Please explain the systems for assessing and confirming competency, used in professional registration, and how robust they are.

MLK and Gandhi did ok as individuals.

Regards.

Just taking my personal experience with the CEng process a few years back,
the application process, reviewed and initialled by previous mentors /managers /supervisors.
my CPD folder viewed
my interview
interviewing my work colleagues, supervisors
2 years structured training assesment
structured accredited degree,
2 years responsible experience assesment
Professional references
all seemed a pretty was a good and reasonable approach to me.
Seriously speaking though, it would be interesting you have had a different experience as it may indicate a lack of consistency in the process that may need addressing?

Some further membership requirements information here at this link.
http://www.theiet.org/membersh...equirements/index.cfm

I'm no Ghandhi, so I can't change things by myself I'm afraid, but the profession could be improved by requiring, as a minimum, professional registration for KEY activities.

Edited: 10 March 2013 at 10:06 PM by rcapol

I am happy with that approach as you have an accredited degree + appropriate experience but professional status can be gained without an accredited degree and that is the inconsistency I am not in favour of.

I think the profession could be improved by more investment in manufacturing and young engineers and by taking the engineering message into schools to encourage youngsters to take it up. Apart from that I think there are enough laws and standards which offer good protection, so far as is reasonably practicable, without requiring compulsory professional registration unless a risk assessment or safety case shows otherwise.

The current set-up of voluntary PR seems to work well enough.

Regards.

Neither am I.

Regards.

I strongly disagree with this. Yes, applicants applying without a degree must expect to give a more robust account of their academic expertise than those with one, but it's still possible to find fully competent engineers whose academic qualifications do not meet the standard CEng requirements. Still, we're going over old ground again: http://www.theiet.org/forums/f...tid=243&threadid=42761 my view is covered in my first posting of 09/09/11.

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

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

Whilst prof reg remains voluntary I am happy to go along with your approach and thinking. As things stand I think the current systems work quite well but if people want to start changing them then others may start asking for their own changes, after all if we are changing something then let's all put our requests in. It is unlikely that prof reg will become compulsory in the near future and I am ok with that.

Regards.

Sorry all, I seem to have dragged the post off topic a little.

The 'associate' terminology for IEng may have sounded a little condesending took the wrong way, but having just re-read the UKSPSEC from the ECUK I'm sure the good intent was there.

It is a very valid level of competence accreditation and in my experience it is very well thought of by fellow professionals. Its a shame a few seem to have belittled it as it hurts the profession as a whole. I would certainly encourage registration at all 3 levels.

Link to the ECUK registration overview document for those wanting to know more:
http://www.engc.org.uk/ecukdoc...%20library/UK-SPEC.pdf

Edited: 17 March 2013 at 04:42 PM by rcapol

rcapol

I agree, I would also encourage registration at all 3 levels.

A lot of companies these days ask for registration or someone who is working towards registration, my friends company is an example of this.
Good for company CV.



Just came across this article
'Engineering is foundation of economy'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...dation-of-economy.html

How can they give a robust account, without taking a test to see how much they actually know? There are people in senior positions who are very good at absorbing other people's (colleague's) hard earned knowledge, simply by listening to what opinions others have; then take this knowledge and apply it as if they were experts who discovered or derived from first principles things they never bothered to find for themselves.

You can see this in action from Cabinet ministers. They have absolutely no understanding of how to run the country, but have talent to absorb knowledge from civil servants and advisors and then proclaim them as their own work.

Put these ministers in an exam hall and give them a set of questions on how they would run the county, with proof of how it is achievable and don't be surprised to catch them texting advisor for answers.

Top academic qualifications are the only way to ensure the country gets top engineers.

I agree that this should be part of the requirement.

Regards.

I should resign then because I'm too thick to be doing my job, though I think I deserve some credit for the way I have managed to con thousands of people over the last 30 years into believing that I know what I am doing.

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

Sounds like ideal experience for a job in the cabinet.
Regards.

Nothing short of PM I reckon

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

I'll join you There I was thinking that because I designed products that delivered what customers wanted and were extremely reliable, and (latterly) got safety approval for them through the toughest authorities that I must know what I was doing. But no, my c**p degree from 30 years ago (when I was a typically idiotic 20 year old, more interested in engineering geekery than pieces of paper) is far more important

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

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

I am currently unavailable to answer any of your questions, but my esteemed colleague, westonpa, will be more than happy to answer them.

In USA we have RN - Registered Nurse qualificaation.

The minimum requirement to be a RN is two year Associate Degree in Nursing and successfully passing the RN Examinations.

But if RN really wants a job in today market they better have BSN degree.
Bachelor of Nursing.
And even better for select positions MSN degree.

Now lets see ASN RN, BSN RN, MSN RN all are RN but not equal.

The same with IEng. The Employer looks on underlying education as well.

HNC or HND IEng, BEng IEng and I seen MA IEng..

I think it is a mistake that EngC is not allowing BEng IEng to register as EurEng.

But IEngs can do something about it.
A. work with IET and EngC to change this situation.
B. Start their own Society that has one purpose to promote the interests of IEngs.

BTW CEngs should do the same.

In USA there is NSPE - it is run by professional engineers to promote interests of professional engineers.

But it depends on underlying degree just like with the examples of RN.

Incorporated engineers used to have their own organisations and societies and you could argue that IEng interests were better promoted by these in the past.

Since the IIE/IEE it seems that the profession has become more focused on CEng and IEng has disappeared off the radar.

But, would there be any interest in starting a new IEng association or society?

That would initially fragment IEng because parts of it would sit in one association and other parts of it would sit in other associations. The seperate association would not have the funding or clout as do the existing associations and EC and I do not see that changing in the future because IEng does not offer anything of such a value that it sets it apart, which it would need to bring in funding. If I am an employer 'Chartered' x, y or z carries a high value and recognised status, however I say that about those employers that understand professional status, because the majority do not. The solution is to either improve its brand recognition within the EC/IET etc., or else consign it to the scrap heap. However, I conclude that instead of just pointing out issues that existing IEng's who want to see something better should instead get themselves engaged and be part of the solutions. I think that starts with them deciding amongst themselves what they want from the status and thus what they want it to represent. If they cannot decide this then I really do not see who else can. If however they decide they want it to be the same as CEng then I think they would be better to meet the requirements of CEng and then apply for it. Maybe the IEng community on the whole are happy with the current situation!

Regards.

Exactly, and the best way to achieve this would be to have an association specifically to promote incorporated engineers. There is no reason this has to be under the auspices of the Engineering Council. The Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists is not regulated or supported by RIBA or the EC and seem to be flourishing so a similar organisation for Engineering Technologists is a possible way forward.
One of the problems with the industry is that it is very CEng centric and the various committees are all dominated by chartered engineers. They have a vested interested in insuring that CEng interests take precedent. There is currently a review of UKSpec being undertaken, you can bet that no incorporated engineers will be on the committee or be involved in the decision making process!

If CEng are only interested in themselves then it calls into question the whole area of professional engineering status. However, I do not believe the CEng professionals are the issue. Chartered has a brand name which has been embedded into our culture over history, IEng does not have anywhere near the same recognition. It would take a lot of finance and time to change that, and for what? What exactly do you want from the status? Increased earnings, more respect, nice calling card, better standards of engineering, more influence with the government? I conclude there are easier and lower cost methodologies for achieving those things. I think it is easier to improve from within and all it takes is a determination and an ability to focus on the goal to be achieved and to make a good case for it.

Regards.