ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Nouman



I was in the producing this (typically long) response before I saw your message but I hope that my response offers something useful. 

 

If we accept the premise of your argument that Engineers & Technologists perform different functions, then we need to demonstrate that this separation can be clearly codified and that it is useful to employers or the public. I’m sympathetic to the idea that there should be equally valid progression routes for those whose career has a less theoretical, more practical emphasis and for those who prefer technical excellence to management.

 

When Chartered Engineering Technologist was first proposed by The IIE, I was open-minded that it might offer a way forward to resolve “the IEng problem” and wrote to the then Chief Executive Peter Wason in encouraging terms.  This wasn’t because I thought that most Incorporated Engineers in the UK would style themselves “Technologists” in practice, but as a pragmatic way for the registration system to offer them more equal value. I explained in an earlier post why both IEng & CEng were opposed to the concept and it went nowhere. If those who needed to know were educated to understand the difference between CEng & CET , then it might have worked then and it might work in future.

 

The perennial problem of relative status and “prestige” would have taken a generation to work through. Since professional recognition generally in the UK correlates with social and educational advantage, a group of sociologists could conduct this debate in an almost equally valid way. Alun Milburn et al. recognised that Engineering is more open and meritocratic than some other professions, but the dominant paradigm of many activists within the Engineering Council sphere of influence is ensuring that Chartered Engineer recognition offers “elite” status. Similar political issues may apply in other countries.    

 

If we were starting with a “clean slate” I see merit in the idea in principal, but I foresee many challenges in practice. The most fundamental issue being that in the absence of legal restrictions on the practice of engineering, success would be defined in the marketplace. “Textbook” distinctions might be useful for academic purposes, but if they weren’t attractive and relevant to practitioners or their employers, there would be little interest. Voluntary take up of the IntET designation, which is already available has been in tiny numbers.

 

Despite these reservations, I see no reason why we shouldn’t at least explore the issue further, since we need change over the next few years. Perhaps we should start with, how do we define the difference? I posted earlier an ABET distinction made on the basis of the type of mathematics content of degree courses and a critique by one of our CEng members of that. This seems to be extrapolated into types of professional practice. I have borrowed the following quotes from SUNY (Canton) who also reference ABET & NSPE simply because they came up high using Google.

 
Holders of Bachelor of Technology Degrees can generally design equipment and systems but do not typically have the depth background in analytical mathematics required for complex design jobs. Generally speaking, graduates with B.T. degrees are employed as engineers in manufacturing, quality control, design, and field service.

 
Engineering programs provide their graduates a breadth and depth of knowledge that allows them to function as designers. Engineering technology programs prepare their graduates to apply others' designs."

 

• Engineering undergraduate programs include more mathematics work and higher level mathematics than technology programs.

• Engineering undergraduate programs often focus on theory, while technology programs usually focus on application.

• Once they enter the workforce, engineering graduates typically spend their time planning, while engineering technology graduates spend their time making plans work.

• At ABET, engineering and engineering technology programs are evaluated and accredited by two separate accreditation commissions using two separate sets of accreditation criteria.

• Graduates from engineering programs are called engineers, while graduates of technology programs are often called technologists.

• Graduates from engineering technology programs are often hired as engineers.

• The engineering graduate typically requires a period of 'internship' since engineering programs stress fundamentals. The engineering technology graduate, however, is prepared to immediately begin technical assignments since technology programs stress current industrial practices and design procedures.

 

If we were to adopt a distinction of this kind, would it be useful and attractive to potential users? Would Chartered Technologist have similar value to Chartered Engineer? How would we manage the transition, since very many current CEng registrants would be better aligned to Technologist?  How do we deal with those who move from one to the other and back during their career? Presumably Technician is a sub-set of Technologist?

 

If I think about the challenges posed by these questions, none are insuperable given a political will for change. For example, from an employer’s perspective  “Senior Engineer Tom Smith CET”, could be equally valuable to “Senior Engineer Tom Smith CEng”. Only the post nominal is a protected title so Tom is still an “Engineer” or “Engineering Manager” but one that the regulatory system defines as a “Technologist”. People outside the profession will only understand the “Chartered” element as representing a “graduate level” practitioner, although many masters programmes are also well-aligned to technologist “activities”. To quote ABET again  

 
There is much overlap between the fields. Engineers may pursue MBAs and open their own consulting firms, while technologists may spend their entire careers in design capacities.   

 

Once again adopting an employer’s perspective, any useful system would have appropriate ways to recognising in-career learning not just academic preparation, but many would find a Technologist more appropriate to their needs. For example in the annual IET skills survey, a substantial number of employers bemoan the lack of practical skills offered by graduate recruits. This is referred to in the last bullet point, so from this ABET frame of reference these employers need a “Technology” Graduate. From a UK perspective, I would add “an apprentice with most or all of an engineering degree”.  

 

In summary having set out to potentially oppose your proposition, I have convinced myself that it should at least be considered at strategic level.  I think that I would probably still prefer those beyond “graduate” threshold to be recognised as “engineers”, simply because that is where UK employers mainly are in practice. However, the fundamental problem remains that strategic level means Engineering Council where such proposed changes would be blocked by the majority. To avoid any misunderstanding this isn’t a criticism of Engineering Council staff who can only facilitate a difficult consensus and then implement it, but if there is a problem the buck has to stop somewhere and if policy change is needed, then it needs to start somewhere.  

 

Until such time as there is change we have to work within the existing system and from an IET perspective serve our members to the best of our ability, with the tools at our disposal. Professional Registration remains something that our members and many employers continue to value highly and it also provides crucial reference points for academic courses and training programmes. Overall numbers gaining registration in all categories are reasonably healthy by historic standards which perhaps reinforces the status quo argument, but to deny a need for change is to accept some pretty serious weaknesses as insoluble.                 

 

Nouman



I was in the producing this (typically long) response before I saw your message but I hope that my response offers something useful. 

 

If we accept the premise of your argument that Engineers & Technologists perform different functions, then we need to demonstrate that this separation can be clearly codified and that it is useful to employers or the public. I’m sympathetic to the idea that there should be equally valid progression routes for those whose career has a less theoretical, more practical emphasis and for those who prefer technical excellence to management.

 

When Chartered Engineering Technologist was first proposed by The IIE, I was open-minded that it might offer a way forward to resolve “the IEng problem” and wrote to the then Chief Executive Peter Wason in encouraging terms.  This wasn’t because I thought that most Incorporated Engineers in the UK would style themselves “Technologists” in practice, but as a pragmatic way for the registration system to offer them more equal value. I explained in an earlier post why both IEng & CEng were opposed to the concept and it went nowhere. If those who needed to know were educated to understand the difference between CEng & CET , then it might have worked then and it might work in future.

 

The perennial problem of relative status and “prestige” would have taken a generation to work through. Since professional recognition generally in the UK correlates with social and educational advantage, a group of sociologists could conduct this debate in an almost equally valid way. Alun Milburn et al. recognised that Engineering is more open and meritocratic than some other professions, but the dominant paradigm of many activists within the Engineering Council sphere of influence is ensuring that Chartered Engineer recognition offers “elite” status. Similar political issues may apply in other countries.    

 

If we were starting with a “clean slate” I see merit in the idea in principal, but I foresee many challenges in practice. The most fundamental issue being that in the absence of legal restrictions on the practice of engineering, success would be defined in the marketplace. “Textbook” distinctions might be useful for academic purposes, but if they weren’t attractive and relevant to practitioners or their employers, there would be little interest. Voluntary take up of the IntET designation, which is already available has been in tiny numbers.

 

Despite these reservations, I see no reason why we shouldn’t at least explore the issue further, since we need change over the next few years. Perhaps we should start with, how do we define the difference? I posted earlier an ABET distinction made on the basis of the type of mathematics content of degree courses and a critique by one of our CEng members of that. This seems to be extrapolated into types of professional practice. I have borrowed the following quotes from SUNY (Canton) who also reference ABET & NSPE simply because they came up high using Google.

 
Holders of Bachelor of Technology Degrees can generally design equipment and systems but do not typically have the depth background in analytical mathematics required for complex design jobs. Generally speaking, graduates with B.T. degrees are employed as engineers in manufacturing, quality control, design, and field service.

 
Engineering programs provide their graduates a breadth and depth of knowledge that allows them to function as designers. Engineering technology programs prepare their graduates to apply others' designs."

 

• Engineering undergraduate programs include more mathematics work and higher level mathematics than technology programs.

• Engineering undergraduate programs often focus on theory, while technology programs usually focus on application.

• Once they enter the workforce, engineering graduates typically spend their time planning, while engineering technology graduates spend their time making plans work.

• At ABET, engineering and engineering technology programs are evaluated and accredited by two separate accreditation commissions using two separate sets of accreditation criteria.

• Graduates from engineering programs are called engineers, while graduates of technology programs are often called technologists.

• Graduates from engineering technology programs are often hired as engineers.

• The engineering graduate typically requires a period of 'internship' since engineering programs stress fundamentals. The engineering technology graduate, however, is prepared to immediately begin technical assignments since technology programs stress current industrial practices and design procedures.

 

If we were to adopt a distinction of this kind, would it be useful and attractive to potential users? Would Chartered Technologist have similar value to Chartered Engineer? How would we manage the transition, since very many current CEng registrants would be better aligned to Technologist?  How do we deal with those who move from one to the other and back during their career? Presumably Technician is a sub-set of Technologist?

 

If I think about the challenges posed by these questions, none are insuperable given a political will for change. For example, from an employer’s perspective  “Senior Engineer Tom Smith CET”, could be equally valuable to “Senior Engineer Tom Smith CEng”. Only the post nominal is a protected title so Tom is still an “Engineer” or “Engineering Manager” but one that the regulatory system defines as a “Technologist”. People outside the profession will only understand the “Chartered” element as representing a “graduate level” practitioner, although many masters programmes are also well-aligned to technologist “activities”. To quote ABET again  

 
There is much overlap between the fields. Engineers may pursue MBAs and open their own consulting firms, while technologists may spend their entire careers in design capacities.   

 

Once again adopting an employer’s perspective, any useful system would have appropriate ways to recognising in-career learning not just academic preparation, but many would find a Technologist more appropriate to their needs. For example in the annual IET skills survey, a substantial number of employers bemoan the lack of practical skills offered by graduate recruits. This is referred to in the last bullet point, so from this ABET frame of reference these employers need a “Technology” Graduate. From a UK perspective, I would add “an apprentice with most or all of an engineering degree”.  

 

In summary having set out to potentially oppose your proposition, I have convinced myself that it should at least be considered at strategic level.  I think that I would probably still prefer those beyond “graduate” threshold to be recognised as “engineers”, simply because that is where UK employers mainly are in practice. However, the fundamental problem remains that strategic level means Engineering Council where such proposed changes would be blocked by the majority. To avoid any misunderstanding this isn’t a criticism of Engineering Council staff who can only facilitate a difficult consensus and then implement it, but if there is a problem the buck has to stop somewhere and if policy change is needed, then it needs to start somewhere.  

 

Until such time as there is change we have to work within the existing system and from an IET perspective serve our members to the best of our ability, with the tools at our disposal. Professional Registration remains something that our members and many employers continue to value highly and it also provides crucial reference points for academic courses and training programmes. Overall numbers gaining registration in all categories are reasonably healthy by historic standards which perhaps reinforces the status quo argument, but to deny a need for change is to accept some pretty serious weaknesses as insoluble.