Mehmood, I don't agree that nobody had offered a solution for I.Eng. It is there, it is well understood and defined, it is a highly worthwhile registration that, from recent posts, would clearly be accepted as someone with a significant status that, quite rightly, is higher level than Eng Tech, but not as high as C.Eng - I now know that it would be an Engineering Technologist internationally, which is well regarded, and, as I say, higher than engineering technician The problem is not with I.Eng itself but with outside perception within the UK - employers, general public and even government. Given the poor (understatement) perception of the word engineer, this is no surprise, and, as my last post said, I call it the British Engineering Disease (BED). It doesn't need a new category, title or whatever - it doesn't matter what new title or definition is introduced, ACEng or anything else, it won't achieve greater acceptance. Employers either don't see value in any form of registration or they only see C.Eng as being of importance. As for the wider population and government, any form of engineering title is universally seen as being an oily rag, screwdriver or hammer wielder (I remember, even back in around 2000, the then President of what was then the IEE, Prof. Brian Mellitt, in his address to a branch meeting, expressed his frustration that only that day, the Employment Minister, or whatever she was called, had issued a statement intended to promote engineering as a career, and cited Kevin Webster of Coronation Street (a local car mechanic, complete with overalls and oily rag and wrench) as a role model for Engineering. Little if anything has changed. Even my predictive text keeps changing Engineer to anything else beginning En! :( If anything associate engineer (ACEng or whatever), would be seen as a lesser thing than C.Eng so an assistant oily reg wielder, whereas, at least, Incorporated sounds pretty impressive too the uninitiated, or BED sufferer. The real question is, what are we doing to fight BED in the UK? Clesrly not enough. We continue to fight cancer and heart disease, and the brave ladies who fought for women's rights did so against far more entrenched viewpoints than those associated with BED. But what do we do? We roll over and accept it and talk of futile rebadging (sorry Mehmood, nothing personal, this rant has been slow cooking for some time now and is just about ready for consumption!). I asked the question, at last year's fellowship event, what were we doing to try to convince government to make Engineer a protected title. Engineerilng Technologist could be wrapped up in the package. The answer I received? A rather scathing, if not sneering quick response of "that ship has already sailed"! I consider that utterly unacceptable. Can you imagine the suffragettes saying that when faced with the entrenched view that women were somehow incapable of rational thought? Can you imagine the folk art Cancer Research UK just throwing in the towel because the latest attempt to cure lung cancer had been unsuccessful? If we care enough, we don't only have to keep up the pressure, we have to redouble it, and redouble it again. Why don't we mount a poster and media advertising campaign that sells the true picture of an engineer, of what an engineer really is, and graphically shows the contrast with international perception of engineers and technologists with those in the UK? If IET resources for that are inadequate, I feel certain that members and others would happily contribute to a campaign fund - 38 degrees regularly seeks and obtains funding to mount campaigns on issues its members feel passionate about, surely we feel at least equally passionate about this? Let's put our energies into that rather than tinkering with names and definitions that are already completely fit for purpose! Rant over!
Mehmood, I don't agree that nobody had offered a solution for I.Eng. It is there, it is well understood and defined, it is a highly worthwhile registration that, from recent posts, would clearly be accepted as someone with a significant status that, quite rightly, is higher level than Eng Tech, but not as high as C.Eng - I now know that it would be an Engineering Technologist internationally, which is well regarded, and, as I say, higher than engineering technician The problem is not with I.Eng itself but with outside perception within the UK - employers, general public and even government. Given the poor (understatement) perception of the word engineer, this is no surprise, and, as my last post said, I call it the British Engineering Disease (BED). It doesn't need a new category, title or whatever - it doesn't matter what new title or definition is introduced, ACEng or anything else, it won't achieve greater acceptance. Employers either don't see value in any form of registration or they only see C.Eng as being of importance. As for the wider population and government, any form of engineering title is universally seen as being an oily rag, screwdriver or hammer wielder (I remember, even back in around 2000, the then President of what was then the IEE, Prof. Brian Mellitt, in his address to a branch meeting, expressed his frustration that only that day, the Employment Minister, or whatever she was called, had issued a statement intended to promote engineering as a career, and cited Kevin Webster of Coronation Street (a local car mechanic, complete with overalls and oily rag and wrench) as a role model for Engineering. Little if anything has changed. Even my predictive text keeps changing Engineer to anything else beginning En! :( If anything associate engineer (ACEng or whatever), would be seen as a lesser thing than C.Eng so an assistant oily reg wielder, whereas, at least, Incorporated sounds pretty impressive too the uninitiated, or BED sufferer. The real question is, what are we doing to fight BED in the UK? Clesrly not enough. We continue to fight cancer and heart disease, and the brave ladies who fought for women's rights did so against far more entrenched viewpoints than those associated with BED. But what do we do? We roll over and accept it and talk of futile rebadging (sorry Mehmood, nothing personal, this rant has been slow cooking for some time now and is just about ready for consumption!). I asked the question, at last year's fellowship event, what were we doing to try to convince government to make Engineer a protected title. Engineerilng Technologist could be wrapped up in the package. The answer I received? A rather scathing, if not sneering quick response of "that ship has already sailed"! I consider that utterly unacceptable. Can you imagine the suffragettes saying that when faced with the entrenched view that women were somehow incapable of rational thought? Can you imagine the folk art Cancer Research UK just throwing in the towel because the latest attempt to cure lung cancer had been unsuccessful? If we care enough, we don't only have to keep up the pressure, we have to redouble it, and redouble it again. Why don't we mount a poster and media advertising campaign that sells the true picture of an engineer, of what an engineer really is, and graphically shows the contrast with international perception of engineers and technologists with those in the UK? If IET resources for that are inadequate, I feel certain that members and others would happily contribute to a campaign fund - 38 degrees regularly seeks and obtains funding to mount campaigns on issues its members feel passionate about, surely we feel at least equally passionate about this? Let's put our energies into that rather than tinkering with names and definitions that are already completely fit for purpose! Rant over!
