To which I would say, so what if they were any of these? Unless they have somehow magically jumped the ages between 15 and 25 then most applicants will have done more or less stupid and regrettable things at some point in their life. Some will be better at covering it up, or blustering through it, than others. The point of the process is to determine whether they are now showing the competences for the  registration they are applying for - including maybe learning from their mistakes.

Cheers, Andy

mbirdi: 
 

That may help younger engineers, as they have ‘time’ to make the ajustments necessary to meet the requirements for CEng, but I don't see how it helps matured experienced engineers who are in the ‘over 50s’ age group? There should be a category for senior engineers to have the opportunity to achieve CEng registration. 

There is - it's called meeting the UKSpec competences, just as it is for a 23 year old fast track graduate! From the applicants I see (and indeed the engineers I assess in the day job) I don't see anything age related in the competences. It's just saying do you understand the technology you are applying, do you apply it appropriately, do you manage that application appropriately, and do you act professionally. There's a multitude of ways that applicants successfully show that based on their career paths.

But what CEng / IEng / EngTech aren't, which some of these posts seem to me to be moving towards suggesting, is a long service award. To be of any value to employers or clients they need to actually show that that person meets the UKSpec competences for that level. Which is exactly what the assessment process does (no more, no less). Of course if through long service the person involved now meets the competences then they can obtain the level they are seeking. So that's alright then.

Cheers, Andy

Andy Millar: 
To be of any value to employers or clients they need to actually show that that person meets the UKSpec competences for that level. Which is exactly what the assessment process does (no more, no less). 

The PEIs and the EC were setup by engineers and Technicians over many decades to serve the needs of ‘’their members’, in order so they could be recognised by the community as professionals in their own right, and benefit from learning from their fellow members for the advancement of knowledge and networking. This is still the case today. Practically all of them have now been granted Royal Charter status, and operate as charities for non-profit making purpose: run by members for members. 

As far as I understand it, the IET and EC are not financed nor run by industries or academia.

Your argument implies that Chartered Engineers, are running the whole show in order to facilitate the advancement of ‘Charteted Engineers’ for the purposes of career advancement, but want to have their cake and eat it, by charging the rest of the membership - registration and/or membership practically the same fees Chartered Engineers have to pay. I am sorry, but that's not on.

For your argument to make sense, then changes have to be made, by offering industries and academia corporate membership grades, thus allowing reduction in registration and/or membership fees for non-CEng members who play only minor part in the grand scheme of things. Then everybody can see why only innovative engineers, with meditative holistic characteristic tendencies, coupled with extraordinary high salaries, are the only ones entitled to CEng registration. And members can also see how industry too benefit from such titled engineers, that can advance innovation to competitive levels, with the added benefit of having ‘their designs’ signed off…….for free!

Until the politics, that goes on in the IET and EC, are laid out in the open, then people are going to come to the conclusion, this profession, is a big con, enticing engineers to join at practically the same fees as CEng members, but with worthless membership and registration grades. Must explain why 5 million engineers do not register, as stated by the CEO of the EC to the House of Lords Select Committee, over a decade ago.

Cheers.

I think you're mixing up membership and professional registration there. Membership, as you say, is for the benefit of members to share experience and knowledge. (Actually there was a time when MIET, or at least MIEE, was seen as a mark of professional standing, but I think those days have gone.)

Professional Registration is set by EC so that all interested parties can have confidence that the registered engineer is competent to carry their role, those interested parties being employers, insurance companies, courts, clients, etc etc. It is most definitely NOT about career progression, as I've written here over and over again an EngTech could be CEO, an IEng the Operations Manager under them, and the CEng the lowly engineer working for them! That's absolutely fine, unless they're going to start ignoring the technical decisions made by the CEng - in which case why did they bother employing them!

The standard for CEng, IEng and EngTech is set by EC in UK Spec. There's nothing secret about it, and I'd be surprised if anyone greatly disagreed with its content. The IET, like all the PEIs, is “licensed” (that may not be the correct word) to award CEng, IEng and EngTech on behalf of EC, but all it decide is whether they meet, or not, UKSpec.

I'll stop there.

Cheers, Andy