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

Peter has been a consistent critic of the IEng proposition for as long as I have contributed to these forums.

Ten years ago, I defended the category in the hope that an increase in new IEng registrants might give it a fresh distinctive voice. I also conflated criticism of the IEng proposition, with criticism of IEng registrants, some of whom are excellent and considerably more able than some Chartered Engineers.

The operative word being “some”. The capability of the two types of registered engineers overlaps. CEng in particular is kept as an honorific “entry ticket to polite society” and many registrants are my age or older (I’m retired).

I enthusiastically joined an Engineering Council effort to promote the category. As part of that effort The CEO of Engineering Council criticised the widespread “snobbery” against the category. However, the effort was short lived and largely ineffective. My support was lost due to the obvious contradictions of suggesting that an IEng should be “proud”, whilst at the same time being systematically downgraded.

There was some growth from a “sales drive” by the IET, but more importantly from IMechE joining in. We should remember that the former IMechIE, became part of the IIE, then IET. Therefore, IMechE didn’t have more than a handful of IEng, when it dropped out of the IET project at the minute.

The only substantial grouping of IEngs are controlled by a large public sector employer. If (perhaps due to spending cuts) that policy changed, then numbers would take a further downward turn. IEng has been made the outcome of certain Degree Apprenticeships and for someone in early career it is a clearly a good achievement.

However, once again these IEng graduates overlap in capability with those from CEng Accredited Degrees, undertaking graduate training with CEng as the target around the age of 25/26. By the age of 25/26 many of the former Apprentices will have established excellent careers and quite rightly distain anything which seems to diminish them, relative to other age group peers. Especially, as the superiority of some of them will be patently obvious to any observer.

Therefore, I agree with Peter that in the grand scheme of things, a clearly failed strategy is being pursued.

I would reiterate there are some excellent IEng and that there is value in IEng in some situations. However, this is not in my opinion a justification for maintaining a status quo that just hasn’t worked well for many years.

I noted as I replied to this, a new thread had been started about UK-SPEC. This is an important document, but only part of the system, which includes Academic Accreditation, Registration Regulations, Licensing, Marketing, Social Attitudes etc. UK-SPEC is interpreted in different ways by different institutions. The level of respect afforded to an IEng registrant also varies, from close to CEng within the IET (officially “equal” members, but in practice there is a “glass ceiling”), to very little by an institution like IChemE. “Different but equally valuable” was condemned and publicly “killed off” by Engineering Council.


I totally support David’s comments that achieving and being IEng is of itself something very worthwhile, but once the holder starts to mix in circles where CEng is more prevalent, they often will find themselves the subject of negative comparison, even if is not explicitly stated. This isn’t because most CEng are inherently snooty or snobbish. The system, intentionally aggrandises the “premium marque” that is CEng. In doing so the effect is to treat IEng as an inferior pejorative. This is taken up with alacrity in many quarters, including by many who are not themselves CEng. I know that many CEng (in the IET) try hard to praise IEng, but the positive effect overall is I’m afraid very modest.

Jim is looking backwards on his own experience. I empathise with his feelings having myself become IEng in the 1980s. However, I should note that IEng was benchmarked at Bachelors Degree level 20 years ago. In effect that “killed off” the IEng that he describes, which met a need in the 1970s & 80s when HNC apprenticeships were common and university attendance far less so. The “new IEng” was going to be a “Chartered Engineering Technologist” (or similar), but that didn’t happen and its distinctiveness was lost with the IIE.

I don’t remember the quote that Jim attributes to Colin Sellers and I wouldn’t expect him to engage in this forum. So, I can only observe that his position would be much more nuanced and his respect for IEng registrants very strong. As I said earlier, no individual can change the system only try to make the best of what we have. That would include the CEO of Engineering Council.

We have to look forward! I will read UK-SPEC and comment. It should be “value neutral”. If it doesn’t seem like transferring between categories in either direction is possible, then it isn’t really about three types of competent professional. I have thought for some time that there should only be two because beyond “graduate level” there is too much overlap across the range to reliably divide.

A system of “CEng lite” and “CEng” could function well, but only if everyone has to progress in career, not be divided academically into “silos” at the age of 18. I see this as “levelling up” not “dumbing down”.

An important part of the failed strategy is that a “snob value CEng” isn’t that attractive to the brightest and most creative anyway. Many who might be eligible are far too busy achieving in career, to bother seeking status. It is already the case that many high achieving people who clearly passed the CEng standard long ago didn’t bother and quite a few will tell you that they didn’t like the smell of “institutions”. A few even joined the IIE which had a license to award CEng in its later days.

I would interpret Alasdair’s evidence as illustrating that a rational employer just wants good engineering talent. I won’t debate here the relative merits of taking an apprentice at 16-18 versus a graduate at 21-22, except to say that their capability is likely to overlap eventually. Many company graduate schemes are rooted in the tradition of graduate “management training schemes” that were intended as a fast track to senior management. When I have asked the question about whether an Apprenticeship (which may contain a part-time degree) is equally good preparation for CEng. The instinctive reaction of many was extreme scepticism. That scepticism is based in social and academic snobbery, not evidence of performance.

I agree with Jim’s last post. If IEng is to be used as a “stepping stone” then the pathway should well-paved, clearly marked, the guides helpful and the gate opened with a warm welcome to all who progress. If it isn’t then I’m afraid that Peter is right!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

Peter has been a consistent critic of the IEng proposition for as long as I have contributed to these forums.

Ten years ago, I defended the category in the hope that an increase in new IEng registrants might give it a fresh distinctive voice. I also conflated criticism of the IEng proposition, with criticism of IEng registrants, some of whom are excellent and considerably more able than some Chartered Engineers.

The operative word being “some”. The capability of the two types of registered engineers overlaps. CEng in particular is kept as an honorific “entry ticket to polite society” and many registrants are my age or older (I’m retired).

I enthusiastically joined an Engineering Council effort to promote the category. As part of that effort The CEO of Engineering Council criticised the widespread “snobbery” against the category. However, the effort was short lived and largely ineffective. My support was lost due to the obvious contradictions of suggesting that an IEng should be “proud”, whilst at the same time being systematically downgraded.

There was some growth from a “sales drive” by the IET, but more importantly from IMechE joining in. We should remember that the former IMechIE, became part of the IIE, then IET. Therefore, IMechE didn’t have more than a handful of IEng, when it dropped out of the IET project at the minute.

The only substantial grouping of IEngs are controlled by a large public sector employer. If (perhaps due to spending cuts) that policy changed, then numbers would take a further downward turn. IEng has been made the outcome of certain Degree Apprenticeships and for someone in early career it is a clearly a good achievement.

However, once again these IEng graduates overlap in capability with those from CEng Accredited Degrees, undertaking graduate training with CEng as the target around the age of 25/26. By the age of 25/26 many of the former Apprentices will have established excellent careers and quite rightly distain anything which seems to diminish them, relative to other age group peers. Especially, as the superiority of some of them will be patently obvious to any observer.

Therefore, I agree with Peter that in the grand scheme of things, a clearly failed strategy is being pursued.

I would reiterate there are some excellent IEng and that there is value in IEng in some situations. However, this is not in my opinion a justification for maintaining a status quo that just hasn’t worked well for many years.

I noted as I replied to this, a new thread had been started about UK-SPEC. This is an important document, but only part of the system, which includes Academic Accreditation, Registration Regulations, Licensing, Marketing, Social Attitudes etc. UK-SPEC is interpreted in different ways by different institutions. The level of respect afforded to an IEng registrant also varies, from close to CEng within the IET (officially “equal” members, but in practice there is a “glass ceiling”), to very little by an institution like IChemE. “Different but equally valuable” was condemned and publicly “killed off” by Engineering Council.


I totally support David’s comments that achieving and being IEng is of itself something very worthwhile, but once the holder starts to mix in circles where CEng is more prevalent, they often will find themselves the subject of negative comparison, even if is not explicitly stated. This isn’t because most CEng are inherently snooty or snobbish. The system, intentionally aggrandises the “premium marque” that is CEng. In doing so the effect is to treat IEng as an inferior pejorative. This is taken up with alacrity in many quarters, including by many who are not themselves CEng. I know that many CEng (in the IET) try hard to praise IEng, but the positive effect overall is I’m afraid very modest.

Jim is looking backwards on his own experience. I empathise with his feelings having myself become IEng in the 1980s. However, I should note that IEng was benchmarked at Bachelors Degree level 20 years ago. In effect that “killed off” the IEng that he describes, which met a need in the 1970s & 80s when HNC apprenticeships were common and university attendance far less so. The “new IEng” was going to be a “Chartered Engineering Technologist” (or similar), but that didn’t happen and its distinctiveness was lost with the IIE.

I don’t remember the quote that Jim attributes to Colin Sellers and I wouldn’t expect him to engage in this forum. So, I can only observe that his position would be much more nuanced and his respect for IEng registrants very strong. As I said earlier, no individual can change the system only try to make the best of what we have. That would include the CEO of Engineering Council.

We have to look forward! I will read UK-SPEC and comment. It should be “value neutral”. If it doesn’t seem like transferring between categories in either direction is possible, then it isn’t really about three types of competent professional. I have thought for some time that there should only be two because beyond “graduate level” there is too much overlap across the range to reliably divide.

A system of “CEng lite” and “CEng” could function well, but only if everyone has to progress in career, not be divided academically into “silos” at the age of 18. I see this as “levelling up” not “dumbing down”.

An important part of the failed strategy is that a “snob value CEng” isn’t that attractive to the brightest and most creative anyway. Many who might be eligible are far too busy achieving in career, to bother seeking status. It is already the case that many high achieving people who clearly passed the CEng standard long ago didn’t bother and quite a few will tell you that they didn’t like the smell of “institutions”. A few even joined the IIE which had a license to award CEng in its later days.

I would interpret Alasdair’s evidence as illustrating that a rational employer just wants good engineering talent. I won’t debate here the relative merits of taking an apprentice at 16-18 versus a graduate at 21-22, except to say that their capability is likely to overlap eventually. Many company graduate schemes are rooted in the tradition of graduate “management training schemes” that were intended as a fast track to senior management. When I have asked the question about whether an Apprenticeship (which may contain a part-time degree) is equally good preparation for CEng. The instinctive reaction of many was extreme scepticism. That scepticism is based in social and academic snobbery, not evidence of performance.

I agree with Jim’s last post. If IEng is to be used as a “stepping stone” then the pathway should well-paved, clearly marked, the guides helpful and the gate opened with a warm welcome to all who progress. If it isn’t then I’m afraid that Peter is right!
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