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?
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?
