Roy Pemberton:

Simon, 

on this occasion I have to disagree completely.  I think the GP/ distinction is a near perfect analogy that is embraced in UKSPEC, including in 4th edition.  


The key factor that makes the analogy right,  for me,  is that a GP does not,  generally,  identify new solutions or applications, nor deal with complexity.

First point - discussions of the difference between IEng and CEng are definitely worth having, and analogies can be an aid. Perhaps not in this thread though?


Second point - Roy - have to disagree with you for the most part there. Notwithstanding your point on GPs not identifying new solutions, I think if you suggested to a GP that they were somehow less qualified than a consultant they would at the very least raise an eyebrow. GPs for sure deal with complexity often in a way the hospital specialists do not.


I think a better medical analogy is as follows:

• Graduate Engineer - Junior Doctor

• IEng - Registrar

• CEng - Consultant.

• Eng Tech - Nurse.

This would very firmly make the case that IEng is a step towards CEng (and it would be interesting to know how many doctors become consultants, somehow I dont think this can be all of them). It's interesting that the MOD has structured their registration scheme very much so that Officers progress through IEng to CEng as they are promoted to more senior/responsible roles.


My view is that Technician and Engineer are distinct roles and therefore there is no need, indeed it is a mistake, to look at Eng Tech as being a step towards IEng or CEng (but note that this does not preclude this by any means). My issue is that, as far as I can see, there is no statement by the Eng Council as to why we have two professional standards, after all many professions manage with a single registration level.


Tim



 

Roy Pemberton:

Simon, 

on this occasion I have to disagree completely.  I think the GP/ distinction is a near perfect analogy that is embraced in UKSPEC, including in 4th edition.  


The key factor that makes the analogy right,  for me,  is that a GP does not,  generally,  identify new solutions or applications, nor deal with complexity.

First point - discussions of the difference between IEng and CEng are definitely worth having, and analogies can be an aid. Perhaps not in this thread though?


Second point - Roy - have to disagree with you for the most part there. Notwithstanding your point on GPs not identifying new solutions, I think if you suggested to a GP that they were somehow less qualified than a consultant they would at the very least raise an eyebrow. GPs for sure deal with complexity often in a way the hospital specialists do not.


I think a better medical analogy is as follows:

• Graduate Engineer - Junior Doctor

• IEng - Registrar

• CEng - Consultant.

• Eng Tech - Nurse.

This would very firmly make the case that IEng is a step towards CEng (and it would be interesting to know how many doctors become consultants, somehow I dont think this can be all of them). It's interesting that the MOD has structured their registration scheme very much so that Officers progress through IEng to CEng as they are promoted to more senior/responsible roles.


My view is that Technician and Engineer are distinct roles and therefore there is no need, indeed it is a mistake, to look at Eng Tech as being a step towards IEng or CEng (but note that this does not preclude this by any means). My issue is that, as far as I can see, there is no statement by the Eng Council as to why we have two professional standards, after all many professions manage with a single registration level.


Tim