This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Value in IEng Registration

Afternoon all, just sitting behind a laptop screen pondering and found myself plotting course for my career progression and seemingly unlikely professional registration for CEng.

My current employer has encouraged that I achieve CEng registration (easier said than done) and any promotion to the next grade would be subject to attaining CEng. I'm wary of submitting my application for CEng due to not having an adequate level of education (I have a Bachelors degree only) and at my age there's little chance of me returning to university for further study. I'm employed as a senior engineer and acting principal engineer within a project I'm currently commissioned. I appreciate that working at a principal engineer level does not necessarily provide the evidence required to prove that my understanding and knowledge is at a MEng level.

Rewind a few years, I was reasonably proud of successful registration and to achieve IEng, however, to date I'm of the opinion that it has done little else other than measurement / benchmark of my competence and identify area's in which I need to strengthen. My employer (at the time of registration) did not professionally recognise IEng registration and from my own observations nor do other employers (that I've noticed). A cursory glance of job listings on LinkedIn, shall normally state a requirement for applicants to hold CEng registration or working towards CEng with no mention of IEng. There's an immense pressure to achieve Chartership and with failure to do so could be possibly observed as I'm either inadequate or not quite cutting the grade by a prospective or current employer.

Is there any value to the IEng registration other than a personal achievement and worth maintaining? I imagine the nervousness and apprehension about navigating the CEng route and the fear of failure that I'm not unique in this respect and other's may have a similar story? Not sure what I would wish to hear, but knowing of others that succeeded with a similar background and level of education would provide some encouragement.

Regards,

Allan.

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 3 years ago
I probably should have kept out of this, but a change in the weather brought me indoors and tempted me to take a look at the forums.

Anyone coming fresh to IEng and wishing to understand it, or encountering some form of negative prejudice that discomforts them, will continue to question the purpose of the category and/or the value of holding it. The fact that there are three generic categories and two types of “engineer” (or “Technologist”), naturally invites comparison, explanation or even competition. The three categories are a simplification of literally hundreds of different types of work being carried out by trained and skilled professionals.

When the explanation is offered by those who control the profession, who are either themselves Chartered Engineers or affiliated to that category, then in some shape or form, the explanation is always that IEng is a “lesser” or “lower” type of practitioner. There was a time when the “official” explanation, was that each type was “ideally optimised for different types of activity” ("different but equally valuable"), but that was lost once the IIE was no longer present at Engineering Council. In practice, the widely used “Chartered” designation is all most people think that they need to know from a professional body. Engineering has chosen to offer “intermediate”, “part-qualified” or “associate professional” categories, which a small proportion of practitioners have chosen to participate in.

The system for division, is also far from perfect , with widespread misunderstanding, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and iniquities, both real and perceived. Perhaps the most widely used and easily understood means of division uses academic qualifications, at the simplest based on the number of years of study. However, this apparent certainty, quickly falls apart under even superficial scrutiny. For example, a 22 year old with an “IEng degree” and real experience, will often outperform a typical MEng graduate of the same age. The latter may “catch up” or even in an R&D situation possibly become more effective; but what proportion of engineers are academic or industrial R&D? Many engineers also migrate away from their first degree domain.

Competent practice can be defined in a set of specific circumstances, but in a generic sense it is vague and open to a wide variety of interpretations. The IET has made enormous efforts over many years in competence assessments, but clarity and consistency still remains “difficult” and many Engineering Council PEIs have barely evolved since 1999, when the exemplifying quailfication for CEng was moved from Bachelors to Masters. A significant number are also dismissive of IEng or Eng Tech, as “not the type of people” who are welcome (or respected) in their club.

I’m delighted to see a contribution from Chris, who has given exceptional voluntary service to The IET and its members over many years. As his evidence illustrates, there are employers who value IEng. This is typically for engineer roles up to a certain level of seniority, however they also typically expect CEng for more senior roles. The MOD and its sphere of influence is perhaps the most prominent example.

So is there value in IEng? Yes in certain circumstances, but there are also some negative risks, otherwise the issue wouldn’t keep coming up.

Largely positive situations include; Where an IEng is clearly demonstrating a lesser capability, or carrying less responsibility than a Chartered Engineer doing a similar type of work, or where there is little prospect of negative comparison with a Chartered Engineer. Where the IEng standard is being used as an early career benchmark, such as after a “degree apprenticeship”, or other form of training or career transition. Where the IEng is working towards CEng with a reasonable prospect of success in the foreseeable future.

Some experienced professionals may also be unconcerned about potentially negative comparisons and register largely for their own satisfaction. I fitted into that category myself for many years, I didn’t need it, rarely used the post-nominal, but kept it “just in case”. It proved useful and I used it when I got more involved with the IET, but that was quickly followed by a “slap in the teeth” as Engineering Council “downgraded” the category, so I didn’t use it any more. I still currently hold it, in the hope that it might enable me to give some useful service post-retirement.

As I see it (from some distance) Engineering Council feels that it has to retain a three tier system to fit in with international accords which are based around academic qualifications. A number of Degree Apprenticeships have also been linked to the IEng standard, so a significant proportion of graduate engineers may pass through IEng. If every developing engineer did the same, then there would be a much greater level of clarity and consistency!

A suggestion that I made was for the IEng benchmark to become “Registered Engineer” (or another title). Any registered engineer could then, at a pace of their choosing, work towards CEng under the supervision of a professional institution. A minimum of say, four years before seeking CEng seems reasonable? Others have argued that control by PEIs is part of the problem, but I won’t pursue that here.

A registered professional engineer should in my opinion demonstrate graduate level understanding (i.e. bachelors) and Chartered Engineer should be benchmarked at “masters level”. However, this doesn’t mean that the best way to achieve these benchmarks is by full-time academic study prior to a career. A more effective approach is to blend learning and career experience. Many highly successful mid-career Engineers have developed to “masters level” through self-directed learning and many others are a little short, but often nothing that some learning in “research methods” can’t fix. It is not necessary for everyone as a “rite of passage” to prove their capability in advanced mathematics.

PS

In the light of current events,

We must redouble our efforts to provide training opportunities for all young people appropriate to their potential, if the long term consequences of this pandemic are not to become even worse.

I should also mention the international wave of revulsion and outrage about the death of George Floyd. In my experience the engineering profession is less inclined towards racism, than society generally. However, most institutions involved are extremely enthusiastic to perpetuate their versions of the class system and academic snobbery. This makes it difficult for anyone who is not excelling in maths and science by early teens, such as those who are socially disadvantaged. We should do better! Why does the Cleese, Barker & Corbett Sketch from 1966 still seem to resonate in our profession? Sorry for not “knowing my place”!

A particular hero of mine, who Rev Al Sharpton considers a “father figure”, also declared in 1966 that “it’s a man’s world”, built by engineers no less! Is that still true? He was also widely credited as saving Boston from burning after the assassination of Dr King a couple of years later. I visited his statue and the museum in Augusta with a section dedicated to him a couple of years ago.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 3 years ago
I probably should have kept out of this, but a change in the weather brought me indoors and tempted me to take a look at the forums.

Anyone coming fresh to IEng and wishing to understand it, or encountering some form of negative prejudice that discomforts them, will continue to question the purpose of the category and/or the value of holding it. The fact that there are three generic categories and two types of “engineer” (or “Technologist”), naturally invites comparison, explanation or even competition. The three categories are a simplification of literally hundreds of different types of work being carried out by trained and skilled professionals.

When the explanation is offered by those who control the profession, who are either themselves Chartered Engineers or affiliated to that category, then in some shape or form, the explanation is always that IEng is a “lesser” or “lower” type of practitioner. There was a time when the “official” explanation, was that each type was “ideally optimised for different types of activity” ("different but equally valuable"), but that was lost once the IIE was no longer present at Engineering Council. In practice, the widely used “Chartered” designation is all most people think that they need to know from a professional body. Engineering has chosen to offer “intermediate”, “part-qualified” or “associate professional” categories, which a small proportion of practitioners have chosen to participate in.

The system for division, is also far from perfect , with widespread misunderstanding, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and iniquities, both real and perceived. Perhaps the most widely used and easily understood means of division uses academic qualifications, at the simplest based on the number of years of study. However, this apparent certainty, quickly falls apart under even superficial scrutiny. For example, a 22 year old with an “IEng degree” and real experience, will often outperform a typical MEng graduate of the same age. The latter may “catch up” or even in an R&D situation possibly become more effective; but what proportion of engineers are academic or industrial R&D? Many engineers also migrate away from their first degree domain.

Competent practice can be defined in a set of specific circumstances, but in a generic sense it is vague and open to a wide variety of interpretations. The IET has made enormous efforts over many years in competence assessments, but clarity and consistency still remains “difficult” and many Engineering Council PEIs have barely evolved since 1999, when the exemplifying quailfication for CEng was moved from Bachelors to Masters. A significant number are also dismissive of IEng or Eng Tech, as “not the type of people” who are welcome (or respected) in their club.

I’m delighted to see a contribution from Chris, who has given exceptional voluntary service to The IET and its members over many years. As his evidence illustrates, there are employers who value IEng. This is typically for engineer roles up to a certain level of seniority, however they also typically expect CEng for more senior roles. The MOD and its sphere of influence is perhaps the most prominent example.

So is there value in IEng? Yes in certain circumstances, but there are also some negative risks, otherwise the issue wouldn’t keep coming up.

Largely positive situations include; Where an IEng is clearly demonstrating a lesser capability, or carrying less responsibility than a Chartered Engineer doing a similar type of work, or where there is little prospect of negative comparison with a Chartered Engineer. Where the IEng standard is being used as an early career benchmark, such as after a “degree apprenticeship”, or other form of training or career transition. Where the IEng is working towards CEng with a reasonable prospect of success in the foreseeable future.

Some experienced professionals may also be unconcerned about potentially negative comparisons and register largely for their own satisfaction. I fitted into that category myself for many years, I didn’t need it, rarely used the post-nominal, but kept it “just in case”. It proved useful and I used it when I got more involved with the IET, but that was quickly followed by a “slap in the teeth” as Engineering Council “downgraded” the category, so I didn’t use it any more. I still currently hold it, in the hope that it might enable me to give some useful service post-retirement.

As I see it (from some distance) Engineering Council feels that it has to retain a three tier system to fit in with international accords which are based around academic qualifications. A number of Degree Apprenticeships have also been linked to the IEng standard, so a significant proportion of graduate engineers may pass through IEng. If every developing engineer did the same, then there would be a much greater level of clarity and consistency!

A suggestion that I made was for the IEng benchmark to become “Registered Engineer” (or another title). Any registered engineer could then, at a pace of their choosing, work towards CEng under the supervision of a professional institution. A minimum of say, four years before seeking CEng seems reasonable? Others have argued that control by PEIs is part of the problem, but I won’t pursue that here.

A registered professional engineer should in my opinion demonstrate graduate level understanding (i.e. bachelors) and Chartered Engineer should be benchmarked at “masters level”. However, this doesn’t mean that the best way to achieve these benchmarks is by full-time academic study prior to a career. A more effective approach is to blend learning and career experience. Many highly successful mid-career Engineers have developed to “masters level” through self-directed learning and many others are a little short, but often nothing that some learning in “research methods” can’t fix. It is not necessary for everyone as a “rite of passage” to prove their capability in advanced mathematics.

PS

In the light of current events,

We must redouble our efforts to provide training opportunities for all young people appropriate to their potential, if the long term consequences of this pandemic are not to become even worse.

I should also mention the international wave of revulsion and outrage about the death of George Floyd. In my experience the engineering profession is less inclined towards racism, than society generally. However, most institutions involved are extremely enthusiastic to perpetuate their versions of the class system and academic snobbery. This makes it difficult for anyone who is not excelling in maths and science by early teens, such as those who are socially disadvantaged. We should do better! Why does the Cleese, Barker & Corbett Sketch from 1966 still seem to resonate in our profession? Sorry for not “knowing my place”!

A particular hero of mine, who Rev Al Sharpton considers a “father figure”, also declared in 1966 that “it’s a man’s world”, built by engineers no less! Is that still true? He was also widely credited as saving Boston from burning after the assassination of Dr King a couple of years later. I visited his statue and the museum in Augusta with a section dedicated to him a couple of years ago.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Value in IEng Registration

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines