I thought that this forum was a forum for professionals, not musicians.  

I asked, what I thought was a professional question.  This was in line with, what I think, are the aims of the IET.  Why are the subscriptions for an IEng different to those for a CEng, when both are supposed to be of the same calibre?  

I fully understand AJ Jewsbury's comment about COST AND WORTH, and I have been saved on many occasions by a Technician that should have been an IEng.  Nobody gave them that opportunity or the thought that it might be good for their career, so they were 'just' technicians.  

How do we promote the concept of IEng being equivalent (but different) to a CEng if the institutional charging structure shows that one is only 85% of the other - albeit that (in the UK) the costs are covered by tax relief?  

I thought that this forum was a forum for professionals, not musicians.  

I asked, what I thought was a professional question.  This was in line with, what I think, are the aims of the IET.  Why are the subscriptions for an IEng different to those for a CEng, when both are supposed to be of the same calibre?  

I fully understand AJ Jewsbury's comment about COST AND WORTH, and I have been saved on many occasions by a Technician that should have been an IEng.  Nobody gave them that opportunity or the thought that it might be good for their career, so they were 'just' technicians.  

How do we promote the concept of IEng being equivalent (but different) to a CEng if the institutional charging structure shows that one is only 85% of the other - albeit that (in the UK) the costs are covered by tax relief?  

Simon Rollason said:

I thought that this forum was a forum for professionals, not musicians.  

I asked, what I thought was a professional question.  This was in line with, what I think, are the aims of the IET.  Why are the subscriptions for an IEng different to those for a CEng, when both are supposed to be of the same calibre?  

I fully understand AJ Jewsbury's comment about COST AND WORTH, and I have been saved on many occasions by a Technician that should have been an IEng.  Nobody gave them that opportunity or the thought that it might be good for their career, so they were 'just' technicians.  

How do we promote the concept of IEng being equivalent (but different) to a CEng if the institutional charging structure shows that one is only 85% of the other - albeit that (in the UK) the costs are covered by tax relief?

It's a forum.  People are free to express their opinions, so long as they comply with the Community Rules & Guidelines.

The whole "equal but different" thing was a failed marketing exercise to encourage more people to sign up for IEng.  But nobody believed it, because it's quite clear from reading UKSPEC that it isn't true.  And I speak as someone with an IEng.

You may as well argue that a GCSE is "equal but different" to an A-level.

Simon (R), as it happens I am a CEng FIET, FSarS, MIRSE, and CMgr MCMI. I am also an amateur musician. However, having spent a quarter of my professional engineering career in the music industry, and having many friends and family who are full time musicians, I would also point out that "professional" and "musician" are not mutually exclusive. 

That aside, Andrew proposed a very good analogy - many engineers struggle with understanding the distinction between the professional registration grades, and for those who understand musicians this analogy would work extremely well. (For people who are not of course other analogies would work better.) That analogy is on topic and relevant to understand how these professional registration grades work together. Although as Simon B absolutely points out, this is a discussion forum, sometimes discussions wander. 

Like Simon B, I'll repeat and clarify my answer to your question - they are NOT equal in terms of technical authority. That's the whole point. That does NOT, as Andrew's analogy tried to explain, mean that one is more or less valuable to an organisation, and I as point out above does not mean that a CEng is necessarily more senior in the organisation than an IEng.    

I believe the "equal but different" slogan was dropped some years ago for exactly the reason that it was well meaning but caused confusion.

P.S, I'd also suggest that the question has been pretty thoroughly explored and very well answered by the various posters here - in summary IEng probably does has slightly less value in the marketplace and so it's reasonable that EC might feel that registrants may not feel comfortable paying the same for both. It's hard enough getting people to register for IEng as it is, when you have standards one of which is sought by employers and one of which isn't it is going to be a difficult sales job. So I think we understand why this is what it is. Unless anyone has anything to add I think it's fair enough that we move to a coffee break and chat about Dylan if we want to. (Or indeed the Peatbog Faeries who I'm seeing tonight who are definitely at the extreme end of electrified acousticness...highland pipes meet techno!) However of course we'd want to discuss the original topic further if there's anything new to throw into it, I think we'd all agree it's a very important topic. 

As a separate point, anyone reading this discussion could quite reasonably start to question "what's the point of IEng then"? 

Let's be clear, probably the majority of graduate-level engineers are not working at a CEng level of technical authority - simplistically they are not taking final responsibility for technical decisions in areas of high novelty or high technical risk. However the industry, its customers, and the engineers themselves are all going to benefit from having confidence that all engineers are working professionally - they don't just have technical knowledge, but they apply that well in the interests of, and with an understanding of, the wider world they work in. They can be trusted to do the right job and a good job. And that's what IEng shows - and for those entering the profession gives clear guidance as to the standard they should be aiming at.

It's very frustrating that industry doesn't recognise this more (by making it a requirement in job adverts), but we are where we are - it's understandable why they need their final signatories to be CEng, because that could be a defence in court, it's less likely in a similar situation that anyone is going to ask for evidence of the same level of general professionalism evidence for the IEng staff. However ensuring staff have competence to IEng is going to add value to the business (because the more professional your staff are the more effective your business is). And for the individual, being clear what the professional standards expected of your working role is, and knowing that you have met them, is going to be a massive boost to your career - you'll be offering the professional skills that employers want. I've written that all very carefully, measuring yourself or your staff against that is hugely valuable, the interesting question is whether actually having the letters / certificate also adds value. That last one is, and has always been, the challenging sell.

P.S. I got IEng (many years ago) as a stepping stone to CEng. Been there, done that.