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

“CEng: Writes the rules.”

Nailed it in one short sentence Andy.

It is for this reason that I have suggested that “Engineering Council” should be renamed “The Chartered Engineers Council”. Such a title would be a more accurate description of its role.

I would argue that the three related activities codified; education, training and professional activity descriptors (UK-SPEC) are themselves organised as a hierarchy. 1. education 2. training 3. professional experience. Twas ever thus!

The IET deserves great credit for developing accessible assessment processes for experienced professionals, that don’t necessarily require boxes 1&2 to be ticked. Many other licensees of Engineering Council have insufficient capability to carry out such a process reliably and some have no desire to do so anyway. They see “meeting academic requirements” as “essential”, structured training as “important” and meeting UK-SPEC competences to the letter as “optional” and easily fudged.

The three categories are based on an both an intellectual and social hierarchy. The consensus on which they are based is that of the “Elite” (as self-described)
https://www.engc.org.uk/EngCDocuments/Internet/Website/CEng Leaflet.pdf    You may well have what it takes to become one of the elites of the engineering profession – a Chartered Engineer.

Being pragmatic, I see no option other than to accept the authority of Engineering Council and the reality that Chartered Engineer is where the market lies.

There are independent estimates that even amongst those potentially CEng qualified, the market penetration is well below 50%. For Eng Tech it would be well below 10% (from memory). Estimates for IEng are also low but I don’t have much confidence in them. Some CEng assert that there are several IEng for every CEng, assuming that Engineering is organised like a pyramid. It isn’t, although many traditional “military model” organisational management structures are.

There are greater numbers of mainstream engineers, than there are technical leaders or specialist expert consultants, but of the minority of the mainstream who are registered, most are CEng. I happen to be IEng registered, but I don’t see myself as “an IEng” and haven’t used the post-nominal since the “downgrade”. I’m also not a “mainstream engineer”, although I once was.

Engineering Council erred egregiously in my opinion by allowing a false dichotomy to be drawn between “different but equally valuable” and “progressive”. It added to that error, by insulting and condemning “different but equally valuable”, parodying it as “different but the same”. It added injury to insult by allowing an arrogant and entitled group think by a group of Chartered Engineers, to downgrade the contribution of experienced IEng within its rules.

“Different but equally valuable” (ie equal respect) is absolutely fundamental, if Engineering Council and its licensees are to offer fair assessment of the qualifications that they offer (which require ongoing membership).

This isn’t intended as a negative post. I advocate just getting on with it. The limitations of Engineering Council are outside my control and my influence is insignificant, although I have tried. The numbers of people attracted to taxation (or subscription) without representation (other than patronised as a "minority") is always going to be limited.

The market will decide and on past evidence it will predominantly choose CEng. I’m not uncomfortable with that, although the market for snobbery if that’s how it is promoted, isn’t what it was. I predict that more institutions will fold as a result, as has already happened. Something better for technicians and mainstream non-chartered engineers may emerge?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

“CEng: Writes the rules.”

Nailed it in one short sentence Andy.

It is for this reason that I have suggested that “Engineering Council” should be renamed “The Chartered Engineers Council”. Such a title would be a more accurate description of its role.

I would argue that the three related activities codified; education, training and professional activity descriptors (UK-SPEC) are themselves organised as a hierarchy. 1. education 2. training 3. professional experience. Twas ever thus!

The IET deserves great credit for developing accessible assessment processes for experienced professionals, that don’t necessarily require boxes 1&2 to be ticked. Many other licensees of Engineering Council have insufficient capability to carry out such a process reliably and some have no desire to do so anyway. They see “meeting academic requirements” as “essential”, structured training as “important” and meeting UK-SPEC competences to the letter as “optional” and easily fudged.

The three categories are based on an both an intellectual and social hierarchy. The consensus on which they are based is that of the “Elite” (as self-described)
https://www.engc.org.uk/EngCDocuments/Internet/Website/CEng Leaflet.pdf    You may well have what it takes to become one of the elites of the engineering profession – a Chartered Engineer.

Being pragmatic, I see no option other than to accept the authority of Engineering Council and the reality that Chartered Engineer is where the market lies.

There are independent estimates that even amongst those potentially CEng qualified, the market penetration is well below 50%. For Eng Tech it would be well below 10% (from memory). Estimates for IEng are also low but I don’t have much confidence in them. Some CEng assert that there are several IEng for every CEng, assuming that Engineering is organised like a pyramid. It isn’t, although many traditional “military model” organisational management structures are.

There are greater numbers of mainstream engineers, than there are technical leaders or specialist expert consultants, but of the minority of the mainstream who are registered, most are CEng. I happen to be IEng registered, but I don’t see myself as “an IEng” and haven’t used the post-nominal since the “downgrade”. I’m also not a “mainstream engineer”, although I once was.

Engineering Council erred egregiously in my opinion by allowing a false dichotomy to be drawn between “different but equally valuable” and “progressive”. It added to that error, by insulting and condemning “different but equally valuable”, parodying it as “different but the same”. It added injury to insult by allowing an arrogant and entitled group think by a group of Chartered Engineers, to downgrade the contribution of experienced IEng within its rules.

“Different but equally valuable” (ie equal respect) is absolutely fundamental, if Engineering Council and its licensees are to offer fair assessment of the qualifications that they offer (which require ongoing membership).

This isn’t intended as a negative post. I advocate just getting on with it. The limitations of Engineering Council are outside my control and my influence is insignificant, although I have tried. The numbers of people attracted to taxation (or subscription) without representation (other than patronised as a "minority") is always going to be limited.

The market will decide and on past evidence it will predominantly choose CEng. I’m not uncomfortable with that, although the market for snobbery if that’s how it is promoted, isn’t what it was. I predict that more institutions will fold as a result, as has already happened. Something better for technicians and mainstream non-chartered engineers may emerge?
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