IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Dual Registration
Topic Summary: CEng IET IEng MCIWEM
Created On: 05 September 2012 02:18 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.
 25 October 2012 07:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jcm256

Posts: 1892
Joined: 01 April 2006

Does no harm to reflect again, what happen to the name change for incorporated Engineer? "Registered Engineer" Unfortunately the Royal Academy of Engineering
Immediately made it clear that it would not favour a title which had REng

http://www.engc.org.uk/ecukdoc...orated%20Engineer.pdf

Regards
jcm
 26 October 2012 08:58 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: mbirdi

Originally posted by: amillar

I'd fully agree, with one slight caveat. There are a few industries (for example in my case railway signalling) where, just occasionally, it helps answer the question of "where is your evidence that your staff are professional?"


That's fair enough, but I would then reply to such question with: We can provide you with staff who have or can obtain professional registration, provided the employer's prepared to pay the IET and EC registration costs. After all if you require professionally registered engineers, you're going to have to pay for it, or pay higher wages.


Yes, that's why my company pays my fees. (And my CMI fees as well.)

-------------------------
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
 26 October 2012 09:16 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: mbirdi
The only reason why you should feel IEng represents failure compared to CEng is because you are impressed more by CEng than IEng. And it says something about you more than the IEng title.

I'd be much to polite to say that

Try and think independently to the views of the IET and EC. They are not really incharge of deciding who is a professional engineer and who isn't. Only the individual through their ability can decide that for themselves.

Well, actually I'd say the employers make that judgement But I know what you mean.

-------------------------
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
 26 October 2012 02:56 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



roybowdler

Posts: 276
Joined: 25 July 2008

The thread seems to have ranged across a range of well-rehearsed arguments from some familiar friends. Welcome back all after the "summer recess"

If the basic argument is that IEng needs to be more clearly distinctive then I agree.

We have chosen to create three categories of professional registration to encompass the thousands of different activities being carried out. Many other professions have far less variety (e.g. GPs). UK-SPEC can never be perfect as is it impossible to define the boundaries between categories precisely. Academic qualifications can provide an illusion of certainty, but the extent to which a practising engineer's professional capability (or competence) correlates with their formal qualification varies greatly. If there is an argument for two categories, then we would have to reallocate the majority of current IEng registrants to CEng.

I don't recall Engineering Council referring to IEng as "failed CEng" except to emphasise what IEng wasn't. But if someone edits down this comment they will claim that I said it next IEng was certainly described as "equal but different" at one time, but these are just sound-bites and slogans. If IEng had become "Chartered Technologist" some years ago (before the REng idea) I wonder if we would we be having the same debate?

If we look at the current situation for IEng, new registrations have returned to a healthier level. I can only speak for the IET but the quality of new IEng registrants is very high. There is no evidence that the decision to include all CEng degrees as IEng accredited is a significant factor, since the average age has been 30+. Perhaps this suggestion is based on the presumption that everyone entering the profession does so via a full-time university course?

The suggestion that the a named major business doesn't support IEng is at best outdated, if it were ever thus, although I certainly wouldn't deny that IEng has been undervalued at times. However I find nothing wrong in any business focussing on CEng capabilities were these add most value to a particular business model.

My view of how we advance the profession is by encouraging all those who can demonstrate competence (Technician is a high standard) to voluntarily participate in the professional community. As part of their career journey professionals will illustrate development and competent practice in one or more of the registration categories (Technician, IEng or CEng). Many CEng and IEng registrants are quite proud of their journey (often from apprentice) and if they want to demonstrate this by retaining one registration when gaining another then why not? There has for many years been a sub-culture in one jurisdiction of engineers to seeking CEng assessment by several institutions to enhance their CV.

If at some stage in the future regular reviews were introduced, then engineers might transfer between sections of the register based on their most recent practice. If this ever came to pass, someone could for example retain the CEng recognition they had earned at an earlier time, but add IEng based on the latest review, or vice-versa. Unfortunately in the current mind-set, language like "downgrade" would be used, which only illustrates a philosophy based on "badge snobbery" rather than professional competence.

I listened to a discussion on the radio this morning in which Teachers were talking about becoming a "higher-status" profession. Unsurprisingly this "enhanced status" was to be attained by requiring a higher educational standard of entrants to the profession. Engineering has often followed a similar path. In my opinion, a profession which is united, mutually respectful of its different manifestations and focussed on adding value to the society it serves, is something to be proud of. Business and society more generally actually values what engineers do, but doesn't always offer the recognition we crave. There is no interest in professional rivalries and arguments over the relative status of different qualifications. Worse still if a practising professional wants to board the Engineers recognition train, they might still find some wassock telling them that they are only allowed in the open-top wagons at the back - we are in the 21st century now

-------------------------
Roy Bowdler IEng FIET FCIPD
IET Registration & Standards
 26 October 2012 06:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: amillar
Originally posted by: mbirdi
The only reason why you should feel IEng represents failure compared to CEng is because you are impressed more by CEng than IEng. And it says something about you more than the IEng title.

I'd be much to polite to say that

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
Ouch, Mr Birdi owes me a beer next time I see him!

Sorry guys. I didn't mean to put pmiller2006 down. Just trying to point out he was feeling negative about having IEng. I've experienced negative thoughts myself and look at my achievements and capabilities more positively then I used to and wanted to encourage pmiller2006 to do the same.

 26 October 2012 06:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

My smiley was because I have been fighting myself not to not say what you said but perhaps hoping someone else would

Not sure what that says about my level of professionalism!!

Anyway, can I join you both in a ? Far more useful...

-------------------------
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
 26 October 2012 06:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

P.S. Does the title of this thread refer to pistols at dawn for IEng vs CEng?

-------------------------
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
 29 October 2012 05:20 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
I've travelled the world on business, earned considerably more than the average chartered engineer and my last company car was a porsche I just sail my yacht now!!


I think that sums it up neatly as to the real point. I loath travelling on business and so avoid it like the plague, can't be bothered to do jobs just to earn money, and have never had a company car. And my yacht's a 12 foot dinghy (which I thoroughly enjoy sailing when it ever stops raining ). It all depends what you want out of life - what used to drive me in my career was an interest in creative engineering, hence the CEng made sense. Nowadays I suppose I tend to feel that people are more interesting than lumps of electronics...

-------------------------
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
 29 October 2012 05:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
It is strange that the age of new IEng registrants is so high, in fact the average age last year was 44.5 which is 8 years older than the average age of a newly registered chartered engineer (doesn't really back up the progressive registration concept).

I suspect it is either
a) closely related to the age at which "IEng level" engineers find it harder to get jobs, or
b) closely related to the age at which "IEng level" engineers feel they ought to be getting promoted, or
c) both

It would be also interesting to know what percentage of IEng registrants have a degree? If it is low that would support the above even more.

-------------------------
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
 30 October 2012 06:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
I'm certainly not negative about my own achievements, I've travelled the world on business, earned considerably more than the average chartered engineer and my last company car was a porsche I just sail my yacht now!!

Hang on a minute there....

You have a boat and drove a porsche? You're not Jeremy Clarkson by any chance?

Who owns who a pint of Beer?
 31 October 2012 08:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006
I bet it was a chartered engineer who designed my boat engine with the water pump impeller housing in the most inaccessible position possible, you need arms 2 metres long and spanner with a wall thickness of 10 microns.

No...I bet it was a project manager...the CEng and IEng would have been trying to explain how bad it was and the PM would have been saying that if they fixed it it would mess up his project plan! (Not saying I keep finding myself in that position...)

Sailing is like standing in a cold shower tearing up £20 notes!

Ahh...well...if you will sail yachts; if you sail dinghies you only tear up £5 notes! And it's proper sailing

Got both my children sailing solo this summer which was very satisfying, I was very impressed that my daughter managed to completely invert her Pico which I didn't think was possible!

"Better drowned than duffers, if not duffers won't drown" - Commander Ted Walker, RN

-------------------------
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
 31 October 2012 09:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: mbirdi
You're not Jeremy Clarkson by any chance?

I reckon Richard Hammond's the IEng, James May's the CEng, but where that puts Clarkson?????

-------------------------
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
 31 October 2012 09:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

JC has his own special status BMEng.

Regards.
 31 October 2012 08:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: amillar
Originally posted by: mbirdi

You're not Jeremy Clarkson by any chance?

I reckon Richard Hammond's the IEng, James May's the CEng, but where that puts Clarkson?????

Ah yes, Hamster prefers the Porche and Clarkson is the Aston Martin man.

Where does that puts Clarkson? CEO of the Engineering Council of course.

Edited: 20 November 2012 at 07:15 PM by mbirdi
 01 November 2012 09:06 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Do you think there could circumstances where dual registration is actually required and thus of real use? I tend to think it is more of a post nominals type exercise.

Regards.
 01 November 2012 09:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

If the institutes were specialist and if industry had a use for IEng I could see that it would be of value to show that you were (say) a practitioner in Mechanical Engineering and an innovation leader in Electrical Engineering.

But since with the IET in particular you can't link registration to fields of engineering I think at the moment it just makes you feel better having more letters.

Personally if I saw a CV with CEng IEng on it my instant reaction would be that this is someone who is more interested in being seen to be an engineer than someone who is actually going to roll up their sleeves and get on with some work. And possibly someone with a bit of a chip on their shoulder. I'm aware that this is a personal bias, and I do try not to give into it. (I have enough letters myself - far more than I show here - to know what the real value of them is )

-------------------------
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
 07 November 2012 01:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

I have never seen a company proudly boasting about the number of IEngs it employs, equally I have never seen a job advert requiring IEng (I think I may have seen a couple saying "working towards an IEng an advantage"). Maybe some companies do pay you more or give you promotion preference if you are IEng, but personally I have never heard this discussed as a possibility. SO I would really question whether industry genuinly sees a value in IEng registration. Now, it's one of these questions where you have to be careful how you ask it: if you ask an employer "do you think IEng registration is of value?" they will probably say yes, because why wouldn't you. But if you were to ask "do you prefer recruiting IEng registrants over non-IEng?" my feeling (and I'm happy to be proved wrong!) is that the honest answer would be "no, we decide who we think will be best to do the job."

Until industry starts demanding that potential and existing employees at IEng level get registered, which will only be because that same industry sees a perceived added value, then the present situation is unlikely to change.

Hope that makes sense? Only my personal view of course.

-------------------------
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
 09 November 2012 01:50 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



gordonrabbitt

Posts: 2
Joined: 14 March 2009

That is the truest reply here. People get carried away with honours and letters after their name. they forget about thinking and practicality. Great engineers are not egotistical, they are forward thinkers and practical with sorting out problems,
 20 November 2012 07:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: amillar
Until industry starts demanding that potential and existing employees at IEng level get registered, which will only be because that same industry sees a perceived added value, then the present situation is unlikely to change.

Registration is a waste of time because engineering and technology are moving at an incredible pace. Somebody in their mid 40s applying for IEng is already well past their sell by date.

The majority of CEngs and IEngs engineers are closet engineers because they are in a minority in the work place and if they made mistakes in their jobs that affected service levels and therefore the rest of the staff, they would get linched by their colleagues.

I am aware of one registered engineer who booked a week's leave on the day of major testing for which they were responsible. The test went wrong and affected the service to the entire organisation. Subsequently the registered engineer wasn't popular with the rest of the staff.

The last thing an engineer - working under pressure - wants to do is declare they are CEng or IEng to the rest of the organisation. That is why we hear some CEngs announcing how proud they are writting CEng after their names in their Passports. That's because the Customs and Excise chap is the only one who isn't going to bite their heads off
 21 November 2012 09:35 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

I don't know anyone who is ashamed to admit they are CEng / IEng in case they are considered more responsible (I think that's sort of what you were saying). And all our engineers work under bonkers amounts of pressure (safety, commercial and deadline) all the time! I find that people's level of responsibility, and hence blame, depends solely on their position in the company, not on what letters they have after their name. I have never heard anyone say "he was a CEng / IEng, he shouldn't have let that happen"; I have regularly heard "he was the department manager / project manager, he shouldn't have let that happen". (And maybe I work for a particulalry enlightened company, but often the question is asked why that person was put in that position of responsibility, rather than why that person "made a less than optimal decision").

I have (just once) seen the opposite: recently one of my colleagues tried justifying a completely ludicrous decision on the grounds that he was a Chartered Engineer so he must know what he was talking about on all engineering subjects. Since the rest of us were a) also CEngs and b) knew darn well that each engineer only knows a tiny specific amount about engineering he didn't get far with that argument...

-------------------------
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
IET » CEng, IEng, EngTech and other professional registration matters » Dual Registration

<< 1 2 3 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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