Hi Guys


In Construction Specification language “shall” means deemed included in the contract whereas “will” means it will be done by others - I believe it is that wonderful profession of legalese that has given us that definition!!!


Regards Jim W

In response to the IEng/CEng Equal but Different similies for doctors, it's not really the distinction between 'junior' doctor and a consultant, but (to me) more between a GP and a consultant. That is the GP does have certain capabilities beyond the 'junior' doctor, dealing with a broad range of issues with competence, while the Consultant is expected to have in a sense a greater (but different) level of capability in their specialist area.


Apologies if I've misused the 'junior' doctor terminology for the initial career stage. The wider world probably isn't ready for what they see as irrelevant distinctions that we think we can make...


Maybe we are describing it all wrong anyway (see the diversity literature regarding techne vs empathe)


Philip

Philip, 

I agree completely.  I'd been feeling there wa 5 something not quite right with the junior doctor analogy,  but hadn't quite got my head round what it was, but now you say it,  that's absolutely right. 


Unfortunately,  I fear you're also completely right with your penultimate paragraph,  the wider world (and, it seems, the affected engineers themselves) aren't ready. It seems they'd rather just wait until they can get C.Eng, or worse still,  give up on registration altogether and bad mouth the concept of C.Eng.

Roy B, 

I did prepare a response to you for your earlier post that highlighted the mention of apprenticeships and asked huge long we'd been waiting for that,  but unfortunately it was one of those I mentioned previously that was wiped out on the verge of posting it.  Your latest touches on a related point so I'll have another go. 


Although it doesn't overtly mention apprenticeships,  they,  and other non academic paths to attaining k&u, were already completely admissible in 3rd edition. 


During my PRI training,  given by Colin Sellers,  he went to dine lengths to spell out that UKSPEC (3rd edition) was completely neutral on the path/ means to attaining k&u, all that counts is that the candidate holds the k&u. 


The only difference holding an accredited degree makes is that it removes the need to provide further evidence of k&u as it is accepted that, by virtue of being accredited,  the degree has made that assessment already. He even specifically mentioned alternatives paths including apprenticeships,  on the job learning,  self study,  indeed,  ant method or combined methods that achieved the right result.  


There was a consensus in the room that other PEIs may not be adhering to this fact,  still covertly hanging on to the emphasis on the academic route,  a view supported by my own interaction with members of some of those PEIs, but Colin stressed that,  whilst that may be so,  there was little the IET could do about that beyond pushing Eng Council to act on it,  but, in the IET, this aspect must be the one by which we consider applications. 


I suspect this is the reason for  including specific mention of apprenticeships in 4th edition,  together with any assessors ot interviewers that may have missed/ forgotten this.  I do have a concern that, by specifically mentioning apprenticeship,  unless other paths (on the job learning,  self study,  etc.) are also specifically mentioned,  it is open to interpret it that the only alternative to an accredited degree is apprenticeship but given that it's clarification rather than change,  it's a step in the right direction. 


My other concern  which was already there with 3rd edition edition, is how you judge that k&u gained by other means than an accredited degree.  So far as I can discern from 3rd edition,  and so far,  I've seen nothing to suggest 4th is any different (I've still to get round to studying it fully) the only description of what is required is that k&u should be equivalent to that afforded by a M.Eng degree.  


Personally,  as somebody who has not taken a degree of any kind (I did day release to HNC, learning on the job,  supplemented by personal study and research)  I have no idea what benchmark I would use for that.  Maybe that's because it's north my role,  as PRI, to make that assessment, it's carried out by the (pre- interview) assessor,  the PRI role limited to validating that the candidate's evidence of k&u is valid, this usually becoming easily apparent during the presentation and discussions. Maybe clearer guidelines are provided in assessor training but I've asked this previously and nobody has provided any answer.  Furthermore,  I don't believe PRAs, or at least those I've discussed this with,  are clear on this either.  That is not helpful as it means they will have difficulty providing suitable guidance to candidates. 


Hopefully,  this is something that will emerge as the IET develops its detailed implementation approach to 4th edition. If this is addressed in the detail of 4th edition,  then I'll eat my words.  


In honesty,  this is a historic problem of looking standing.  Even back when I registered as C.Eng in SARTOR days following the mature candidate route, the only guideline was there opportunity to look at previous successful technical papers (it might have been useful to see some unsuccessful,  but, of course,  that would have been inappropriate). The then president of the Institute,  Prof Brian Mellitt, who stepped into the role of mentor because my study was in an area that he was an acknowledged authority on,  observed that it was a tough route and that those of us following it were almost certainly exceeding the k&u of a typical degree candidate by several miles in order to assure a successful outcome.  I'm certain he wa right,  I've discussed it with engineers who hold a M.Eng with the result of glazed eyes. 


I suspect little has changed for current non- academic candidates, apart from the removal of the age qualification and of the requirement for a formal technical paper,  but in the vacuum left by not requiring a paper,  I'd love to know what the guidelines are for confirming k&u in non- academic candidates.  I don't believe it's valid to infer k&u simply from ascertaining that a candidate has completed an apprenticeship, in the same way that an accredited degree is accepted. But how else is it assessed?

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.  They select the most appropriate from a range of pree- defined solutions (treatments) then refer on to an appropriate specialist who deals with greater complexity and/ or more  radical treatments, honed to the individual. They may also undertake research in their specialist field.


That is precisely the distinction between I.Eng and C.Eng. Admittedly,  some GPs remain GPs until late in life and become more encyclopedic in their knowledge and selection/ application of the tried,  tested pre- defined treatments,  but, as I've said previously,  that is a choice that many an I.Eng may also make. 


I struggle to see in what way UKSPEC does not deliver an analogous distinction.  


I also believe there is a complete analogy between nurses and technicians.  It's why many of us get so upset at the application if the term engineer to technicians,  it's exactly as if nurses were to be called doctors.  This doesn't mean that muses and technicians don't have their value,  they are both essential,  but their role is similarly different in both medicine and engineering.