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 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.