Roy B,

i agree,  that's the nub of the issue isn't it? It's central to what I've been on about all the way through,  that any flaw in the value proposition for registration is not about the actual tangible benefits - I've described those multiple times,  but,  in summary,  the confidence it offers people such as Andy and me to tick the competence/ fit for role box based on prior peer assessment or even make it a requirement for appointment to role,  and the knowledge by the engineer themselves that their acceptability for roles is enhanced - but about the perception of value and that is,  as you say,  a major failure by the profession to engage and to communicate an attractive proposition.  


To repeat the theme that we've both raised endlessly,  to provide that engagement and communication there are some (to me clear) first steps:

1. dispel any perception of elitism/ old boys club,  which first means ensuring that neither are actually in operation

2. Adjust the mindset/ requirements definition for the Eng Council from what you describe ss the "Chartered Engineer's Council" to that of a true Engineering Council,  inclusive, representative and engaged with all levels of Engineer 

3. Communication/ promotion of the value (including as a benchmark of personal attainment and a vehicle for professional development) of registration both to all stakeholders and through all stages of the engineering career lifecycle,  right back to the career selection stage at schools


There is another issue which is the result of the perversity of human nature  - the more inclusive and accessible we make registered status,  the more will there be the tendency for many people to believe that there's only value in something if you've had to work hard for it. Of course,  the truth is that anybody who meets the requirements of registration at any level has worked hard for  it,  but that fact is not always self evident.  It's the mindset that perceives that anything short of a gold medalist is mediocre and mediocrity is to be avoided at all costs. 


Having said that,  there is a dichotomy in there that emanates from factors outside of the profession.  On one hand,  it's essential to dispel the snobbery present in many people's minds within the profession (which I'm still fairly insistent is not prevalent among the vast majority of registered engineers and fellows in our own PEI, but am fairly certain is prevalent in others,  and for sure among some other PEIs), but, on the other hand,  it's almost essential that the snobbery is played on in that early career path selection stage (in schools) because the majority of teachers and parents perceive engineering as not being 'good enough' as a career for their darlings/protegés. 


Oh dear,  I've  done it again,  my original planned brief response has turned into a saga! Also straying off topic.

Roy B,

i agree,  that's the nub of the issue isn't it? It's central to what I've been on about all the way through,  that any flaw in the value proposition for registration is not about the actual tangible benefits - I've described those multiple times,  but,  in summary,  the confidence it offers people such as Andy and me to tick the competence/ fit for role box based on prior peer assessment or even make it a requirement for appointment to role,  and the knowledge by the engineer themselves that their acceptability for roles is enhanced - but about the perception of value and that is,  as you say,  a major failure by the profession to engage and to communicate an attractive proposition.  


To repeat the theme that we've both raised endlessly,  to provide that engagement and communication there are some (to me clear) first steps:

1. dispel any perception of elitism/ old boys club,  which first means ensuring that neither are actually in operation

2. Adjust the mindset/ requirements definition for the Eng Council from what you describe ss the "Chartered Engineer's Council" to that of a true Engineering Council,  inclusive, representative and engaged with all levels of Engineer 

3. Communication/ promotion of the value (including as a benchmark of personal attainment and a vehicle for professional development) of registration both to all stakeholders and through all stages of the engineering career lifecycle,  right back to the career selection stage at schools


There is another issue which is the result of the perversity of human nature  - the more inclusive and accessible we make registered status,  the more will there be the tendency for many people to believe that there's only value in something if you've had to work hard for it. Of course,  the truth is that anybody who meets the requirements of registration at any level has worked hard for  it,  but that fact is not always self evident.  It's the mindset that perceives that anything short of a gold medalist is mediocre and mediocrity is to be avoided at all costs. 


Having said that,  there is a dichotomy in there that emanates from factors outside of the profession.  On one hand,  it's essential to dispel the snobbery present in many people's minds within the profession (which I'm still fairly insistent is not prevalent among the vast majority of registered engineers and fellows in our own PEI, but am fairly certain is prevalent in others,  and for sure among some other PEIs), but, on the other hand,  it's almost essential that the snobbery is played on in that early career path selection stage (in schools) because the majority of teachers and parents perceive engineering as not being 'good enough' as a career for their darlings/protegés. 


Oh dear,  I've  done it again,  my original planned brief response has turned into a saga! Also straying off topic.