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 9 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 1572 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

Can IET Offer back charted mechanical/electrical/manufacturing engineering?

Former Community Member
Former Community Member


I remember IEE time, the Institute offered its member Chartered Electrical Engineer, I think this is good since The IET is a multi-disciplines organization, people outside don't know our specialist. If IET can offer Chartered Electrical/ Electronics/ Manufacturing/ Mechanical Engineer titles would be good for us to let people know our discipline. Now either people still think of us as Electrical Engineer or nothing, don't know us. I met people who are engineers who either assume I am Electrical Engineer or don't know my discipline. I always need to explain. I have experience in a job interview asking me that you are not an Electrical Engineer why you join IET, not I Mech E? If we can have a Chartered XXXX Engineer then no need to explain.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I understand where you're coming from. Not every engineer who wishes to be associated with a specialist engineering role or title will be keen to welcome the general multidisciplinary ethos of the IET. There's a massive difference between say an Electrical Power engineer and a software games developer being associated with one engineering body.


    And for the IET to offer anyone working in the construction industry (Graduate or not) a CEng MIET whilst an CEng MIStructE has to achieve an accredited degree in Civil or Structural Eng, plus appropriate experience, and pass a 7 hour written test exam - in structural eng, is to say the least a worrying thought; and this brings the IET into direct conflict with the aims and objectives of the ICE and IStructE, and other specialised PEIs.


    Could someone who works as a general dogs body in the construction industry, but manages to tick the UKSpec boxes to achieve CEng MIET
    be considered a bonafide Civil or Structural Engineer, or should they be describe appropriately as a Chartered General Construction Engineer, as this title doesn't currently exist?


    I recall when the IET was known as the IEE, and one member wrote a letter to the editor saying that following his membership transfer from the Institution of Manufacturing Systems Eng (formally the IProdE) to the IEE after the merger, how uncomfortable he felt with his new designation CEng MIEE, since he knew nothing about the subject of electrical engineering.


    The pace at which the IET is going is comparable to being on board a train that doesn't seem to be stopping at any station, and no-one is bothering to check if there is a driver at the front driving the train; everybody seems to be happy with the situation since there's plenty of food and drinks being provided on board by the train company. The food and drinks being an analogy to Chartered Engineer registration.


    So I agree with the sentiments of your original post.

  • 0
    Personally I disagree with this, some people stay as single discipline engineers, but many don't. My CEng dates back to IEE but the one thing I have never been is an electrical engineer (I was an electronics engineer when I became chartered). I've managed mechanical engineering, software engineering, even dabbled slightly in civils, nowadays I've no idea what I'd put in the middle of "Chartered xxx Engineer"! 


    The point to me is that CEng - and IEng and EngTech - are awarded on, and are a mark of, your professional approach to engineering. They are not a mark that you have expertise in any particular field, your CV shows that and it will change over your career, but that you go about your work in a professional way - including (hopefully) being honest about not working in fields in which you are not competent.


    So I'd suggest taking it the other way - instead of saying "CEng MIET" just say "CEng". Which institute awarded it shouldn't matter.


    Incidentally, I was one of those who at the time campaigned against the change of name from the IEE to the IET. But I've now changed my mind, I think this was the right thing to do, the idea of labelling institutions (and hence their members) as single discipline engineers for the purposes of professional registration is pretty unhelpful. I'm now a member or fellow of four institutions - the IET basically just for my CEng, and the other for specialist technical information. And my membership of the others could change if my career takes another lurch in another direction. I think that's a pretty good model for the next generation of engineers.


    Thanks,


    Andy


  • 0
    Yes, I completely understand your situation, I experienced the reverse of this.


    An anecdote:

    - I distinctly remember a conversion years ago with a relatively senior electrical engineer who, when I told him of my (Automation Engineer) ambitions to join the IET and eventually apply for CEng he said "as what?" He must have forgotten to remove the blinkers when the IEE broadened its intake, or perhaps the communication back then about the changes wasn't sufficient.


    And two thoughts as to why I think just one "Chartered Engineer" title is sensible:

    - Having separate titles for the different disciplines under the IET would be an impossible task. Do we all get to decide our own discipline? Is there a list we can choose from? However well thought out this is whole groups of people would feel not represented.

    - I think this will change naturally as the IEE entrants retire. 


  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi Andy. You posted your reply very quickly before I finished amending mine above. But then I'm not as lucid in my written communications skills as you.


    Although I've not had such a distinguished career as yours, I have however worked in the areas of Electronics, Computer, and Communications roles, largely in one of the top 5 UK University establishments. I too voted against the change from IEE to IET, mainly because I felt we were about to lose an internationally reputable name for an unknown one. But as it stands today, the IET suits my area of diverse knowledge and skillset. But I do think that for many members they prefer the old styled IEE name as it represents their fixed career paths towards electrical engineering.


    The OP concern is a valid argument for many members but not for others.


    Cheers,
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Jonathan Knowles:

    However well thought out this is whole groups of people would feel not represented.

    - I think this will change naturally as the IEE entrants retire. 


     




    When you say retire, do you mean retired from employment, but still able to retain their membership to continue with their dissatisfaction of name change, or retired from life, the universe and everything? 

     


  • 0
    I meant retire from active employment, then the association between IET membership and IEE membership will naturally disappear and the expectation that IET members are electrical engineers will also disappear.


    They don't necessarily need to retire from life the universe and everything.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Jonathan,


    That's good to know.


    Cheers,
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi guys


    With the IET accepting all disciplines of engineers - you are right it won’t be assumed you are an Electrical Engineer which is a shame because that means us sparkies have no individual representation in the PEIs - the only discipline in that position - good? I don’t think so.


    Regards Jim W
  • 0
    This is something of an emotive issue, since people develop loyalties and affinities of many kinds, these can include geographic affinity, shared education experience, clan or social class, religion, ethnicity, political, sporting and other club or society memberships.

    The IET benefits from an enviable level of commitment, by many of its members, including time and effort contributed voluntarily. For many older members, that includes a residual loyalty to the IEE, including some resentment about the evolution of the IET. Some dispassionately judge the IET approach to be harmful and would prefer smaller more niche specialised institutions, under a “neutral” regulator (e.g., Engineering Council).

    Those who are affiliated to organisations who have overlapping aims to the IET, such as The IMechE for example (which intended to merge into the IET circa 15 years ago), will naturally prefer to place the IET into the “Electrical” niche and there are inevitable tensions between competition for, influence, control, income from membership fees and collaboration towards mutually beneficial aims.


    Other similar professions have different structures, sometimes competing, sometimes monopolistic. RICS for example, has attracted recent adverse publicity and internal discontent. IMechE was going through ructions a couple of years ago. A minority of IET members tried to overturn the IET strategy (and presumably also the CES with it?) a few years ago.

    There is a lot of politics in this area of life!

    The IEE had already changed its name and merged with others. The IIE was also a merger of former Electrical & Mechanical bodies, with members from other backgrounds, who were either unwelcome or who didn’t warm to the often snobbish and elitist proposition of other institutions. It also registered Chartered Engineers under its own licence, so one could become “CEng MIIE”.

    For the record, I was a member of the IIE, although when I became registered it was with the “Association of Supervisory and Executive Engineers”. I would not have been accepted as MIEE, having progressed via an Apprenticeship, HNC and Certificate in Industrial Management within the Electrical Power Industry. At the time I was “Head of the Electrical Department”, but my skills and knowledge included a range of more mechanically orientated aspects, some electronics and even a bit of civils. Within a few years, I had migrated into training management and became chartered in that domain.

    My own opinion, although it is not strongly held, is that the IET should aspire to be the professional home of engineers and technicians, just like it says on the tin. This doesn’t preclude it from being an authoritative voice in subject areas such as electrical installation in buildings, or radar, or cyber security, or a wide range of other subjects where it has expertise.

    Other organisations have every right to compete in a fair way. If their customers/ stakeholders don’t like their proposition, such as for example, a very experienced, qualified and well-proven structural engineer, I helped towards CEng a few years ago, then they should have a choice. They should not be beholden to a monopoly.  

    I’m very open-minded to appropriate regulation of the competence of professionals to protect Health, Safety and the Environment. At present, that mainly applies to very specialised areas of higher risk, intended mainly to protect the public. The current Engineering Council led system of professional registration, makes a modest and useful contribution towards this. I have advocated in the past, a system of relatively light touch regular review, but a “beefing up” of CPD has been considered sufficient.     

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