ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

http://www.theiet.org/policy/collaboration/eng2016/index.cfm  I suggest that this report is required reading for those who wish to contribute further to this debate. The report should perhaps be the subject of a different forum thread? I have never met Prof Uff and didn’t contribute directly to the report, but many of the issues debated at length in these forums are addressed at strategic level. I commend him on what I consider to be an excellent report. This report is aimed at the UK, although international practice and implications are considered.  In many ways the report supports some aspects of John Gowman’s argument that don’t relate to his own personal issues, this is perhaps unsurprising given that he is one of many people who contributed towards creating an IET including IMechE (and potentially ICE in due course) who were frustrated. I wasn’t one of those, but strongly supported the idea.    

 

In so far as the report touches upon the question framed here, I would support his proposal of Registered Engineer and Chartered Engineer, with a two suggested caveats.

 

All Chartered Engineers should first be Registered Engineers, then demonstrate for a reasonable period of time some additional performance. Retention should also require some form of supportive and relatively “light touch” review process at appropriate times such as career transitions or time intervals.

 
That Chartered Engineer recognition should be readily achievable within less than 10 years to those all those who enter the profession by whatever pathway and subsequently demonstrate the application of a graduate level of engineering understanding.  There is no added value in my opinion differentiating between an “Engineer” and  “Technologist” in a UK context. 

http://www.theiet.org/policy/collaboration/eng2016/index.cfm  I suggest that this report is required reading for those who wish to contribute further to this debate. The report should perhaps be the subject of a different forum thread? I have never met Prof Uff and didn’t contribute directly to the report, but many of the issues debated at length in these forums are addressed at strategic level. I commend him on what I consider to be an excellent report. This report is aimed at the UK, although international practice and implications are considered.  In many ways the report supports some aspects of John Gowman’s argument that don’t relate to his own personal issues, this is perhaps unsurprising given that he is one of many people who contributed towards creating an IET including IMechE (and potentially ICE in due course) who were frustrated. I wasn’t one of those, but strongly supported the idea.    

 

In so far as the report touches upon the question framed here, I would support his proposal of Registered Engineer and Chartered Engineer, with a two suggested caveats.

 

All Chartered Engineers should first be Registered Engineers, then demonstrate for a reasonable period of time some additional performance. Retention should also require some form of supportive and relatively “light touch” review process at appropriate times such as career transitions or time intervals.

 
That Chartered Engineer recognition should be readily achievable within less than 10 years to those all those who enter the profession by whatever pathway and subsequently demonstrate the application of a graduate level of engineering understanding.  There is no added value in my opinion differentiating between an “Engineer” and  “Technologist” in a UK context.