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 9846 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
    Andy, a good post.

    Phrasing along the lines of “Chartered Engineers are characterised by creativity innovation and change” has been around for many years. I don’t know who coined this, but some key influencers at Engineering Council were fond of it. Perhaps it’s the nearest engineering gets to sounding sexy and exciting? “Complex” sounds like the difficult grinding out of often imperfect compromises.

    “Innovation” is certainly a poor way of value judging engineers as “clever” (CEng) or “dull rule followers” (IEng).  Some sectors focus early in the product life cycle and others have been doing similar things for a century or two. We always need a new generation of highly professional engineers coming through to build bridges, embankments, etc.  Myself and many others worked in early career in situations then considered “leading edge” technology, but now considered dirty and obsolete. Anything connected with Coal for example.  

    Most of these divisions derive from academic practice. I have sometimes tried to explain how an undergraduate degree is mainly about absorbing the syllabus and regurgitating it at exam time. A post-graduate degree should involve researching and evaluating different perspectives on an issue, where there is more than one right answer.  Incidentally dividing undergraduate degrees into IEng & CEng “types”, isn’t useful in my opinion and is part of the problem. It suggests erroneously that familiarity with calculus produces a “superior” engineer relative to familiarity with engineering practice?  In effect that a Scientist is superior to an Engineer.

    While I’m at it I should also explore another “myth”. Which is the concept that Engineering is a pyramid with CEng on the top. That there should be several IEng for every CEng and many more subsidiary Technicians under them. There are probably more CEng specialist expert advisors, than there are senior leaders.   

    I can confirm that familiarity with Maxwell’s equations was being used as an exemplar of CEng Underpinning Knowledge & Understanding by the IET as recently as 2008.  When I first joined the IET staff at the start of 2009, I took responsibility for “The Technical Report Route”, that had developed a poor reputation for being extremely long grass, of the highly pedantic type.  

    The situation now for someone without an accredited degree is miles better and fairer, so that is progress. However, IET staff still have to remain ever vigilant about some volunteers, who have “pet” elements of mathematics that they consider “essential”.  

    A couple of years ago, I was able to help someone through the Technical Report Interview. He used a lot of maths, although relatively routine calculations, because he was a Structural Engineer. But it was a real struggle against negative perceptions and lack of understanding by some IET volunteers. There are still quite a few who only want “electricals” in their institution.  

    Returning to the problem of the IEng value proposition. Sorry if this is repetitious because I have said it before.

    The market for Engineer registration is served mainly by premium dealerships. They promote and sell versions of the CEng model, stressing enhanced status, and stoking badge snobbery. Many of their models use mainstream standard components and don’t outperform non-premium models, but there are hardly any dealers of mainstream non-premium models and many people don’t need personal transport because employers provide it.

    The opportunity for IEng consists of; some younger customers who don’t yet have enough credit in the bank for a premium model. A small and very varied group of people who feel a need for some form of personal transport. The largest group of all, are mid-ranking public sector employees getting a company car, but not of senior enough status to be allocated a premium model.   

    The Engineering Profession as affiliated to Engineering Council has neither the will nor wherewithal to restructure the market. There is also no clear evidence that if it did, there would be sufficient demand.  The IET had aspirations to be an inclusive dealership serving the needs for three main types of vehicle. That is still very much work in progress after more than 10 years. 


    In the end you can’t buck the market!        
           

Reply
  • 0
    Andy, a good post.

    Phrasing along the lines of “Chartered Engineers are characterised by creativity innovation and change” has been around for many years. I don’t know who coined this, but some key influencers at Engineering Council were fond of it. Perhaps it’s the nearest engineering gets to sounding sexy and exciting? “Complex” sounds like the difficult grinding out of often imperfect compromises.

    “Innovation” is certainly a poor way of value judging engineers as “clever” (CEng) or “dull rule followers” (IEng).  Some sectors focus early in the product life cycle and others have been doing similar things for a century or two. We always need a new generation of highly professional engineers coming through to build bridges, embankments, etc.  Myself and many others worked in early career in situations then considered “leading edge” technology, but now considered dirty and obsolete. Anything connected with Coal for example.  

    Most of these divisions derive from academic practice. I have sometimes tried to explain how an undergraduate degree is mainly about absorbing the syllabus and regurgitating it at exam time. A post-graduate degree should involve researching and evaluating different perspectives on an issue, where there is more than one right answer.  Incidentally dividing undergraduate degrees into IEng & CEng “types”, isn’t useful in my opinion and is part of the problem. It suggests erroneously that familiarity with calculus produces a “superior” engineer relative to familiarity with engineering practice?  In effect that a Scientist is superior to an Engineer.

    While I’m at it I should also explore another “myth”. Which is the concept that Engineering is a pyramid with CEng on the top. That there should be several IEng for every CEng and many more subsidiary Technicians under them. There are probably more CEng specialist expert advisors, than there are senior leaders.   

    I can confirm that familiarity with Maxwell’s equations was being used as an exemplar of CEng Underpinning Knowledge & Understanding by the IET as recently as 2008.  When I first joined the IET staff at the start of 2009, I took responsibility for “The Technical Report Route”, that had developed a poor reputation for being extremely long grass, of the highly pedantic type.  

    The situation now for someone without an accredited degree is miles better and fairer, so that is progress. However, IET staff still have to remain ever vigilant about some volunteers, who have “pet” elements of mathematics that they consider “essential”.  

    A couple of years ago, I was able to help someone through the Technical Report Interview. He used a lot of maths, although relatively routine calculations, because he was a Structural Engineer. But it was a real struggle against negative perceptions and lack of understanding by some IET volunteers. There are still quite a few who only want “electricals” in their institution.  

    Returning to the problem of the IEng value proposition. Sorry if this is repetitious because I have said it before.

    The market for Engineer registration is served mainly by premium dealerships. They promote and sell versions of the CEng model, stressing enhanced status, and stoking badge snobbery. Many of their models use mainstream standard components and don’t outperform non-premium models, but there are hardly any dealers of mainstream non-premium models and many people don’t need personal transport because employers provide it.

    The opportunity for IEng consists of; some younger customers who don’t yet have enough credit in the bank for a premium model. A small and very varied group of people who feel a need for some form of personal transport. The largest group of all, are mid-ranking public sector employees getting a company car, but not of senior enough status to be allocated a premium model.   

    The Engineering Profession as affiliated to Engineering Council has neither the will nor wherewithal to restructure the market. There is also no clear evidence that if it did, there would be sufficient demand.  The IET had aspirations to be an inclusive dealership serving the needs for three main types of vehicle. That is still very much work in progress after more than 10 years. 


    In the end you can’t buck the market!        
           

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