Originally posted by: roybowdler
These describe a common perception although Andy's response illustrates that things have moved on in the IET (although not in every institution).
That is because many institutions have higher standards than the IET and wish to retain them. BMA, IOSH to name but two.
Most of the engineering leaders were unregistered because they typically had HNC/HND. They could have gained IEng but because of the negative perceptions you describe they just didn't bother.
On the other hand maybe they did not see the value in registering and maybe once their employer offered to pay for it they no longer had the same concerns. Maybe the 'negative perception' was just a figment of someones imagination.
This was probably just as well, because nothing could have more clearly illustrated the illogical proposition that was being promoted by Engineering Council and the Professional Institutions (and is still perpetuated by a few)
Maybe the few are correct, after they have maintained their positions and it is the IET who have changed theirs. If the IET was not correct before then who is to say it is correct now?
Following discussions with the business it was easy to identify that some of the engineering leaders were world class experts (others were just excellent engineers) and all this group are now CEng registered following IET assessment.
And are their decisions any better following that registration? As you mention business responsibility, if they make a poor decision and end up before the judge will the business then say well, we took our advice from a CEng.....he only gained CEng shortly before the decision but surely your honour that he is now a CEng it is the IET's fault because after all they said he was competent.
One business benefit is that customers, regulators and liability insurers can see how risk is managed by competent people, signed up to a code of conduct.
Why is it then that most employers still ask for HNC's, BSc's, MSc's etc., and hardly any ask for IEng and CEng? Why is it that regulators speak about competency and yet in laws and approved codes of practice etc., they do not suggest this can be acheived by signing up to a code of conduct? What about the MP's, banks, press, police, etc., code of conduct, how have those code's of conduct been doing over the last few years? You write like a salesperson instead of an engineer, there is no proof to suggest that IEng or CEng registered engineers are any more competent or otherwise make less mistakes than are/do non registered engineers. Business on the whole does not see the benefits you state and hence on the whole does not require it and regulators certainly do not see the benefits you state and hence 99.999% of law does not require it. In the areas where these things are required they mostly, not all, also require a minimum of a degree in addition to relevant work experience. If you want to take a look at how the authorities see competency then you will find that being a registered engineer hardly figures in it and neither does being signed up to some voluntary code of conduct.
This group led the development of ground breaking, high risk and high value technology. The main competence required for this type of work is CEng.
No, actually the competency requirements were all those competencies which were required to gain CEng because CEng is just a status and does not make people competent. CEng is not a competency, it's a professional status.
It is possible and not uncommon for people to transfer from Technician to IEng, or IEng to CEng, depending on their career path but it is ridiculous to suggest that every professional should be "progressing to CEng".
How many transfer from CEng to IEng then?
We are making progress on rebuilding new IEng registrants , although we need to get the average age down because the average age of a new IEng is currently higher than a new CEng.
Surely the target should be to ensure the correct competency rather than trying to lower the age? Maybe the IET could shorten the requirement for work experience and that would get the age down a bit......then the 'we have moved on whereas a few have not' argument could be used to sell it.
In the end, the only defence to the silly myths that some people attach to IEng is meeting the real thing.
We cannot really meet IEng can we, it's a status and exists in a sort of virtual world. We can meet a person of course but then we are not talking about the person Roy, we are talking about the status. What pmiller is saying is that the number of IEng registrants appears to be declining and what we are suggesting is that its status is seen as less than CEng. We are not suggesting that one person is less of a person than another. CEng has a good brand IEng does not. Let's start thinking outside the box and include more into the IEng package.