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 9842 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
    Mehmood,

    I probably first got involved with this to ensure that “troublemakers” like you didn’t have a “free run”. 

    ?

    I worked for the IET from 2009 until the start of this year, but I didn’t act as an “IET spokesperson”, only as an informed member trying to explore and explain. I was asked and agreed to act informally as an IEng “champion”, something I described as a “hospital pass”.  I interacted cordially with Engineering Council staff, but felt “let down” by the subsequent treatment of IEng and began to took a more critical view.

    I didn’t particularly think of myself as “an IEng”, just a mid-career manager who trained via an Apprenticeship, gained IEng at 27 and was offered Fellowship at 35. As a Chartered Fellow in HR (via MSc). I had been responsible for all my organisation's technical training from C&G craft work to Degree level Apprentices.  I was aware of registration issues and ran an institution (not the IET) accredited degree training scheme for IEng.

    I have little memory of the “vote” you describe, but probably voted. I recall some years earlier writing to Peter Wason (IIE CEO) stating that I was open-minded about “Chartered Engineering Technologist”, after my opinion was sought.  This seemed to disappear, although Andrew Ramsay (former EC CEO) mentions it in his “History of IEng” which was on the EC website when last I looked. I don’t know Andrew personally, although he is FIET.     

        
    I agree that the debate is a long running soap opera (a genre I don’t watch) and am glad that you have kept some lightness of spirit over such a long time.? Some are quite bitter, sometimes with just cause.

    I think its important that people coming to this debate understand the background. As I see it the Incorporated Engineer title of itself isn’t the main problem, although much negative baggage has sadly become attached to it.

    A change would simply provide an opportunity to rethink the current system, which isn’t even engaging younger potential CEng particularly well. It seems that we limp from five-year review to five-year review applying a new patch each time, to a system that was designed to recognise three early career thresholds, not invidiously divide veteran engineers into "the best and the rest”.                   

Reply
  • 0
    Mehmood,

    I probably first got involved with this to ensure that “troublemakers” like you didn’t have a “free run”. 

    ?

    I worked for the IET from 2009 until the start of this year, but I didn’t act as an “IET spokesperson”, only as an informed member trying to explore and explain. I was asked and agreed to act informally as an IEng “champion”, something I described as a “hospital pass”.  I interacted cordially with Engineering Council staff, but felt “let down” by the subsequent treatment of IEng and began to took a more critical view.

    I didn’t particularly think of myself as “an IEng”, just a mid-career manager who trained via an Apprenticeship, gained IEng at 27 and was offered Fellowship at 35. As a Chartered Fellow in HR (via MSc). I had been responsible for all my organisation's technical training from C&G craft work to Degree level Apprentices.  I was aware of registration issues and ran an institution (not the IET) accredited degree training scheme for IEng.

    I have little memory of the “vote” you describe, but probably voted. I recall some years earlier writing to Peter Wason (IIE CEO) stating that I was open-minded about “Chartered Engineering Technologist”, after my opinion was sought.  This seemed to disappear, although Andrew Ramsay (former EC CEO) mentions it in his “History of IEng” which was on the EC website when last I looked. I don’t know Andrew personally, although he is FIET.     

        
    I agree that the debate is a long running soap opera (a genre I don’t watch) and am glad that you have kept some lightness of spirit over such a long time.? Some are quite bitter, sometimes with just cause.

    I think its important that people coming to this debate understand the background. As I see it the Incorporated Engineer title of itself isn’t the main problem, although much negative baggage has sadly become attached to it.

    A change would simply provide an opportunity to rethink the current system, which isn’t even engaging younger potential CEng particularly well. It seems that we limp from five-year review to five-year review applying a new patch each time, to a system that was designed to recognise three early career thresholds, not invidiously divide veteran engineers into "the best and the rest”.                   

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