IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Previous EngC comments towards IEng's
Topic Summary: Would this have caused the poor support for IEng registrations
Created On: 21 October 2013 04:04 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 21 October 2013 04:04 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



danielscott

Posts: 461
Joined: 18 April 2003

I have just been looking back as some of the past information that the Engineering Council has produced and can understand the frustration within the IEng registrants regarding the proposed changes to UKSpec.

In 1997 when Sartor 97 was introduced the EC produced a comparison between Chartered Engineers and Incorporated Engineers in an attempt to clarify any confusion about the difference between the two job roles and responsibilites.
They produced a chart which described these differences called "Two types of professional engineer" and described them as "Different but of equal value" with a final indication that there was an "Overlap in mobility and employment."

The following year in 1998, Malcolm Shirley, Director General of the Engineering Council, give a clear pledge of support for the then IIE's drive to promote the value of the Incorporated Engineer , parts of which read as follows:-

"There will continue to be a place for engineers more at home with applying theoretical knowledge, but the priority is for the more practical breed of professional, in the form of the Incorporated Engineer"
He went on to state "The Engineering Council has also suggested that Chartered and Incorporated Engineers have a prefix 'Engineer' title.

Malcolm Shirley was later replaced by Andrew Ramsey who in his final year before retirement authored a document in December 2011 called, "The History of the Incorporated Engineer".
In the final section of this document called "The future", he wrote the following:-

"It seems most likely to this author that the biggest disadvantage to recognition of Incorporated Engineers has been misunderstanding and ignorance, both within the profession and outside. Having finally laid the demon of title, the concerted marketing efforts of the Engineering Council, and of the professional engineering institutions should make a considerable difference to the standing of Incorporated Engineers. Oh yes, and the cost of pursuing a university education may well encourage more of our bright young men and women to understand that IEng is a worthwhile career goal."

It is also noted by the EC that having CEng is the "Gold Standard" for an engineer. Are IEng's the "Silver Standard" and EngTech's the "Bronze Standard".?

Having been a member of the IMechIE, the IIE and the IET, I would suggest that the EC over this past 20-30 years has caused the greatest problems to the standing of the Incorporated Engineer by the changes described in past Sartors and the present UKSpec. Maybe the discussions on the Incorporated Engineer title and the post nominal IEng hasn't helped the recognition.

This is my personal point of view and off course other have theirs and no doubt will differ from mine.

Daniel
Statistics

See Also:



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