I suggest forgetting the fact that the term "equal but different" was used some years ago, and instead consider whether 3rd and 4th editions now provide accurate assessment of applicants for the range of engineering roles present in the real world. Personally I think third edition didn't quite (because there were technically senior engineers who weren't clearly CEng under it) and that 4th edition does.


To heavily simplify, but many of us find this a useful model: 

EngTech: Trained to follow the rules to the letter.

IEng: Can work out how to apply the rules even to something where no-one has applied them there before (which as most of us have said, is where most professional engineers sit).

CEng: Writes the rules.

(This does not mean that an EngTech can't be the CEO, the IEng the MD, and the CEng a humble wage slave!!!! These only relate to technical responsibilities. Hence I always get very twitchy about "CEngs should be managers". In practice many engineers have to make a decision at some point as to whether to go the management route or the technical leadership route - so fine, the process is there, there's the path to CEng and there's the path to IEng CMgr - note who has the most letters and generally the most pay and "status"!!)


There's two quite different debates - whether the model above is appropriate (which personally I think is for industry to decide), and secondly whether 3rd and 4th edition provide a reliable and valid measure of whether applicants meet these.


Yes, for both editions EngTech could be seen as a subset of IEng, and IEng could be seen as a subset of CEng, but the point is that this is only talking about one part - the technical part - of someone's career path. As above, if a graduate decides after a year or two to take the money and go down the project and line management route then the spec worked well, and in 4th edition still works well, to recognising their engineering competence. Provided industry recognises it - but that's for the other thread.


I have to disagree on the relevance of analogies with other professions, learning lessons and transferring (with critical consideration) best practice from elsewhere is always good. Of course taking them to an extreme just to prove a point is unhelpful.


Thanks,


Andy

I suggest forgetting the fact that the term "equal but different" was used some years ago, and instead consider whether 3rd and 4th editions now provide accurate assessment of applicants for the range of engineering roles present in the real world. Personally I think third edition didn't quite (because there were technically senior engineers who weren't clearly CEng under it) and that 4th edition does.


To heavily simplify, but many of us find this a useful model: 

EngTech: Trained to follow the rules to the letter.

IEng: Can work out how to apply the rules even to something where no-one has applied them there before (which as most of us have said, is where most professional engineers sit).

CEng: Writes the rules.

(This does not mean that an EngTech can't be the CEO, the IEng the MD, and the CEng a humble wage slave!!!! These only relate to technical responsibilities. Hence I always get very twitchy about "CEngs should be managers". In practice many engineers have to make a decision at some point as to whether to go the management route or the technical leadership route - so fine, the process is there, there's the path to CEng and there's the path to IEng CMgr - note who has the most letters and generally the most pay and "status"!!)


There's two quite different debates - whether the model above is appropriate (which personally I think is for industry to decide), and secondly whether 3rd and 4th edition provide a reliable and valid measure of whether applicants meet these.


Yes, for both editions EngTech could be seen as a subset of IEng, and IEng could be seen as a subset of CEng, but the point is that this is only talking about one part - the technical part - of someone's career path. As above, if a graduate decides after a year or two to take the money and go down the project and line management route then the spec worked well, and in 4th edition still works well, to recognising their engineering competence. Provided industry recognises it - but that's for the other thread.


I have to disagree on the relevance of analogies with other professions, learning lessons and transferring (with critical consideration) best practice from elsewhere is always good. Of course taking them to an extreme just to prove a point is unhelpful.


Thanks,


Andy