IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: IEng = Engineer or Technologist?
Topic Summary:
Created On: 07 July 2012 04:00 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 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.
 26 September 2012 02:41 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ngaylard

Posts: 11
Joined: 22 June 2009

Originally posted by: westonpa

Originally posted by: ngaylard

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.


What % of CEng and IEng have maintained their CPD?

Regards.


Haven't got a clue. But based on personal experience everybody that I know who's bothered to get I.Eng or C.Eng is interested in an active and continual learning process.
 26 September 2012 09:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

If people are considered to be professional engineers then we should have a clue. Based on your personal experience it should not be a problem for those you know because it sounds like they are already doing it.
Regards.
 26 September 2012 09:53 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ngaylard

Posts: 11
Joined: 22 June 2009

I agree with you. Engineers Australia have a CPD audit policy for Chartered Engineers and Technologists. Not sure how it works in practice as I decided to retain my IET membership, rather than migrate across.

I'm also a member of the Project Management Institute and they have a strict CPD policy, with excellent infrastructure support for PMP (project management professional). The CPD requirements are defined and in a 3 year period. Certain elements of CPD (e.g. self learning) are limited to a percentage of the total requirement of 60 hours. If you don't maintain the minimum your certification is suspended. On top of this there is a public register that anyone can search to ensure you really do have the title.
 27 September 2012 07:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Engineers are, on the whole, employees of companies. Therefore they will only keep up with competence regarding the area they're working in.

For example, an automobile engineer working on cars based on internal combustion engines isn't going to worry about technology based on battery powered cars, until circumstances in their company change or they've changed their job. An aeronautical engineer working on propeller driven planes isn't going to worry about jet powered planes.

Keeping up with one's area is what all paid engineers would be expected to do. CEngs are no different or special.
 12 May 2013 04:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

If you graduate with a Bachelors (Hon) degree in Spain you can register as Eur Ing - try the same in UK if you are IEng.
Not eligible.
Does Spain's BEng satisfies academic requirement for CEng in UK?
Why can't UK BEng be of the same value?
 13 May 2013 04:39 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1796
Joined: 01 April 2006

MosheW

Ask this person, she should know all about international agreements, and was around at the time Chartered Technologist name change was on offer to incorporate Engineers.

http://www.engc.org.uk/news-li...r-engineering-council


Scientist, engineer, technologist, technician, where does incorporate fit in, what prestige does it have, what purpose does it serve.
The difference between a technologist and technician is hard to define, one reading was the former is able to write and talk about his job in abstract, general terms. Science and technology are essentially public activities.
You suggest a name change (don't know where your post went), one opposition to the name change on offer C Technologist was it did not include the name Engineer and another was opposition from C Engineers.

Good luck anyhow.
Regards
jcm
 14 May 2013 04:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

I think IEng's are in better state today then lets say 2 years ego. The EngC campaign to promote IEng had some success.

What I claim is that not all IEng are equal.

Some one who has a 4 year accredited BEng with substantial experience is not on the same level as HND IEng.

IEngs need to have their own group that is run by IEngs, it can be an arm of IET or independent group.
 14 May 2013 07:26 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Simon750

Posts: 111
Joined: 25 April 2007

Let's see, is it worth me paying fees to an institute and/or ECUK for them not to support me with a true and clear definition?

Simply no.

I left school with O levels, left college with A levels, joined HM Forces. Left the Army and have worked my way up since from an electrician on the tools to a consultant within an international firm.

Lacking the formal exemplifying qualifications, I have looked at the experiential route, firstly for IEng, and possibly onto CEng. Many colleagues of mine, carrying out the identical role I do, have masters degree, so I would say, the work I am doing is at the same level, so CEng should be my aim.

With the lack of support shown by ECUK towards IEng, as an engineer not a technologist, is in no way encouraging me to pursue registration. I am not a technologist, some may argue I am not an engineer either ;-) (though I did register many years back as EngTech).

I just find it remarkable, that as a 45 year old, with more than 20 years of real life and work experience, both at home and abroad, dealing with multi million pound projects, I would have to jump through hoops for registration, yet a 25 year old, fresh out of university is deemed to be of the right substance to be CEng.

I appreciate, there are many using this forum that are slightly older than 25, achieved CEng years back, have knowledge and experience etc, but there are just as many who for one reason or another, were not able to follow the university route and now find themselves at a junction with no clear signs or directions to follow.

-------------------------
Simon Long CMgr FCMI FInstLM
 14 May 2013 06:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Simon,

I'm also GCGI, FInstLM, and IEng

No one is forcing anybody to register. Employers many of them not requiring the registration for the job.

Many make a respected career without ever registering , I decided in later age then 45 that professional registration will add to my
overall professional image and will help me to compete on the market.

So I went and registered as IEng. Now I'm on final stage PRI for CENg via mature adult rout.

EngC is fair. There are three routs to registration.
Academic rout, Experienced rout (mature adult) or Technical Report rout. Also used to be Engineering Council Examinations - these discontinued in 2011.

So everyone who can prove their competence, that the applicant knows and performed to a specified Spec - Standard.

Academic rout is tough,

Graduates have to learn a lot of material, pass many many examinations, complete projects etc.
Then on the MEng degree its even more advanced knowledge that the graduates attain.
They prove it by passing examinations and Technical reports in early or later stage in their life.

So what you call jump true the hoops I call assessment to see if you meet the standard the spec.

One can be 45 years old and sell train tickets sitting in a boot all day so now what?
Only because they sold train tickets for 20 years they deserve qualification? NO

All that is being asked is to prove that your 25 years form what I read respected and high achieving career meets the standard for registration.

Professional is a combination of Education + Training + Experience.

All three ingredients in different amount are required.

Its good that its not easy to register, that only adds value to the process.
 14 May 2013 11:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



MAWilson

Posts: 48
Joined: 22 February 2006

Graduates have to learn a lot of material, pass many many examinations, complete projects etc.
Then on the MEng degree its even more advanced knowledge that the graduates attain.


MosheW, while I don't necessary disagree with what you say, I find it interesting that repeated reports keep stating that Universities are not training Graduates to the right level for industry (Royal Society of Engineering, IET etc) but experienced engineers are disadvantaged the most by not actually taking the graduate route that most "Future of Engineering" reports criticize.

Personally, my concern about the registration process is it's becoming to much like company Key Points Indicators (KPI). You can end up chasing the competency model to an extent where the craft and skill can be lost in the process. It's the same with company's chasing KPI's while never seeing the underlying problem with their business model or processes.
 15 May 2013 05:37 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

I was under impression that the role of the professional accreditation such as IET is to insure that the programme in the university up to the agreed by industry standard.

What happening is that managers blame Universities for short comings of mismanagement of Engineers. Because in reality Engineers today are been asked to perform tasks that have nothing to do with Engineering.

I seen highly paid Engineers been tasked with counting how many PC's are on each floor of the business etc or spending 60% of the time in meetings that lead nowhere.

The blame game is well know, also there is another angle to it.

Outsourcing and importing cheap labor by marginalizing UK or US Engineers and IT workers.
There was time when Businesses were national and their interests for most of the part were national now the business one work for maybe owned by Chinese or Saudis.
I don't think their interest besides making profit is national UK interest.

Engineers need protecting from Businesses and businesses of our time.

Time for IET to become political and represent the interests of it UK members first and then the rest.
Like NSPE in USA. Run by PE's for interests of PE's.
They Lobby on behalf of PE's in Washington and State government to protect Engineers.
 15 May 2013 08:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Simon750

Posts: 111
Joined: 25 April 2007

Originally posted by: MosheW

Graduates have to learn a lot of material, pass many many examinations, complete projects etc.

Then on the MEng degree its even more advanced knowledge that the graduates attain.

They prove it by passing examinations and Technical reports in early or later stage in their life.


MosheW,

Let's be honest, students on graduate courses do this in a controlled, risk free environment. Not the same as completing the same tasks in the real world.

I do not resent anyone who has gained or is in the process of gaining their qualifications, but in the real world, experience is a far more important asset than qualifications.

I have engineers reporting to me who are BEng, some MEng, some MSc, yet for some reason, I am guiding and instructing them.

Sadly, the Middle East falls into the trap of "must be degree qualified" for so many positions. Many of the degree holders I encounter here are, let's just say, not what I would class as engineers or professional.

-------------------------
Simon Long CMgr FCMI FInstLM
 15 May 2013 11:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: Simon750
I do not resent anyone who has gained or is in the process of gaining their qualifications, but in the real world, experience is a far more important asset than qualifications.

I would strongly disagree with this - I would say equally important.

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

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

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 15 May 2013 11:36 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 885
Joined: 04 November 2004

Simon

Like you I am over 40 and have many years of work based experience but no formal degree.

If you believe professional registration is worthwhile, show the registration panel by submitting an exemplary PDR, which clearly demonstrates how your work matches or exceeds the ECUK competency requirements, with your supporters recommendations the registration panels minds will be put to rest.

Treat the application as an opportunity to review your CV and future goals, I enjoyed the process when I committed the required time to it.

I personally found an IET mentor very useful, he kept me motivated when I received what I felt at the time was negative feedback from the IET (the degree requirement seems to be engraved in some advisors). I was also surprised to be questioned about not having a degree in the interview and why I believed I was worthy of registration.

Regards
 15 May 2013 03:55 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Simon,

A lot of times people compare Engineers with or without degree and has no to has experience. In todays economy the reality is different.
There are many well rounded professionals competing for employment. People with great experience and excellent education combined. Its not one or the other. Majority of candidates have both graduated from Unversity and have many years of experience.

Gaps in education and knowledge are almost always discovered in Engineers who didn't get formal education in comparison to experienced Engineers who also got good engineering education.

I remember a wile ego in the news teachers with 15 or 20 years of experience demanding pay scale the same as teachers with advanced degrees such as Masters or Doctor with 10 to 20 years of experience.

They didn't get the demanded pay level increase for one simple reason, the many years of experience not unnecessary though the teachers the advanced subjects teachers learn in Masters and Doctoral programmes.

There are always an exception here in there but in small numbers basically 85% of the teachers who only had Bachelors degree didn't know the advanced topics that teachers with Masters degree knew and implemented / integrated in their schools.

Now lets look at good Engineering programme in San Jose State University. My friend Blake graduated SJU BSEE degree.
SJU has internship agreements with leading silicon valley companies. Blaike upon successful completion of his second ( out of 4) year ebtered via SJU agreement with IBM as apprentice Engineer. Great program it pays about 50% hourly rate of overage new Engineer.
By completion of his degree 2 more years and all the projects he had 2 years at IBM real life experience.
IBM converted his status upon graduation in to full time Engineer.

Just like medical professionals who do internship in real hospitals I think good Engineering programmes should help expose Engineering graduates to real production, industrial , military environments.

As Amilar pointed equally important.
 15 May 2013 05:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

I'd add to this that whilst engineers without higher level formal education can be extremely good at doing what has always been done before, it is rare to find to find engineers without higher education driving and leading change. I don't think this is necessarily because higher education teaches you how to drive change - although as Moshe says you are more likely to be aware of a wider range of possibilities. I think it is also because if you are interested in change and new ideas then you are likely to be interested in widening your knowledge. (I would certainly agree with Simon's post that there are many engineers who go through higher education without achieving this, but that may be the fault of their attitude rather than of the education system!)

I would suggest that any engineer who thinks they've learnt enough is wrong. Actually, I wouldn't limit that to engineers

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

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

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 15 May 2013 07:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Simon750

Posts: 111
Joined: 25 April 2007

Andy, if you agreed about the importance of experience and qualifications, the boards would be a boring place. Opinions and views are what make debate enjoyable.

Isn't everyday a learning day?

Parsley,

The question of how worthwhile registration is pursuing, is the topic of the thread. The lack of support from EC and it would seem the IET for IEng registrants, in terms of the perception, coupled with the lower apparent view of EC on UK BEng degrees, really casts doubt on how worthwhile it is.

-------------------------
Simon Long CMgr FCMI FInstLM

Edited: 16 May 2013 at 03:52 PM by Simon750
 16 May 2013 06:23 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

I think professionals are to re-skill and add to their versatility for many reasons.
 16 May 2013 05:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: Simon750
Isn't everyday a learning day?


It often seems that for many people no, it isn't! What engineers need to be aware of is a sort of zoom effect - it is very easy to learn tinier and tinier facts about very specific areas of engineering which can give a false impression of both development and spread of learning. This is possibly a bigger problem now than it has ever been, as engineering fields have become so specialist that all of us inevitably end up in niches, and it is important that we realise that just because we know everything about that tiny niche doesn't neccesarily mean that we know anything useful, and certainly puts us at risk of extinction as that niche becomes obsolete. Education is the best kick start we have to avoid this.

Andy, if you agreed about the importance of experience and qualifications, the boards would be a boring place.


Is it more important to avoid boredom or to aim for truth? Discuss, using one side of the paper only. Plus, if anyone genuinely thinks these forums are interesting they probably need to get out more. But if we can at least achieve useful we'll be getting somewhere.

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

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

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 16 May 2013 07:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Zuiko

Posts: 518
Joined: 14 September 2010

This is possibly a bigger problem now than it has ever been, as engineering fields have become so specialist that all of us inevitably end up in niches, and it is important that we realise that just because we know everything about that tiny niche doesn't neccesarily mean that we know anything useful



this made me chuckle and think of this - google "Kenneth Williams Specialist" and watch the video.
Statistics

See Also:



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