This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Is it important to have a Washington Accord degree?

Following up on a couple of threads here, does anyone here have experience on whether NOT having a Washington Accord degree (e.g. an IET accredited degree) makes it harder to get jobs in any particular countries?

Or, to put it the other way around, whether having one does actually make it easier in particular countries?

It's a question that frequently comes up here, and I don't ever remember seeing an answer.

Personally I don't remember ever hearing engineers saying they had a problem with mobility to any country, whatever their qualifications, (even to Canada, provided their process is followed), but I'd hesitate to say I have enough experience to say that this really isn't something to be concerned about.

Thanks,

Andy

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 3 years ago

The issues around international comparisons have been discussed in these forums over the years, but probably not much recently.

For example, if I recall correctly an MEng is not deemed to be a Masters Degree in Malaysia. This arguably isn’t unreasonable, as it is an “extended undergraduate degree” not “post graduate”. Some countries are concerned more with length of courses than outcomes.

There is also the issue of “Engineering” versus “Engineering Technology” Degrees, or in UK language CEng versus IEng accredited degrees (an increasingly rare breed) or Washington Accord v Sydney Accord. The common factor being that more selective and demanding degrees in terms of Mathematics & Science are seen as “more suitable” preparation for Engineers, with any emphasis on “applications” considered more appropriate for an “associate engineer” or “Technologist”.

Different states or provinces in North America have different rules, with many having their own examinations. Likewise, Australian States have differences.

The variety of stakeholders having effective control over engineering education and training varies considerably around the world. The International Engineering Alliance was intended to help mobility, but is focussed largely on academic matters. Some governments are open and flexible, based on the needs of their economy, others are in thrall to various vested interests from influential academics, major employers, or even Trades Unions (or professional institutions).

By it very nature, accreditation of qualifications will attract bureaucrats, lawyers and other associated pedants. Engineers themselves often feel strongly about “maintaining standards”, which can mean a focus on what they think makes them “better” than other engineers. Proficiency (during university at least) in calculus is a popular touchstone.

All I can really advise any IET member contemplating a particular academic course, is to research its merits before investing. As Andy has said, many employers are not particularly concerned about accreditation, although some may use it as a selection filter. Others may target specific courses on the basis of wider university reputation, their own experience and/or prejudices. Selection by social class isn’t as prevalent in engineering as in some other professions, but it certainly exists.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 3 years ago

The issues around international comparisons have been discussed in these forums over the years, but probably not much recently.

For example, if I recall correctly an MEng is not deemed to be a Masters Degree in Malaysia. This arguably isn’t unreasonable, as it is an “extended undergraduate degree” not “post graduate”. Some countries are concerned more with length of courses than outcomes.

There is also the issue of “Engineering” versus “Engineering Technology” Degrees, or in UK language CEng versus IEng accredited degrees (an increasingly rare breed) or Washington Accord v Sydney Accord. The common factor being that more selective and demanding degrees in terms of Mathematics & Science are seen as “more suitable” preparation for Engineers, with any emphasis on “applications” considered more appropriate for an “associate engineer” or “Technologist”.

Different states or provinces in North America have different rules, with many having their own examinations. Likewise, Australian States have differences.

The variety of stakeholders having effective control over engineering education and training varies considerably around the world. The International Engineering Alliance was intended to help mobility, but is focussed largely on academic matters. Some governments are open and flexible, based on the needs of their economy, others are in thrall to various vested interests from influential academics, major employers, or even Trades Unions (or professional institutions).

By it very nature, accreditation of qualifications will attract bureaucrats, lawyers and other associated pedants. Engineers themselves often feel strongly about “maintaining standards”, which can mean a focus on what they think makes them “better” than other engineers. Proficiency (during university at least) in calculus is a popular touchstone.

All I can really advise any IET member contemplating a particular academic course, is to research its merits before investing. As Andy has said, many employers are not particularly concerned about accreditation, although some may use it as a selection filter. Others may target specific courses on the basis of wider university reputation, their own experience and/or prejudices. Selection by social class isn’t as prevalent in engineering as in some other professions, but it certainly exists.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Is it important to have a Washington Accord degree?

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines