This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

UKSpec 4th Edition

Peter Miller over 4 years ago

The latest edition of UKSpec has been published. Downgrading of IEng competencies as promised.

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

Just to emphasise that the UK-SPEC publication is just part of an overall system, which the new version seems to make clearer.

There are three types of qualification offered, all with a requirement for ongoing registration. They are characterised in a form of “pen portrait” or “product particulars”.

The benchmark academic/vocational qualifications associated with each category are also described. This aspect is untidy and confusing in my opinion.

Older and uncommon qualifications are referenced, such as NVQ level 4 for IEng (I have never seen one) and HNC which was downgraded in recent years. The meaning of “further learning” has never been clarified, so it is open to individual PEI interpretation.

The easiest qualification to recognise for IEng is, An accredited Bachelors or honours degree in engineering or technology. In practice, universities do not offer Bachelors Degrees without honours. It may be possible to gain one by accumulating a lower number of credits, where such study is an option. However, in most circumstances it is seen as a “consolation award”, if the full honours degree is not completed.

For CEng the following is stated

An accredited Bachelors degree with honours in engineering or technology, plus either an appropriate Masters degree or engineering doctorate accredited by a Licensee, or appropriate further learning to Masters level*

The PEI registering the most numbers of CEng has explicitly stated that a few post-graduate level credits, well short of a full Masters Degree is acceptable “further learning” for CEng. The IET in line with its broader policy simply evaluates UK&U “holistically” at the time of a registration application.

Therefore, the prime academic qualification underpinning both IEng & CEng is a Bachelors Honours Degree. University regulators ensure that all such degrees meet the same broad outcomes and quality standards. So, an IEng accredited honours degree is not “lower” than a CEng version, it is the same! In practice, it may even be superior since it may be more focussed on engineering and less on theoretical science.

A reference to Apprenticeships has been introduced into CEng, which is welcome and something that I have made some noise about.

This forum isn’t about Academic Accreditation. However, wouldn’t it be much clearer and simpler, to designate two types of engineers on the basis of those applying “bachelors level” UK&U and “masters level” UK&U. To be fair to MEng graduates (given the cost and academic entry tariff) we’ll call them masters too.

I should state that I supported the Gateway’s “MSC in Professional Engineering” programmes for experienced engineers. Although there could be other mechanisms for working engineers to demonstrate these benchmarks in lieu of a masters degree. After all, most full-time masters students in recent years have been from overseas just “staying another year” (with a temporary work-permit in return).

Much of our debate about how the competence descriptors differ between the two categories of Engineer, seem to ignore the fact that what we actually have is an academic hierarchy, biased greatly towards scientific analysis rather than knowledge about engineering techniques.

Long before anyone gets chance to demonstrate any competencies in the work place, academia has already sorted them into sheep and goats.

I appreciate that the contributors here may feel that the academic element isn’t relevant. It was for a long time virtually all Engineering Council was. Dig out the UK-SPEC predecessor SARTOR if you don’t believe me.

For the international dimension https://www.ieagreements.org/
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

Just to emphasise that the UK-SPEC publication is just part of an overall system, which the new version seems to make clearer.

There are three types of qualification offered, all with a requirement for ongoing registration. They are characterised in a form of “pen portrait” or “product particulars”.

The benchmark academic/vocational qualifications associated with each category are also described. This aspect is untidy and confusing in my opinion.

Older and uncommon qualifications are referenced, such as NVQ level 4 for IEng (I have never seen one) and HNC which was downgraded in recent years. The meaning of “further learning” has never been clarified, so it is open to individual PEI interpretation.

The easiest qualification to recognise for IEng is, An accredited Bachelors or honours degree in engineering or technology. In practice, universities do not offer Bachelors Degrees without honours. It may be possible to gain one by accumulating a lower number of credits, where such study is an option. However, in most circumstances it is seen as a “consolation award”, if the full honours degree is not completed.

For CEng the following is stated

An accredited Bachelors degree with honours in engineering or technology, plus either an appropriate Masters degree or engineering doctorate accredited by a Licensee, or appropriate further learning to Masters level*

The PEI registering the most numbers of CEng has explicitly stated that a few post-graduate level credits, well short of a full Masters Degree is acceptable “further learning” for CEng. The IET in line with its broader policy simply evaluates UK&U “holistically” at the time of a registration application.

Therefore, the prime academic qualification underpinning both IEng & CEng is a Bachelors Honours Degree. University regulators ensure that all such degrees meet the same broad outcomes and quality standards. So, an IEng accredited honours degree is not “lower” than a CEng version, it is the same! In practice, it may even be superior since it may be more focussed on engineering and less on theoretical science.

A reference to Apprenticeships has been introduced into CEng, which is welcome and something that I have made some noise about.

This forum isn’t about Academic Accreditation. However, wouldn’t it be much clearer and simpler, to designate two types of engineers on the basis of those applying “bachelors level” UK&U and “masters level” UK&U. To be fair to MEng graduates (given the cost and academic entry tariff) we’ll call them masters too.

I should state that I supported the Gateway’s “MSC in Professional Engineering” programmes for experienced engineers. Although there could be other mechanisms for working engineers to demonstrate these benchmarks in lieu of a masters degree. After all, most full-time masters students in recent years have been from overseas just “staying another year” (with a temporary work-permit in return).

Much of our debate about how the competence descriptors differ between the two categories of Engineer, seem to ignore the fact that what we actually have is an academic hierarchy, biased greatly towards scientific analysis rather than knowledge about engineering techniques.

Long before anyone gets chance to demonstrate any competencies in the work place, academia has already sorted them into sheep and goats.

I appreciate that the contributors here may feel that the academic element isn’t relevant. It was for a long time virtually all Engineering Council was. Dig out the UK-SPEC predecessor SARTOR if you don’t believe me.

For the international dimension https://www.ieagreements.org/
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

UKSpec 4th Edition

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines