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

Andy,

I would like to see a process of voluntary periodic review for all registrants explored. This would be recommended following a significant change in circumstances, like a career transition or additional major qualification. It would provide a short constructive narrative report. In effect be a “light touch” version of a registration assessment.

The intent of the review would not be punitive and it could not rescind anything that had been earned. It might however encourage a “progressive transfer” if appropriate.

If an employer or anyone else with a valid interest wishes to ask the question; “When was your last review and what were the recommendations” then they can do so.

Colin,

Your post simply observes the real world, not a theoretical divide or “false dichotomy”. To my knowledge, no serious research has ever been undertaken to compare the current practice and performance of similarly experienced professionals falling on either side of the divide.
Engineering Council themselves in the illustration I posted earlier (which was theirs) explicitly acknowledged, “overlap in mobility and employment”. This diagram illustrates typical work for those gaining “Technologist degrees” (IEng) with Engineering Degrees (CEng).

Under UK-SPEC (introduced around 2004). The IET developed an assessment process for evaluating the competence of experienced engineers, that more easily allowed for the registration of those without accredited (or near equivalent) degrees.

Prior to this the only option was to be aged over 35 and be judged to be working at equivalent level/standard by the institution. It was then necessary to produce a Technical Report (or “dissertation”) to demonstrate your knowledge. The report had to “demonstrate a grasp of mathematical and scientific fundamentals”. Maxwell’s Equations were used as an example for CEng.

Much of the debate involving IEng v CEng seems to be based on the “stereotypes” or “pen portraits” of what each is supposed to do. UK-SPEC offers generic competences to help in this division.
“Creativity and innovation” for example has been a totemic distinguishing CEng characteristic. However, it doesn’t literally mean what it says. It’s a code for either being more “intellectual” or better equipped to deal with situations where compliance with standards isn’t enough. The actual interpretation will vary depending on who you ask (individual or committee). For example, “innovative” practice in laying railway tracks, might differ from a space mission.

Professional Registration is a qualification. To retain the right to use the registered title, it is necessary to demonstrate ongoing commitment, by membership of a “supervising” professional body, which requires a subscription.

Anyone who met the standard in force at the time they gained it, may retain the “title”. The only ongoing “competency” requirement, is the general code of conduct obligation to act within your competence. A small number of people have been “struck off” for malpractice (including dishonesty) but it’s rare. “CPD” rules have been beefed up more recently and some people who lapsed their subscription (commitment) have had an unpleasant surprise, when seeking to undo their suspension from the register.

Most registered Engineers became so by means of a attaining a “benchmark” academic qualification and subsequent training/experience. Even in its current form the qualification(s) should primarily be aimed at Engineers and Technicians in their twenties who have completed a form of structured development.

Many institutions, still as they always have, treat the competences as a “light touch bolt on” to academic qualifications. Only the IET would (occasionally) insult an MEng graduate by suggesting that they were “doing IEng work”. This even extends to someone with a CEng accredited BEng degree, unless a “stepping stone” is being suggested, or a “consolation prize” is being offered for failure.

I would characterise much of The IET work over recent years as “mopping up” those who passed the threshold for registration some considerable time ago. There are a variety of reasons why people come belatedly. If they lack ideal qualifications, but have a strong track record, then a focus on competence can help them. Unfortunately, if their self-evaluation based on a reasonable comparison with others is that CEng is appropriate, then a suggestion of IEng can be somewhere between difficult and insulting. Some are also too modest.

Frankly, how the h*** does the average Engineer, second guess the interpretation of UK-SPEC by IET Committees & Assessors? Even PRAs have different opinions about the same evidence. ?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

Andy,

I would like to see a process of voluntary periodic review for all registrants explored. This would be recommended following a significant change in circumstances, like a career transition or additional major qualification. It would provide a short constructive narrative report. In effect be a “light touch” version of a registration assessment.

The intent of the review would not be punitive and it could not rescind anything that had been earned. It might however encourage a “progressive transfer” if appropriate.

If an employer or anyone else with a valid interest wishes to ask the question; “When was your last review and what were the recommendations” then they can do so.

Colin,

Your post simply observes the real world, not a theoretical divide or “false dichotomy”. To my knowledge, no serious research has ever been undertaken to compare the current practice and performance of similarly experienced professionals falling on either side of the divide.
Engineering Council themselves in the illustration I posted earlier (which was theirs) explicitly acknowledged, “overlap in mobility and employment”. This diagram illustrates typical work for those gaining “Technologist degrees” (IEng) with Engineering Degrees (CEng).

Under UK-SPEC (introduced around 2004). The IET developed an assessment process for evaluating the competence of experienced engineers, that more easily allowed for the registration of those without accredited (or near equivalent) degrees.

Prior to this the only option was to be aged over 35 and be judged to be working at equivalent level/standard by the institution. It was then necessary to produce a Technical Report (or “dissertation”) to demonstrate your knowledge. The report had to “demonstrate a grasp of mathematical and scientific fundamentals”. Maxwell’s Equations were used as an example for CEng.

Much of the debate involving IEng v CEng seems to be based on the “stereotypes” or “pen portraits” of what each is supposed to do. UK-SPEC offers generic competences to help in this division.
“Creativity and innovation” for example has been a totemic distinguishing CEng characteristic. However, it doesn’t literally mean what it says. It’s a code for either being more “intellectual” or better equipped to deal with situations where compliance with standards isn’t enough. The actual interpretation will vary depending on who you ask (individual or committee). For example, “innovative” practice in laying railway tracks, might differ from a space mission.

Professional Registration is a qualification. To retain the right to use the registered title, it is necessary to demonstrate ongoing commitment, by membership of a “supervising” professional body, which requires a subscription.

Anyone who met the standard in force at the time they gained it, may retain the “title”. The only ongoing “competency” requirement, is the general code of conduct obligation to act within your competence. A small number of people have been “struck off” for malpractice (including dishonesty) but it’s rare. “CPD” rules have been beefed up more recently and some people who lapsed their subscription (commitment) have had an unpleasant surprise, when seeking to undo their suspension from the register.

Most registered Engineers became so by means of a attaining a “benchmark” academic qualification and subsequent training/experience. Even in its current form the qualification(s) should primarily be aimed at Engineers and Technicians in their twenties who have completed a form of structured development.

Many institutions, still as they always have, treat the competences as a “light touch bolt on” to academic qualifications. Only the IET would (occasionally) insult an MEng graduate by suggesting that they were “doing IEng work”. This even extends to someone with a CEng accredited BEng degree, unless a “stepping stone” is being suggested, or a “consolation prize” is being offered for failure.

I would characterise much of The IET work over recent years as “mopping up” those who passed the threshold for registration some considerable time ago. There are a variety of reasons why people come belatedly. If they lack ideal qualifications, but have a strong track record, then a focus on competence can help them. Unfortunately, if their self-evaluation based on a reasonable comparison with others is that CEng is appropriate, then a suggestion of IEng can be somewhere between difficult and insulting. Some are also too modest.

Frankly, how the h*** does the average Engineer, second guess the interpretation of UK-SPEC by IET Committees & Assessors? Even PRAs have different opinions about the same evidence. ?
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