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’m broadly sympathetic to your aspiration, although I think the current reality is a long way short. CEng has certainly been widely used as a broad indicative benchmark for someone who could be characterised as an “experienced professional expert”.

Being a “Chartered” as an individual, is widely used across many professions. It is controlled by Privy Council who permit Engineering Council to use it.

No other profession uses “Incorporated” (CIOB used to). There are examples of   where IEng has also been used as indicative of being an “experienced expert”, but these are much rarer. Certainly, within the Engineering Council “family”, the “dominant sibling” asserts “superior judgement”.

I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of stakeholders interested in professional recognition for Engineers, have little or no idea of the detailed competence descriptors in UK-SPEC. I would also postulate that even the majority of registered Engineers have a very limited awareness. Even those who are active volunteers in professional institutions, interpret the standard in different ways.

Some institutions have a narrow range of volunteers interpreting the standard in a narrow range of activities. The IET has a large group of volunteers across a wide range. We have made great efforts to create some kind of consensus and consistency.

We don’t carry out a workplace competence assessment, but a registration assessment is a credible proxy, at a point in time. It examines evidence of career achievement and formal qualifications followed by a short verifying interview and final QA check stage. It is designed to confirm the passing of a threshold, ideally by someone who has undertaken structured preparation in their mid-twenties.

The process was never designed to divide mid-career Engineers into two categories. Engineering Council Regulations actually forbid an application “for either category”. Someone has to choose based either on their academic qualifications and/or interpretation of UK-SPEC, perhaps with some advice.

In the past this was perhaps somewhat simpler.
If you had an accredited degree or a near equivalent you sought CEng from the IEE. If you applied without such credentials, your chances of success were slim, except for the mature candidate scheme (mentioned in an earlier post).
If you had higher qualifications that weren’t considered sufficient, you went to the IIE (or a predecessor) and sought IEng. Just before the merger you could also apply for CEng via the IIE, but you would still need appropriate academic qualifications.

Under UK-SPEC the IET removed the “academic prerequisite” and emphasised competence. However, most of the rest of Engineering Council’s institutions didn’t. In some cases, to maintain tradition, but in many because they simply would not have the competence to evaluate knowledge and understanding. That is after all what Universities and Colleges specialise in. Also, the rest of the world mostly relies on academic qualifications, plus a vague “training/experience” requirement.

I’m delighted that so many able people have found a pathway to CEng with the IET and satisfied with my own modest contribution to that effort. Some people who perhaps otherwise wouldn’t have also achieved IEng and some have later transferred to CEng. However, the category has long since lost any distinctive value and clarity of purpose.

Tech Eng came into being to offer registration to Engineers who fell short of inflating academic requirements. It became IEng because “Engineers” didn’t like being confused with “Technicians”. (snobs perhaps??). It became benchmarked at degree level, to reflect changes in society as University attendance became more normalised. It should have become a chartered designation, but that opportunity was missed.

In academic hands it became like the 3^rd class degree, widely disparaged and looked down upon. No young person wanted it, so an ever-declining group of mid-career service people and veteran engineers were left rather “stuck”. Engineering Council made a hash of trying to reposition it as a stepping stone, denigrating experienced IEng, convincing few graduates of the need for a stepping stone and losing any residual distinctive value that the category liked to claim (e.g. “the more practical engineer”).

More recently IEng has become associated with some Degree Apprenticeships. Without wishing to seem immodest, this is something that I was doing 15+ years ago as a Company Training Manager (with college/university partners). The scheme won a national award and the government took it up.
Unfortunately, the professional registration element was a resounding failure. The excellent young Engineers (and some QS) were smart enough to recognise a second-class ticket when they saw one, especially so once they found themselves interacting with first-class ticket holders, who were no more able.

History will probably repeat, so instead of discussions between older engineers here, some other forum used by young people will convey the disgruntlement of those who were “sold” (or mis-sold!) IEng. They deserve better!

PS longer histories of IEng are available from an Engineering Council perspective?. I would prefer it if this were an obituary and I have made alternative proposals to move forward.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

Andy,
I’m broadly sympathetic to your aspiration, although I think the current reality is a long way short. CEng has certainly been widely used as a broad indicative benchmark for someone who could be characterised as an “experienced professional expert”.

Being a “Chartered” as an individual, is widely used across many professions. It is controlled by Privy Council who permit Engineering Council to use it.

No other profession uses “Incorporated” (CIOB used to). There are examples of   where IEng has also been used as indicative of being an “experienced expert”, but these are much rarer. Certainly, within the Engineering Council “family”, the “dominant sibling” asserts “superior judgement”.

I would suggest that the overwhelming majority of stakeholders interested in professional recognition for Engineers, have little or no idea of the detailed competence descriptors in UK-SPEC. I would also postulate that even the majority of registered Engineers have a very limited awareness. Even those who are active volunteers in professional institutions, interpret the standard in different ways.

Some institutions have a narrow range of volunteers interpreting the standard in a narrow range of activities. The IET has a large group of volunteers across a wide range. We have made great efforts to create some kind of consensus and consistency.

We don’t carry out a workplace competence assessment, but a registration assessment is a credible proxy, at a point in time. It examines evidence of career achievement and formal qualifications followed by a short verifying interview and final QA check stage. It is designed to confirm the passing of a threshold, ideally by someone who has undertaken structured preparation in their mid-twenties.

The process was never designed to divide mid-career Engineers into two categories. Engineering Council Regulations actually forbid an application “for either category”. Someone has to choose based either on their academic qualifications and/or interpretation of UK-SPEC, perhaps with some advice.

In the past this was perhaps somewhat simpler.
If you had an accredited degree or a near equivalent you sought CEng from the IEE. If you applied without such credentials, your chances of success were slim, except for the mature candidate scheme (mentioned in an earlier post).
If you had higher qualifications that weren’t considered sufficient, you went to the IIE (or a predecessor) and sought IEng. Just before the merger you could also apply for CEng via the IIE, but you would still need appropriate academic qualifications.

Under UK-SPEC the IET removed the “academic prerequisite” and emphasised competence. However, most of the rest of Engineering Council’s institutions didn’t. In some cases, to maintain tradition, but in many because they simply would not have the competence to evaluate knowledge and understanding. That is after all what Universities and Colleges specialise in. Also, the rest of the world mostly relies on academic qualifications, plus a vague “training/experience” requirement.

I’m delighted that so many able people have found a pathway to CEng with the IET and satisfied with my own modest contribution to that effort. Some people who perhaps otherwise wouldn’t have also achieved IEng and some have later transferred to CEng. However, the category has long since lost any distinctive value and clarity of purpose.

Tech Eng came into being to offer registration to Engineers who fell short of inflating academic requirements. It became IEng because “Engineers” didn’t like being confused with “Technicians”. (snobs perhaps??). It became benchmarked at degree level, to reflect changes in society as University attendance became more normalised. It should have become a chartered designation, but that opportunity was missed.

In academic hands it became like the 3^rd class degree, widely disparaged and looked down upon. No young person wanted it, so an ever-declining group of mid-career service people and veteran engineers were left rather “stuck”. Engineering Council made a hash of trying to reposition it as a stepping stone, denigrating experienced IEng, convincing few graduates of the need for a stepping stone and losing any residual distinctive value that the category liked to claim (e.g. “the more practical engineer”).

More recently IEng has become associated with some Degree Apprenticeships. Without wishing to seem immodest, this is something that I was doing 15+ years ago as a Company Training Manager (with college/university partners). The scheme won a national award and the government took it up.
Unfortunately, the professional registration element was a resounding failure. The excellent young Engineers (and some QS) were smart enough to recognise a second-class ticket when they saw one, especially so once they found themselves interacting with first-class ticket holders, who were no more able.

History will probably repeat, so instead of discussions between older engineers here, some other forum used by young people will convey the disgruntlement of those who were “sold” (or mis-sold!) IEng. They deserve better!

PS longer histories of IEng are available from an Engineering Council perspective?. I would prefer it if this were an obituary and I have made alternative proposals to move forward.
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