I think the answer is NO. The university or education provider needs to be accredited by an organization that is recognized under Washington accord or of similar standing if from country that is not a signee to ENgineering accord if it's not in the UK, If in the UK then you need IET or EC UK accredited Masters degree.
Before taking such course you can contact IET PRA and ask if Masters degree from X university would be accepted for CEng registration.
There are routes to registration without Masters degree but I think if you want to study to the accredited Master's degree level it's great and will serve you better in years to come.
Perhaps this is a forum record with nearly 12 years elapsing between two posts? The system has evolved with UK-SPEC coming to a fourth edition soon.
Moshe is a very experienced professional with knowledge across different types of practice and international boundaries. I have found his North American perspective in particular helpful on several occasions. The advice to choose an accredited programme is good. However to avoid misunderstanding, on-line and distance learning can be perfectly acceptable. See below
The IET will take into account any reputable Masters Degree as part an overall assessment of professional competence. UK-SPEC describes competences which must be demonstrated through work and refers to exemplifying qualifications for each category. Engineering Council maintains a database here. http://www.engc.org.uk/education-skills/course-search/accredited-course-search/
The standard states.
Applicants who do not have exemplifying qualifications may demonstrate the required knowledge and understanding in other ways, but must clearly demonstrate they have achieved the same level of knowledge and understanding as those with exemplifying qualifications.
Some Masters Degrees are accredited, usually as part of a suite of programmes from a particular university. MSc or BEng courses in Professional Engineering (Engineering Gateways) are also recognised as equivalent when the agreed protocol has been followed. It is impractical for every masters course to seek accreditation, but it is unusual for The IET to take a negative view of a relevant MSc from a UK university, a reputable institution covered by international accords, or considered equivalent by NARIC. The IET has also developed a reputation for valuing work–based learning in a way that some other UK professional engineering institutions are unable to do.
In the wider context of possible international recognition or migration, a prospective student may find the academic Washington Accord more helpful than UK-SPEC. Because Employers had some influence on UK-SPEC, it is more flexible to reflect UK practice, such as the tradition of apprenticeships offering concurrent work-experience and study for higher qualifications. https://www.ucas.com/degree-apprenticeships . In its earlier forms this pathway developed many of our most able engineers in industry and personally I’m a strong enthusiast for this approach.
Although the IET will take into account any evidence of learning that is presented in good faith, if it contributes to professional competence. Members presenting a qualification from an unaccredited institution or “degree mill” may be considered in breach of our code of conduct, if there is any attempt to mislead.
There are highly reputable “distance learning” courses such as the long established UK Open University for example and most universities now have some element of on-line learning in programmes. However, please be careful to check out any claims, some programmes may offer useful learning but poor recognition, so self-directed learning could be equally valid, others can simply be a scam. Do not be seduced by addresses in the UK or US for example without checking credentials.
I wasn't aware about UK-SPEC fourth edition is coming soon. I couldn't find it in IET or Engineering Council website. Do you know when it's likely to be publised?
UK-SPEC is reviewed every five years with the last review taking place during 2013. I understand that discussions have started at Engineering Council. The IET Registration & Standards Committee will be part of any formal consultation. At the last review Engineering Council also enabled interested parties to comment on-line. This subject could perhaps be a useful forum thread if someone wants to start one?
I have described my experience of being involved in the last review, when I was representing an IEng perspective. I always found those at Engineering Council respectful. However, it became clear that the overriding priority was to undo an earlier message that the two types of Engineer were “different but equally valuable” and to ensure that the supremacy of Chartered Engineers was clear, with the other two categories of Incorporated & Technician being placed one and two rungs lower respectively. The language was “although each category has value in its own right they should be seen as a progression”. The UK-SPEC standard should be read in this context.
For anyone (especially outside the UK) seeking to deepen their understanding, I suggest looking at The Washington Accord which offers an international academic perspective that the academic representatives at Engineering Council will probably wish to maintain. Although employers of Engineers and Technicians aren’t specifically represented, some nominees from professional institutions and many registered engineers represent that varied perspective to some extent. Engineering Council as in effect a “Parliament” for professional institutions, that develops and maintains the rules for registration. It is also important to understand that professional registration is voluntary, although in some circumstances essential to a successful technical career. If something is voluntary then this creates a market where a person can choose to affiliate or not, many of the threads that emerge within these forums are driven by these sociological aspects, rather than “technical” standards.
This thread is twelve years old and the policies and processes of Engineering Council ,which is in effect a “Parliament” for UK Professional Engineering Institutions have evolved. The nature of the UK’s voluntary system for Engineering regulation creates a marketplace and politics. Both markets and politics never stand still, in the way that laws often do.
UK –SPEC (third edition) states
Applicants who do not have exemplifying qualifications may demonstrate the required knowledge and understanding in other ways, but must clearly demonstrate they have achieved the same level of knowledge and understanding as those with exemplifying qualifications. Ways to demonstrate this include:
• Taking further qualifications, in whole or in part, as specified by the institution to which they are applying • Completing appropriate work-based or experiential learning • Writing a technical report, based on their experience, and demonstrating their knowledge and understanding of engineering principles
Applicants should consult their institution for advice on the most appropriate option.
This is an area (sometimes dubbed "further learning") which clearly caused significant uncertainty and confusion twelve years ago. The cause was partly that different professional institutions adopted different policies. There was also an expectation based on past institution behaviour, of a rigid and unsympathetic attitude towards prospective registrants who didn’t meet their “academic requirements”.
However over time, the “big three” (IET, IMechE & ICE) developed policies that were more amenable towards work-based learning. For example each accepted that a graduate trainee engineer with an accredited BEng could gain the necessary “further learning” without completing an MSc. However, we should be very careful about giving timescales. Demonstrating competence is not the same as “time-serving”.
It became “standard practice” from the 1980s for prospective Chartered Engineers to complete a three-year Bachelors Degree, then to gain employment as a “Graduate Trainee”, consisting of two years formalised workplace training, followed by a further two years of “mentored responsible experience”. In effect this placed a “minimum time” of seven years from first year university student to CEng. At one time a “minimum age” of 25 was even specified for CEng. I should note for completeness that in Scotland transition to university normally occurs a year earlier, but graduates are in the same position.
Since the “standard route” pathway of fully accredited academic qualifications was extended by a year, now nearly twenty years ago, it still remains possible to reach the threshold of CEng professional competence in a similar timescale. However the assessment process relies on the judgement of peer reviewers (i.e. experienced registered engineers) to interpret the UK-SPEC competences. This interpretation can vary by institution and concerns have been expressed by some members, that the IET may currently be more onerous than at least one of the other major institutions. Engineering Council’s published statistics do not currently give the age profile of new registrants by institution, but as the regulator, they are charged with maintaining consistency.
Is there still significant uncertainty and confusion twelve years later and if so what should be done to address it?
A masters degree is the standard qualification for CEng. But you don't need one if you can show that you have an equivalent level of training and experience.
However, the reasonable statement “if you can show that you have an equivalent level of training and experience” requires some explanation. A similar question often put is, “do you accept my qualification”? The answer would be; The IET accepts all legitimate qualifications, but only those accredited through a formal process (including via international treaty) have their value clearly defined. Under Engineering Council Regulations we call these qualifications “standard route”.
All other qualifications are evaluated as part of each member’s professional registration assessment. At an early stage of the process we assess the “gap” between the qualifications offered and standard route qualifications. The next stage of the process uses the expert judgement of several trained assessors, often termed “peer review”. Assessors consider the evidence of career achievement against the UK-SPEC standard. If in the assessors collective opinion competence seems to be being illustrated, they are required to state how the identified “gap” has been closed. Typically an assessor would state something like “ in my opinion (specific achievements) demonstrate sufficient underpinning knowledge and understanding”.
If doubt remains at the point, then additional evidence may be requested in the form of a “Technical Report” which is separately assessed. Sufficient underpinning knowledge and understanding must be demonstrated before a Professional Review Interview is conducted, which is designed to validate competence.
“Equivalent” should be taken to mean demonstrating an acceptable minimum threshold standard of competence in accordance with UK-SPEC”. An experienced professional will typically be working well beyond the minimum thresholds in some of the competences and/or hold formal qualifications beyond the benchmark threshold.
Standard route qualifications assure the IET or other interested party that competence is underpinned by knowledge and understanding gained in a formal academic environment. The IET “individual route” assessment process offers “equivalence” relative to a practising competent engineer, this is an IET professional opinion based on UK-SPEC, it is not an assessment or examination based on an academic or vocational training syllabus.
Anyone seeking registration with international mobility in mind should understand that, although the equivalence of “standard” and “individual” routes is generally accepted in the UK. Some other country’s regulators will only accept accredited degrees, such as those specified under the Washington Accord for example.
To return to your question Rajarshi, it seems highly likely that you are demonstrating professional competence, aligned to either IEng or CEng through your achievements. You do not seem to have a “standard route” CEng accredited degree so you are “individual route” under the rules, although the application process is exactly the same for every member.
Compare the examples given in UK-SPEC for the A&B competences of IEng & CEng. Can you demonstrate achievements aligned to the CEng examples? If you cannot do so then you should consider IEng and/or seek further development. Your development could include formal study at Masters Level , which for an experienced practitioner, should involve further research and critical evaluation. This requires a different type of thinking to most learning at bachelors level. You will greatly enhance your prospects of a successful CEng assessment if you can demonstrate some “post-graduate attributes” (like research skills) used as part of your work, becasue the benchmark is "masters level".
