UKSpec 4th Edition

I 100% disagree with that. This is on the basis of having worked as a PRA with many engineers over the past couple of years, at mid ranking and senior level, who have been aiming at CEng but - and I think all PRAs will say the same story - because they are primarily project engineers rather than "deep technical" engineers they meet the IEng criteria but not CEng. Across particularly the PEI's core sectors, infrastructure, utilities, military, a huge proportion of the engineers absolutely bang on meet the IEng criteria up to very senior project engineer / manager / director level. And sometimes they don't like hearing "you don't meet CEng".  


A junior engineer, i.e. a recent graduate / recent ex-apprentice with 1-3 years experience is very very (vanishingly) unlikely to meet IEng criteria. They don't normally have the "management" (very much in quotes, it's a whole range of broad based skills) experience. Once they have it they are eligible for IEng AND for a full engineer position - but they will need the full engineer position first.


Thanks,


Andy

Unfortunately, the view that professional registration improves salary potential is not widely held.

https://theengineer.markallengroup.com/production/content/uploads/2019/06/2019-Salary-Survey.pdf

 

% agree professional registration leads to higher salary – by seniority

• Directors or above 24.6 

• Senior engineers /managers 21

• Junior engineer 11.8

My main point is that the competency descriptions and examples for IEng are those of a Junior Engineer.

Well said Andy,  and that was part of what I meant when I said that not all value is financial,  though I'm still pretty convinced that, eventually,  the benefit of these developmental values does trickle through to your career prospects and ultimately your financial reward.

Also, when we see candidates working through the process we see them getting a much better perspective on how well rounded their approach to professional engineering is. Typically two things come out, candidates realise that there are are areas (maybe technical, maybe management, maybe thinking about HSE etc etc) which they could strengthen and therefore become more valuable to employers, and on the other hand they often find that they were actually underrating their skills.


A company's view of an engineering employee is necessarily narrow and somewhat biased as they are only looking at them for a particular role / career path. Friends and colleagues will generally just tell you what you want to hear (or, sadly, some colleagues will go the other way and delight in putting you down - or dragging you into their own pit of despair and despondency - for a variety of reasons). There really aren't that many ways engineers can get an impartial and proactive third party assessment like this of their current position and possibilities. And given that the Mentor and PRA support is free once the membership is paid for then compared to any other form of consultancy / counselling / therapy / call it what you will, the cost is peanuts!


Thanks,


Andy

Good point Simon,  and if nobody else used paying it,  let's not forget tax relief which,  at the level of remuneration you should be able to attract as I.Eng, must surely mean it only really costs you 60% of the headline figure. 


Personally,  I feel the registration and membership fees (especially if you're already MIET, hence only referring to the incremental change due to registration) are small peanuts when compared to the annual remuneration you should be able to receive. 


I feel I can say,  with quiet certainty,  that registration should improve your prospects, whether it's in the ability to 'sell' your services if it's your responsibility to do so or through an appraisal process with an employer.  If you really believe you're in a position where your prospects are not improved from it then it's time you took action and your prospects of success in that action will definitely be improved.  And let's not forget that not all value is financial. 

One of the best ways to improve the value is,  having achieved registration, to walk tall,  promote it. As you see from what Andy and I say,  this isn't an imagined value,  we,  and many others like us,  will feel greater confidence in your fitness for a role,  and this absolutely has to improve your prospects,  even if it's imperceptible at first.

The value proposition for IEng is weak. The 4th Edition of UKSpec makes it clearly weaker. In this life you can become richer, either by earning more, or spending less on things that are not necessary. IEng sits firmly in the latter category.

Roy,


Those are two absolutely fantastic posts. You've encapsulated exactly what I was thinking in a much more elegant way than I would have put it.


I'll only reinforce it with my usual point: when I'm going out to assess a company's engineering team I need to be confident that the engineers in every single role are professionally competent to the standards required for that role. Yes, it's incredibly annoying that industry doesn't recognise this, but in my eyes that isn't the fault of UKSPEC. UKSPEC neatly covers all the real world engineering roles.


Complaining about 4th edition (which is clearer and will reduce frustration and annoyance during the application process) is tilting at the wrong windmill.


Thanks,


Andy

The 4th edition is available https://www.engc.org.uk/media/3417/uk-spec-fourth-edition.pdf