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 9838 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. 

  • 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!        
           

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Andy, that's brilliant! Your reference to the 4th edition agrees with my observation and personal experience in the job roles I and my colleagues carried out some years ago before I left the company. Responsibilities such as managing computer and communications infrastructure in a large organisation purely on a technical level is as important as innovation and management responsibilities. 


    As for Maxwell's equations; I understand exactly where you're coming from. It's really down to the lecturers to properly explain their subjects and not the students to grasp it just like that. You get some good lecturers, and you get some bad lecturers; and I suspect the bad ones either don't fully understand their subject matter, or they do, but don't want to reveal all. Thankfully, nowadays there are brilliant lecturers we can learn from on TV and other media outlets such as YouTube. Jim Al-Khalili is my favourite; glad to see he was honoured by the IET as HonFIET.

    ​​

    Roy, please accept my apologies if I came across as abrupt or arrogant. I'm not as diplomatic as I should be; probably due to not having any management experience. It seems, according to Andy, that the 4th edition might provide the opportunity for more engineers to obtain CEng registration, but that does imply a lowering in status for IEng; though perhaps opportunities for EngTechs to advance into. 


    By the way Roy, when I sat my CEI/EC exams, I passed all the technical based papers (including Maths) at my first attempt, but flunked the general paper - The Engineer in Society. Dispite the Maths in my arsenal, the IEE/IET said I did not meet the educational standard to apply for CEng. So you see, they really preferred university graduates, and the requirements for Maths was just an excuse they used against non graduates to keep them out of achieving CEng registration; and not passing the general knowledge paper, was the excuse for keeping people like me out. 


    Cheers.
  • 0
    Mehmood,


    You have nothing to apolgise for and my comment was intended as a lighthearted compliment (hence the wink). I worked in Yorkshire for a number of years where plain speaking was expected.?. Best Wishes Roy
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Mehmood


    Being retired is no excuse - I did just six years ago and took to volunteering for the IET. It’s nice to put something back after 50years in the industry.


    I serve as a PRA, interviewer (we’re doing that on line at the moment - 4 candidates a month is my ration). I also do Fellow assessments as well as registration assessments - you have stay up to date with your areas of expertise which makes for some research and a bit of reading but it is so rewarding.


    I just wish the powers that be would sort out this nonsense concerning CEng/IEng.


    Regards Jim W
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi Jim,


    I have a full time role looking after my mother, so cannot make committments, not even to attend IET events. A former work colleague of mine, who also sat the CEI Part 2 exams, but didn't pursue registration, and retired, would take advantage of his free travel pass, and regularly attend various University lecturers, on a variety of subjects; and I do envy him for that. I do take advantage, where I can, of watching Physics based lecturers on YouTube, but that is all.


    Regards,

  • 0
    Jim,

    It seems that in terms of “putting something back”, you are getting excellent value and The IET is getting excellent, if not maximum value from you.

    Before I retired, my understanding was that an IET senior representative was pressing hard for the ludicrous and insulting restriction on the contribution of IEng registrants within Engineering Council regulations to be removed.  I fought that as hard as I could at the time.

    The ignorant, arrogant and restrictive assumption adopted by Engineering Council, was that “progressive” meant that the judgement of a CEng, on any matter was superior to that of another type of registrant. As the “highest most developed form” it was deemed that becoming CEng subsumed and superseded the other categories.

    This was a very good example of “groupthink”, something that is bound to occur when you lack plurality of experience and a sense of entitlement prevails.  A good CEng with real world experience (like the contributing CEngs here), would automatically seek the opinion of those at “the sharp end” as an important part of the evidence that they need to weigh.  The overriding priority of an engineer in industry would also be the avoidance of harm.     

     
    Unfortunately, by the time I got wind of this and the error was recognised, it was too late and the die was cast.

    We have discussed the issue here and Alasdair addressed the issue well.   

    “I just wish the powers that be would sort out this nonsense concerning CEng/IEng.”
    I agree, it is a negative distraction. I have probably “wasted” thousands of words on it. Perhaps “the powers that be” hope that the rumblings of "a few malcontents and underachievers" will just gradually die off?

    I don’t continue this argument for any personal advantage and have never sought CEng (although I have helped hundreds of others to do so) . The issue is actually at the heart of the mission of Engineering Council and by extension the registration element of IET activities.

    Our duty as I see it is to nurture, recognise and equally respect engineering and technology experts. Private clubs can restrict membership as they see fit within the law, but for a public regulatory body to condone and even actively foster the negative treatment of most of those that it is supposed to serve, should be unacceptable. 


    "The Chartered Engineer's Council" would be a more accurate representation of the current situation. If that name was adopted, then I would be willing to help, since I think that CEng has to be the overriding priority, especially as that is what the market signals.  However, to feel welcome attitudes would have to change/modernise. There has been a very "closed shop" mentality.


    One of the most disappointing calls that I took at the IET, was from a recently retired IEng. His friend and former colleague invited him to a "Retired Engineer's Luncheon Club". He was "black-balled" and made to feel very uncomfortable by others when it came out that he was IEng.     


                 


  • 0
    Roy

    Extraordinary stuff!

    I volunteer in the Eng Tech and Electrician Eng Tech realms.

    I don't think we have many C Eng among us (Graham Kenyon excepted, plus 1?) The majority are Eng Tech and I Eng, which fits the bill.

    Point being, we are trying to promote registration from the craft/technician level and on-wards, given time.

    The people on high should beware of 'cutting off the nose to spite the face'

    On your last comment re: black- balled:

    The late, great Groucho Marx jumps in: 'I would never join any club that would have me as a member'


    Colin

  • 0
    Colin,

    As I’m sure you are already well aware, the IET aspires to support all professionals and joining the Engineering Council register is one way of doing that.  I would encourage anyone aspiring to high standards and continual learning to consider that option. Incidentally, I served an Apprenticeship as an “on the tools” craft -based Technician and later headed a “Training School” Department, when major industries had such establishments. 

    When I gave some support to the Electrician Eng Tech initiative, I emphasised that it isn’t just about “wearing the badge”, but taking an active interest and making a contribution.  The roots of the “problem” under discussion here lie in the disconnection between Engineering Council and other members of the “engineering establishment” with “the mainstream” of working Technicians & Engineers. This can only be repaired by more sensible voices from that background becoming more engaged and equally respected.

    When it was stronger, IEng was mainly held by more practically orientated engineers grown from the apprenticeship tradition into “managing engineers”. Many of these were highly responsible, “top-class experts” in the industries they populated. However, the system of measurement, based on academic qualifications and to some extent social status, valued them less. In their own “clubs” which mostly merged into the IIE, they were highly regarded.


    But as our society became increasingly academic, academic snobbery began to supplant social snobbery.  So for example, when I offered IEng to my recently honours degree qualified student Engineers (via 4 year apprenticeship) 15 years ago, they didn’t want it. Others had already positioned the category in their minds as similar to a “third class or unclassified degree”. Which for the those who have not been to university is pretty humiliating.  The institution (not the IET) also classified them as “Associate Members”, lower than age group peers who they were often patently superior to.

    Having largely “killed off” respect for and interest in Eng Tech & IEng. The PEIs sought to fill the gap with undergraduates and graduates in training respectively.  There is nothing wrong with these people who hopefully will continue to build good careers, with my enthusiastic support. However, the effect has been to treat the other two categories as “junior” or “part qualified” Engineers. 

    If this was done with the intention of creating a clear pathway to Chartered through in-career development, then I would be strongly supportive. It wasn’t!

    The door has been opened a little and it has become possible, via the IET at least, to achieve Chartered though career progression. However, this is still a potentially long and poorly signposted “swamp” which can take years to navigate. The “express toll road” open to those with top A levels in Maths & Science can be sighted in the distance, but professional humiliation is potentially in between.
    The IET has at least given mid-career engineers a better chance, by emphasising competence and offering helpful guides (PRAs). Another major PEI plays very strongly in its niche and also offers a similar opportunity, but there are many influential groups in the Engineering Council world who simply don’t want “Technicians” in their “club”, although they may take your money.    

    For the avoidance of doubt, this isn’t some sort of “class war” on my part. I was lucky to find a pathway to a good level via Masters, Chartered (not CEng) and Fellowship, from Apprentice. This should be demanding, but also “normal” for anyone who has the talent and drive. Some of my former apprentice colleagues enjoyed excellent and lucrative careers staying “on the tools”. "Different but equally valuable".

    I hoped that the revitalisation of Apprenticeships, might eventually save the day, but the Jury is out right now.        

  • 0
    Roy

    I fear you may be right on the EC being happy to take Technicians money.

    Irrespective, I will press on and attempt I Eng, probably early 2021 (at the grand old age of 60) and leave it there most likely.

    I have to agree with the registration levels being high with military/civil service (both applicable to me) and, I am discovering, consultancies.

    With out these three, they would be up the proverbial gum tree most probably.


    Colin
  • 0
    Rhino60:

    ...at the grand old age of 60...  


    As I have been telling myself since yesterday, 60 is the new 50 ? 


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