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
Tim,

Having said that we have no option but to welcome the revised UK-SPEC 4^th edition and make the best of it. There is debate to be had here, because the registration process relies on volunteer judgement. There is another current thread “Value in IEng” which might overlap, but your points aren’t just about IEng.

There will always be differences of opinion about interpretation, but without open discussion, there is the smell of a “closed shop” or “stitch up”. Registration decisions can have a significant influence on a person’s career, reputation and sense of self-worth. So justice must, in my opinion, always be seen to be done.

Medicine has been a popular comparison for Chartered Engineers over the years, because arguably it has the “highest status” of any profession. I haven’t personally come across such discussions amongst IEng or Technicians, although that doesn’t mean that some haven’t taken place. I would suggest that few IEng would compare themselves with Doctors? The obvious comparison is CEng, or perhaps in the built environment domain, Surveyors or Builders, rather than Architects which might be a CEng preference?

I don’t follow medical careers, but Nursing has required a degree for some years now, with talk of being “too posh to wash” as a result. I don’t think that they would welcome a comparison between their “level 6” qualification and Eng Tech at “level 3”. I should also note the relative gender balance between nursing and engineering technicians. “Degree level” is IEng/CEng equivalent.

Your comment

“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.”

I agree that “Engineer” and “Technician” are sufficient differentiation.

However, if CEng assert that they are the “elite” of the profession, then something has to serve the mainstream, “non-elite” professional engineer. At present the mainstream is also served by CEng, although some IEng of overlapping capability are found, mostly within one major employer’s sphere of influence.


Some other countries have a “Technologist” and “Chartered Engineering Technologist” was under discussion for IEng twenty years ago. This would have genuinely created two “equal” types. However, would that not still have sown confusion and internecine argument?

I can’t speak for Engineering Council, although I did for a time work closely with them, so I can speculate. I often criticise them, but only because it is where the buck stops as our “parliament”. Personal attacks on hard working staff and volunteers, would be unfair and wrong. They have to try and broker an acceptable compromise involving many factors, with very influential stakeholders involved. Change is difficult!
IEng offers an opportunity for engineers of good standard, but not in a position to meet CEng requirements, to qualify and become members of the registered community.

I don’t have the most recent figures, but I can state that in the 1980s there were 60 000+ IEng (compared to 200 000 CEng). As of a couple of years ago IEng was around 28 000 (CEng 181 000), with over 1000 new IEng each year. These figures include overseas residents.

IEng was recognised in EU mutual recognition treaties and is part of the international “Sydney Accord” for “Technologist Degrees”.

A change of title or abolition would have to be approved by Privy Council (I think?).

IEng has been linked to the outcome of a number of degree apprenticeship frameworks.

I could go on, but would the status quo not just be an easier path?

If we see UK-SPEC as three “qualifications”, rather than three “personalities” it may help?

An Engineer or Technician needs to pass a threshold to gain one of the qualifications. Once qualified there is an ongoing membership obligation, to retain the right to use the professional title.
This isn’t (in the UK at least) a legal or even formal demarcation into roles. Therefore, if an Eng Tech develops appropriate attributes they can lead design of the next space probe and likewise a CEng can “work on the tools”.

However, because the qualifications relate to an intellectual hierarchy (Bloom’s Taxonomy), one direction is seen in our world as “forwards” or “upwards”, the other “backwards” or “downwards”.
Also conflated with technical ability, is status in various forms. The “social cache” difference between CEng & IEng is often enormous, even if the practical performance of the two “types” often greatly overlaps in practice.

I proposed to Engineering Council that every new Engineer should become a “registered engineer”. The benchmark would be “bachelors level” and the competence descriptors similar to current IEng. Only registered engineers would be eligible to work towards CEng, over a minimum period of monitored practice (several years). The benchmark would be “masters level”. I suggest that this is the logical structure of a properly “progressive profession”.

What the status quo demands is academic selection into silos at a relatively young age. So, if you wish to “progress” in engineering, then you better start young (say age 12-13), otherwise you may find the route to becoming a “fully-qualified” chartered professional a long and tricky one.

It remains to be seen, if the current “fudge”, allows excellent recent degree apprentices who have followed an IEng accredited pathway, to progress easily and seamlessly to CEng, without a “baked-in” disadvantage. If they do suffer such disadvantage relative to age group peers, despite demonstrating often greater ability, then talk of “competence” and “progression” is misleading. The system will deservedly lack credibility and should sacrifice the right to public funding.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago
Tim,

Having said that we have no option but to welcome the revised UK-SPEC 4^th edition and make the best of it. There is debate to be had here, because the registration process relies on volunteer judgement. There is another current thread “Value in IEng” which might overlap, but your points aren’t just about IEng.

There will always be differences of opinion about interpretation, but without open discussion, there is the smell of a “closed shop” or “stitch up”. Registration decisions can have a significant influence on a person’s career, reputation and sense of self-worth. So justice must, in my opinion, always be seen to be done.

Medicine has been a popular comparison for Chartered Engineers over the years, because arguably it has the “highest status” of any profession. I haven’t personally come across such discussions amongst IEng or Technicians, although that doesn’t mean that some haven’t taken place. I would suggest that few IEng would compare themselves with Doctors? The obvious comparison is CEng, or perhaps in the built environment domain, Surveyors or Builders, rather than Architects which might be a CEng preference?

I don’t follow medical careers, but Nursing has required a degree for some years now, with talk of being “too posh to wash” as a result. I don’t think that they would welcome a comparison between their “level 6” qualification and Eng Tech at “level 3”. I should also note the relative gender balance between nursing and engineering technicians. “Degree level” is IEng/CEng equivalent.

Your comment

“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.”

I agree that “Engineer” and “Technician” are sufficient differentiation.

However, if CEng assert that they are the “elite” of the profession, then something has to serve the mainstream, “non-elite” professional engineer. At present the mainstream is also served by CEng, although some IEng of overlapping capability are found, mostly within one major employer’s sphere of influence.


Some other countries have a “Technologist” and “Chartered Engineering Technologist” was under discussion for IEng twenty years ago. This would have genuinely created two “equal” types. However, would that not still have sown confusion and internecine argument?

I can’t speak for Engineering Council, although I did for a time work closely with them, so I can speculate. I often criticise them, but only because it is where the buck stops as our “parliament”. Personal attacks on hard working staff and volunteers, would be unfair and wrong. They have to try and broker an acceptable compromise involving many factors, with very influential stakeholders involved. Change is difficult!
IEng offers an opportunity for engineers of good standard, but not in a position to meet CEng requirements, to qualify and become members of the registered community.

I don’t have the most recent figures, but I can state that in the 1980s there were 60 000+ IEng (compared to 200 000 CEng). As of a couple of years ago IEng was around 28 000 (CEng 181 000), with over 1000 new IEng each year. These figures include overseas residents.

IEng was recognised in EU mutual recognition treaties and is part of the international “Sydney Accord” for “Technologist Degrees”.

A change of title or abolition would have to be approved by Privy Council (I think?).

IEng has been linked to the outcome of a number of degree apprenticeship frameworks.

I could go on, but would the status quo not just be an easier path?

If we see UK-SPEC as three “qualifications”, rather than three “personalities” it may help?

An Engineer or Technician needs to pass a threshold to gain one of the qualifications. Once qualified there is an ongoing membership obligation, to retain the right to use the professional title.
This isn’t (in the UK at least) a legal or even formal demarcation into roles. Therefore, if an Eng Tech develops appropriate attributes they can lead design of the next space probe and likewise a CEng can “work on the tools”.

However, because the qualifications relate to an intellectual hierarchy (Bloom’s Taxonomy), one direction is seen in our world as “forwards” or “upwards”, the other “backwards” or “downwards”.
Also conflated with technical ability, is status in various forms. The “social cache” difference between CEng & IEng is often enormous, even if the practical performance of the two “types” often greatly overlaps in practice.

I proposed to Engineering Council that every new Engineer should become a “registered engineer”. The benchmark would be “bachelors level” and the competence descriptors similar to current IEng. Only registered engineers would be eligible to work towards CEng, over a minimum period of monitored practice (several years). The benchmark would be “masters level”. I suggest that this is the logical structure of a properly “progressive profession”.

What the status quo demands is academic selection into silos at a relatively young age. So, if you wish to “progress” in engineering, then you better start young (say age 12-13), otherwise you may find the route to becoming a “fully-qualified” chartered professional a long and tricky one.

It remains to be seen, if the current “fudge”, allows excellent recent degree apprentices who have followed an IEng accredited pathway, to progress easily and seamlessly to CEng, without a “baked-in” disadvantage. If they do suffer such disadvantage relative to age group peers, despite demonstrating often greater ability, then talk of “competence” and “progression” is misleading. The system will deservedly lack credibility and should sacrifice the right to public funding.
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