I understand your point, but agree with Moshe's response. The trouble is, as long as we're trying to find a way to define what I.Eng is, were going to keep in struggling I suspect as it's difficult to put into words. As you say, simply reading UKSPEC for it as compared to C.Eng does suggest that. There are very many C.Eng who are definitely not trying to reduce the model to the single C.Eng registration. However, those of us who do recognise not only the value of I.Eng, but how essential it is that there are plenty of people occupying I.Eng type roles, preferably with registration to provide the confidence to employers, other team members and clients that holding such registration provides, generally know, from working with those who are, or should be I.Eng, that there is in practice a high content of engineering activity in those roles that is equal in nature. Therein lies the problem, it's difficult to put into words in a way that doesn't make it simply a duplicate of C.Eng. Moshe users the term Practical Engineer, which is probably as close as we can get in one word (or two), but the trouble is that's difficult to tie down to what we really mean by it. I've tried in my earlier post, but it isn't easy. I think both Moshe and I knew what we mean, but how to convey that without misunderstanding or distortion.
So our attempts to better define what we mean are, to some extent, doomed, and it brings me back to the question of whetter we critically need to. I recognise the point that having it properly defined, and consequently me universally accepted, could have a positive impact on uptake, but I'm not at all convinced that it would, that it really addresses the true problem which could be said to be apathy, but is really probably more black and white vision and laziness (plus the delusion previously mentioned wth many employers thinking they know better how to recognise the right person than the registration offers), and if we're not careful, we fall into the same black and white thinking ourselves when we hold this debate about equal but different against what I called the progressive model, and we yet again take the focus off addressing the real underlying problem (s).
I believe that subtle understanding of what an I.Eng really is, even though not captured in UKSPEC, is probably present in most PRIs (it is in me and others I've met for certain) and most PRAs, and I feel that, if potential registration candidates approach the path to registration with an open mind, and place their trust in PRAs, the PRA will soon identify which category a candidate is best to pursue and can point them in the right direction, which will then be reflected in the assessment and interview process.
So maybe one answer is to promote the concept that candidates should be ready to have that dialogue first, without prejudging which category is right for them, without automatically assuming that, just because they think C.Eng is not achievable, that there isn't a category which is, and not feeling they've failed if they are pointed in the direction of I.Eng.
Of course, that's only one half of the equation and, as many of us have already said, people are unlikely to accept that concept so long as employers continue to push for C.Eng or nothing. We keep coming back to the same point, and I don't think the different but equal v. progressive levels debate is likely to affect that very much if at all.
I understand your point, but agree with Moshe's response. The trouble is, as long as we're trying to find a way to define what I.Eng is, were going to keep in struggling I suspect as it's difficult to put into words. As you say, simply reading UKSPEC for it as compared to C.Eng does suggest that. There are very many C.Eng who are definitely not trying to reduce the model to the single C.Eng registration. However, those of us who do recognise not only the value of I.Eng, but how essential it is that there are plenty of people occupying I.Eng type roles, preferably with registration to provide the confidence to employers, other team members and clients that holding such registration provides, generally know, from working with those who are, or should be I.Eng, that there is in practice a high content of engineering activity in those roles that is equal in nature. Therein lies the problem, it's difficult to put into words in a way that doesn't make it simply a duplicate of C.Eng. Moshe users the term Practical Engineer, which is probably as close as we can get in one word (or two), but the trouble is that's difficult to tie down to what we really mean by it. I've tried in my earlier post, but it isn't easy. I think both Moshe and I knew what we mean, but how to convey that without misunderstanding or distortion.
So our attempts to better define what we mean are, to some extent, doomed, and it brings me back to the question of whetter we critically need to. I recognise the point that having it properly defined, and consequently me universally accepted, could have a positive impact on uptake, but I'm not at all convinced that it would, that it really addresses the true problem which could be said to be apathy, but is really probably more black and white vision and laziness (plus the delusion previously mentioned wth many employers thinking they know better how to recognise the right person than the registration offers), and if we're not careful, we fall into the same black and white thinking ourselves when we hold this debate about equal but different against what I called the progressive model, and we yet again take the focus off addressing the real underlying problem (s).
I believe that subtle understanding of what an I.Eng really is, even though not captured in UKSPEC, is probably present in most PRIs (it is in me and others I've met for certain) and most PRAs, and I feel that, if potential registration candidates approach the path to registration with an open mind, and place their trust in PRAs, the PRA will soon identify which category a candidate is best to pursue and can point them in the right direction, which will then be reflected in the assessment and interview process.
So maybe one answer is to promote the concept that candidates should be ready to have that dialogue first, without prejudging which category is right for them, without automatically assuming that, just because they think C.Eng is not achievable, that there isn't a category which is, and not feeling they've failed if they are pointed in the direction of I.Eng.
Of course, that's only one half of the equation and, as many of us have already said, people are unlikely to accept that concept so long as employers continue to push for C.Eng or nothing. We keep coming back to the same point, and I don't think the different but equal v. progressive levels debate is likely to affect that very much if at all.
