puts the IET and EC in direct contradiction with the way industry and employers work.

The IET and EC seem to want to have their cake and eat it. It's rather like setting the standards for recruiting soldiers into the SAS and then complaining there is a shortage of soldiers in the armed forces.

The IEng registration is now totally useless as far as professional recognition goes now that it's linked to Technician level qualification. It should be clear that anyone above NVQ level 3, i.e. HNC upwards plus just one years experience can describe themselves as Engineering Technicians without paying membership and registration subscriptions. That's what millions of engineers with higher education qualification and experience already are. So why pay £169 to confirmed that?

I think IEng members should now consider their position in the IET and decide whether to remain in status quo and pay the millions to supplement the lavish lifestyles of the cronies in charge or cancel their subscription for next year.

Edited: 13 April 2010 at 08:11 PM by mbirdi
 13 April 2010 07:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1867
Joined: 01 April 2006

Mbirdi - welcome to the Chartered Incorporated Engineer Technologist (CIET) thread your last post did not materialise could you input again.
Regards.
 13 April 2010 08:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sbrown2

Posts: 97
Joined: 25 July 2008

As somebody who is currently in the process of preparing for the I Eng interview process I hope you would forgive me for being maybe a little demorilised by this and some of the similar threads. But this is not the case as my academic background, B Eng Mining Electrical Engineer, just a mere ordinary degree only ever allowed me to aspire to this level of competency without additional study. Furthermore I remember, previous to completion of my studies, when lesser academic qualifications and a EC examination and not long out of studying you could be a C Eng (granted this was in the mining institute, but I am sure this is well regarded).
In my valued opinion a I Eng (Engineering Technologist would be my preferred choice) should be a valuble qualification within industry and people who seem to portray it in a negative manner ( are these mostly C Engs?!) should have the knowledge to clearly understand this and exploit this skills in a positive manner.
 13 April 2010 09:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mbirdi

How about Chartered Certified Incorporated Dogs Bolx Engineer or CCIDBEng for short?
Sorry but my particle transporter isn't working quite as well as it should, which could result in information not materialising in their correct order or making any sense.

Ask some of your mates in the other institution to work on it for you.....

You made some good points so something worked.

Regards.
Statistics

See Also:



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