IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: The elitist Engineers and the Engineering Council
Topic Summary:
Created On: 13 February 2013 10:38 AM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 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.
 13 February 2013 10:38 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

 13 February 2013 12:16 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

Luciano,

What is the point you are trying to make here? Who are the "elistit Engineers" and what are they doing right (or wrong)?

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 13 February 2013 01:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

The Membership to this " Company " appears to be restricted only to
the Chartered Engineers !

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 14 February 2013 09:41 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

I'm not sure the Worshipful Company of Engineers is any more or less "elitist" than the Royal Academy of Engineering, if we want to go down that road of thought?

But let's be practical.

Setting criteria for progression and selection means some people meet the criteria, some don't, some can progress, move "onwards and upwards", some can't.

It could also be said that the "EurIng" title is "elitist" in the same way, or that "CEng" is "elitist" because you have to demonstrate that you have met (somehow) learning to the equivalent of an accredited Masters (or Bachelors before 1999) degree (whether on the job or otherwise).

Remove all these artificial "barriers" and what have you got?

The point is, that to the "cup half empty" perspective, these are "barriers", to the "cup half full" perspective, they are simply "criteria", or something to which you should aspire.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 14 February 2013 10:40 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



MAWilson

Posts: 48
Joined: 22 February 2006

Graham, you've made some really valid points.

The issue I have with this award is the way it is presented automatically cast these young and from what I've read from some of the past winners, exceptional engineers into a bracket on the basis of being BEng (Hons) which is illogical in my mind. No one has been able to articulate to my mind (even the EC UKSPEC is quite bad) what exactly MEng or BEng level of work is and to automatically push undergraduates into any defined category before they have even started their career is ludicrous. There are already consequences in industry where top graduate schemes are cutting out BEng Graduates on the basis that their schemes are accredited to CEng.

There is a case with my company where they rejected a young man which I strongly believe was on this basis but luckily he was able to get a job with a local contract partner. Throughout a year working on site, he was so exceptional we offered him a job on more money than any of the graduate class to which he would have been enrolled, but that's out of luck we did not lose such a talent.

Let these young engineers just take pride in their accomplishment and aspire for a career. All these accreditation by institutions and automatic classifications of qualifications while they have their part to play, just muddies the water in many cases and prevents some really good engineers at HND and BEng level from coming to the forth due to corporate and institutional non-sense. If I'm honest with myself even as a Graduate, 70 to 80% of engineering work can be done at the HND level with applicable experience and nobody is championing that.

M Wilson MIET
 14 February 2013 01:37 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

The name of the Company is " The Worshipful Company of Engineers" , therefore they should incorporate ALL types of ENGINEERS,
that are, also the Incorporated ones ! So should also do the FEANI !

Further to grant an award from the top towards the middle of the professional ladder, means to consider the one in this postition as
inferior !
It is exactly the same as the Incorporated Engineers should grant the same award to the best Engineering Technician(s)

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco

Edited: 14 February 2013 at 01:47 PM by sunnyboy
 14 February 2013 02:54 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

I'm not sure the Worshipful Company of Engineers is any more or less "elitist" than the Royal Academy of Engineering, if we want to go down that road of thought?




Of course they are equally elitist, (I can't see how this comment relates to the issue?).
Because the Royal Academy of Engineering also provide such grants, and provide valuable information/support to the Engineering Council.

So, if EC(UK) don't support the Worshipful Company of Engineers' award, on the grounds of elitism, then they should equally not support help/awards from Royal Academy of Engineering.

Or, vice-versa: accept them both !

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 14 February 2013 03:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

Originally posted by: MAWilson

Graham, you've made some really valid points.



The issue I have with this award is the way it is presented automatically cast these young and from what I've read from some of the past winners, exceptional engineers into a bracket on the basis of being BEng (Hons) which is illogical in my mind. No one has been able to articulate to my mind (even the EC UKSPEC is quite bad) what exactly MEng or BEng level of work is and to automatically push undergraduates into any defined category before they have even started their career is ludicrous. There are already consequences in industry where top graduate schemes are cutting out BEng Graduates on the basis that their schemes are accredited to CEng.



There is a case with my company where they rejected a young man which I strongly believe was on this basis but luckily he was able to get a job with a local contract partner. Throughout a year working on site, he was so exceptional we offered him a job on more money than any of the graduate class to which he would have been enrolled, but that's out of luck we did not lose such a talent.



Let these young engineers just take pride in their accomplishment and aspire for a career. All these accreditation by institutions and automatic classifications of qualifications while they have their part to play, just muddies the water in many cases and prevents some really good engineers at HND and BEng level from coming to the forth due to corporate and institutional non-sense. If I'm honest with myself even as a Graduate, 70 to 80% of engineering work can be done at the HND level with applicable experience and nobody is championing that.



M Wilson MIET
I can't disagree with any of this.

For example, not sure when the change to requiring MEng over BEng(Hons) - or equivalent of course - came in in 1999, I couldn't understand what advantage this was intended to bring to the workplace, and to the core educational base in the art and science of Engineering for the indivudual (esp. the ART of Engineering which is often more important than the science). Although, I am aware of the need to do this based on the international agreements . . . but at least there is a route for individuals without accredited Masters to demonstrate they have "on the job" learning at that level.

As my earlier post demonstrates, I've no beef with there being "levels" in the profession, and we each cut our cloth to suit our means (abilities as well as resources), needs and desires.

Earlier in my career, mid-20's, I was thinking about a more "hands-on" career, and IEng MIEEIE as it was then, regardless of the fact that I had a degree from a course accredited for CEng. I was happy with that, and the fact that, at the time, I could not apply to be a corporate member of IEE (as it was then). The only reason I've gone CEng and EurIng, is that my career path took an unexpected turn, and I began working in a different line to that orignally planned - more aligned with the CEng competences.

Interesting thoughts.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 14 February 2013 03:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

Originally posted by: sunnyboy

The name of the Company is " The Worshipful Company of Engineers" , therefore they should incorporate ALL types of ENGINEERS,

that are, also the Incorporated ones ! So should also do the FEANI !
In English, the word "engineer" means much more than "Engineers having met the criteria for, and actually been registered, as Incorporated or Chartered Engineer".

Even if the Worshipful Company of Engineers decided to extend membership to Incorporated Engineers, that could still be cited as "exclusive" or "elitist". As I said, they needed some distinguishing criteria for membership, which I would have assumed to be required of any Livery Company based on the rules of charter or whatever governs them? They made those criteria and have not seen the need (as yet) to change them.


Further to grant an award from the top towards the middle of the professional ladder, means to consider the one in this postition as inferior !

It is exactly the same as the Incorporated Engineers should grant the same award to the best Engineering Technician(s)
Not sure why?

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 14 February 2013 04:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

However, going back to the first post, IEngs are eligible for this award and CEngs aren't, so I feel I ought to start complaining about why I am refused access to this £1000 (rather than why others can't pay this organisation a similar sum to be a member so that they can have a minor say in the election of the Lord Mayor of London).

But I won't.

To invert the famous quote: "I wouldn't join a club that doesn't want me as a member."

-------------------------
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
 14 February 2013 04:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

There are no specific awards from the Royal Academy of Engineering supporting the incorporated engineer award, so the argument is different.



For both organisations, not allowing IEng registrants to become members clearly demonstrates they consider incorporated engineers inferior and not 'professionals'.
I'm not sure I follow the argument here.

Surely, in offering the award, they are acknowledging that IEng are "professional engineers"?

This is in my view a wholly different thing than the criteria for membership in the Worshipful Company of Engineers? If you look closely at their criteria, they are looking for Fellows of Institutions, and therefore the same coule be said of any award give to CEng too.
From: http://www.engineerscompany.or...ault.aspx?pageId=65027

Applicants who are not yet Fellows of their professional bodies are admitted as Freeman of the Company in the expectation that they will be elected to Fellowship in a reasonable time; all applications in this category will be referred to an interview panel.


So, I'm not really sure what you are aiming at here?

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 14 February 2013 08:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

It certainly is the case that the IET is an elitist organisation that serves registered engineers - CEngs more so than IEngs. However, it doesn't really matter from a status point of view as both CEng and IEng haven't any.

What is more important is the population of UK engineers and the ratio of registered engineers to non-registered engineers. So if the number of registered engineers increases by several 100s this year, there will be a greater increase of non-registered engineers - HNC, HND, Graduates and postgraduates.

In short, CEngs and IEngs are irrelevent to the UK economy compared to the millions of non-registered engineers.
 15 February 2013 03:51 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Brian Robertson

Posts: 106
Joined: 01 April 2006

Maybe there is need for a change in regards to being registered?
For example

In order to practise in Great Britain, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians must be registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and have satisfied us that they meet our detailed requirements.

Pharmacists, pharmacy technicians and registered pharmacy premises must renew their registration with us every year, which involves completing a declaration stating that they meet all our professional, fitness to practise and ethical standards.

Why should Engineering / Technicians be different?

Brian

Edited: 15 February 2013 at 05:52 AM by Brian Robertson
 15 February 2013 10:38 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

Some areas of Engineering do require registration to practise.

It is neither reasonable nor feasible to require ALL engineering professionals (from the skilled assembler/fitter through to the Chief Engineer/Tech Director of a multinational, safety-related systems, organistion) in ALL engineering disciplines, in ALL engineering areas, to be registered. In fact, that's a silly scenario, given the raft of legislation and common law decisions requiring competence to be addressed.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 15 February 2013 02:03 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jimfraser

Posts: 4
Joined: 04 January 2008

mbirdi,

I sympathise with your position regarding registered and non-registered.

I remember an age when the British engineering industry (there was one then) was mainly run by time-served HNC guys. There were a few CEng guys existing in their own little bubble. Lots of great stuff got done. At the same time, lots of dreadful stuff got done.

We sat around in engineering offices over a cup of bad 70s instant coffee discussing the future of the profession and how graduates of the future needed more management subjects and more language skills. Not least amongst the dreams were the joined-up thinking that now exists for connecting qualifications (SCOTCAT/ECTS/ ...). Along came IEng and EngTech: OK, seems like a decent idea. Then there was BEng, MEng, Bologna, and so on.

Better? In the detail of some areas, such as progressing through levels of qualification, yes. In the big picture, I am not sure much has changed.

The management subjects and language skills have been largely ignored. What we have instead is an overplayed academic card in the form of extended honours level study for MEng. The BEng and diluted HND have replaced the old time-served HNC/HS guys and the CEng are still in their little bubble.

At the same time, we have still not caught up with the Germans on may detailed aspects of training and practice, particularly at technician level, there is a dire lack of leadership in British engineering, and the status of engineering in general is unchanged, except that it is now also overshadowed by the whole 'technology' concept. Lots of great stuff is being done. At the same time, lots of dreadful stuff is being done.


"Per ardua ad astra"
 16 February 2013 12:46 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: mbirdi
In short, CEngs and IEngs are irrelevent to the UK economy compared to the millions of non-registered engineers.

If they are IEng and CEng they are still engineers and are relevant to the UK economy, also it is not just about money. What you mean is that the CEng and IEng status is irrelevant to the UK economy and yet I would also disagree with that. Our economy and society is made of many different skills and abilities etc., and IEng and CEng registered engineers have their part to play. I do not however think that this registration makes them better than all the non registered engineers, but then I do not believe that the IET or EC suggest that in their message.

Regards.
 16 February 2013 03:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Brian Robertson

Posts: 106
Joined: 01 April 2006

Registered professions in the UK:

Doctors must be registered with a licence to practise with the General Medical Council (GMC) to practise medicine in the UK.

In order to practise in Great Britain, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians must be registered with the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) and have satisfied us that they meet our detailed requirements.

All dentists, dental nurses, dental technicians, dental hygienists, dental therapists, clinical dental technicians and orthodontic therapists must be registered with the GDC to work in the UK.

A person shall not practise or carry on business under any name, style or title containing the word "architect" unless he is a person registered under this Act."

Anyone wanting to work in the UK as a nurse must register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC), however this does not provide the right to work in the UK.

Also
Teachers, Electricians need a registration card
and the list goes on.

You and I ( the public ) have the right to know when they get services from a doctor, pharmacist, dentist, architect or nurse that they are getting a fully trained registered professional.

Why should UK Engineers / Technicians not be registered?

The professions above do not think its silly.

Being registered as Technician, IEng or CEng:

- Identifies you as having competences and that you have been assessed by other engineering professionals.

- Identifies you have satisfied and met requirements for that grade.

I also notice you can look at a register on line for most of the above and see who is registered.

eg
http://architects-register.org.uk/

Brian
 17 February 2013 12:02 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

There are many people practising in our profession who don't agree with these arguments.

What is the compeling reason for doing so?

First, "electricians" are "Engineers" too, and not all electricians are required to be registered with a "scheme", never mind hold a "registration card".

Second, out of the professions you quoted other than "electricians" and "teaching" (whose professions are "engineering" and "education" respectively), the remaining are "healthcare professionals" (registration would, of course be expected, for obvious reasons), and "architects", whose requirement ot be registered can be argued, but is required.

I still see no compelling reason to regulate further "engineering" as a profession, although I would like more to be done to encourage and help people to voluntarily "register".

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
 17 February 2013 02:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: Brian Robertson
Being registered as Technician, IEng or CEng:
- Identifies you as having competences and that you have been assessed by other engineering professionals.
- Identifies you have satisfied and met requirements for that grade.

As does having national engineering qualifications, for which you are assessed by engineering professionals, and having relevant work experience which is assessed each and every day by your employer(s).

Regards.
 17 February 2013 06:34 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for gkenyon.
gkenyon

Posts: 4478
Joined: 06 May 2002

Originally posted by: pmiller2006





I'm not sure I follow the argument here.



Surely, in offering the award, they are acknowledging that IEng are "professional engineers"?



This is in my view a wholly different thing than the criteria for membership in the Worshipful Company of Engineers? If you look closely at their criteria, they are looking for Fellows of Institutions, and therefore the same coule be said of any award give to CEng too.




The argument is that typically IEng is not considered a professional award. Organisations such as RAE and WCE see chartered equating to professional. Its not good enough that IEng is just seen as not quite CEng. If the Engineering Council continue marketing IEng as a sub-standard CEng it will ultimately fail. It seems probable that the number of Incorporated Engineers will be about 10,000 by the end of the decade (compared to 50,000 a few years back).
Best do away with EngTech, and all quals below Accredited MEng then ?

Again, not sure I follow the argument fully, except the bit about marketing IEng as a sub-standard CEng, which I agree with.

But I don't see how an organisation that wants Fellows of Engineering Institutions as members should be prevented from supporting IEng (or EngTech, or any other Engineering / Technical qualifications at any level, for that matter)?

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Kenyon CEng MIET TechIOSH
Statistics

See Also:



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