IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Decline in the number of IEng registered engineers
Topic Summary:
Created On: 02 April 2012 03:54 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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.
 28 June 2013 10:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: AndyTaylor
You are not being clear on what you mean by a 'use by date' for qualifications. I was under the impression that what you meant was that if you have not applied for CEng by the time the 'use by date' has expired, then you will not be able to apply. However your second sentence above negates that by suggesting that experience alone could be applied when the qualification 'use by date' has expired, and in that case I would argue that what you are suggesting is what we currently have and so I'm not sure what your point is?

You raised that qualifications should also be refreshed so as to keep things equal with CPD, if there were to be mandatory CPD. I then offered a solution and said that once a qualification has been achieved then it should only be allowed to be used in the CEng application process for some years after, and thus not indefinitely. That would mean where it was used for part of the competency requirements it would not be 'stale'. After CEng is acheived the mandatory CPD would go someway to keeping the competencies up-to-date.....it no longer matters about the qualification going stale because CEng has been achieved and CPD keeps that competency fresh.

You then raised that my solution would prevent 'competent engineers' applying who's quals use by date had expired. I simply stated that if they were competent as you suggested then they could apply anyway and use their experience. After all, based on what you said about 'stale qualifications' you could not then consider them to be competent with those stale qualifications and thus if they were competent as you suggested then by default that must be by their work experience. As you gained CEng with a stale qualification then that must be based primarily on work experience and thus by your own example CEng would also be open to the other competent engineers.
My point when I posted (25 June 07:58) was to counter the usual mbirdi CEng bashing where he suggests that anyone with a CEng can sit back and do nothing and retire with a CEng. That of course applies regardless of whether someone has a CEng or not.

Well technically they can and so he was correct. That someone can do the same with a degree is irrelevant because it does not change what the CEng can do. If I do something wrong it does not make it ok just because someone else is doing something wrong. CEng should be maintained with CPD, regardless of what happens elsewhere.
People retire with degrees, the degree isn't taken away, Doctors retire, yet they are still called doctors, when an engineer retires they are retired engineers, what's the big difference?

ok Andy as you wish to use doctors as your example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/hea...every-five-years.html
"Doctors to be re-assessed every five years"
I also pointed out that any active professional engineer in a major company will not want to sit back and take it easy, and will not be allowed to, CPD will be practiced by any competent engineer and any half decent company will make the process mandatory anyway.

Any competent engineer will keep up-to-date anyway and thus IEng and CEng are a complete waste of time because they cannot indentify the difference between the engineer who maintains CPD and the one who does not anymore than other methods of evaluation. Any half decent company will know how to properly recruit and evaluate an engineer, and require them to keep up to date, and thus in reality CEng status is not required and in any event is of no more value than a qualification and relevant work experience.

Regards.
 28 June 2013 10:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: MosheW
Many Engineers learn from their work, its a great source of CPD as well.

Then why do you need CEng?

Regards.
 28 June 2013 10:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: Brian Robertson
I agree with Andy.
CPD is practiced by competent engineers.

So all engineers who do not maintain CPD are not competent then?
Also
Registered engineers have made the effort to go get professional recognition IEng / CEng and in doing so have
- completed reports to satisfy standards set
- passed interview with 3 peer engineers to satisfy standards set
- produced professional development plans to satisfy standards set
- been confirmed competent engineers by their fellow engineering peers

If they were competent 1 second after receiving CEng status then they were competent 1 second before it because they were not learning new engineering during that 1 second. Therefore if they were already competent before having CEng they were competent when they were not registered as CEng.

So why exactly does a competent engineer need CEng?
Unregistered engineers have not done the above, why?

Probably because they were competent enough to know they did not need to be CEng in order to be competent.
I would suggest go get registered and get IEng / CEng?

I would suggest instead get good qualifications and carry out engineering work and let that speak for your competency, after all it is your work which says how competent you are and not a status which does not even require mandatory CPD.

Regards.
 28 June 2013 11:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

CEng is a registration and a qualification. It is awarded to an Engineer who demonstrated education, training, experience and adherence to UK Spec It shows that his/hers trend is including CPD.
I was asked about my CPD during the PRI interview. And also provided evidence of CPD with an application.

The CPD was maintained yearly for other reasons, not just for CEng and the trend continues after achieving the CEng registration
If you show me that you get CPD of CEng or IEng level yearly for 10 years I have good reason to believe you will continue to get CPD
in the future.

I'm applying for MCGI from City and Guilds based on my CEng.
Its a great credential comparible to MEng level and NVQ level 7 .

Technology in 21st centiry is changing rapidly, CPD is very important.

When I see a person with post-nominals of EngTech, IEng or CEng
I see a person who proved to followed trend of CPD.
Its like credit if you have a good record in paying on time then you have a better credit - credibility.


IET announce that the new Career Manager is live and ready to use.
Career Manager v3 offers you great new features, including:

Online access to professional registration application process


Improved IPD (Initial Professional Development) with assessments against UK-SPEC - including reminders and reports


Richer CPD (Continuing Professional Development) recording and reporting functionality - log activities quickly and easily


New IET Accredited Scheme functionality


Integration with MyIET - no duplication


Improved access for line managers and mentors.
For a detailed list of the functionality and benefits v3 has to offer click here.

Edited: 28 June 2013 at 11:17 PM by MosheW
 29 June 2013 12:21 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: MosheW
If you show me that you get CPD of CEng or IEng level yearly for 10 years I have good reason to believe you will continue to get CPD
in the future.

Take a look at the ISO quality standards.....please then explain where it says if your past checks for 10 years are good then there is no need to check in the future and instead to can rely on your beliefs.

The issue with some CEng is that when people talk about those who do not maintain CPD or else continue to work in engineering but still maintain the status, they take it personally and come to the forums to start talking about themselves and how they maintain CPD and are still in engineering etc.

Valid issues are raised the IEng/CEng go into the well we maintain CPD by our own choice, half decent companies require it anyway, competent engineers do it anyway, I'm not sure how all engineers would be able to maintain it, there would be issues with the logistics, well what about stale qualifications, what about doctors who are retired, etc.

When CEng can come to these forums and begin to critically analyse the process for achieving it and maintaining it then we will know they are truly competent.
When I see a person with post-nominals of EngTech, IEng or CEng. I see a person who proved to followed trend of CPD.

When I see those post nominals I see those post nominals and thereafter I will look for evidence of CPD. The reason why I look for evidence is because the IET are not doing it for me and thus I must always check myself. I do this because I am a competent engineer and not just a person who thinks I am because I have post nominals. Maybe the CEng gained that status 10 years ago and had never maintained proper CPD, but you would still see the post nominals as indicating 'proof they followed a trend of CPD' whereas I would be checking.

Mandatory CPD is a minimum requirement for IEng/CEng, not voluntary.

Regards.
 29 June 2013 04:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Originally posted by: westonpa

Originally posted by: MosheW

If you show me that you get CPD of CEng or IEng level yearly for 10 years I have good reason to believe you will continue to get CPD

in the future.


Take a look at the ISO quality standards.....please then explain where it says if your past checks for 10 years are good then there is no need to check in the future and instead to can rely on your beliefs.



The issue with some CEng is that when people talk about those who do not maintain CPD or else continue to work in engineering but still maintain the status, they take it personally and come to the forums to start talking about themselves and how they maintain CPD and are still in engineering etc.



Valid issues are raised the IEng/CEng go into the well we maintain CPD by our own choice, half decent companies require it anyway, competent engineers do it anyway, I'm not sure how all engineers would be able to maintain it, there would be issues with the logistics, well what about stale qualifications, what about doctors who are retired, etc.



When CEng can come to these forums and begin to critically analyse the process for achieving it and maintaining it then we will know they are truly competent.

When I see a person with post-nominals of EngTech, IEng or CEng. I see a person who proved to followed trend of CPD.


When I see those post nominals I see those post nominals and thereafter I will look for evidence of CPD. The reason why I look for evidence is because the IET are not doing it for me and thus I must always check myself. I do this because I am a competent engineer and not just a person who thinks I am because I have post nominals. Maybe the CEng gained that status 10 years ago and had never maintained proper CPD, but you would still see the post nominals as indicating 'proof they followed a trend of CPD' whereas I would be checking.



Mandatory CPD is a minimum requirement for IEng/CEng, not voluntary.



Regards.


Until a real study is done what you state is a speculation.

I agree about importance of CPD but I also see in CEng a symbol of
trust so until there is a study that clearly shows that CEng are not
geting CPD and in what percentage I hold a position that they 95 % do get sufficient CPD.

As to hiring a prospective employee , there is a whole process going on. this includes verification of experience, and type of projects the Engineer worked on, level of responsibility etc.

Some employers will actually have you to write an exam. etc.

But again, to me if you are a CEng my initial assumption you are a Professional Engineer who brings competence, CPD is an integral part of your career.

Unless some one will bring a valid study to prove the opposite the negative talk is just that a negative talk.

But if mandatory CPD will be instituted, it will in a way say to me CEng are not to be trusted to maintain their own CPD etc.
I don't like the message.

Yet I agree that CPD is very important, it is especially now that technology changes , new technologies emerge very fast.

A parallel optional certificate of current competence can be a compromise. CEng , IEng etc can be offered such certificate on a 5 year renewal basis.
 01 July 2013 10:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 164
Joined: 24 November 2002

Originally posted by: westonpa
1. ..... they take it personally and come to the forums to start talking about themselves and how they maintain CPD and are still in engineering etc.

2. Valid issues are raised the IEng/CEng go into the well we maintain CPD by our own choice, half decent companies require it anyway, competent engineers do it anyway, I'm not sure how all engineers would be able to maintain it, there would be issues with the logistics, well what about stale qualifications, what about doctors who are retired, etc.

3. When CEng can come to these forums and begin to critically analyse the process for achieving it and maintaining it then we will know they are truly competent.


1. It's pretty clear that you are referring to me, if so you are again misunderstanding my intentions and perhaps I can at least get the message across that I am not taking this personally. Relating a personal situation or experience with the aim of explaining a viewpoint does not necessarily make that a personal issue.

2. Could you please explain the point you are trying to make in that paragraph? You start off with 'Valid issues are raised' but the rest of the paragraph has a dismissive tone?

3. To your satisfaction? I would say that the IET / EC have already analysed the process over a number of years, have you been in contact with them to express your views and suggestions?

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 01 July 2013 04:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 521
Joined: 14 September 2010

I have tried to follow Westonpa's argument in this thread, but to no avail.

Westonpa - you manage to disagree with every point raised regardless of what "side" of the debate it comes from. You even manage to consistently contradict yourself, often in the same post.

I'm sure I'm not alone here in not having a clue about what your stance on registration is, other than it is contrary to what everybody else says, regardless of what they actually say.

Instead of arguing with every point made (even your own) for the sake of it, why not clarify what your views are on this subject?

There are people that come to this particular thread for information about IEng, so I am sure the valid views of a professional engineer would be more than interesting.

kind regards
W
 02 July 2013 01:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Originally posted by: Zuiko


There are people that come to this particular thread for information about IEng, so I am sure the valid views of a professional engineer would be more than interesting.



Like every other thread in this discussion forum, it generally goes of subject.

The Message Title is: "Decline in the number of IEng registered engineers". Not debating CPD, who does, or who doesn't.

Daniel
 02 July 2013 05:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1861
Joined: 01 April 2006

Well at least Incorporated Engineers equal Chartered in Australia and still keep engineering in the title.

IET Grade Engineers Australia Occupational Category

Chartered Engineer = Chartered professional Engineer
Incorporated Engineer = Chartered Engineering Technologist
Engineering Technician = Chartered Engineering Associate

http://www.engineersaustralia....%20Forms/mra_form.pdf


The snag is (what also talked about on this thread), is CPD. Australia lists the requirement. Difficult to keep a record of what is required 150 hours of CPD, in this country UK don't do that sort of thing (well maybe some lectures run by professional bodies) the rest you would need to find yourself, I suppose they would exist in Higher Education colleges, but who would sign off the hours put in.


From web site below:
Chartered Professional Engineers, Chartered Engineering Technologists and Chartered Engineering Associates should be aware of the obligation to meet the Continuing Professional Development Policy.
Minimum requirement
Your CPD records must document a minimum of 150 hours of structured CPD over a three-year period* **.
Specific requirements
For all practitioners, of the 150 hours:
At least 50 hours must relate to your area(s) of practice
At least 10 hours must cover risk management
At least 15 hours must address business and management skills
The remainder must cover a range of activities relevant to your career & interests.

*For engineering academics and teachers: in addition to the 150 hours, practitioners must demonstrate at least 40 hours industry involvement in any three-year period. (If the industry involvement satisfies the other CPD criteria, it may be included as part of the submitted CPD hours. Otherwise, the industry involvement is an additional requirement.)
">http://www.engineersau...ia......development


Maybe to have compulsory CPD in UK would not be a bad idea and then Chartered Engineer Technologist, in place of Incorporated Engineer. Well it should appeal to IT personal anyhow.

Edited: 02 July 2013 at 05:45 PM by jcm256
 02 July 2013 10:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: AndyTaylor
1. It's pretty clear that you are referring to me, if so you are again misunderstanding my intentions and perhaps I can at least get the message across that I am not taking this personally. Relating a personal situation or experience with the aim of explaining a viewpoint does not necessarily make that a personal issue.

Fair point.
2. Could you please explain the point you are trying to make in that paragraph? You start off with 'Valid issues are raised' but the rest of the paragraph has a dismissive tone?

OK you maintain CPD and I do not and we both hold the same status, is that a good standard for the status?

OK you maintain CPD and so do I, is that a good standard for the status?

There is a decline in IEng because it does not represent anything more than qualifications and work experience and in addition it lacks a brand name. If the IET are going to start saying it is something special and worthwhile having then that also starts with setting it apart from stale qualifications and that is along the lines of keeping it fresh. Keep it fresh by mandatory CPD. You already do it and your company requires it, so why does your company require it and not instead just leave it voluntary as does the IET?

It's too easy to argue against IEng and CEng and use arguments which devalue them. Now CEng has a brand and is more robust and thus may withstand those arguments but IEng is less robust and is easily knocked back or down. Mandatory CPD means the IET can argue that the status is always kept up-to-date and there are benefits to that when trying to sell it to employers.
3. To your satisfaction? I would say that the IET / EC have already analysed the process over a number of years, have you been in contact with them to express your views and suggestions?

We know what the IET think because Roy comes to these forums and gives us his reasonable and considered opinions. Whatever mine or mbirdi's opinions it does not stop the IET/EC running IEng/CEng as they want does it, after all we are only giving opinions. We are arguing for mandatory CPD most others more or less want to keep the status quo. I would suggest that it is our argument which is for the higher standards. Most companies have ISO standards to improve their businesses, auditing and continual improvement are mandatory in order to keep the standard. The voluntary part is to choose whether or not to go for the standard and whether or not to then keep it. If I were marketing ISO, in preference to another standard, I wonder how easy it would be if I were to say well guys you can audit if you want and continually improve if you want.....but hey it's a great standard.

Regards.
 02 July 2013 11:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: Zuiko
I'm sure I'm not alone here in not having a clue about what your stance on registration is, other than it is contrary to what everybody else says, regardless of what they actually say.

I have been discussing with Mr Taylor, mbirdi, Mr Millar, Mr Parr and co for quite some time and they are more than capable of speaking for themselves.

Regards.
 03 July 2013 06:10 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



missTinkertools

Posts: 1
Joined: 03 July 2013

Hi,

Just got in and I want to thank everybody who has made it possible for me to have such a humongous database available to me, more importantly of technology giants, many of whom I hope to interact with.

I am a maxillofacial surgeon and may not be directly construed as a technologist but please allow me to give my two-cents.

IEng is very much relevant today than ever before with all the iphones and iPads and androids being sold in the market.

However, my take is the decline could be a marketing problem and many young upstarts do not appreciate the diplomas and all. Latest trend could be traced to info-by-demand as symbolized by Google et al.

This is a complex situation that need heaps and heaps of studies, however. Assessing the situation may take more than just a brief dip into the matter.

Thanks.
 03 July 2013 08:20 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 164
Joined: 24 November 2002

Originally posted by: westonpa
We know what the IET think because Roy comes to these forums and gives us his reasonable and considered opinions. Whatever mine or mbirdi's opinions it does not stop the IET/EC running IEng/CEng as they want does it, after all we are only giving opinions. We are arguing for mandatory CPD most others more or less want to keep the status quo. I would suggest that it is our argument which is for the higher standards. Most companies have ISO standards to improve their businesses, auditing and continual improvement are mandatory in order to keep the standard. The voluntary part is to choose whether or not to go for the standard and whether or not to then keep it. If I were marketing ISO, in preference to another standard, I wonder how easy it would be if I were to say well guys you can audit if you want and continually improve if you want.....but hey it's a great standard.


Thanks for the constructive reply.

I agree with the principle, though I do not have enough data to be able to gauge the added value. I suppose that people in my position would have no problems with mandatory CPD and the methods described in jcm256's post seem quite reasonable, but there are in excess of 200,000 engineers to assess. If mandatory CPD ever did come into effect what seems like an obvious extension to me is that it should also be mandatory for a minimum period before an application for registration.

Daniel,

CPD of course apples to all levels of registration (and in my opinion should apply to all engineers registered or not), so I think it can be useful to discuss this in relation to the title of this thread and I don't see it as drastically off-topic. If CPD was mandatory before registration then a product of the process could be an indication of when a person is ready for registration and what type (which I believe is one of the aims of the IET Career Manager);

Career Manager

If someone is informed in such a way that they are ready to apply for IEng, then maybe they might just go ahead and do so?

Originally posted by: pmiller2006The IEng competencies will effectively become a weaker subset of the CEng competencies. How this is supposed to make IEng more attractive I am not sure, unless the intention is to reposition IEng as an intermediate stage prior to becoming chartered.


That would in my opinion be quite a retrograde step. My company promotes both IEng and CEng as appropriate, and within the company there are roles which are particularly suited to each set of skills, we have very senior engineers in our production area who naturally fall into the IEng category and equally senior engineers in the design area who naturally fall into the CEng category. IEng is not promoted as a stepping-stone to CEng, but I'm sure that even so there is still a stigma attached to IEng at the individual level that will get worse if competency requirements are changed to make IEng a weaker subset of CEng. Surely changes to competency requirements should be emphasising the differences between CEng / IEng?

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 04 July 2013 11:47 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



brian65

Posts: 5
Joined: 04 June 2013

My experience of the the educational requirements form a non degee holder with a career path through the hnc/d route is there is far to much emphasise on the degree route to this qualification with no worthwhile information on work based/part time career route the work/training route all seem to demand apprenticeship qualifications or its spend /spend/spend with no proper advice or qualification framework then theirs no job gaurentee
 04 July 2013 07:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
The Engineering Council do have a problem because any upgrading of IEng could result in devaluing chartered status.


That is correct. However, engineers are supposed to be problem solvers; So if the EC body, which is supposed to represent the countries best engineers, cannot solve this long standing problem with IEng registration, then it can only be down to one thing - incompetence.

When we suggested changing the IEng title to CCEng and other calls suggested adding chartered to IEng, i.e CIEng, the best response from the IET was the Privy council were reluctant to award chartered status to non-graduate engineers, i.e HNC etc.

But then look what happened several years later? They're only allowing onc, hnc engineers to register as CEng. So how come the Privy council are happy with that?

In my opinion the people in-charge of running the IETand EC are retired folks who only know how to play at being adminstrators and managers and have long since left their enginering skills behind. That is why they are so loath to change with the times. They're only in it for themselves to pocket the salaries and pensions at the cost of members' need for recognition. They just haven't got a clue what they're doing.

My proposal would be to scrap the IEng registration and offer an aggregated route to CEng. I.e. they should just list their experiences since achieving IEng status to gain CEng status.
 06 July 2013 03:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



olcay

Posts: 73
Joined: 03 July 2007

Originally posted by: mbirdi

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

The Engineering Council do have a problem because any upgrading of IEng could result in devaluing chartered status.


That is correct. However, engineers are supposed to be problem solvers; So if the EC body, which is supposed to represent the countries best engineers, cannot solve this long standing problem with IEng registration, then it can only be down to one thing - incompetence.

... They just haven't got a clue what they're doing.



.

Could not agree more mate.
The Engineering Council never wanted to solve this problem. They have just lied low and are waiting for IEng to DIE.
Our mistake was to give up our Chartered Institution in order to form a new IET . In doing so we have commited suicide. We deserve what we are getting now in return.
 07 July 2013 12:23 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Originally posted by: olcay

Originally posted by: mbirdi



Originally posted by: pmiller2006



The Engineering Council do have a problem because any upgrading of IEng could result in devaluing chartered status.




That is correct. However, engineers are supposed to be problem solvers; So if the EC body, which is supposed to represent the countries best engineers, cannot solve this long standing problem with IEng registration, then it can only be down to one thing - incompetence.



... They just haven't got a clue what they're doing.







.


Could not agree more mate.

The Engineering Council never wanted to solve this problem. They have just lied low and are waiting for IEng to DIE.

Our mistake was to give up our Chartered Institution in order to form a new IET . In doing so we have commited suicide. We deserve what we are getting now in return.


I was obsorbed in to IIE by merging of Institute of Engineers and Technicians in to forming IIE.

What is the difference between IEng MIIE and IEng MIET?
I don't see any, internationally they are the same at Engineering Technologist level. What was offered by IIE that is not offered by IET?
In both cases one is a member of UK Chartered Institute.

Why not do what Engineers Australia do or Ireland?
I don't see complains there from the Technologist group.

Chartered Professional Engineer (CPEng)
Chartered Engineering Technologist (CEngT)
Chartered Engineering Associate (CEngA).

Engineering Executive (EngExec)

As some one who benefited from IEng registration I always knew that CEng is the final goal.
Today I'm a new registered CEng.
 07 July 2013 11:47 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: MosheW
As some one who benefited from IEng registration I always knew that CEng is the final goal.

pmiller has of course been saying for quite some time than the IET/EC market IEng as a lesser status and that is part of the problem. Roy, on behalf of the IET, comes here and says it is an equal but different status. However you have helped to make pmillers' point.
Today I'm a new registered CEng.

How many CEng do you think have changed to IEng or else seen IEng as their final goal?

Regards.
 07 July 2013 02:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

I think if you compare UK SPEC for IEng and CEng you see that the requirements for CEng are more demanding. Wile IEng
requirements are impressive they are not equal, they are different.in some areas.

As a CEng I just applied fpr MCGI from City and Guilds. IEng can apply for GCGI.
I was really proud to be IEng.
But from the beginning I knew it was at Level 6 wile CEng at level 7.

In my home country 99% of the time to be employed as an Engineer one needed a degree or qualification on BEng level.
Since IEng is mapped to BEng level I always knew it was an Engineer.
To me a CEng was for more experienced professioal (MAster Engineer)

Also how many incorporated Accountants are there? Or Incorporated Chemist?

In UK from what I see the tradition is that dominating symbol of professional is a Chartered Professional.

Chartered Accountant (CA)
Chartered Alternative Investment Analyst (CAIA)
Chartered Arboriculturist/Chartered Forester (MICFor)[1]
Chartered Architect (RIBA)[2]
Chartered Biologist (CBiol)[3]
Chartered Builder (CIOB)[4]
Chartered Chemist (CChem)[5]
Chartered Colourist (CCol)[6]
Chartered Cost Accountant (CCA)[7]
Chartered Certified Accountant (ACCA)
Chartered Director (CDir)[8]
Chartered Engineer (CEng)[9]
Chartered Economic Analyst (ChEA)[10]
Chartered Environmental Health Practitioner
Chartered Environmentalist (CEnv)[11]
Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA)[12]
Chartered Financial Planner
Chartered Geographer (CGeog)[13]
Chartered IT Professional (CITP)[14]
Chartered Institute of Management Accountants
Chartered Instititue of Personnel and Development (CIPD)[15]
Chartered Insurer
Chartered Insurance Practitioner
Chartered Insurance Broker
Chartered Legal Executive (FCILEx)[16] and Chartered Legal Executive Advocates
Chartered Landscape Architect (CMLI)[17]
Chartered Librarian (MCLIP)[18]
Chartered Marketer[19]
Chartered Linguist (CL)[20]
Chartered Mathematician (CMath)[21]
Chartered Mathematics Teacher (CMathTeach)[22]
Chartered Manager (CMgr)[23]
Chartered Meteorologist (CMet) [24]
Chartered Physicist (CPhys)[25]
Chartered Psychologist (CPsychol)[26]
Chartered Quality Professional (CQP)[27]
Chartered Radiation Protection Professional (CRadP)[28]
Chartered Secretary (ACIS)[29]
Chartered Scientist (CSci)
Chartered Security Professional (CSyP)
Chartered Statistician (CStat)
Chartered Surveyor (MRICS)[30]

I think a Chartered Engineer Technologist can be a respectful addition, maybe IEng should become CEngT?
Statistics

See Also:



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