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 11 subscribers
  • Views 8304 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

UKSpec 4th Edition

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

  • 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
    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, 

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


    Absolutely,  elitism,  or even reverse elitism helps nobody.
  • 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
    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 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
    Tim,

    Having said that we have no option but to welcome the revised UK-SPEC 4th edition and make the best of it. There is debate to be had here, because the registration process relies on volunteer judgement. There is another current thread “Value in IEng” which might overlap, but your points aren’t just about IEng. 

    There will always be differences of opinion about interpretation, but without open discussion, there is the smell of a “closed shop” or “stitch up”. Registration decisions can have a significant influence on a person’s career, reputation and sense of self-worth. So justice must, in my opinion, always be seen to be done.

    Medicine has been a popular comparison for Chartered Engineers over the years, because arguably it has the “highest status” of any profession. I haven’t personally come across such discussions amongst IEng or Technicians, although that doesn’t mean that some haven’t taken place.  I would suggest that few IEng would compare themselves with Doctors? The obvious comparison is CEng, or perhaps in the built environment domain, Surveyors or Builders, rather than Architects which might be a CEng preference?

    I don’t follow medical careers, but Nursing has required a degree for some years now, with talk of being “too posh to wash” as a result. I don’t think that they would welcome a comparison between their “level 6” qualification and Eng Tech at “level 3”.  I should also note the relative gender balance between nursing and engineering technicians. “Degree level” is IEng/CEng equivalent.

    Your comment

    “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.”

    I agree that “Engineer” and “Technician” are sufficient differentiation.

    However, if CEng assert that they are the “elite” of the profession, then something has to serve the mainstream, “non-elite” professional engineer. At present the mainstream is also served by CEng, although some IEng of overlapping capability are found, mostly within one major employer’s sphere of influence.  

       
    Some other countries have a “Technologist” and “Chartered Engineering Technologist” was under discussion for IEng twenty years ago. This would have genuinely created two “equal” types. However, would that not still have sown confusion and internecine argument?

    I can’t speak for Engineering Council, although I did for a time work closely with them, so I can speculate. I often criticise them, but only because it is where the buck stops as our “parliament”. Personal attacks on hard working staff and volunteers, would be unfair and wrong.  They have to try and broker an acceptable compromise involving many factors, with very influential stakeholders involved. Change is difficult!
    • IEng offers an opportunity for engineers of good standard, but not in a position to meet CEng requirements, to qualify and become members of the registered community. 

    • I don’t have the most recent figures, but I can state that in the 1980s there were 60 000+ IEng (compared to 200 000 CEng). As of a couple of years ago IEng was around 28 000 (CEng 181 000), with over 1000 new IEng each year.  These figures include overseas residents.

    • IEng was recognised in EU mutual recognition treaties and is part of the international “Sydney Accord” for “Technologist Degrees”. 

    • A change of title or abolition would have to be approved by Privy Council (I think?).

    • IEng has been linked to the outcome of a number of degree apprenticeship frameworks.

    I could go on, but would the status quo not just be an easier path?   

    If we see UK-SPEC as three “qualifications”, rather than three “personalities” it may help?

    An Engineer or Technician needs to pass a threshold to gain one of the qualifications.  Once qualified there is an ongoing membership obligation, to retain the right to use the professional title.
    This isn’t (in the UK at least) a legal or even formal demarcation into roles. Therefore, if an Eng Tech develops appropriate attributes they can lead design of the next space probe and likewise a CEng can “work on the tools”. 

    However, because the qualifications relate to an intellectual hierarchy (Bloom’s Taxonomy), one direction is seen in our world as “forwards” or “upwards”, the other “backwards” or “downwards”. 
    Also conflated with technical ability, is status in various forms. The “social cache” difference between CEng & IEng is often enormous, even if the practical performance of the two “types” often greatly overlaps in practice.  

    I proposed to Engineering Council that every new Engineer should become a “registered engineer”. The benchmark would be “bachelors level” and the competence descriptors similar to current IEng. Only registered engineers would be eligible to work towards CEng, over a minimum period of monitored practice (several years). The benchmark would be “masters level”. I suggest that this is the logical structure of a properly “progressive profession”.

    What the status quo demands is academic selection into silos at a relatively young age. So, if you wish to “progress” in engineering, then you better start young (say age 12-13), otherwise you may find the route to becoming a “fully-qualified” chartered professional a long and tricky one.

    It remains to be seen, if the current “fudge”, allows excellent recent degree apprentices who have followed an IEng accredited pathway, to progress easily and seamlessly to CEng, without a “baked-in” disadvantage. If they do suffer such disadvantage relative to age group peers, despite demonstrating often greater ability, then talk of “competence” and “progression” is misleading. The system will deservedly lack credibility and should sacrifice the right to public funding.             

  • 0
    Roy Bowdler:
    What the status quo demands is academic selection into silos at a relatively young age. So, if you wish to “progress” in engineering, then you better start young (say age 12-13), otherwise you may find the route to becoming a “fully-qualified” chartered professional a long and tricky one.

     


    Tomorrow I'm going to be holding a session with a group of experienced and relatively senior non-graduate engineers (ONC/D, HNC/D) who are working towards professional registration. I should also be getting the chance to follow them along their journeys over the next few months, it's going to be interesting, I'm looking forward to this. I will be describing the differences between IEng and CEng, but making it clear that it's up to them to decide which they aim at  dependent on their role, not on their education.


    But I will be emphasising that, because those who want Chartership will be working in "significant technical responsibility" roles rather than "innovation" roles, 4th edition should give them an advantage compared to 3rd.


    So in, say, six months to a year's time I might have a clearer opinion on whether their route was a long and tricky one...


    Cheers,


    Andy


Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines