Mehmood, I don't see great value in debating this too deeply, but I don't believe your reasoning stacks up. Bullet points: 1. I don't see any incompatibility. 2. It's only tinkering with titles, and I don't believe would change perceptions one jot 3. I always describe myself as a Chartered Electrical Engineer, not a C.Eng, and I believe most Chartered Engineers will describe themselves as Chartered Engineers in their CV's or company literature, but as C.Eng. You're confusing titles with designatory initials which are only for use as suffixes to names in the same manner as B.Eng, M.Eng, MIET, FIET, MICE etc. We only use them as abbreviations in these threads because we all know what we mean and it's quicker 4. Other professions have exactly the same system of designatory initials. Chartered Accountants are ACA (yes, Chartered Accountants are Associates, not members and it doesn't stop them being regarded appropriately) or FCA, Chartered Surveyors are MRICS or FRICS, Chartered Managers CMgt, Doctors a whole host of many and varied designations, starting with the basic MD, and they will often move to wholly unrelated ones as they develop their careers through different roles, which is analogous but more extreme to the difference between Incorporated and Chartered, which is one reason I don't see the incompatibility, and surgeons likewise, with the most common being FRCS - need I go on? 5. "Learning" from those other professions regarding these titles won't change our lack of success as all of those mentioned are already held in high esteem, regardless of the exact title, they are held in high esteem simply because they are Accountants, Surveyors, Doctors, Surgeons, Solicitors, Barristers etc. and those titles are well understood and esteemed, and importantly are protected titles. You can't call yourself any of those things, legally, if you're not. Our problem is that engineers as a whole are not held in high regard (in Britain only!) because washing machine technicians, phone line installers et al are allowed to call themselves engineers, and always do, and the key point that emphasizes this is that Chartered Engineers have held with an equal lack of esteem - but again, I emphasize that this is a peculiarly British disease. Tinkering with the titles won't change that, only a hefty publicity campaign to realign perceptions and, preferably, legislation to protect the title engineer. These are the two areas we have to focus on if we're to see it change. I, for one, would rather we didn't waste time or dilute the argument by tinkering with titles.
Mehmood, I don't see great value in debating this too deeply, but I don't believe your reasoning stacks up. Bullet points: 1. I don't see any incompatibility. 2. It's only tinkering with titles, and I don't believe would change perceptions one jot 3. I always describe myself as a Chartered Electrical Engineer, not a C.Eng, and I believe most Chartered Engineers will describe themselves as Chartered Engineers in their CV's or company literature, but as C.Eng. You're confusing titles with designatory initials which are only for use as suffixes to names in the same manner as B.Eng, M.Eng, MIET, FIET, MICE etc. We only use them as abbreviations in these threads because we all know what we mean and it's quicker 4. Other professions have exactly the same system of designatory initials. Chartered Accountants are ACA (yes, Chartered Accountants are Associates, not members and it doesn't stop them being regarded appropriately) or FCA, Chartered Surveyors are MRICS or FRICS, Chartered Managers CMgt, Doctors a whole host of many and varied designations, starting with the basic MD, and they will often move to wholly unrelated ones as they develop their careers through different roles, which is analogous but more extreme to the difference between Incorporated and Chartered, which is one reason I don't see the incompatibility, and surgeons likewise, with the most common being FRCS - need I go on? 5. "Learning" from those other professions regarding these titles won't change our lack of success as all of those mentioned are already held in high esteem, regardless of the exact title, they are held in high esteem simply because they are Accountants, Surveyors, Doctors, Surgeons, Solicitors, Barristers etc. and those titles are well understood and esteemed, and importantly are protected titles. You can't call yourself any of those things, legally, if you're not. Our problem is that engineers as a whole are not held in high regard (in Britain only!) because washing machine technicians, phone line installers et al are allowed to call themselves engineers, and always do, and the key point that emphasizes this is that Chartered Engineers have held with an equal lack of esteem - but again, I emphasize that this is a peculiarly British disease. Tinkering with the titles won't change that, only a hefty publicity campaign to realign perceptions and, preferably, legislation to protect the title engineer. These are the two areas we have to focus on if we're to see it change. I, for one, would rather we didn't waste time or dilute the argument by tinkering with titles.
