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

What is the purpose of having two “types” of graduate level Engineer, on top of the dozens of technical specialisms which also divide the profession?

IEng (formerly Tech Eng) came into being to offer a form of recognition for trained engineers with HNC/D, when they were the majority, but the requirement to become Chartered had been moved from HNC/D to BSc.

The subject of differentiating teenagers into “the best and the rest” is topical and controversial. For the vast majority of current Chartered Engineers their path was set by early teens and subsequent A level results in Maths & Science.

Around 20 years ago the academic benchmark (or “requirement”) for chartered was increased to “masters level” although this proved difficult to implement and UK-SPEC supposedly moved the emphasis to “competence”. The IET came to embrace this, but many PEIs have remained largely wedded to the academic approach, with competences acting a “bolt on”.

Chartered registration is intended to act as a threshold, passed around the age of 26. Typically 3-4 years in university, followed by two years training and two years mentored responsible experience. IEng became marginalised by the academics who controlled Engineering Council and Apprenticeships, even those with a degree included were seen as “cloth cap” or like a "third class" degree.

I don’t object to having two tiers of engineer nominally at bachelors and masters level, but if so, all should be on the same pathway. Experiential learning should be valued fairly, not seen as inferior to rarely used academic theory and analytical techniques. Not everyone will move along the pathway at the same speed, but blockages barriers and poorly signposted diversions should have no place.


I also don’t object to two “equally valuable” types of practitioner, allowing employers and other customers to choose between the more “deeply technically orientated” and the “more practical or pragmatic”. This was attempted 20 years ago by Engineering Council, but it was resented by the more elitist status orientated types and was defenestrated a decade ago. (see below)

Using actual performance of experienced engineers in the workplace, UK-SPEC competences cannot reliably divide, because most engineers are not “extreme theorists/strategists” or “practical with a limited theoretical grasp”. They are flexible and “overlapping in practice”.

Given that registration is voluntary only in very specific niche situations with employer support will someone seek a “second class” ticket, except as an early career milestone. The IIE and its predecessors gave their members a sense of pride. Someone like Jim probably passed the CEng threshold decades ago, but the academic rules in force were a blockage and only in the snobbish world of PEI influence, did it matter anyway.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

What is the purpose of having two “types” of graduate level Engineer, on top of the dozens of technical specialisms which also divide the profession?

IEng (formerly Tech Eng) came into being to offer a form of recognition for trained engineers with HNC/D, when they were the majority, but the requirement to become Chartered had been moved from HNC/D to BSc.

The subject of differentiating teenagers into “the best and the rest” is topical and controversial. For the vast majority of current Chartered Engineers their path was set by early teens and subsequent A level results in Maths & Science.

Around 20 years ago the academic benchmark (or “requirement”) for chartered was increased to “masters level” although this proved difficult to implement and UK-SPEC supposedly moved the emphasis to “competence”. The IET came to embrace this, but many PEIs have remained largely wedded to the academic approach, with competences acting a “bolt on”.

Chartered registration is intended to act as a threshold, passed around the age of 26. Typically 3-4 years in university, followed by two years training and two years mentored responsible experience. IEng became marginalised by the academics who controlled Engineering Council and Apprenticeships, even those with a degree included were seen as “cloth cap” or like a "third class" degree.

I don’t object to having two tiers of engineer nominally at bachelors and masters level, but if so, all should be on the same pathway. Experiential learning should be valued fairly, not seen as inferior to rarely used academic theory and analytical techniques. Not everyone will move along the pathway at the same speed, but blockages barriers and poorly signposted diversions should have no place.


I also don’t object to two “equally valuable” types of practitioner, allowing employers and other customers to choose between the more “deeply technically orientated” and the “more practical or pragmatic”. This was attempted 20 years ago by Engineering Council, but it was resented by the more elitist status orientated types and was defenestrated a decade ago. (see below)

Using actual performance of experienced engineers in the workplace, UK-SPEC competences cannot reliably divide, because most engineers are not “extreme theorists/strategists” or “practical with a limited theoretical grasp”. They are flexible and “overlapping in practice”.

Given that registration is voluntary only in very specific niche situations with employer support will someone seek a “second class” ticket, except as an early career milestone. The IIE and its predecessors gave their members a sense of pride. Someone like Jim probably passed the CEng threshold decades ago, but the academic rules in force were a blockage and only in the snobbish world of PEI influence, did it matter anyway.
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