Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 92 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 9830 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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

Allan Rowan
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
    The IET is the largest institution affiliated to Engineering Council, so it has some influence but certainly not control. It hasn’t for many years registered the largest number of Chartered Engineers. The institution that has held that honour has always emphasised the importance of first and foremost “meeting the academic requirement” as a prerequisite to judging “competence”.


     Another major institution hardly ever registers any IEng and if they do it is a “consolation prize” for a “failed” CEng. Other institutions treat the category as an “associate” or “supervisory technician”.  

    Therefore, whatever policy the IET applies in its interpretation of UK-SPEC is a minority one. The standard pathway to becoming a Chartered Engineer is to gain an accredited degree, followed by accredited training and professional supervision. “Mopping up” those competent professionals who for whatever reason didn’t get on to this “conveyor belt”, became something of an IET speciality. This has had some influence on other institutions, where the potential for competition exists.  

    As a company manager and later as an employee of The IET, I always held to the principle that all registrants were entitled to equal respect. Like a parent of three siblings, it is the responsibility of leadership to nurture the talents of each. 


    Unfortunately, Engineering Council has been run by Chartered Engineers for Chartered Engineers, with the other types of registrant treated patronisingly as “junior” or "cloth cap" associate members.     The illustration I included in my last post was an attempt (under IIE influence) to change that culture. This was defenestrated by the board of Engineering Council and you will have to search very hard for evidence of the “different but equally valuable” message, since it was purged. 


    A “progressive philosophy” was described instead, but in practice this just downgraded experienced IEng and led to a few developing young engineers taking IEng as a “stepping stone”. The only other “growth” area for IEng, comes from the actions of a major public sector employer with close links to Engineering Council.  

      
    UK-SPEC represents some guidance for professional institutions to help them classify three categories of practitioner. Engineering Council licenses, audits and to a modest extent moderates the institutions.

    I don’t particularly mind a focus on CEng, which as Andy describes is probably all “the market” wants or expects. I don’t go to a premium marque car dealership expecting to acquire an inexpensive runabout.  

    The “IEng problem” isn’t about improving the interpretation of UK-SPEC to place experienced professionals into two categories. Naturally, the IET tries to achieve this in a fair and rational manner, but it is impossible to divide that which so substantially overlaps, accurately and reliably across the broad range that is engineering. 

    Exams and academic qualifications are (as Andy also said) a relatively poor proxy for real world professional performance. However, they seem “valid” and “fair” to most people. Most of the world uses academic qualifications and/or exams as the primary measure and that isn’t going to change.

    It seems that we will remain “stuck in a rut” of having three classifications, two of which attract very limited participation by experienced professionals, but are useful for academic purposes to benchmark qualifications and training programmes.

    I’m disappointed that the IET and Engineering Council haven’t taken on board my suggestions for reform, but I understand why. Even if there wasn’t a single Eng Tech or IEng registrant, they would still revert to the international academic classification of “Engineer”, “Technologist” and “Technician”.

    I was enticed in, as were others, many years ago thinking that I was an “Engineer”. If Engineering Council can only effectively serve the premium category of Chartered Engineer, then I’m happy to support high standards in that regard.  I would also want to support high standards, professionalism and mutual support for Technicians and Technician Engineers, who perhaps need governance of their own?  Perhaps the IET should press for such a body?  Would older IEng have been better off as "Chartered Engineering Technologists" rather than "part-qualifed engineers"? 

    PS sorry for the long response, the greens were flooded this morning by overnight rain. ?    
     

Reply
  • 0
    The IET is the largest institution affiliated to Engineering Council, so it has some influence but certainly not control. It hasn’t for many years registered the largest number of Chartered Engineers. The institution that has held that honour has always emphasised the importance of first and foremost “meeting the academic requirement” as a prerequisite to judging “competence”.


     Another major institution hardly ever registers any IEng and if they do it is a “consolation prize” for a “failed” CEng. Other institutions treat the category as an “associate” or “supervisory technician”.  

    Therefore, whatever policy the IET applies in its interpretation of UK-SPEC is a minority one. The standard pathway to becoming a Chartered Engineer is to gain an accredited degree, followed by accredited training and professional supervision. “Mopping up” those competent professionals who for whatever reason didn’t get on to this “conveyor belt”, became something of an IET speciality. This has had some influence on other institutions, where the potential for competition exists.  

    As a company manager and later as an employee of The IET, I always held to the principle that all registrants were entitled to equal respect. Like a parent of three siblings, it is the responsibility of leadership to nurture the talents of each. 


    Unfortunately, Engineering Council has been run by Chartered Engineers for Chartered Engineers, with the other types of registrant treated patronisingly as “junior” or "cloth cap" associate members.     The illustration I included in my last post was an attempt (under IIE influence) to change that culture. This was defenestrated by the board of Engineering Council and you will have to search very hard for evidence of the “different but equally valuable” message, since it was purged. 


    A “progressive philosophy” was described instead, but in practice this just downgraded experienced IEng and led to a few developing young engineers taking IEng as a “stepping stone”. The only other “growth” area for IEng, comes from the actions of a major public sector employer with close links to Engineering Council.  

      
    UK-SPEC represents some guidance for professional institutions to help them classify three categories of practitioner. Engineering Council licenses, audits and to a modest extent moderates the institutions.

    I don’t particularly mind a focus on CEng, which as Andy describes is probably all “the market” wants or expects. I don’t go to a premium marque car dealership expecting to acquire an inexpensive runabout.  

    The “IEng problem” isn’t about improving the interpretation of UK-SPEC to place experienced professionals into two categories. Naturally, the IET tries to achieve this in a fair and rational manner, but it is impossible to divide that which so substantially overlaps, accurately and reliably across the broad range that is engineering. 

    Exams and academic qualifications are (as Andy also said) a relatively poor proxy for real world professional performance. However, they seem “valid” and “fair” to most people. Most of the world uses academic qualifications and/or exams as the primary measure and that isn’t going to change.

    It seems that we will remain “stuck in a rut” of having three classifications, two of which attract very limited participation by experienced professionals, but are useful for academic purposes to benchmark qualifications and training programmes.

    I’m disappointed that the IET and Engineering Council haven’t taken on board my suggestions for reform, but I understand why. Even if there wasn’t a single Eng Tech or IEng registrant, they would still revert to the international academic classification of “Engineer”, “Technologist” and “Technician”.

    I was enticed in, as were others, many years ago thinking that I was an “Engineer”. If Engineering Council can only effectively serve the premium category of Chartered Engineer, then I’m happy to support high standards in that regard.  I would also want to support high standards, professionalism and mutual support for Technicians and Technician Engineers, who perhaps need governance of their own?  Perhaps the IET should press for such a body?  Would older IEng have been better off as "Chartered Engineering Technologists" rather than "part-qualifed engineers"? 

    PS sorry for the long response, the greens were flooded this morning by overnight rain. ?    
     

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines