It has?  According to the Engineering Council " The revised fourth edition of UK-SPEC was published on 31 August 2020 and will be implemented by 31 December 2021 ".  Which is an odd use of tenses since I am writing this on the 30th August, and I can't find a copy on their web site.  The link on the IET web site is broken.

Hi Simon, try this link

https://www.engc.org.uk/media/3417/uk-spec-fourth-edition.pdf

So what actually is the difference?  It all looks much the same as when I applied.

Maybe the clarity of the changes to CEng, which substantiates the view that it subsumes all of the competencies of IEng. I'm not sure if there is another professional qualification in the realm of the arts, manufactures or commerce that has so little benefit compared to effort required to achieve it.

The UKSpec 4th Edition may seem similar to the previous edition the accompanying guidance documents indicates subtle changes which significantly devalue the IEng category.

https://www.engc.org.uk/media/3419/comparison-table-for-engtech-ieng-and-ceng-standards-with-examples-of-evidence.pdf


On the comparison table for 'Knowledge and Understanding' the first two examples for IEng are:-

• Identifying the limits of your knowledge and skills

• Taking steps to develop and extend personal knowledge of appropriate technology, both current and emerging
  
   

For CEng the examples are:-

 

• Formal training related to your role

• ​​​​​​​Learning and developing new engineering knowledge in a different industry or role

The didactic purpose of the whole document is to demonstrate that IEng is a lesser version of that of Chartered Engineer.


No one will be fooled into thinking it is a viable qualification for a professional engineer.

@ Peter Miller  I'll keep this brief.  Although I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis,  I do disagree with your conclusion.  For anybody who does not meet the specification for C.Eng but is nonetheless still a solid professional engineer,  at the very least considerably more than a technician,  surely it's better to have the availability of a registration class that reflects this than to have an all or nothing scenario.

Previous versions of UKSpec may have been more subtle.  But when I was looking at it about 3 years ago, it was clear that there was no skill that an IEng was required to have that wasn't replicated as something the same or more difficult for a CEng.  So anyone who qualified for a CEng would be more than qualified for an IEng.


So in reality, nothing has changed.  They have just given up on the whole "equal but different" thing.  It was about as much use as claiming that a junior doctor was "equal but different" to a consultant.

Hey,  I promised myself to be brief,  but needs must.........


Good analogy Simon.  And to take the analogy a step further,  would junior doctors really prefer not to be recognised as doctors? Would they really feel that the designation of doctor,  albeit junior doctor,  wasn't viable for a professional doctor? 

Peter Miller‍ says "I'm not sure if there is another professional qualification in the realm of the arts, manufactures or commerce that has so little benefit compared to effort required to achieve it. " but maybe the real truth may be that there is no other realm of arts,  manufacture or commerce that behaves so preciously about denying differing levels of advancement in the profession whilst still operating at a level well beyond that of technician and demonstrating the qualities of integrity,  commitment and overall professionalism required by either class of registration. 


if there's a feel that there is little benefit compared to effort lets not look to the specification as the cause but to the unrealistic and ignorant demands of employers and clients (and engineers themselves) that it should be C.Eng or nothing to be considered a professional engineer. I've said it many times before,  we need to focus on educating organisations to the merit and benefit of Incorporated Engineers.


As somebody who regularly approves the appointment of engineers to roles,  both in my client organisation and in contractors,  i would suggest that 70% or more of roles don't require C.Eng, indeed it is an over- qualification, but I'd have far more confidence in an I.Eng than someone with no professional registration. In the latter case,  I have to put much more effort into vetting the appointment,  interviewing the candidate,  etc. In an ideal world,  I'd love to make I.Eng a requirement for such roles if only those who meet the requirements of I. Eng would embrace the qualification and register rather than claiming it has no value.  It's a self- fulfilling prophecy - deny its value and so fail to apply for it and that means I can't make it a selection criterion. 


Embrace it, accept it's a solid professional registration in its own right, and get yourself registered without treating it as a sign of inferiority,  I can then make it a selection criterion which not only makes my job easier,  but enhances its value. 


incidentally,  because of that 70%+ factor,  there may be many engineers who are able to sustain a highly worthwhile career and continue to deliver massive value without ever progressing to C.Eng. Returning to Simon's analogy,  does every doctor necessarily progress to senior consultant? Do those that don't offer or receive no value?


I like what I hear of the 4th edition so far.  It provides greater clarity,  honesty and less self- deception whilst offering a clear platform for tiered registration appropriate to the shape of the profession and of engineering requirements. We just have to stop hanging on to a C.Eng or nothing mindset.


So do employers and clients, and for that,  we (including or especially the institute) have to educate them. The chicken and egg is that we'll never do that unless engineers themselves start believing in it and seeking registration at their most appropriate level, and stop feeling inferior about it.

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

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