ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Moshe Waserman:

In US only PE's and Electricians are licensed( including Architects, Civil Engineers, land surveyors and general contractors), they are guarding their turf strongly so when Technologists even mention licensing they are met with strong opposition yet offered a certification as Certified Technologist as long as they are graduates of ABET - TAC accredited Engineering Technology degree.

I would assume that many CEngs would not be happy with Chartered Technologist as a competition. Just a thought and I can be wrong.

Or will try to register with dual Chartered status?

 

Moshe


As per my information, ABET USA has two separate commissions for Engineers and Engineering Technologists, hence, awards separate titles.  In other words, the ABET does not mix up both the Engineering Graduates and Engineering Technology Graduates under each title of Engineers and Engineering Technologists.


On the other hand, EC UK mixes up both the Engineering Graduates and Engineering Technology Graduates under each title of Chartered Engineer and Incorporated Engineer.


In the light of above, ABET USA is very much clear to take its Engineering Technologist (having B.ET degree) into Sydney Accord and its Professional Engineer (having B.E degree) into Washington Accord whilst EC UK takes its Incorporated Engineer (having B.Tech or B.Eng) into Sydney Accord and its Chartered Engineer (having M.Tech or M.Eng) into Washington Accord.  This is a big difference of approach between ABET and EC.


In my point of view, ABET has adopted more realistic approach than EC UK because both Engineering Technologist and Engineer are accepted as two distinct professionals in their own field.  Pakistan has also adopted the same lines.  That is why, i am saying that each profession/title may have its own degrees from Bachelor to PhD, therefore, it should not be said that Engineering Technologist is inferior than Engineer but at par.  In this regard, proper posts allocation may be done for both Engineer and Engineering Technologists at par scales in all public and private departments/employers, otherwise, this battle will continue forever.  isn't the era of specialists???


Thank you.

Moshe Waserman:

In US only PE's and Electricians are licensed( including Architects, Civil Engineers, land surveyors and general contractors), they are guarding their turf strongly so when Technologists even mention licensing they are met with strong opposition yet offered a certification as Certified Technologist as long as they are graduates of ABET - TAC accredited Engineering Technology degree.

I would assume that many CEngs would not be happy with Chartered Technologist as a competition. Just a thought and I can be wrong.

Or will try to register with dual Chartered status?

 

Moshe


As per my information, ABET USA has two separate commissions for Engineers and Engineering Technologists, hence, awards separate titles.  In other words, the ABET does not mix up both the Engineering Graduates and Engineering Technology Graduates under each title of Engineers and Engineering Technologists.


On the other hand, EC UK mixes up both the Engineering Graduates and Engineering Technology Graduates under each title of Chartered Engineer and Incorporated Engineer.


In the light of above, ABET USA is very much clear to take its Engineering Technologist (having B.ET degree) into Sydney Accord and its Professional Engineer (having B.E degree) into Washington Accord whilst EC UK takes its Incorporated Engineer (having B.Tech or B.Eng) into Sydney Accord and its Chartered Engineer (having M.Tech or M.Eng) into Washington Accord.  This is a big difference of approach between ABET and EC.


In my point of view, ABET has adopted more realistic approach than EC UK because both Engineering Technologist and Engineer are accepted as two distinct professionals in their own field.  Pakistan has also adopted the same lines.  That is why, i am saying that each profession/title may have its own degrees from Bachelor to PhD, therefore, it should not be said that Engineering Technologist is inferior than Engineer but at par.  In this regard, proper posts allocation may be done for both Engineer and Engineering Technologists at par scales in all public and private departments/employers, otherwise, this battle will continue forever.  isn't the era of specialists???


Thank you.