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
Whether we like it or not the Board of Engineering Council, with “IET representation at the highest level” decided in 2008 to treat the three categories of registration as “progressive”. This could be described as “gold silver and bronze”. The IET executive involved defended that decision on the basis that it “reflects the academic qualifications involved”.

We need to understand that at the time, new IEng registrations had collapsed to a pitifully low level. We should also understand that The International Engineering Alliance (Including The Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords) uses a three tier system of “Engineer”, “Technologist” and “Technician”. This is largely about academic qualifications, but it is the system in most countries.

My understanding (without further detailed research) is that European Directives recognised IEng as a “fully qualified professional”, but in practice hardly anyone would be interested in the small print of such directives and we are about to leave the EU anyway.

My understanding is also that UK-SPEC was developed to describe the “threshold” capabilities of three different types of competent Engineering practitioner. For someone following an “ideal” pathway of learning and training, an Eng Tech can pass that threshold by the age of around 20-21, an IEng 23-25, and a CEng 25-26.

The “ideal” pathway for each trainee would be different, suggesting a different blend of practical capability (or “know how”) versus more “intellectual” attributes needed to investigate, evaluate, deliberate and report. I should reiterate that mathematical fluency is only one “intellectual attribute”, that has long been greatly overemphasised. I think that this emphasis is because it is a very convenient and superficially rigorous way of dividing people.

However, as the current UK controversy over A level results and competition for the “best” university places illustrates, the “cultural obsession”, especially amongst the middle classes, of academic competition for advantage, is somewhat dysfunctional. The correlation between a person’s school examination grades and subsequent performance in career isn’t reliable. This certainly shows in engineering where there are many examples of progression in career, that bear little relation to the "silo" pathways supposedly set by school examination grades.

Engineering Council certainly failed experienced IEng by downgrading them a decade ago. A “user friendly”, scheme could have been put in place to facilitate transfers to CEng, or to retain a “retired title”.   Many simply left the register, some (like me) fought a rearguard action. A significant number take little active interest and just pay the extra few pounds on their IET membership. A high proportion of registered engineers (mostly CEng) are retired and keep it mainly for sentiment anyway.

Those who have registered as IEng, in the last decade should have been properly informed that the category was “CEng lite” and if so, they may be content with that. If they were misinformed or misled about “progression” as some have been, then they have legitimate grounds for complaint.

I have over the years come reluctantly to the conclusion that, the harms of IEng “brand” are probably greater than the benefits. This isn’t because the standard itself is unsuitable for a “mainstream engineer” or that there are not some benefits to some IEng registrants. There must also be a calculation by those PEIs with an IEng interest and by Engineering Council, that the risk/price of change is too high. Sadly, some with influence in the profession actually find it useful as an convenient inferior pejorative.

My proposal to Engineering Council , which I have posted in these forums was.
Engineering Technician, Engineer (“Professional”/”Registered” or similar) and Chartered Engineer.

All registered Engineers should demonstrate “Bachelors level” capability, including through Work Based Learning. All Chartered Engineers should demonstrate “masters level” capability (WBL also included) and having worked as a “registered/professional” engineer for a significant period under monitoring.

PEIs should move away from “CPD” as a bureaucratic bean counting exercise, towards encouraging voluntary periodic review, intended to support and nurture registrants. Employers and others should be educated to ask “when did you last have a review”.

Every person entering engineering as an apprentice or full-time student should be treated as being on an “equally valuable” professional journey. If Engineering Council cannot achieve this (which it hasn’t to date) then it should be deemed to have failed in its mission and reformed.

The equal engagement of employers and of further education is essential. Governance by an "engineering establishment" of the "great and the good" from Academia, The Armed Forces, Civil Service and a few senior blue chip executives has led us to where we are. I accept that an organisation like the Royal Academy of Engineering has modernised and done some good work, even perhaps admitting one or two people who are not Chartered Engineers in recent years! However, there still seems an overriding smell of status seeking and little empathy for the typical working engineer or enterprise.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago
Whether we like it or not the Board of Engineering Council, with “IET representation at the highest level” decided in 2008 to treat the three categories of registration as “progressive”. This could be described as “gold silver and bronze”. The IET executive involved defended that decision on the basis that it “reflects the academic qualifications involved”.

We need to understand that at the time, new IEng registrations had collapsed to a pitifully low level. We should also understand that The International Engineering Alliance (Including The Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords) uses a three tier system of “Engineer”, “Technologist” and “Technician”. This is largely about academic qualifications, but it is the system in most countries.

My understanding (without further detailed research) is that European Directives recognised IEng as a “fully qualified professional”, but in practice hardly anyone would be interested in the small print of such directives and we are about to leave the EU anyway.

My understanding is also that UK-SPEC was developed to describe the “threshold” capabilities of three different types of competent Engineering practitioner. For someone following an “ideal” pathway of learning and training, an Eng Tech can pass that threshold by the age of around 20-21, an IEng 23-25, and a CEng 25-26.

The “ideal” pathway for each trainee would be different, suggesting a different blend of practical capability (or “know how”) versus more “intellectual” attributes needed to investigate, evaluate, deliberate and report. I should reiterate that mathematical fluency is only one “intellectual attribute”, that has long been greatly overemphasised. I think that this emphasis is because it is a very convenient and superficially rigorous way of dividing people.

However, as the current UK controversy over A level results and competition for the “best” university places illustrates, the “cultural obsession”, especially amongst the middle classes, of academic competition for advantage, is somewhat dysfunctional. The correlation between a person’s school examination grades and subsequent performance in career isn’t reliable. This certainly shows in engineering where there are many examples of progression in career, that bear little relation to the "silo" pathways supposedly set by school examination grades.

Engineering Council certainly failed experienced IEng by downgrading them a decade ago. A “user friendly”, scheme could have been put in place to facilitate transfers to CEng, or to retain a “retired title”.   Many simply left the register, some (like me) fought a rearguard action. A significant number take little active interest and just pay the extra few pounds on their IET membership. A high proportion of registered engineers (mostly CEng) are retired and keep it mainly for sentiment anyway.

Those who have registered as IEng, in the last decade should have been properly informed that the category was “CEng lite” and if so, they may be content with that. If they were misinformed or misled about “progression” as some have been, then they have legitimate grounds for complaint.

I have over the years come reluctantly to the conclusion that, the harms of IEng “brand” are probably greater than the benefits. This isn’t because the standard itself is unsuitable for a “mainstream engineer” or that there are not some benefits to some IEng registrants. There must also be a calculation by those PEIs with an IEng interest and by Engineering Council, that the risk/price of change is too high. Sadly, some with influence in the profession actually find it useful as an convenient inferior pejorative.

My proposal to Engineering Council , which I have posted in these forums was.
Engineering Technician, Engineer (“Professional”/”Registered” or similar) and Chartered Engineer.

All registered Engineers should demonstrate “Bachelors level” capability, including through Work Based Learning. All Chartered Engineers should demonstrate “masters level” capability (WBL also included) and having worked as a “registered/professional” engineer for a significant period under monitoring.

PEIs should move away from “CPD” as a bureaucratic bean counting exercise, towards encouraging voluntary periodic review, intended to support and nurture registrants. Employers and others should be educated to ask “when did you last have a review”.

Every person entering engineering as an apprentice or full-time student should be treated as being on an “equally valuable” professional journey. If Engineering Council cannot achieve this (which it hasn’t to date) then it should be deemed to have failed in its mission and reformed.

The equal engagement of employers and of further education is essential. Governance by an "engineering establishment" of the "great and the good" from Academia, The Armed Forces, Civil Service and a few senior blue chip executives has led us to where we are. I accept that an organisation like the Royal Academy of Engineering has modernised and done some good work, even perhaps admitting one or two people who are not Chartered Engineers in recent years! However, there still seems an overriding smell of status seeking and little empathy for the typical working engineer or enterprise.
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