Time to Knock IEng on the Head

Well said Michael! With you 100%!

Some interesting thoughts from Moshe too.  I'd be very interested to hear the answer to his question about employer surveys.  In a different context, namely client relationship management, we used to conduct client surveys - always face to face from a leading professsional within the company - which not only captured client needs, perceptions, satisfaction, ways to improve, etc., but also gave the opportunity to provide persuasive responses, when appropriate, to try to change perceptions and expectations, mostly successfully, providing the reasoning was valid.  It would be good to discover that the EC and IET used a similar approach. 

I think the idea of a body within the institute that is specifically for the interests of I.Eng is an excellent one.  Whether it is a society within the institute, or a board, as counter-suggested by Mehmood, is, in my view, not too important, though I would onliy say, in support of the "society" concept that this exists for Fellows, and I feel is overall a good approach, and I think would provide far greater personal ownership of goals, successes, etc., for individual I.Eng members than a board, which still has the feel, however democratically appointed, of their fate being determined by others. 

Having said that, I agree with Mehmood's suggestion of vice presidents for each registration grade to provide high profile representation.

I kind of see where Moshe was going with the comparison thte CA degree accreditations, but personally, based on my experiences overseas, I do feel that the US system of degrees and registrations does in fact distort the international take on engineering registration because it is so poorly constructed, in my view.  When I was working in the UAE and putting professionals, in particular C.Eng, forward for senior roles, I hit resistance initially because most of the client base had been educated in the US and had a US-centric view on engineering registration, so they initially tried to say that C.Eng was not a match for a US Registered Engineer.  Only after I provided them solid evidence to show that:

a) C.Eng was recognised worldwide as the Gold Standard for Engineers, and certainly more highly respected than US Registered Engineer

b) The US Registered Engineer has its value highly diluted and unreliable simply because each state determines its own standards for registration, which are highly variable, with some being considerably less than the very I.Eng standard that we are debating here. 

Only then did they accept that they were actually getting a more solid team by accepting my teams with Chartered Engineers in the Senior positions.  That then enabled me to follow through with the value of I.Eng for the types of role for which I.Eng are so much more suited.

Prompted by Roy B's response, I'm inclined to say that, regardless of the whole debate within our community between "equal but different" and the progressive approach as I call it, with C.Eng at the pinnacle, I think he has a point about what the word Chartered means to people, and whatever the concensus within the IET and the wider engineering community may be on that topic, I do feel that trying to "sell" I.Eng as equal to C.Eng to employers, etc., may be self-defeating. I would suggest that, from their perspective, without the full appreciation of the subtleties in difference between the two "types" of engineer, they are likely to largel dismiss theword diifferent and ask the question "if it's equal, then why bother with it?"  I believe the far stronger proposition, and one that I feel is highly valid, is that there is value in itself from having the I.Eng (and for that matter Eng Tech) registration available for appointing people who are most appropriate to their role.

Someone's cunning plan has worked I can't paste a response - control V no longer works - I have tried two differently set up computers. Therefore I only have time for the concluding PS


In response to Mehmood; when I was asked to Champion IEng in 2011 , my response was that it was a "Hospital Pass"  but that I would try. It didn't end well! Can we please now respectfully retire the old war horse - I mean the IEng title not me . We can and should be doing better by our engineers currently at that (good) standard.

That's a yes from me Michael - but how do we do that?

Roy B - sorry, but if I'm understanding you right, that you still feel it IS time to knock I.Eng on the head, that's a resounding NO from me, and I really do believe that you are distinctly in the minority on it, based on responses to this thread.  Have your IT problems led to me misunderstanding you intent?

Michael, IET SCal section participates in the great event. I think if you have something like this in your area then take the kids with you.

I really enjoyed it last time we went.

Its all societies and institutes go to Northrop Gruman for STEM and Engineering event for parents and children.

Lectures, cool toys, and gadgets and a lot of material.

great event and seemed did magic with the kids.

Maurice, what you describe is great.

The questions is this an exception or common practice? We have many anecdotal experiences shared among contributors or colleagues etc.

The one you are providing is highly positive.  


I agree that the title of the discussion is destructive and not serving engineering community well at all.

Another tread was started that uses a friendlier language Time to  Reinvigorate IEng.

Must be an issue with some engineers in the community who feel discomfort with the current status etc. Also, lower enrolments to attain the IEng registration make people what to have the status of IEngs from what I understand as it was when IIE was active. 


Regards,


Moshe

Maurice, you're absolutely right, and so is Moshe in pointing out that your anecdote is simply that, one instance. But please read on! The real point, as I see it, is that it SHOULDN'T be an occasional anecdotal instance, it should be widespread. There are loads of engineers out there who don't necessarily fit the C.Eng requirements, but who are strong, skilled and committed engineers, who are perfectly suitable for the role they carry out and make tremendous contributions to engineering.

As Moshe has advised, it is for exactly this reason that, in only the past week, those of us who have a positive outlook on I.Eng and who are keen to see it playing its rightful part in the engineering world agreed to create the more positive thread "Time to reinvigorate I.Eng".

Unfortunately, the same old tired, cynical and negative (edit: people - damned predictive text substituted a word I won't repeat embarrassingly - honestly!) have decided to jump into that thread and try to spread their negativity despite pleas from me, for one, to keep their negativity to themselves or for this thread. I'm hoping my last impassioned plea may finally have persuaded then to do thst - in holding my breath so far.

Although some of us did originally agree that we should leave the thread for those who are either already I.Eng or those who may go for it at some time in the future, and I do feel that we need to avoid the old fsrts domination of the thread, I think it does need as much clear support as possible - one of the negative responses was that there were a low number (as yet) of supportive posts on it - despite it being such early days. So do, please, head for that thread and post your anecdote and any supportive thoughts you may have.

i feel that Moshe is right to mention the rest I.Eng was when the IIE existed and was the institute carrying out registration. It's difficult to be certain whether the fall in popularity is directly associated with the IIE's absorption into IET or not, but it has to be a storing possibility and I think the IET really needs to find a way to fight back ongoing that front. It's for all of us to pile up the pressure to make that happen, but add you'll see if you glance at that other thread, one thing we can do is to help ourselves by showing pride in our professional status, all of us, I.Eng and C.Eng alike, Member and Fellow alike, but most especially I.Eng in order to get it back in its rightful position, to walk tall and take every opportunity to proclaim to the world that we are Engineers at whatever level we are and that we are proud of it, and make a massive contribution to industry and to society at large. Time to fight back against those who would put us down.