Andy Millar:

(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. 

Thanks,


Andy

I'm not sure if I'm misreading UKSpec but from my perspective its does not seem to limit the scope to the 'technical part'  someone's career path.


It specifically says:-


quote

C. Responsibility, management and leadership

Chartered Engineers shall demonstrate technical and commercial leadership.

This competence is about the ability to

plan the applicant’s own work and manage or specify the work of others effectively, efficiently, and in a way which provides leadership at an appropriate level, whether technical or commercial.

Unquote


The meaning is clear that a chartered engineer has more competence than an incorporated engineer in both commercial and technical matters.

Andy Millar:

(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. 

Thanks,


Andy

I'm not sure if I'm misreading UKSpec but from my perspective its does not seem to limit the scope to the 'technical part'  someone's career path.


It specifically says:-


quote

C. Responsibility, management and leadership

Chartered Engineers shall demonstrate technical and commercial leadership.

This competence is about the ability to

plan the applicant’s own work and manage or specify the work of others effectively, efficiently, and in a way which provides leadership at an appropriate level, whether technical or commercial.

Unquote


The meaning is clear that a chartered engineer has more competence than an incorporated engineer in both commercial and technical matters.