When I read through the forum with regard to engineer and technologist issues, I am in a sense of blur.

For IEng, meaning that he is an engineer or a technologist?
IEng inside UK is consider engineer but outside UK is consider technologist.

Again my question is IEng define as an engineer or a technologist?
If IEng is define as a technologist outside UK, then this title will be meaningless as technologist is not equal to engineer.

I hope EC/IET will come out with something to help IEng registrant in order to make IEng as engineer globally.

YungYaw Lai
BEng(Hons) GCGI IEng MIET MIEEE

The terms "Engineer" and "Technologist" are used differently and sometimes interchangeably in different countries. This has arisen in a previous thread and I highlighted that NASA is led by a "Chief Technologist" and the term "Chief Technology Officer" or similar is in common use. Engineering Council in its international role negotiates agreements which inevitably involve compromises. The IET encourages its registered professional members in whatever country to take pride in their achievement and exert influence to ensure that this is respected by others locally. Unfortunately the only way to counteract ignorance of IEng is to explain the competency requirements set out in UK-SPEC. All the professional registrations governed by Engineering Council demonstrate equally important but different roles. I regularly meet excellent Technicians who carry out highly skilled "mission critical" activities, they are just as important, valuable and entitled to respect as a CEng or IEng, they just do different things. Most cultures imbue the "learned" with greater respect, but engineering is a blend of science and practice, we shouldn't undervalue the practical part. Most cultures also value artists! I expect that IET members who hold any registered title demonstrate its value by the quality of their work and distinguish themselves by their professional approach. Respect and recognition come from each of our contributions and its benefit to our employer and/or society. For me this is more important than any semantics or arguments about the relative "status" of different types of professional registrants.

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

I agree with Roy in terms of his assessment of the definition of technician/technologist/engineer and the equal importance of each. However, from an international perspective, these are minority views and in some jurisdictions the consensus is that technologists and technicians are certainly not equal and may only work under the direct supervision of a professional engineer. In the case of the NSPE, they have a very negative and backward view of technologists and technicians, no wonder American infrastructure is in such a bad state and the American car industry has failed to produce a decent car for 50 years! We hear also that in some states in Australia technologists are not considered capable of basic engineering calculations.

The Engineering Council, do not need to make compromises where the net effect is a devalue the position of incorporated engineers.

This is really what I am strongly up against.
The Engineering Council SHOULD NOT MAKE COMPROMISES ON BEHALF AND AT THE EXPENSE OF "INCORPORATED ENGINEERS" .
IN FACT EC-UK IS DEGRADING ALL BRITISH FIRST CYCLE DEGREES.
EC-UK has made such a mess that one is better of not using IEng and use only academic titles and MIET instead.
The EC-UK and IET have both compromised and degraded IEng status. THEY HAVE BOTH FAILED INTERNATIONALLY AND SHOULD SHARE THE SHAME EQUALLY.

We are not paying fees to IET and EC-UK to be let down and degraded by their INTERNATIONAL COMPROMISES.

WHY SHOULD WE "IENGS" BE IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN EC-UK SPEC BECAUSE OF EC-UK'S INTERNATIONAL FAILURES.

MAYBE IT IS TIME THAT BOTH EC-UK AND IET ACCEPT THEIR FAILURE AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

I do agree to some degree with olcay about degrading the BEng (Hons) degree. I have one and the hoops you have to jump through to prove further learning doesn't make sense and you get the feeling it has been created to create a customer base for Academia. I'm a Systems Engineer hence there's no point doing a specialist masters degree just for CEng status as my role jumps from Thermodynamics to Chemistry to Electrial and Mechanical Systems. I know there are other routes to CEng status and it should be hard but there isn't much value in doing a Masters unless I move to a Central position and specialise but I like what I do.

Ok, here's a different take on this. I have been CEng for 14 years, I am now taking a Master's degree (dissertation being submitted next week hopefully!). My view is that the academic ability (for want of better words) that I am having to demonstrate for my Master's degree is at exactly the same level as I need to do my job, and it is what I do in my job that qualified me for CEng. So I would agree that being able to work at Master's level is right for CEng. Shouldn't mean you have to actually have a Master's degree, and, as mentioned above, it doesn't - there are other ways of getting CEng.

So I don't se any of this devalues Bachelor's degrees, there always was a requirement for postgraduate development (maybe academic but definitely experiential) before you could achieve CEng (or IEng).

And regarding the post slightly further above (and many others on these forums), maybe one of the requirements for IEng and CEng could be the demonstrated ability to conduct a polite well reasoned discussion without shouting

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

Thanks Andy for your reply and I don't disagree with the principle of your views stated. I was simply highlighting the excessive burden of proof from BEng to MEng level when principally the main difference is the level of Dissertation and non supervised work of the project.

Turning back to the theme, I do find it disturbing that the phrase Technologist has been associated with IEng as this is an Americanism which implies only a limited scope in terms of competency and to my mind devalues the competency base of IEng which is quite substantial. Industry has really let the fraternity of Engineering down in creating a tier system (I know they're trying to correct this now though badly) and not recognizing the diverse competency base which can be tapped. I have a more typical IEng background in terms of Technical College work base experience and knowledge then back to school for a BEng. My colleague I work with is Chartered and went the university route. We both bounce off each other using are strengths to progress work.

If he's looking at an integrated system where a modification is required to increase system reliability or efficiency he'd seek my input as a technical background is advantageous in looking at overarching issues while if I need verification of calculations I'd seek his advice because he is quite clever in this. There should be a more mix of competencies within Engineering groups, especially with the old guards retiring in droves over the next ten years.

Take a look at this;
At a web site IMMInfo.com it says ;
"For USCIS purposes, a three year bachelor's degree cannot ever qualify as a "bachelor's degree" for U.S. immigration purposes - at least on
the basis of educational credentials alone. ..........
a four year foreign degree, standing alone, is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's
degree."

Unless you have a Masters degree , the British degree you already have (even if you are registered as C.Eng.) is a "Technologist" qualification for Americans.

But it then goes on to say;

" - at least on the basis of educational credentials alone.

It is possible to combine three years of full time work experience in the applicant's field of specialization with a three year bachelor's degree to obtain a "bachelor's degree equivalent." A "bachelor's degree equivalent" is not the same thing, however, as a "foreign equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree." In the first instance, the combination of the three years of education and three years of relevant work experience combine to form the equivalent of a bachelor's degree. In the second, a four year foreign degree, standing alone, is the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.

We will discuss the requirements for foreign degree equivalency in another article. For purposes of this article, however, know that a three year bachelor's degree - standing alone - is not the foreign degree equivalent of a U.S. bachelor's degree.

This is significant in that it means that a person with a three year bachelor's degree may not qualify for employment based second preference classification on the basis of that degree and five years of experience. If the same person has the foreign equivalent of a U.S. master's degree, then he or she can qualify for EB2 classification even if the underlying bachelor's degree is a three year program."

I'm not sure I understand that last paragraph though, seems a little contradictory to me?

These links might provide some backgound;

http://imminfo.com/Library/gre...vanced_degree_eb2.html

http://imminfo.com/Library/gre...imum-requirements.html

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET

Edited: 23 July 2012 at 08:08 AM by AndyTaylor

UK degrees are more difficult to study for and obtain, unlike US degrees.

We have also better standards and regulatory enforcement than the US.

Many UK degrees (example - B.Eng) are actually 4 years, with the third year spent in an industry placement, or I guess 'internship' would be the correct US phrase...

A 2005 survey conducted by the Council of Graduate Schools
http://www.cgsnet.org/ revealed that 78% of the institutions that responded indicated
that they would consider holders of three-year degrees for admission to graduate
programs under specific conditions while 22% require four-year degrees. This
would indicate that U.S. graduate schools are open to the new three-year
degrees and that they are willing to consider candidates with strong academic
records


http://www.wes.org/educators/pdf/BolognaPacket.pdf

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco

Edited: 23 July 2012 at 10:35 AM by sunnyboy

The tier system is not only a concept in the field of engineering, the science council are adopting a very similar model see link
http://www.professionalregisters.org/,
The equivalent grade to an incorporated engineer in the scientific field as a 'Registered Scientist', also the Chartered Institute of Builder has a grade of 'Incorporated Builder' as well as Chartered Builder. Unfortunately the take up of all of these second tier qualifications is about one fifth of the take up of the top tier qualification, when one would expect the reverse. The Engineering Council, Science Council, the Gatsby Trust may think it is a wonderful idea, unfortunately no one in the real world of industry is the least bit interested. All companies are concerned about, at the intermediate level, is can someone do the job better and cheaper than someone else. Registration at EngTech and IEng levels is not even on the radar at most companies !

I don't understand this thread. There seems to be a discussion about the term Technologist which is fair enough but what has this to do with Integrated Engineer? IEng = Incorporated Engineer - I can't be the only person who has spotted the key word there surely?

Try googling "incorporated engineer" .
The Engineering Council declares IEng as "Technologist" with their international agreements.(Sydney Accord etc.)
Also IEng cannot apply for EurIng ( European Engineer) or IntPE (international professional Engineer) titles while bachelor degree holders from other countries can . Only registered CEng are allowed to apply through EC-UK .
Keyword here is that IEng is described as an associate by the British Policy makers and also not perceived as a "professional engineer internationally" as declared by the British Engineering Council.

Suggest P Eng be used instead of I Eng. (abbreviation not meaning PE as used in US) C Eng or CPEng would be still regarded as a step up. Many more graduate engineers would register if professional engineer were a protected title in the UK.


THE LEGAL BASIS TO THE TITLE OF CHARTERED ENGINEER
In 1969, Oireachtas Éireann granted to Engineers Ireland the sole statutory power and responsibility for
awarding the title of Chartered Engineer (CEng MIEI) to professional engineers.
1.3 PROFESSIONAL TITLES USED IN OTHER COUNTRIES
The title of Chartered Engineer is recognised internationally as the title to be used by Irish professional
engineers and has the same status as the professional engineering titles used in other countries. For
example, in the US, the title Professional Engineer or PE is used, in Japan the title is Registered Engineer or
RE, in Australia and New Zealand the title is Chartered Professional Engineer or CPEng, while the UK uses the title CEng, as we do.

http://www.engineersireland.ie...r-Regulations-2012.pdf

Professional engineer titles are protected in the UK: CEng, IEng and EngTech. Legal protection isn't the issue graduates (and the IET/EC!) need to consider, it's how much these titles add value.

For an excellent FAQ on the current situation here see http://www.engc.org.uk/statusofengineers.aspx

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

How does that article address the question of how the titles add value?

Let us take this statement 'Taken together, these features of our regulatory system provide assurance, serve to protect the public and give confidence to society as a whole. It is upon such recognition that the status of professional engineers and technicians must rest.'

Question, how does the EC ensure 'professional engineers' maintain their standards over the years?

Regards.

That is a good question. As I've said before, for Chartered Manager you have to renew every couple of years and show you are still credible, which seems much better.

Otherwise, if CEng / IEng is just a snapshot in time (which it is) we shouldn't have to pay each year for it

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

he IET recognises those considering joining as MIET as professional engineers. In other words there are no checks for describing oneself as professional engineer.

Secondly, CEng and IEng are professional titles and not qualifications. That's beause having competency does not imply being qualified. Exam passes are what quantifies qualification.

As a result CEng and IEng engineers come from a variety of academic and practical background.

They [IET and EC] require high standards for registration as a means of insurance against accusation of incompetence. In other words they place trust on the registered engineer should they change job roles, i.e technicial to manager or power engineer to telecomms engineer, they won't place themselves in a position that undermines the integrety of the profession. i.e IET and EC.

It's not a question of maintaining standards of competence, but making sure you don't screw up with something you don't know anything about or have forgotten how to deal with. Always better to get somebody else to sort he problem out and maintain your status.

A past IET president (2010?) educated to PhD level in accoustics, but switched to working as a City Analyst? Completely unconnected with their original level of competence, whilst maintaining their CEng status.

Edited: 14 September 2012 at 06:49 PM by mbirdi

And if the CEng were to switch back in say 15 - 20 years time they would not have had to maintain CPD and yet would still be able to show themselves as a competent Chartered Engineer, and with the institutions stamp of approval.

It is this type of thing that undermines the credibility of the processes required to hold CEng and IEng and yet the relevant institutions have done nothing about it for decades. Are these institutions not run by professional engineers?

Regards.

Actually it is a requirement of registration that you maintain your skills and knowledge and undertake CPD. The fact that with the IET/Engineering Council there is no audit process, and it relies on an honour system is separate.