I don't think throwing the title "Technologist" into the mix helps - I'm not convinced that most people in the profession have a clear idea what this means either. (Maybe it's just me. I have absolutely no idea what one is. It's not a term I ever hear used.)
My view is that an IEng is an engineer just as a CEng is. The only difference is that a CEng will take personal final signoff responsibility for significant projects based on their own judgement (and get it right most of the time).
I think you've sort of picked up on the point: the role / title / status / whatever you like to call it is CEng / IEng / EngTech, to know what they mean you need to read UKSpec.
I can see this getting into a circular reference: "What's an IEng?" "It's a technologist." "So what's a technologist?" "Someone who's an IEng"
I really don't see it's the definition that's the problem - it's the fact that employers don't see the value (completely wrongly in my view) of third party accreditation of their staff except at senior level. It's got to be employer led. So the institutions and EC have got to be able to go to employers' groups and say "your businesses will do better if you get your staff accredited" in such a way that they are believed.
I don't think throwing the title "Technologist" into the mix helps - I'm not convinced that most people in the profession have a clear idea what this means either. (Maybe it's just me. I have absolutely no idea what one is. It's not a term I ever hear used.)
My view is that an IEng is an engineer just as a CEng is. The only difference is that a CEng will take personal final signoff responsibility for significant projects based on their own judgement (and get it right most of the time).
I think you've sort of picked up on the point: the role / title / status / whatever you like to call it is CEng / IEng / EngTech, to know what they mean you need to read UKSpec.
I can see this getting into a circular reference: "What's an IEng?" "It's a technologist." "So what's a technologist?" "Someone who's an IEng"
I really don't see it's the definition that's the problem - it's the fact that employers don't see the value (completely wrongly in my view) of third party accreditation of their staff except at senior level. It's got to be employer led. So the institutions and EC have got to be able to go to employers' groups and say "your businesses will do better if you get your staff accredited" in such a way that they are believed.
