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

Roy P,
I was going to post that I found the medical analogy unhelpful, but your explanation seemed reasonable and rational.

I don’t know much about medical careers, only my own experience of eventually being referred to a professor medical specialist, by other specialists. The problem was easily resolved, but could have been something more serious and a GP plus two other specialists just weren’t sure. I will just say that we have to be careful about comparisons to other professions, because they inevitably break down. Nursing for example, has required a degree qualification for many years now.

Most engineering is carried out quite successfully by mixed and often unregistered teams. In the UK in particular, there is one dominant medical employer and everyone passes through the same structured pathways of university and practical supervised learning.

In my view, the practice of engineers is far too diverse to fit into simple stereotypes.

It isn’t necessary to hold a degree to be a good engineer, but in the modern era , where being a graduate is commonplace, I think that it is necessary to set a “graduate level” benchmark for registration. I also think that the benchmark for Chartered recognition should be post-graduate (e.g. MSc).

Engineering differs from many other chartered professions in arguably having two “fully qualified” types of professional. Although that is controversial because IEng is certainly not “fully qualified” in the eyes of many powerful stakeholders, it is an “associate” or “part-qualified” engineer. Some other jurisdictions use “Engineer & Technologist” although that distinction is largely academic, it forms the basis for some state sponsored registration systems.

As I read UK-SPEC, it intends to position IEng as “CEng lite”. This was the original intention of the category. Therefore, instead of being Associate Members of a Chartered Institution, engineers who didn’t meet the academic requirements for CEng, developed their own institutions. This was moderately successful in the 70s & 80s peaking in 1987. I don’t know whether changing IEng to Chartered Engineering Technologist (or some other chartered title) would have given it fresh impetus, but I doubt it. Whatever distinctive attributes IEng was claimed to possess were only forms of marketing and spin. Just like the pompous and overblown claims about “creativity and innovation” or being “part of an engineering elite” used to market CEng.

I have no objection to a two-stage process of “CEng Lite” then CEng, but for the system to work everyone has to pass the same hurdle. The transition from “registered engineer” to CEng should require a period of “peer supervised development”. Although peer selection is important, badge snobs and people stuck in their own selective education of decades ago aren’t “peers”. We are here to help our fellow engineers not hinder them.

PS I only just saw Peter & Simon’s posts as I was submitting this. Both right. Can we move on please!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

Roy P,
I was going to post that I found the medical analogy unhelpful, but your explanation seemed reasonable and rational.

I don’t know much about medical careers, only my own experience of eventually being referred to a professor medical specialist, by other specialists. The problem was easily resolved, but could have been something more serious and a GP plus two other specialists just weren’t sure. I will just say that we have to be careful about comparisons to other professions, because they inevitably break down. Nursing for example, has required a degree qualification for many years now.

Most engineering is carried out quite successfully by mixed and often unregistered teams. In the UK in particular, there is one dominant medical employer and everyone passes through the same structured pathways of university and practical supervised learning.

In my view, the practice of engineers is far too diverse to fit into simple stereotypes.

It isn’t necessary to hold a degree to be a good engineer, but in the modern era , where being a graduate is commonplace, I think that it is necessary to set a “graduate level” benchmark for registration. I also think that the benchmark for Chartered recognition should be post-graduate (e.g. MSc).

Engineering differs from many other chartered professions in arguably having two “fully qualified” types of professional. Although that is controversial because IEng is certainly not “fully qualified” in the eyes of many powerful stakeholders, it is an “associate” or “part-qualified” engineer. Some other jurisdictions use “Engineer & Technologist” although that distinction is largely academic, it forms the basis for some state sponsored registration systems.

As I read UK-SPEC, it intends to position IEng as “CEng lite”. This was the original intention of the category. Therefore, instead of being Associate Members of a Chartered Institution, engineers who didn’t meet the academic requirements for CEng, developed their own institutions. This was moderately successful in the 70s & 80s peaking in 1987. I don’t know whether changing IEng to Chartered Engineering Technologist (or some other chartered title) would have given it fresh impetus, but I doubt it. Whatever distinctive attributes IEng was claimed to possess were only forms of marketing and spin. Just like the pompous and overblown claims about “creativity and innovation” or being “part of an engineering elite” used to market CEng.

I have no objection to a two-stage process of “CEng Lite” then CEng, but for the system to work everyone has to pass the same hurdle. The transition from “registered engineer” to CEng should require a period of “peer supervised development”. Although peer selection is important, badge snobs and people stuck in their own selective education of decades ago aren’t “peers”. We are here to help our fellow engineers not hinder them.

PS I only just saw Peter & Simon’s posts as I was submitting this. Both right. Can we move on please!
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