Thanks for the information. Giving that a little more thought, I think the real problem here is that, no doubt, the term engineering technologist is still a meaningful term that had credibility and esteem in other countries internationally, still deemed to be a professional on a level with a middle tier manager/project manager, but in the UK, it's difficult enough getting recognition for C.Eng as being on a par with a solicitor or Doctor, which, of course, it should be. Engineering employers may, possibly, get it, but the public at large, many non-engineering employers, and sometimes it would seem even the government have difficulty in perceiving even Engineers (taking from those replies that only a C.Eng would be afforded that title in other countries) as being anything other than oily rag/screwdriver/hammer wielders. So what chance for someone labelled as entering technologist. Though, given the perverseness of society, I suppose there's a slight chance they would think it actually sounds of higher status than engineer! :)
The trouble is, in the UK, "technologist" isn't a well-known term. To me, it sounds like anyone who works with technology. Maybe somefrom the IT department.
Simon, 100% agree,! It's all part of what I have come to call BED (The British Engineering Disease), the Disease that induces the vast majority of the population (including so many who matter) think an right NB Engineers are oily rag, screwdriver or hammer, who don't flinch when advised that the engineer will be with them to fix the washing machine/instsll their broadband connection, etc. So what chance for the word technologist?
The role of an engineer is to: solve technical problems; to offer a solution. It seems with regard to IEng no one has offered anything approaching a solution. So here are possible candidate. Replace IEng with ACEng (for Associate CEng). The relationship between ACEng and CEng will be similar to Associate Professor and Professor, or Junior Doctor and Hospital Consultant. Both are Chartered status, but the senior title includes additional experience or competences , such as Senior designer, or manager, and/or safety critical design signoff. Unlike IEng which is separate fromy CEng, the competence of ACEng is interlinked with and a natural progression path towards CEng. Most Junior Doctors remain in that position throughout their careers; in the same way most ACEngs will remain so throughout their careers. I believe this is the best way to go.
Just to add a bit more in terms of emphasis. The critical mass here is that ACEeng and CEng will be recognised as 'fully qualified Chartered engineers'; in the same way that junior doctors and Hospital consultants (and GPs) are fully qualified doctors. The only difference is down to some additional years experience and competences. That's what the ACEng will explain to an employer or someone questioning their standards; something IEngs have struggled to deal with, and why this debate has not seen the light of day in over 10 years.
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!
Michael, you already know I completely agree with what you say about needing all three as a team, but I really don't think changing the title will have any impact on the fundamental problem with what's holding this back - if anything, it shows that we're uncertain of our ground, in my opinion. I believe we have to stick with it as it is and work to educate/realign the British employers, government and public to the value proposition, to bring in line with the international perspective. Why on earth should Britain have such a different, inaccurate take in it to the rest of the world, noting especially Moshe's point that this is an international issue, except that it's a peculiarly British trait to do so?
Roy, I anticipated negative comment(s) to my ACEng suggestion; which is why I provided examples from other professions where a two tier system can work successfully. Pilot and Co Pilot is another example. In contrast the relationship between CEng and IEng just doesn't work, as the two titles (under the EC wings) are completely unrelated. You can step up from: AMIEE to MIEE; ACEng to CEng; Associate Professor to Professor. But IEng to CEng is incompatible. IEng would make sense if it came from another, competitive organisation, like the Engineering Association EA (which doesn't exist); but it doesn't belong within the EC. Other professions have shown us how they are successful; in contrast our profession has failed, and we need to learn from others. It would also help if engineers relied less on abbreviations (CEng MIET|FIET) and just use their full title: Chartered Engineer. Maybe then outsiders will not confuse it with mechanic with oily rag. Lastly, I remember in the film Spitfire, a newspaper clip appeared on screen with the name of the designer R.J.Mitchell MICE AMIEE. So an Associate member of the IEE designed the Spitfire that won the battle of Britain. Well how about that!
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.
Errata - the but near the end of the phrase "most Chartered Engineers....." should have been not, and then makes senses, which"but" doesn't. Predictive text hits again!
