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

In the 70s and 80s, Tech Eng which became IEng had a large potentially amenable market, of those who followed apprenticeships combined with higher qualifications. Many large employers, often state owned, such as Coal, Steel, Energy, Transport, Post, Telecommunications, MOD etc. Trained many more Engineers (i.e. “white collar” supervisory/managerial) to Higher National standard, than they took University Engineering Graduates for training.

By the 80s an honours degree was required for CEng and opportunities to “top-up” from HNC to degree were not generally easy to access. Other routes were notoriously tricky and long-winded, including the invitation only “mature” scheme for engineers over 35.

I should also note, that all of these forms of “progression” emphasised complex mathematics. Which for many, if not most work roles, was of limited relevance. A good grasp of mathematics is important for many engineers. However, in my opinion It has been used inappropriately as a method of academic competition, selection and differentiation.

Older Chartered Engineers often see having grasped complex calculus as an important “rite of passage”, but in the same way that the ability of a toolmaker to craft metal by hand to fine tolerances has been largely superseded by technology, so has the need to carry out lengthy calculations.


Even at its high-water mark, the take up of IEng by potentially eligible people was modest. However, as smaller “niche” institutions amalgamated, The Institution of Incorporated Engineers, became one of the largest within Engineering Council.

At the end of the 20^th Century, Engineering Council decided that CEng should be benchmarked at a 4 year “MEng” or 3-year Bachelors + MSc. The academic frame of reference was dominant and Apprenticeships were assumed to be for “tradespeople”. It was hoped that the “mainstream” of Engineers would become Bachelors Degree qualified IEng (probably renamed “Chartered Engineering Technologists), with a more “elite”, highly educated Masters degree qualified Chartered Engineer.

What actually happened was that Chartered Institutions (including the IEE) pressed Bachelors graduates to “get in under the wire” (there was a transition period) and graduates didn’t want IEng, which was thought of like a third class or unclassified degree (i.e. a “consolation prize”).

By 2008 the numbers of new IEng registering had collapsed. In the face of this collapse, Engineering council decided to “re-launch”, the category as a “stepping stone to chartered”. Unfortunately, they lost the support of most long established IEng, by assuming that they (often in late career and at senior level) were also on the “stepping stone”.
A significant sales and marketing effort was made from around 2010, with IMechE in the vanguard. IET also pushed hard. However, for all the reasons that have been debated at length in these forums, on the basis of the last figures I saw from Engineering Council registrations had plateaued at a modest level, both in absolute terms and in relation to CEng registrations.

I have encouraged and supported “up and coming” engineers to register as IEng. But on the basis of having done it for the last 30 years, the overwhelming majority of them just didn’t find it attractive. Even employer’s incentives came to little once they did their own informal market research. As it stands, if an increase in IEng new registrations occurs, then it is likely to lead to many becoming quickly disgruntled when they see others treated more favourably, often on dubious grounds related to historic academic performance, rather than current work performance. This tiresome debate will sadly just run and run ad nauseam, without significant reform by Engineering Council.

Yes, IEng may continue to have some value in the right circumstances, but in others it is an invitation for negative prejudice and ongoing exclusion from the “commanding heights” of the profession, as a “part-qualified and inferior type of lower social class and rank”. I cannot see how this will be overcome. Hence my proposal of clear and “fair” in-career progression for everyone on current merit.

I’m sorry that I have nothing new to say! Time for someone else to pick up this particular Baton.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 3 years ago

In the 70s and 80s, Tech Eng which became IEng had a large potentially amenable market, of those who followed apprenticeships combined with higher qualifications. Many large employers, often state owned, such as Coal, Steel, Energy, Transport, Post, Telecommunications, MOD etc. Trained many more Engineers (i.e. “white collar” supervisory/managerial) to Higher National standard, than they took University Engineering Graduates for training.

By the 80s an honours degree was required for CEng and opportunities to “top-up” from HNC to degree were not generally easy to access. Other routes were notoriously tricky and long-winded, including the invitation only “mature” scheme for engineers over 35.

I should also note, that all of these forms of “progression” emphasised complex mathematics. Which for many, if not most work roles, was of limited relevance. A good grasp of mathematics is important for many engineers. However, in my opinion It has been used inappropriately as a method of academic competition, selection and differentiation.

Older Chartered Engineers often see having grasped complex calculus as an important “rite of passage”, but in the same way that the ability of a toolmaker to craft metal by hand to fine tolerances has been largely superseded by technology, so has the need to carry out lengthy calculations.


Even at its high-water mark, the take up of IEng by potentially eligible people was modest. However, as smaller “niche” institutions amalgamated, The Institution of Incorporated Engineers, became one of the largest within Engineering Council.

At the end of the 20^th Century, Engineering Council decided that CEng should be benchmarked at a 4 year “MEng” or 3-year Bachelors + MSc. The academic frame of reference was dominant and Apprenticeships were assumed to be for “tradespeople”. It was hoped that the “mainstream” of Engineers would become Bachelors Degree qualified IEng (probably renamed “Chartered Engineering Technologists), with a more “elite”, highly educated Masters degree qualified Chartered Engineer.

What actually happened was that Chartered Institutions (including the IEE) pressed Bachelors graduates to “get in under the wire” (there was a transition period) and graduates didn’t want IEng, which was thought of like a third class or unclassified degree (i.e. a “consolation prize”).

By 2008 the numbers of new IEng registering had collapsed. In the face of this collapse, Engineering council decided to “re-launch”, the category as a “stepping stone to chartered”. Unfortunately, they lost the support of most long established IEng, by assuming that they (often in late career and at senior level) were also on the “stepping stone”.
A significant sales and marketing effort was made from around 2010, with IMechE in the vanguard. IET also pushed hard. However, for all the reasons that have been debated at length in these forums, on the basis of the last figures I saw from Engineering Council registrations had plateaued at a modest level, both in absolute terms and in relation to CEng registrations.

I have encouraged and supported “up and coming” engineers to register as IEng. But on the basis of having done it for the last 30 years, the overwhelming majority of them just didn’t find it attractive. Even employer’s incentives came to little once they did their own informal market research. As it stands, if an increase in IEng new registrations occurs, then it is likely to lead to many becoming quickly disgruntled when they see others treated more favourably, often on dubious grounds related to historic academic performance, rather than current work performance. This tiresome debate will sadly just run and run ad nauseam, without significant reform by Engineering Council.

Yes, IEng may continue to have some value in the right circumstances, but in others it is an invitation for negative prejudice and ongoing exclusion from the “commanding heights” of the profession, as a “part-qualified and inferior type of lower social class and rank”. I cannot see how this will be overcome. Hence my proposal of clear and “fair” in-career progression for everyone on current merit.

I’m sorry that I have nothing new to say! Time for someone else to pick up this particular Baton.
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