IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Is the IENG qualification an associate professional award?
Topic Summary: Is the IENG qualification an associate professional award?
Created On: 30 July 2012 07:47 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 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.
 06 August 2012 07:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

pmiller2006,

First of all before you even register as an IEng you already are a professional engineer. The reason for you choosing to register is to enhance you career and salary. You are not here to take a secondary role to a CEng. If the IEng title puts you in that secondary role than the only option for you is to resign from registration.

The point I'm making is that you are in charge of you future and not the IET or EC. You are the master and not the servant.

The best way to enhance your status would be to describe yourself as a 'professionally registered engineer with the Engineering Council'. Then explain your IEng if asked to.

Cheers,
 06 August 2012 10:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dlane

Posts: 685
Joined: 28 September 2007

For me personally I would regard leadership as more to do with the guidance, coaching and motivation etc of the personnel that work for you. Where as I tend to see management as the controlling of situations, ensuring materials are available for work and so on. I guess you can argue that there is some hierachy there but I think you can put a definate split to them.

Optimising technology can be greatly different to applying technology which the vast majority of engineers carry out on a regular basis. for me it is those that apply the technology in a different manner to produce higher efficiencies, cost savings or use it in new applications etc that are optimising technology. Again I think you can find quite a difference between them.

I understand your comments of there being little benefit in stating that you are an IEng and as some have said it can be even detremental if you work outside of the UK. I have worked in engineering for around 20 years and I have come across a few more IEng than you have, but no where near the level of CEng, although that may just be the industry I am in and the level I work at.

But then again, I have not really come across anybody who has actually promoted themselves as a CEng directly. It is just something that I have picked up from reading their business card. Ultimately if you aren't going to admit that you are an IEng then why would anyone apply for it in the first place?

Kind regards

Donald Lane
 08 August 2012 12:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

I agree that IEng needs to have a strong distinctive proposition which has proved difficult to articulate and communicate. The ABET post (thanks to Luciano) is interesting because its sets out an argument for three types of professional; in this case "Engineer", "Engineering Technologist" and "Technician" based purely on academic study. This is rational and reasonable if you are not offended by being described as an Engineering Technologist (I'm not - but some people clearly are). An emphasis on "application" and less "pure theory" is suggested as a distinguishing factor.

However if we move away from what is studied in engineering courses by people preparing for an engineering career into what engineers actually do, then a number of issues arise. To quote from ABET "engineering programs typically require additional, higher-level mathematics, including multiple semesters of calculus and calculus-based theoretical science courses." I'm sure this is very challenging and demanding, but how many engineers actually apply this type of theory in their work? ABET helpfully suggests the fields of "conceptual design" or "research and development". The career paths suggested for graduates of an "Engineering Technology Program" cover the majority of Chartered and Incorporated Engineers as described by UK-SPEC or its predecessor standards. Technicians are also covered when completing a "two year course".

If we change the question from "what type of academic study is ideal preparation" to "what does a practicing engineer do" we have some rather different arguments. The UK system describes in generic terms the competences of different professionals and supports academic courses by accreditation. Evaluating competent practice is carried out through peer review, guided by the standard and subject to audit. Across the wide range of engineering activities this makes clearly differentiating between IEng and CEng difficult without reverting to the apparent (although false) certainty of academic qualifications.

If we look at the UK-SPEC A&B competence areas and knowledge benchmarks, then CEng requires extremely strong technical knowledge, applied to innovative (or "unusual" or "risky") situations. IEng suggests a solid technical knowledge being applied to more well-established challenges, often using proven solutions. Responsibility for results should be clear in both cases.

As I understand it, the C,D & E competences didn't differ between IEng & CEng until they were "tweaked" a few years ago, to suggest that CEng had greater leadership than IEng. If we are talking about technical leadership then this seems reasonable, but trying to distinguish between an IEng or CEng based on commercial or organisational leadership creates confusion and is likely to be inconsistently applied. There is a huge overlap between the management responsibilities and leadership capabilities of existing IEng & CEng registrants. Also there is no reason why a person who has developed a deeper engineering knowledge, should have stronger leadership or management skills. Many excellent engineers act as professional specialist advisors and add value through their detailed expertise rather than by leadership and/or management. It appears therefore these distinctions suggest a hierarchy of "importance", "prestige" or "seniority" which doesn't necessarily occur in practice and cannot be objectively justified.

I would strongly support recognising those with responsibility for more "strategic" engineering decisions as CEng and also that a CEng designation should represent the "premium" engineering standard. However across the huge "mainstream" territory of responsible engineers in practice, trying to differentiate between CEng & IEng using management or leadership (terms open to significant debate about interpretation) just doesn't work.

To return to the purpose of the debate, for those of us who wish to support and develop IEng rather than oppose or disparage it. How do we ensure that IEng has a distinctive and highly-valued position? My instinct is that this has to be strongly competence based, although some in academia would support strengthening the value of more vocational and applied programs, there are substantial cultural barriers. In the past we could use being more "practical" (i.e. better suited to many roles in industry) as a distinctive proposition, but a recent IEng may have travelled a more academic route and many technology/knowledge based industries don't need "craft-based" skills.

Contrary to some assertions, there are many businesses who value IEng and many more who employ people who exercise IEng responsibility, but are laissez-faire or even negative about professional registration. The IET has worked hard over the last few years to engage with these employers and as a result the number of new IEng registrants has increased significantly. Many of these new registrants are well positioned to be role models and mentors for others. We are also collaborating through Engineering Council with other institutions, but I would accept that we have a long way to go during difficult times. Our arguments have to be about the added value of professionalism and recognition in order to succeeed.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 08 August 2012 01:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



MAWilson

Posts: 48
Joined: 22 February 2006

Roy thanks for taking the time out and adding to these discussions. It is really appreciated by someone like me who's a bit hesitant about going for registration. I can't find much to argue with much of what you say and in a sane world this would be the case.
The problem with UK-SPEC as I see it now is it's quite murky and subject to interpretation where 2 people employed to do the same job; one can be told differently what level of engineering you are working to. This I think is what leads to the frustration of many, especially those with all the required experience and competence. The A & B competence seems more than reasonable when read but when I see on these forums an Engineering Manager of a top tier COMAH site with 20+ years experience does not qualify yet I've seen how company's can fast track persons within 4-5 years on an accredited grad scheme, it does leave one to wonder are the assessments uniformed and is career development properly considered.
Are nice bullet points and a prescribed path greater than the more torturous path of self/career development and achievement is the question? In terms of an evidence base it would make things easier I'm sure.
In the end, we all do are part in keeping the lights on and this modern word going and I hope on my day when I seek acknowledgement from the profession of a long path started at 17, my accomplishments will at least be looked upon in a manner where I can take some pride.
 11 August 2012 05:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Neither CEng or IEng are qualifications as such. They are titles awarded after consideration of academic qualifications, past and present engineering experiences, including current job role.

The CEng and IEng titles are synonymous with job titles. So IEng is another word for Team Leader or Manager and CEng is Senior Manager or Director.

Unfortunately, I have seen plenty of CEngs who were just plain Engineers or Team leaders responsible for a couple of staff.

I also refer you to the 10s of 1000s of CEngs working in Schools, Colleges and Universities teaching nothing more than single subjects for the rest of their careers, such as Maths, Electrical Principles etc.
Hardly examples of multitasking skills.

I'm afraid these discussions are nothing more than engaging in over-hype. If CEngs were that good, they would be Knighted or awarded honorary degrees on regular basis.

At the opening ceremony of the Olympic games, Sir Tim Berners Lee was declared to the world as 'The man who invented the World Wide Web'. They didn't say anything about him being 'The Chartered Engineer' or 'The Project Manager' or 'The Finance Director' who invented the WWW.

I think a lot of these dicussions focus too much on engneers moving into management and want some sort of recognition for their responsibility. Surely they get paid enough as recompense for their efforts.

Edited: 11 August 2012 at 05:38 PM by mbirdi
 11 August 2012 06:07 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

So I have Sir Tim to thank for being able to read your posts then mbirdi.

Regards.
 12 August 2012 04:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

I think you should write Sir Tim a nice letter thanking him for his invention.
 17 August 2012 05:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
It seems that quite a few are knighted see report

Well, they are the exception and deserve their CEng. Unfortunately, I can't see your average CEng being in this group. You know, your school teacher spending the rest of their lives teaching algebra or your college lecturer teaching BTEC electronics, and of course your average CEng working in your company doing the same job as you and receiving the same pay. Why are they CEng?

I have this theory. These guys go and do their accredited degrees, then finish their accredited training in places like British Aerospace, then do their 2 years of responsible job being in charge of small projects. They rig up their CENg applications to look like something big. They get their CEng, then decide they don't like their jobs because they're not well recognised and not getting good pay. So leave to become teachers or Lecturers teaching bolx and keeping their CEng. They're never going to receive awards you described.

Edited: 17 August 2012 at 05:58 PM by mbirdi
 21 August 2012 08:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: mbirdi
Unfortunately, I have seen plenty of CEngs who were just plain Engineers or Team leaders responsible for a couple of staff.

Nothing wrong with that. I was just a plain engineer when I became CEng. My definition would be: if you know all the rules you're IEng. If you wrote the rules you're CEng. I was happy to move from IEng to CEng when I stopped just reading standards and started sitting on standards committees.
Having launched that grenade I'm going back in the bunker now

-------------------------
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
 22 August 2012 11:57 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

So Andy,

I too sat on a Standards Committee, but the final decisions on any new standards or revisions to existing standards was a joint committee decision, not my personal decision. I could have sat there on many occasions without having any input at all.

Daniel
 23 August 2012 12:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

http://targetjobs.co.uk/career...corporated-engineer-af

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 23 August 2012 06:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: amillar
Nothing wrong with that. I was just a plain engineer when I became CEng. My definition would be: if you know all the rules you're IEng. If you wrote the rules you're CEng. I was happy to move from IEng to CEng when I stopped just reading standards and started sitting on standards committees.

Having launched that grenade I'm going back in the bunker now

Just adding to what Daniel has said.

There are trillions of standards being setup or amended around the world on a daily basis and the number of CEngs contributing to them doesn't even amount to 1%. Plus your input would most certainly be the result of collective contribution(s) from the team working under you or with you.

I'm sure you'll agree that your statement about knowing all the rules and writting the rules is an over simplification. Nobody knows all the rules and certainly don't write all the rules. One has to be more specific. Unfortunately I have heard these type of comments from CEngs all too often to be impressed with these days.

In the real world engineers can do a multiplicity of job roles that involve reading the rules and writting some of the rules (e.g writting software tools etc).

In my experience I have seen CEngs with varied qualities. Some (e.g. lecturers) were useless and others were brilliant. I used to attend large meetings (200 staff) where the Director was a CEng and only one of the 200 staff attending was a CEng waiting to hear what the chief had to say. The other staff membrs were qualified with various qualifications from A levels to PhD. Some of the BSc and MSc staff had worked there for 30 years in technicial positions and were experts in their fields. None of them were registered as CEng. So I don't really see the relevance of CEng in the grand scheme of things? It seems to be a toy for BSc level engineers to gain.

The other thing is IEE or IET accredited degrees. These allowed graduates direct access to CEng registration. Those with non-accredited degrees were penalised or handicapped by having their degrees or HNDs, HNCs valued at well below accredited degree level. In reality there was hardly any difference in the accredited degrees compared to non-accredited ones. The only difference is the mutual arrangement between the Universities and the IET and of course the fees that comes the IET's way.

The whole thing is Bolx in my view and an example of academic discrimination which then results in hipocrisy and idiosyncrasy. Until everyone is treated according to their actual academic achievement and not by some invisible weighted system we won't have a true organisation of engineers.

Hope that's sufficient enough to penetrate your bunker.
 24 August 2012 07:25 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



AndyTaylor

Posts: 163
Joined: 24 November 2002

Originally posted by: mbirdiThere are trillions of standards being setup or amended around the world on a daily basis and the number of CEngs contributing to them doesn't even amount to 1%.

I'm sure you'll agree that your statement about knowing all the rules and writting the rules is an over simplification.


Given that there are billions of people on the planet, don't you think the notion that trillions of standards being created/revised on a daily basis, i.e. on average 1000's per person per day (with your 1% figure plucked out the air), is a gross exaggeration / over simplification?

Originally posted by: mbirdiIn my experience I have seen CEngs with varied qualities. Some (e.g. lecturers) were useless and others were brilliant. I used to attend large meetings (200 staff) where the Director was a CEng and only one of the 200 staff attending was a CEng waiting to hear what the chief had to say. The other staff membrs were qualified with various qualifications from A levels to PhD. Some of the BSc and MSc staff had worked there for 30 years in technicial positions and were experts in their fields. None of them were registered as CEng. So I don't really see the relevance of CEng in the grand scheme of things? It seems to be a toy for BSc level engineers to gain.


Your arguments about the variation in qualities of CEng apply to all those people you mention, but I wonder how you cope when one of those respected non-CEng people gains CEng, do you treat them as an exception to the rule? Do you believe that on gaining CEng that they have ceased to be engineers?

Originally posted by: mbirdiThe other thing is IEE or IET accredited degrees. These allowed graduates direct access to CEng registration. Those with non-accredited degrees were penalised or handicapped by having their degrees or HNDs, HNCs valued at well below accredited degree level. In reality there was hardly any difference in the accredited degrees compared to non-accredited ones. The only difference is the mutual arrangement between the Universities and the IET and of course the fees that comes the IET's way.

The whole thing is Bolx in my view and an example of academic discrimination which then results in hipocrisy and idiosyncrasy. Until everyone is treated according to their actual academic achievement and not by some invisible weighted system we won't have a true organisation of engineers.


But I don't have a degree, I have a nearly 30 year old HND, yet I'm CEng. Up to the point I achieved CEng I guess you would have called me an engineer, but what now that I have CEng? My job did not change the day I achieved CEng by the way, I didn't suddenly become a non-engineering manager.

I suppose I would still agree with you that I might be in a minority, but that is simply because the path the CEng is a lot quicker if someone already has the exemplifying qualifications, as it should be in my opinion.

I simply can't accept your notion that anyone with a CEng must be a failed engineer / successful people manager; it's simply not the case that I have seen in many companies I have worked for or with. As in all levels there will be people with varying degrees of competency / capability but I can't agree with your idea that having met the requirements of CEng as specified in the UK SPEC that the average CEng has developed into an incompetent engineer.

-------------------------
Andy Taylor CEng MIET
 24 August 2012 09:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: AndyTaylor
As in all levels there will be people with varying degrees of competency / capability but I can't agree with your idea that having met the requirements of CEng as specified in the UK SPEC that the average CEng has developed into an incompetent engineer.

A persons 'real' competency does not change with the awarding of a professional status so you are of course correct. What does however change is that someone advertises that status and others will assume a standard of competency which goes with it, and which may or may not be correct.

You are currently at and maintaining CEng standard of competency but others, let us say a lecturer here and there, may not be and yet still have the status. The answer is to re-assess CEng every 5 - 10 years in line with CPD to ensure they are still at CEng level. Of course everytime we get to this type of discussion out comes the IET with its standard set of excuses as to why it cannot be done etc., etc. It's almost like saying we have a process which obviously requires some improvement but these are all the issues with making that improvement and so we shall instead leave it as it is. Of course this does not follow the principles of continual improvement which should be the very foundations of what the IEng, CEng standards are about.

Anyway we have had the latter part of the dicussion before and I already know you are in agreement with CPD and improving standards etc., and so whilst I have quoted some of your text this is not a reply against your thinking.

Regards.
 24 August 2012 05:59 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: AndyTaylor
Given that there are billions of people on the planet, don't you think the notion that trillions of standards being created/revised on a daily basis, i.e. on average 1000's per person per day (with your 1% figure plucked out the air), is a gross exaggeration / over simplification?

I was more worried someone would pick me up on my use of the word 'bolx' then the exaggeration of numbers. Let's change that to millions of standards.

Originally posted by: AndyTaylor
But I don't have a degree, I have a nearly 30 year old HND, yet I'm CEng.

I have a problem with that. I also have an HND and passes in the Engineering Council Exams. I was entitled to the title of Graduate IERE, which then became AMIEE and later MIEE -> MIET. Since I did not finish the last exam paper 'Engineer in Society' I was advised throughout 30 years that I could not apply for CEng. About 10 years ago I walked into Savoy Pl on invite to discuss registration. I brought along a 40 page dossier of my working experience, including design work and software scripts I had written. The IET official didn't even bother to look at the dossier and just on the basis of looking at me suggested I wasn't suitable for CEng registration.

When I hear stories of other people, like yourself, gaining CEng, it leaves me with total bewilderment. I'm afraid I can only go by my own experience and not by the experiences of others. So hope you understand this.

Originally posted by: AndyTaylor
the path the CEng is a lot quicker if someone already has the exemplifying qualifications, as it should be in my opinion.

I disagree. Accredited degrees are the result of the IET doing business with Universities. That is to say. 'You scratch my back and I scratch yours'. The IET wants control over the content of engineering degrees with the added benefit of receipt of fees per course per year. In return the IET accredits degree courses and allows direct access to CEng registration for the graduates concerned. This allows the Universities to advertise their IET accredited courses and attract the maximum number of students to join whilst benefiting the Universities in maximum course fees. In return the IET promises to penalise or discriminate non-accredited degrees including BTEC, C&G and EC examinations. This discrimination takes the form of devaluing of qualifications so the students in question have to study further to obtain recognition, in many cases beyond BSc degree level.

For example my HND was recognised to CEI Part 1 examinations. So I had to complete the part 2, which consisted of 6 subjects. The total number of subjects in the part 1 and 2 exams is 12.

However, my HND contained 20 subjects with 54 hours (or 18 x 3hr) of exams plus two projects. The CEI Part 1 (half way through a degree course) consisted of only 6 subjects or 18 (6 x 3hr) hours of exams. This is a gross mismatch between the HND and the CEI Part 1. In those days nobody questioned it.

A BSc degree consists of 10 subjects, which is 30 exam hours in total. This is less than my HND (54 exam hrs.), but the BSc gains full credit against the CEI Parts1 and 2 exams (or 12 subjects in total). A total mismatch between the BSc and HND. But the BSc holder gains access to CEng, thanks to accreditation.

Industry recognised my HND as being equal to BSc degree. Indeed I have been invited to many graduate level job interviews. There are people with HNDs who have been offered places on MSc and PhD courses. Indeed the Internet reveals plenty of information. I cannot imagine someone who has completed 6 subjects or half of a degree course, access to graduate level jobs or access to MSc or PhD courses? The IET plays a different game to industry and Universities by discriminating against organisations (i.e BTEC, C&G etc) who do not play along with the IET regarding control of course content and payment of fees.

I am also aware that the IET consists of a greater number of BSc graduates than say HNC, HND, MSc and PhD engineers. So the IET is influenced by the collective views of BSc engineers. Contrast that with Universities that are run mainly by PhD graduates. Yet Universities recognise HNC, HND, EC qualifications more readily than the IET. Therefore the IET is nothing more than a society of BSc engineers who want to protect their values through IET accredited degrees. This suggests further evidence of academic discrimination by the IET against other types of qualifications, where industry and Universities don't practice such discrimination.

I'm pleased to see that westonpa has recognised idiosyncrasy with CEng where teaching is concerned. I have no problem with experienced CEng who take up early retirement and go into teaching. Their contributions are most welcomed. It's unfortunate when younger CEngs in the prime of their lives give up their potential in industry and go into teaching only to offered limited teaching experience.

Edited: 24 August 2012 at 07:32 PM by mbirdi
 25 August 2012 11:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

I suspect that Andy Taylor gained his CEng based on having at least a level 3 qualification and then the competency which is related to his past and present employment rather than any significant part of it being granted on the basis of a 30 year old HND.

All qualifications for the purpose of being assessed for CEng should have an expiry date on them and thereafter once awarded the CEng should be re-assessed every 5 - 10 years to ensure the person is still maintaining the required level of competency.

I can see the point of Andy having CEng, i.e., because he requires it for his work, but aside that it has little value in the bulk of industry or the public domain. For the most part it is an unreliable measure of a persons competency because there are no systems in place to ensure it is maintained.

This is why we have lecturers, and the like, are able to maintain the letters after their name when they are no more practising engineers than the lollipop lady we often see on the daily school run. And yet we have other people such as mbirdi who are quite clearly more competent in the engineering field, than those same lecturers, who are not awarded CEng. It begs the question how those who are not at the standard are allowed to keep it and yet those who are not at the standard but are closer to it than others are not allowed to attain it. If we are not good enough to attain it then when we drop below the standard for a significant amount of time then we are not good enough to keep it.

Now go along to IOSH and you will find that they have systems in place which require CPD.

http://www.iosh.co.uk/membersh...opment/about_cpd.aspx

'All Chartered Fellows, Chartered Members, Graduate and Technician Members have to carry out CPD to safeguard their professional membership status. Affiliate and Associate Members are welcome to take part, but they don't have to.'

Regards.
 28 August 2012 08:25 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dlane

Posts: 685
Joined: 28 September 2007

I actually have a colleague who is CMIOSH registered and he showed me the online CPD system that he has to update a few weeks back and I thought it was a really good system and well worth the IET adopting something similar for its members.

It is not particularily onerous and yet quite clearly allows people to show at what level they are working at.

Kind regards

Donald Lane
 28 August 2012 08:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dlane

Posts: 685
Joined: 28 September 2007

Originally posted by: mbirdi

When I hear stories of other people, like yourself, gaining CEng, it leaves me with total bewilderment. I'm afraid I can only go by my own experience and not by the experiences of others. So hope you understand this.


Well for my part having started an MSc later on in my career I can quite easily understand that there are people out there who have learnt well beyond the level of a Masters throughout their working careers and are fully entitled to apply for and be acredited with the CEng title, even though they do not hold the Masters qualification. I guess it is just a case of being able to approve that within the application.

Part of reflective learning though is to be able to view other experiences besides your own that can lead to an enhanced understanding of a subject. Please don't take that as a personal criticisim of you, I am sure you are a fully capable engineer and you represent yourself well on these forums. I just feel that you have had a bad experience with the CEng process that has left you bitter and are therefore basing the whole CEng system on your experiences which, although understandable, is not necessarily appropriate for judging the complete system.

Kind regards

Donald Lane
 29 August 2012 11:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

It would not attempt to deny the feelings of injustice and anger engendered through the negative experiences of some people in the past. I hope that the IET registration process is now fairer to its members, but people will always be disappointed if they don't get what they want. For example there are many people who meet parts of the CEng or IEng competence requirements extremely well, but have gaps in other areas. Most disgruntlement seems to me to stem from the presumption that, of the different registration categories only CEng has value. The salary survey (thanks to Luciano) illustrates that many IEng have excellent above average earnings and a substantial overlap exists between the salaries of IEng & CEng registrants. Technicians aren't covered but most also have good careers and some would also overlap with Engineers. Unfortunately once we step into the realm of "status" then this becomes a relative and emotive currency, in which we can be "upgraded" "downgraded" etc.

Almost all systems of governance (including technical standards) are the result of political compromises between various vested interests. Ideally this results in a reasonable balance, but for this to occur all relevant parties need to have an effective voice. As someone who has spent most of their career in Industry, it seemed to me (from a distance) that the system leant too far towards a university perspective. International comparison may have been a factor, or perhaps more prosaically it was because senior academic representatives turned up to meetings with better prepared arguments. I am confident that those involved at the time sought the best solution and criticism with hindsight is always easy. It has been argued by contributors to these forums with some justification that only universities have the capability and regulatory control to assess fairly. I would broaden this to include further education colleges and awarding bodies such as C&G & BTEC, the major professional institutions and some employers. The system is better balanced now but still imperfect in my view by being too "CEng centric".

I think it is useful for programmes of learning and/or training to be peer reviewed by other professionals. Volunteers organised by professional institutions is an efficient and proven approach, but there are other mechanisms such as "steering groups" or external assessors. It also seems reasonable to offer some advantage to people following these pathways as a result. Exclusion of people who haven't had the opportunity to follow this "ideal pathway" is in my view extremely undesirable, but a rigorous process is needed for "non-standard" people if consistent quality is to be maintained.

The use of three categories of registration allows for most practising professionals to voluntarily join the professionally registered community, although the extent to which these practitioners choose to participate, tells us something that we need to understand and address. Competent practice exists in many different contexts and is demonstrated by people with a wide variety of different experiences. I would like us to find a distinctive proposition for each type of registrant that isn't relative or assuming of a hierarchy. Hierarchies tend to have negative connotations around social class, especially for those who don't find themselves at the top. Some might argue that a hierarchy of learning is purely meritocratic but I disagree unless vocational achievement has equal value to "academic".

Engineers have been always been widely admired for the benefits that they bring collectively to society. A few gain individual recognition and in earlier times even iconic status, but most create improvements to people's lives and lifestyles. Academic prestige is something different which can only ever be the preserve of a few. As the number of degree holders has grown (from 5% being graduates to 45%)we seem to have confused the two. Recognition of achievement and professionalism (or "competence and commitment") by our fellow practitioners is the heart of the system and there is no less value inherent in being respected by an experienced professionally registered Technician, IEng or CEng.

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 29 August 2012 01:31 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: roybowdler
Most disgruntlement seems to me to stem from the presumption that, of the different registration categories only CEng has value. The salary survey (thanks to Luciano) illustrates that many IEng have excellent above average earnings and a substantial overlap exists between the salaries of IEng & CEng registrants.

As my excellent lecturer in research methods would put it: correlation does not imply causation. I'm sure that many engineers at IEng level earn considerably more than I do, but that is not the point: the point is, did having IEng help them achieve that salary or, indeed, help them get a job in the first place?
In fact, is there any evidence as to what percentage of engineering managers and HR professionals understand what IEng is? (Horrible grammer in that sentance - typed quickly at the end of my lunch break!)

-------------------------
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
Statistics

See Also:



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