And I 100% agree with you Andy.  Like you,  I've encountered many a senior responsible engineer who would not meet the requirements of C.Eng and, sadly, have also declined candidates at interview for C.Eng for exactly the reasons you outline. There is an automatic assumption by many (usually who've not availed themselves of the guidance from a PRA, or have ignored it) that seniority is an automatic admission to C.Eng. 


I can also confirm that,  as he says,  there is no way a junior engineer would succeed in an application for I.Eng.


I get it that most of us would like to think we deserve to be at the top of our profession and that it possibly hurts pride to accept that you're not in that position,  but are somewhere within a very broad band of people who are "in the middle" - though I'll reiterate that it's a very broad band,  but the fact is that these people are the  backbone of the profession,  so rather than doing it down, referring to it as junior,  or dwelling on wounded pride,  it would be more appropriate to embrace it for what it is - the description of a solid professional engineer. 


I will reiterate what I've previously said on many occasions,  an I.Eng is most definitely not a junior engineer,  even with the new,  clearer specification set out in the 4th edition.  Frankly,  the bulk of those carrying out a solid,  professional engineering job, even at very senior level,  fit the I.Eng profile, and that is a healthy proportional situation for any profession. It may be a stepping stone to C.Eng, but it may be as far as many people want to (or should) go.  


I became an I. Eng back in the 90s and I was a technical director in an international engineering consultancy,  a member of the company's International Professional Board and one of the highest paid employees in the company.  I was still proud to gain I.Eng. I did eventually move on to C.Eng and that is,  as Andy said,  because I got into deeper and deeper engineering detail. The 4th edition of the specification is very little different in overall terms,  though much more clearly stated,  than it was then, so there's no basis to consider that it's been downgraded, but, as Simon said,  it has put to bed this "different but equal" concept that was always untenable. 


It's only a shame that,  because of the type of view that Peter has put forward,  the number of registrations does not reflect this and that the qualification is so talked down,  or even dismissed. 


To repeat my earlier point,  which Andy endorsed,  if presented with multiple candidates for a role (and that includes people put forward by contractors as responsible engineers on the assumption they can just appoint them in line with what they perceive they recruited them to do,  but which require my approval - I've definitely had instances when a contractor is badly disappointed because I've rejected an appointment they were hanging their hat on), where one is I.Eng, it wouldn't guarantee them the role as there are other factors,  but it would definitely increase ther likelihood that they will be accepted.  This makes that engineer of greater value to their employer so must improve their prospects. 


One final point - that survey only provides an indication of perception.  It doesn't mean they're right, it only means they have not considered it holistically or simply have a distorted view (or to use a certain world leader's favourite phrase,  but more accurately,  it is probably fake news). The link between qualification,  value and salary is often not direct or self evident, but i am utterly convinced that it does lead you to improved positions (whether by salary, quality or other non- financial personal reward), though all three of those are usually linked.

And I 100% agree with you Andy.  Like you,  I've encountered many a senior responsible engineer who would not meet the requirements of C.Eng and, sadly, have also declined candidates at interview for C.Eng for exactly the reasons you outline. There is an automatic assumption by many (usually who've not availed themselves of the guidance from a PRA, or have ignored it) that seniority is an automatic admission to C.Eng. 


I can also confirm that,  as he says,  there is no way a junior engineer would succeed in an application for I.Eng.


I get it that most of us would like to think we deserve to be at the top of our profession and that it possibly hurts pride to accept that you're not in that position,  but are somewhere within a very broad band of people who are "in the middle" - though I'll reiterate that it's a very broad band,  but the fact is that these people are the  backbone of the profession,  so rather than doing it down, referring to it as junior,  or dwelling on wounded pride,  it would be more appropriate to embrace it for what it is - the description of a solid professional engineer. 


I will reiterate what I've previously said on many occasions,  an I.Eng is most definitely not a junior engineer,  even with the new,  clearer specification set out in the 4th edition.  Frankly,  the bulk of those carrying out a solid,  professional engineering job, even at very senior level,  fit the I.Eng profile, and that is a healthy proportional situation for any profession. It may be a stepping stone to C.Eng, but it may be as far as many people want to (or should) go.  


I became an I. Eng back in the 90s and I was a technical director in an international engineering consultancy,  a member of the company's International Professional Board and one of the highest paid employees in the company.  I was still proud to gain I.Eng. I did eventually move on to C.Eng and that is,  as Andy said,  because I got into deeper and deeper engineering detail. The 4th edition of the specification is very little different in overall terms,  though much more clearly stated,  than it was then, so there's no basis to consider that it's been downgraded, but, as Simon said,  it has put to bed this "different but equal" concept that was always untenable. 


It's only a shame that,  because of the type of view that Peter has put forward,  the number of registrations does not reflect this and that the qualification is so talked down,  or even dismissed. 


To repeat my earlier point,  which Andy endorsed,  if presented with multiple candidates for a role (and that includes people put forward by contractors as responsible engineers on the assumption they can just appoint them in line with what they perceive they recruited them to do,  but which require my approval - I've definitely had instances when a contractor is badly disappointed because I've rejected an appointment they were hanging their hat on), where one is I.Eng, it wouldn't guarantee them the role as there are other factors,  but it would definitely increase ther likelihood that they will be accepted.  This makes that engineer of greater value to their employer so must improve their prospects. 


One final point - that survey only provides an indication of perception.  It doesn't mean they're right, it only means they have not considered it holistically or simply have a distorted view (or to use a certain world leader's favourite phrase,  but more accurately,  it is probably fake news). The link between qualification,  value and salary is often not direct or self evident, but i am utterly convinced that it does lead you to improved positions (whether by salary, quality or other non- financial personal reward), though all three of those are usually linked.