Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 78 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 14040 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

UKSpec 4th Edition

Peter Miller
The latest edition of UKSpec has been published. Downgrading of IEng competencies as promised. 

  • 0
    I can't, for the life of me, see why these analogies with other professions are useful. It's a total nonsense to equate EngTech with a Professional Nurse.  They are both admirable occupations, but fundamentally different. In professional nursing, registration is compulsory in all countries, because the skill set is typically defined and measurable, i.e. the ability to measure certain things like measure blood pressure, temperature, weight, oxygen levels, blood levels etc etc  and use techniques to administer treatments and techniques usually defined by a doctor. I think it is probable that a RGN qualified in the UK would be acceptable for  employment  in most other countries on the basis of their competency knowledge and understanding.


    Compare this to say IEng qualifications. The number of degree courses that are accredited for IEng is so diverse that you don't have a clue what was really studied. It ranges from Multi Media technologies, Civil engineering, Agricultural engineering. The competencies in one are not immediately transferable to another. It's a bit like saying doctors and vets should have the same registration body.



  • 0
    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



     


  • 0
    I read a review of this in my Sunday newspaper, which is behind a paywall hence the choice of this one which isn’t. Food for thought?

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/09/head-hand-heart-by-david-goodhart-review-does-getting-a-degree-matter-too-much                  

    To the extent that this is relevant to UK-SPEC revisions. I would reiterate that it is the culture in which something is conducted that is often as important as what is actually stated.

    So UK-SPEC is a moderately useful “manual” used to divide technical practitioners into three types, controlled by the dominant type. It’s a political compromise and many other variations could be equally valid, if dividing into three is the aim.   

  • 0
    Hahaha! I'd forgotten about that and it's good that they confirmed my memory. 


    Absolutely,  elitism,  or even reverse elitism helps nobody.
  • 0
    Roy Pemberton:

    Final apologies for such an outrageous stray off topic,  let's bring it to an end.  


    Except, I can't resist this one and it is Friday after all: Monty Python once did a pretty vicious sketch about how boring Chartered Accountants are. John Cleese tells the story that after it was transmitted he was terrified of visiting his accountant, but when he did he found his accountant thought it was hilarious. "But didn't you mind us having a go at you?" "Oh you weren't having a go at me, I'm a Certified Accountant, it's Chartered Accountants who are boring!" 


    Certified Accountant, Chartered Accountant, Incorporated Engineer, Chartered Engineer, we're all just human beings trying to get the job delivered together to the client without making too many mistakes...


    Cheers,


    Andy


  • 0
    Alasdair, 

    thanks for the information.  Ok, so yes,  by the time I entered into articled clerkship (1970) the Society of Incorporated Accountants had been long subsumed and therefore not even given consideration.  Much like the Institute of Incorporated Engineers that both Roy B and I remember. 


    However,  although Wikipedia doesn't report on it, which suggests it's even more consigned to the bin than I thought it would be,  i guarantee (because my memory is still very intact and it was a significant choice point in my life) at that time,  the key alternative was The Institute of Certified Accountants,  which appeared to have very much the role of the IIE at that time.  


    Despite how massively off topic this is,  I do wonder if there is something to learn from this, regarding the probability of 'more senior'  Institutes subsuming 'more junior' ones.  This is,  of course,  exactly what happened to the IIE, it was subsumed into the IET. It's somewhat like Currys/PCWorld's defeat of just about every other major electrical retailer (e.g. Rumbelows), or maybe,  more accurately the absorption of Dixons and subsequent complete loss of that brand. 


    I wish it were otherwise,  that it didn't suggest that the Incorporated Engineer is truly doomed,  but......


    Two last snippets on the topic before I put this massive stray off topic to bed:


    I recall that all the publicity and recruitment info back in the 60/70s was that Accountancy was the 'youngest profession' (yet still used the most archaic mechanism to qualification and membership of all,  being the only one still holding on to Articled Clerkship which,  as I previously mentioned,  was almost modern day slavery). I'm unclear whether this means that Engineering was an older profession or that it wasn't even considered a profession. 


    Secondly,  from Wikipedia "The term accountant does not have the same legal protection in the United Kingdom as that given to other professions such as doctors and lawyers.". Hmmm... perhaps it's more analagous than we at first thought. 


    Final apologies for such an outrageous stray off topic,  let's bring it to an end.
  • 0
    Roy P,


    According to the fount of all knowledge (well, Wikipedia actually, and the following is from memory) the Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales (ICAEW) was formed in about 1880 and what became the Society of Incorporated Accountants was formed in about 1885. It finally merged with the ICAEW in 1959. I wasn't sure if this was the same as the Institute of Chartered Accountants but looking up now it seems that it and they just ignore the "England and Wales" bit for normal conversation (just as they seem to ignore Scotland...)


    Alasdair
  • 0
    Alasdair, 

    interesting comparison there.  Maybe that's why i see things as I do.  When I left school,  I made the (for me) massive mistake of becoming and articled clerk to a Chartered Accountant,  the route to become a Chartered Accountant (it's the Institute of Chartered Accountants by the way).  I soon discovered that not only did I hate accountancy,  but that it was both incredibly restrictive and highly snobbish.  Furthermore,  the contract covering articled clerkship was very close indeed to modern day slavery. It till me 18 months to escape because of the penalties of simply deciding it wasn't for me!. It's also why i never pursued a degree.


    On the plus side,  I did actually lean a great deal in that time,  which has stood me in good stead last in life when I have been in positions where I did have p&l responsibility - I usually understood far more about finance than most of my peers who put themselves forward as having strong finance understanding.  What hadn't changed was that I still hated it!


    But it does bear out your comparison.  For interest,  at that time, at least,  the other Institute was the Institute of Certified Accountants.  It's entirely possible it may have been rebsdged to Incorporate,  I've really not been interested enough to find out. 

    So yes,  I've seen this elitism in earnest and it has undoubtedly fuelled my desire to overcome it in the engineering profession. 


  • 0
    CIOB Discontinued grades
    The Associate (ACIOB) and Incorporated (ICIOB) grades closed to new members in 2015. They were intended to be stepping stones towards Chartered status. For current ACIOB and ICIOB members, your status will remain unchanged until June 2025. At this point, we expect that you would have upgraded to Chartered status.

    Associate membership was often awarded to those in a management position for a couple of years with an academic qualification comparable to an HNC or other Level 4 qualification. The Incorporated grade was one step above Associate, and was intended for fairly experienced managers with the equivalent of a foundation degree, HND or Level 5 qualification.

    Below is a different organisation CABE  
    https://cdn.ymaws.com/cbuilde.com/resource/resmgr/documents/competency_framework.pdf 

  • 0
    Andy,


    Others may have different durations as you suggest, but the significant aspect is that it is reasonable to expect IEng to be achievable in a shorter time than CEng.


    It has been said earlier in this thread (by Roy B) that engineering differs from other professions in having Chartered and Incorporated Engineers, but I was interested to read that there used to be Incorporated Accountants in addition to Chartered Accountants. The Society granting accountants Incorporated status (various names ending with the Society of Incorporated Accountants) was apparently set up due to the Society of Chartered Accountants being seen as having restrictive practices.... it all starts to sound eerily familiar.


    Alasdair

Community Rules & Guidelines