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 4 years ago
Some readers, may now understand better the process for evaluating competent practice and placing experienced Engineers into two categories “Incorporated Engineer” and “Chartered Engineer” using UK-SPEC within Engineering Council regulations, as practised by the IET.

Other institutions are licensed by Engineering Council to carry out such assessments. If we were to ask each one to evaluate substantially similar evidence, then they would come to slightly different interpretations. This leads to some different outcomes.

I am not confident that the engineering profession can reliably, consistently and accurately make a binary distinction between, experienced engineers for the purposes of separating them into these two categories.
Given the great diversity of engineering practice, different interpretation between different institutions, politics, policy drift, social bias and the tendency for overlap in the “mainstream” between “more theoretical” and “more practical” engineers, the distinction is artificial.

Furthermore, IEng was supposed to be a “Terminal Award” intended to represent an Engineer (or Technologist if you prefer) with a “more practical” (or “applied” if you prefer) training and orientation. In the context of academic qualifications its benchmark was “lower”. But academic qualifications only measure certain attributes at a certain age, mostly prior to any career or work-based learning.

In 2008, an Engineering Council lacking effective IEng representation and facing a dying category, repurposed it as a “part-qualified” award. Although they had no coherent plan of action to implement their “progressive philosophy” and it hasn’t worked. A “part-qualified award” is clearly unsuitable for experienced and often quite senior professionals. Frankly, how slow must someone be not to have mastered their profession at high level, after 20 years and how generous must employers be to employ them in responsible positions?


The conflation between relative status and competence also deters participation and undermines claims made about the attributes of a CEng, many of which unfortunately rely on using IEng as a convenient inferior pejorative.
We consider it a perfectly acceptable risk to have many Chartered Engineers who are “honorific”. Yet we don’t offer equivalent value recognition for other sufficiently trained, qualified, experienced, responsible and up to date practitioners, on opaque grounds, such as “lack of innovation” etc.

We treat registration as a “qualification”, for which it is necessary to pay a subscription to use. The subscription requires commitment to a code of conduct, including professional development and not overstepping one’s professional competence.

The Chartered Engineer “qualification” is designed to be attained by a University Graduate Engineer, following some work-based learning and a period of responsible experience. In optimum circumstances this would come around the age of 26. It used to be 25 when a three-year degree was acceptable preparation.

There can only be one threshold, so the benchmark for an experienced engineer of 36,46 or 56, is the engineer of 26. Excellent “high flying” engineers in their late twenties work in many different circumstances. A few are in research and development, but most are not “innovative” and few are experienced enough to accept responsibility for major complex systems or projects. Relatively few exercise significant management responsibility and in any case, we are very “sniffy” and ambivalent about “management”, unless it is of a “high status” variety.

The IET has pioneered the “competence based” approach of evaluating experienced engineers, with imperfect academic records. Many of our members have benefitted from this, gaining a deserved qualification often much later in life. There is no clear evidence that we reduced standards to do so, but a finger of suspicion will constantly be pointed, by those wedded to the idea that only academic evidence is valid and reliable.

The benchmark for IEng is less demanding, so given that the pathway might involve an apprenticeship, where the combination of formal and work-based learning increases the pace and work-relevance of development. The threshold is therefore around the age of 23.

I assert that in many situations, someone who followed an apprenticeship including a degree, is often more “competent” than the equivalent age group peer graduate from a full-time course such as an MEng. I accept that there are certain circumstances when academic selection may offer greater “potential” or a more mathematical/scientific syllabus, more optimal preparation for R&D type roles.

So, to refocus on the value of IEng. As it stands;
It is a useful “first career milestone” for engineers in their early 20s.

It may be a useful target milestone for those who transition from practical craft and technician backgrounds into more technical and managerial responsible roles.

It may be an advantage in the eyes of some employers (especially the MOD sphere of influence) for mid-ranking Engineers. However, this usually means that it is a disadvantage for more senior roles.

It may offer sufficient personal self-satisfaction and engagement opportunities within The IET. However, within the professional institution world, you will encounter negative prejudice and disadvantage. It is just somewhat less within the IET. Well intentioned people will also encourage you to “upgrade” (including me, although I would call it a “transfer of category”)

You have every right to present yourself in public as a “professional engineer” and to practise as you see fit within your competence. You may however find yourself the subject of competition and criticism from some Chartered Engineers, who may claim superiority over you. Employers and customers may also be wary of your judgements being called into question.

Participation in IEng is so low, not because potentially eligible engineers fail to understand the benefits. It is because they have rationally evaluated those benefits and reasonably judged that, in their circumstances the downside outweighs the upside. It might be as simple as value for money, but the cost isn’t that high relative to typical earnings. It is certainly poor value relative to CEng.

Given the low numbers, “bounces” may occur if a major employer (such as MOD) incentives participation, or if some apprenticeships linked to IEng gain increased participation. However, the category is critically endangered “in the wild”. Any bounces, are vulnerable to a subsequent crash, if an influential employer’s policy changes, or disillusionment sets in amongst early career engineers, as they begin to encounter negative prejudice relative to CEng peers.

There are many reasons why IEng is kept despite low numbers. For example, we are signed up to the International Engineering Alliance including the Sydney Accord for “Technologist” Degrees. Some “hand wringing” occurs, but overall, there is no appetite for change.

I have tried to champion the category over the years, as have others, but surely our priority has to be on revitalising CEng as the average age is now around 60. IEng is I’m sorry to say only a “sideshow” of very little interest to most stakeholders in the profession. Whether anybody likes it or not; you can’t buck the market. I have proposed a system of “fair” progression in-career for all engineers, but it seems to have fallen on stony ground.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago
Some readers, may now understand better the process for evaluating competent practice and placing experienced Engineers into two categories “Incorporated Engineer” and “Chartered Engineer” using UK-SPEC within Engineering Council regulations, as practised by the IET.

Other institutions are licensed by Engineering Council to carry out such assessments. If we were to ask each one to evaluate substantially similar evidence, then they would come to slightly different interpretations. This leads to some different outcomes.

I am not confident that the engineering profession can reliably, consistently and accurately make a binary distinction between, experienced engineers for the purposes of separating them into these two categories.
Given the great diversity of engineering practice, different interpretation between different institutions, politics, policy drift, social bias and the tendency for overlap in the “mainstream” between “more theoretical” and “more practical” engineers, the distinction is artificial.

Furthermore, IEng was supposed to be a “Terminal Award” intended to represent an Engineer (or Technologist if you prefer) with a “more practical” (or “applied” if you prefer) training and orientation. In the context of academic qualifications its benchmark was “lower”. But academic qualifications only measure certain attributes at a certain age, mostly prior to any career or work-based learning.

In 2008, an Engineering Council lacking effective IEng representation and facing a dying category, repurposed it as a “part-qualified” award. Although they had no coherent plan of action to implement their “progressive philosophy” and it hasn’t worked. A “part-qualified award” is clearly unsuitable for experienced and often quite senior professionals. Frankly, how slow must someone be not to have mastered their profession at high level, after 20 years and how generous must employers be to employ them in responsible positions?


The conflation between relative status and competence also deters participation and undermines claims made about the attributes of a CEng, many of which unfortunately rely on using IEng as a convenient inferior pejorative.
We consider it a perfectly acceptable risk to have many Chartered Engineers who are “honorific”. Yet we don’t offer equivalent value recognition for other sufficiently trained, qualified, experienced, responsible and up to date practitioners, on opaque grounds, such as “lack of innovation” etc.

We treat registration as a “qualification”, for which it is necessary to pay a subscription to use. The subscription requires commitment to a code of conduct, including professional development and not overstepping one’s professional competence.

The Chartered Engineer “qualification” is designed to be attained by a University Graduate Engineer, following some work-based learning and a period of responsible experience. In optimum circumstances this would come around the age of 26. It used to be 25 when a three-year degree was acceptable preparation.

There can only be one threshold, so the benchmark for an experienced engineer of 36,46 or 56, is the engineer of 26. Excellent “high flying” engineers in their late twenties work in many different circumstances. A few are in research and development, but most are not “innovative” and few are experienced enough to accept responsibility for major complex systems or projects. Relatively few exercise significant management responsibility and in any case, we are very “sniffy” and ambivalent about “management”, unless it is of a “high status” variety.

The IET has pioneered the “competence based” approach of evaluating experienced engineers, with imperfect academic records. Many of our members have benefitted from this, gaining a deserved qualification often much later in life. There is no clear evidence that we reduced standards to do so, but a finger of suspicion will constantly be pointed, by those wedded to the idea that only academic evidence is valid and reliable.

The benchmark for IEng is less demanding, so given that the pathway might involve an apprenticeship, where the combination of formal and work-based learning increases the pace and work-relevance of development. The threshold is therefore around the age of 23.

I assert that in many situations, someone who followed an apprenticeship including a degree, is often more “competent” than the equivalent age group peer graduate from a full-time course such as an MEng. I accept that there are certain circumstances when academic selection may offer greater “potential” or a more mathematical/scientific syllabus, more optimal preparation for R&D type roles.

So, to refocus on the value of IEng. As it stands;
It is a useful “first career milestone” for engineers in their early 20s.

It may be a useful target milestone for those who transition from practical craft and technician backgrounds into more technical and managerial responsible roles.

It may be an advantage in the eyes of some employers (especially the MOD sphere of influence) for mid-ranking Engineers. However, this usually means that it is a disadvantage for more senior roles.

It may offer sufficient personal self-satisfaction and engagement opportunities within The IET. However, within the professional institution world, you will encounter negative prejudice and disadvantage. It is just somewhat less within the IET. Well intentioned people will also encourage you to “upgrade” (including me, although I would call it a “transfer of category”)

You have every right to present yourself in public as a “professional engineer” and to practise as you see fit within your competence. You may however find yourself the subject of competition and criticism from some Chartered Engineers, who may claim superiority over you. Employers and customers may also be wary of your judgements being called into question.

Participation in IEng is so low, not because potentially eligible engineers fail to understand the benefits. It is because they have rationally evaluated those benefits and reasonably judged that, in their circumstances the downside outweighs the upside. It might be as simple as value for money, but the cost isn’t that high relative to typical earnings. It is certainly poor value relative to CEng.

Given the low numbers, “bounces” may occur if a major employer (such as MOD) incentives participation, or if some apprenticeships linked to IEng gain increased participation. However, the category is critically endangered “in the wild”. Any bounces, are vulnerable to a subsequent crash, if an influential employer’s policy changes, or disillusionment sets in amongst early career engineers, as they begin to encounter negative prejudice relative to CEng peers.

There are many reasons why IEng is kept despite low numbers. For example, we are signed up to the International Engineering Alliance including the Sydney Accord for “Technologist” Degrees. Some “hand wringing” occurs, but overall, there is no appetite for change.

I have tried to champion the category over the years, as have others, but surely our priority has to be on revitalising CEng as the average age is now around 60. IEng is I’m sorry to say only a “sideshow” of very little interest to most stakeholders in the profession. Whether anybody likes it or not; you can’t buck the market. I have proposed a system of “fair” progression in-career for all engineers, but it seems to have fallen on stony ground.
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