IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: UKSpec
Topic Summary: Will the proposed changes to UKSpec be detrimental to the standing to IEng
Created On: 13 September 2013 06:36 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 1 2 3 4 5 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.
 17 October 2013 12:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



faramog

Posts: 444
Joined: 25 November 2002

Originally posted by: mbirdi

By the way, did you see the recent series of Dragons Den. Some CEng Civil Engineer invented a small shower pump................ ................

This is just one example which highlights the limitations of CEng registration and yet people believe it to represent the ultimate in engineering qualification.


Rubbish - shows nothing of the sort. The idea that a CEng registration by virtue of holding CEng should be able to stand up in front of investors and deliver a pitch is nonsense. The real issue was that the individual did not have any business accumen and was so (apparently) unprepapred for a business review.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Prebble CEng MIEE
 17 October 2013 12:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



faramog

Posts: 444
Joined: 25 November 2002

And since I have joined the debate, The key distinction between CEng and IEng (as defined by UKSpec) is that of creativity & innovation. At interview, if a candidate cannot demonstrate that they have been innovative (and I await the cries of 'what is innovation or creativity then ?'), then they are unlikely to be operating at CEng level for the purposes of registration. This is not the same thing as saying they are not as good or as effective as any other engineer.

I wish people would remember that the registration levels do not represent an idealised or notional level of hierarchy, but rather a demonstration of competence against a particular requirement.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Prebble CEng MIEE
 17 October 2013 03:43 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Originally posted by: faramog

And since I have joined the debate, The key distinction between CEng and IEng (as defined by UKSpec) is that of creativity & innovation. At interview, if a candidate cannot demonstrate that they have been innovative (and I await the cries of 'what is innovation or creativity then ?'), then they are unlikely to be operating at CEng level for the purposes of registration. This is not the same thing as saying they are not as good or as effective as any other engineer.



I wish people would remember that the registration levels do not represent an idealised or notional level of hierarchy, but rather a demonstration of competence against a particular requirement.



I know what innovation and creativity is, but how can someone graduating from university with say an BEng honours degree at age 22 or 23 and then work for 4 years, basically as a Junior Engineer in most companies, claim to have been innovative and or creative, and gain CEng. That I find hard to believe.
10% of our learning occurs through Education, 20% occurs through Exposure and 70% occurs through Experience.

The Engineering Council should stick to their UKSpec standards of education of a Masters Degree for CEng and a Ordinary Bachelors degree for IEng and this will eliminate all of the other backdoor routes to these designations. If you wish to gain these designations from say an HNC/HND or Honours degree, then go back to university and make up the required gap.

In 1965 I was finishing my 5 year apprenticship in the drawing office at the same time as finishing the HNC and found out from a friend that you could apply to the IMechE for the designation GMIMechE , Graduate member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, but decided to wait a few years to gain more experience. However, when I did apply I received back from the Institution what I would call a rather snobbish reply, indicating that in 1965 the required level of education required to gain GMIMechE had been raised to the level of an ordinary degree and that I should apply when I had a degree and there where other Institutions that I could apply to for membership.

Isn't it amazing now, how this Institution and many others are falling over backwards to attract members at all levels. It's all about membership numbers and there membership fees, especially when anyone in the U.K. can call themselves an Engineer.

I find that after reading the proposed changes to the UKSpec , they would not be acceptable to me as a former IEng (I retired 2 years ago and resigned my membership.) Many engineers, PEng's that I have worked with here in Canada, PhD's, MSc's etc., I would not regard as always innovative or creative, it was the senior designers like myself producing layouts and working drawings that should be in many cases the creative ones. I have along with 2 other engineers ,2 patents registered in our names. After all nothing can be built without drawings.

Maybe I am old school, but back in 1965 when we completed the HNC, we were regarded as being equal, if not better that someone with a BSc.
 18 October 2013 12:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

I think EngC is simply aligning the registration to better match the rest of the signers to Sydney accord,.

IEng as a Technologist at a 3 year Bachelors degree level.

ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGISTS The benchmark Stage 1 qualification for Engineering Technologists is the three-year Bachelor of Engineering degree.
Engineering Technologists normally operate within a relatively well-defined technical environment and undertake a wide range of functions and responsibilities.

CEng

The benchmark Stage 1 qualification for Professional Engineers is the four-year Bachelor of Engineering degree.
Professional Engineers are responsible for interpreting technological possibilities to society,business and government. They are also responsible for ensuring, as far as possible, that policy decisions are properly informed, and that costs, risks and limitations are properly understood as the desired outcomes.
 18 October 2013 02:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Originally posted by: MosheW

I think EngC is simply aligning the registration to better match the rest of the signers to Sydney accord,.



IEng as a Technologist at a 3 year Bachelors degree level.



ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGISTS The benchmark Stage 1 qualification for Engineering Technologists is the three-year Bachelor of Engineering degree.

A Certified Engineering Technologist qualification in Canada is a 3 year College Technology Diploma and not a 3 year University Degree.
The Sydney Accord is therefore long out of date.



CEng

The benchmark Stage 1 qualification for Professional Engineers is the four-year Bachelor of Engineering degree.

In Canada this is correct for the direct route to PEng, but then why does the U.KSPEC call for a Masters Degree for the direct route to the CEng, when the Washington Accord allows for the 4 year Bachelors Degree.
Are the U.K. degrees deemed weaker than other countries.?
Is the U.K. trying to equate their qualifications to the European standards as well as the Washington Accord standards.?
 18 October 2013 05:48 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



mbirdi

Posts: 1907
Joined: 13 June 2005

Originally posted by: amillar
Why is that a limitation of CEng?

I thought managing people, projects and budgets were the norm for CEng registration these days. So how can they do that and then show lack of skills in forming a business plan. I mean, anyone who has watched Dragon's Den and is thinking of turning up to try their hand at getting an investment should know what to expect on the program. Failing to understand the requirement and present a desent pitch shows the engineer concerned is out of tough with the real world. Perhaps he's from the old school of CEng from way back in the 1960s when all a CEng had to do was get a degree and a couple of years experience. Now a days the modern engineer has to move with the times. Another example of why validation (every 5 years?) for registered engineers should be compulsary.
 19 October 2013 10:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Originally posted by: danielscott

Originally posted by: MosheW



I think EngC is simply aligning the registration to better match the rest of the signers to Sydney accord,.







IEng as a Technologist at a 3 year Bachelors degree level.







ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGISTS The benchmark Stage 1 qualification for Engineering Technologists is the three-year Bachelor of Engineering degree.



A Certified Engineering Technologist qualification in Canada is a 3 year College Technology Diploma and not a 3 year University Degree.

The Sydney Accord is therefore long out of date.







CEng



The benchmark Stage 1 qualification for Professional Engineers is the four-year Bachelor of Engineering degree.



In Canada this is correct for the direct route to PEng, but then why does the U.KSPEC call for a Masters Degree for the direct route to the CEng, when the Washington Accord allows for the 4 year Bachelors Degree.

Are the U.K. degrees deemed weaker than other countries.?

Is the U.K. trying to equate their qualifications to the European standards as well as the Washington Accord standards.?


In USA the college 4 year degree is the same as University 4 year degree, A college at times part of a University,

As to Masters degree, then in Canada MEng is usually a two year program with Thesis.

In UK MEng is one year program.
So a UK three year BEng plus a one year MEng seen as a good 4 year BSc Eng in Canada.
 19 October 2013 03:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Originally posted by: MosheW

Originally posted by: danielscott



Originally posted by: MosheW




















As to Masters degree, then in Canada MEng is usually a two year program with Thesis.



In UK MEng is one year program.

So a UK three year BEng plus a one year MEng seen as a good 4 year BSc Eng in Canada.



If my memory serves me correctly a degree at a University in Scotland (U.K.) takes 4 years . England, Wales and Northern Ireland is 3 years. A BEng Honours degree (U.K.) is equated to the 4 year Canadian Degree , good for your PEng application..
 19 October 2013 03:10 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

I think EngC is simply aligning the registration to better match the rest of the signers to Sydney accord,.




Quite why, I'm not sure! The UK has significantly more incorporated engineers then the the rest of the signatories put together. Canada for instance has only 67 Engineering Technologists on their register, Ireland has very few Associate Engineers, the same applies to the rest of the countries on the register. When it come the International Register of Engineering Technologists, the UK only has about 30 individuals registered in total.

Hardly a successful model to follow, or am I missing something.


The Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists (OACETT), have over 24,000 registered Technicians and Technologists of which I would guess at least 1/3 are Technologists and that is only one province in Canada, so I don't know where you get your numbers from.

I will try and find out the exact number of Technologists registered here in Ontario.

Regarding your previous comments on the proposed UKSpec changes, based on my experiences, I agree with you 100%.
 19 October 2013 08:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for MosheW.
MosheW

Posts: 192
Joined: 14 April 2013

Originally posted by: danielscott

Originally posted by: pmiller2006



I think EngC is simply aligning the registration to better match the rest of the signers to Sydney accord,.


Provincial associations may certify individuals as a Professional Technologist (P.Tech), Certified Engineering Technologist (C.E.T.), Registered Engineering Technologist (R.E.T.), Applied Science Technologist (AScT) or Technologue Professionel [T.P.]. These provincial associations are constituent members of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT),




Quite why, I'm not sure! The UK has significantly more incorporated engineers then the the rest of the signatories put together. Canada for instance has only 67 Engineering Technologists on their register, Ireland has very few Associate Engineers, the same applies to the rest of the countries on the register. When it come the International Register of Engineering Technologists, the UK only has about 30 individuals registered in total.



Hardly a successful model to follow, or am I missing something.




The Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists (OACETT), have over 24,000 registered Technicians and Technologists of which I would guess at least 1/3 are Technologists and that is only one province in Canada, so I don't know where you get your numbers from.



I will try and find out the exact number of Technologists registered here in Ontario.



Regarding your previous comments on the proposed UKSpec changes, based on my experiences, I agree with you 100%.
 20 October 2013 07:24 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Originally posted by: pmiller2006

The Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists (OACETT), have over 24,000 registered Technicians and Technologists of which I would guess at least 1/3 are Technologists and that is only one province in Canada, so I don't know where you get your numbers from.




Hi Daniel,



Opps, I made a typo it was IPENZ (New Zealand) is was referring to not Canada ! . Apologies for the mistake



I had a look at the The Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists (OACETT) website. The annual report report shows over 24,000 members and 8,232 certified as Engineering Technologist (which was a 3.5 increase on the previous year).



Its good to see that when there is an dedicated organisation promoting engineering technology as a profession there is a significant take up.


Thanks for your reply pmiller2006 and no need for an apology.
OACETT has grown in leaps and bounds since I first joined it in 1970 when my membership number was 7415 and now many companies will seek out those with the designation that MosheW has indicated above, although there are many more who don't, as they see a PEng as the way to go and this is why there are thousands of Technicians and Technologists out there who find there is very little need to register.

By the way, I believe there are about 75,000 PEng's registered in Ontario (one Province) with the PEO and compare this with the approx. number of Doctors registered in all of Canada, which is around 73,000. Many PEng's feel they should be respected at the same level as the Doctors. Yes, and some special ones should, but the majority (as one P.E.) from the USA stated "Professional Engineers are like commodities"

I'm sure I may have a few responses on my comments.

Regards,

Daniel
 21 October 2013 12:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

And what about this ? How to fill this skills gap ?

" The UK Industrial sector will need 1.28 million science , engineering and technology professionals and technicians by 2020 " .

See page 19 of the SEE (UK) Journal

http://content.yudu.com/Librar.../index.htm?referrerUrl

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 29 October 2013 10:25 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



faramog

Posts: 444
Joined: 25 November 2002

Originally posted by: danielscott

Originally posted by: faramog

And since I have joined the debate,The key distinction between CEng and IEng (as defined by UKSpec) is that of creativity & innovation. At interview, if a candidate cannot demonstrate that they have been innovative (and I await the cries of 'what is innovation or creativity then ?'), then they are unlikely to be operating at CEng level for the purposes of registration. This is not the same thing as saying they are not as good or as effective as any other engineer.

....


I know what innovation and creativity is, but how can someone graduating from university with say an BEng honours degree at age 22 or 23 and then work for 4 years, basically as a Junior Engineer in most companies, claim to have been innovative and or creative, and gain CEng. That I find hard to believe.

10% of our learning occurs through Education, 20% occurs through Exposure and 70% occurs through Experience.

BSc.


Not sure I agree with that DanielScott. I graduated in 1986. By January of 87 I had designed a wholly original cutting edge circuit board using techniques the company I worked for had never thought of. When put into production the following summer it was a world first, step change in what was in the market (not that I got much credit of course being a mere engineer).

Yes.. in lots of ways I was 'lucky', in lots of ways the design could have been improved etc etc... but it was an innovative design full of left-field solutions to complex problems and had not been done before. I was not encumbered by the 'must do it this way' brigade and could just ask the obvious to me .. "why not like this".

So the idea that a graduate can come out of university and not straight away start being creative or looking at problems differently is not something I agree with. You seem to suggest the worth of a degree is very low (different debate).

You are right to say that experience and by implication perhaps, consistency are key aspects in demonstrating required competence, but you are, in my view, incorrect to suggest that this takes many years. It may do, but equally, candidates can get to the required line very quickly.

-------------------------
Eur Ing Graham Prebble CEng MIEE
 29 October 2013 01:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

Originally posted by: faramog

Originally posted by: danielscott



Originally posted by: faramog



And since I have joined the debate,The key distinction between CEng and IEng (as defined by UKSpec) is that of creativity & innovation. At interview, if a candidate cannot demonstrate that they have been innovative (and I await the cries of 'what is innovation or creativity then ?'), then they are unlikely to be operating at CEng level for the purposes of registration. This is not the same thing as saying they are not as good or as effective as any other engineer.



....




I know what innovation and creativity is, but how can someone graduating from university with say an BEng honours degree at age 22 or 23 and then work for 4 years, basically as a Junior Engineer in most companies, claim to have been innovative and or creative, and gain CEng. That I find hard to believe.



10% of our learning occurs through Education, 20% occurs through Exposure and 70% occurs through Experience.



BSc.




Not sure I agree with that DanielScott. I graduated in 1986. By January of 87 I had designed a wholly original cutting edge circuit board using techniques the company I worked for had never thought of. When put into production the following summer it was a world first, step change in what was in the market (not that I got much credit of course being a mere engineer).



Yes.. in lots of ways I was 'lucky', in lots of ways the design could have been improved etc etc... but it was an innovative design full of left-field solutions to complex problems and had not been done before. I was not encumbered by the 'must do it this way' brigade and could just ask the obvious to me .. "why not like this".



So the idea that a graduate can come out of university and not straight away start being creative or looking at problems differently is not something I agree with. You seem to suggest the worth of a degree is very low (different debate).



You are right to say that experience and by implication perhaps, consistency are key aspects in demonstrating required competence, but you are, in my view, incorrect to suggest that this takes many years. It may do, but equally, candidates can get to the required line very quickly.


The only way I can answer this is as you have noted above., "Yes.. in lots of ways I was 'lucky'. And happened to be in the right place at the right time.
 04 November 2013 01:30 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/b...dth&cmpid=tenews_28178

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 05 November 2013 09:09 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



iie609881

Posts: 9
Joined: 25 July 2008

"...The whole concept of progression from Engtech to IEng to CEng is flawed."

Unfortunately Equal-but-Different has gone: this seems to be the EC's latest thinking, which is necessary to support the idea of (quoting the EC): "...The status of being part of a technological elite" which is not reflected for EngTech or IEng in the EC's material.
 06 November 2013 08:32 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 529
Joined: 17 September 2001

I think the whole "equal but different" thing was nothing but a bit of political correctness anyway. Compare the current UKSpec requirements for IEng and CEng, and it soon becomes apparent that the CEng requirements are either the same or more onerous in every case.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 11 November 2013 07:15 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



CelticHeathen

Posts: 46
Joined: 10 December 2012

Originally posted by: sunnyboy

And what about this ? How to fill this skills gap ?


" The UK Industrial sector will need 1.28 million science , engineering and technology professionals and technicians by 2020 " .


See page 19 of the SEE (UK) Journal


http://content.yudu.com/Librar.../index.htm?referrerUrl


Glad someone has addressed this.

I would add to this by asking... why is the employment rate for engineering graduates (both electrical AND mechanical) only 53%? And moreover, what the hell are the likes of the IET going to do about it? It's all well and good shouting the odds about a need for more graduates, but when almost half of STEM graduates can't get a job as it is...
 18 November 2013 01:36 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

Originally posted by: sunnyboy

And what about this ? How to fill this skills gap ?



" The UK Industrial sector will need 1.28 million science , engineering and technology professionals and technicians by 2020 " .



See page 19 of the SEE (UK) Journal



http://content.yudu.com/Librar.../index.htm?referrerUrl



www.theengineer.co.uk/blog/the-week-ahead-should-immigration-fill-the-skills-gap/1017506.article?cmpid=tenews_39811

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
 18 November 2013 01:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



sunnyboy

Posts: 323
Joined: 12 October 2004

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/b...cle?cmpid=tenews_39811

-------------------------
Luciano Bacco
IET » CEng, IEng, EngTech and other professional registration matters » UKSpec

<< 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



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