Nice post Maurice. The problem comes when jobs are specified as requiring CEng. Better companies say "CEng or working towards."
Such jobs should not be based on management seniority, or any other "status" point, this should only appear when such a role is likely to require the incumbant to make critical engineering judgements on situations they haven't faced before - and if they are competent to do that I believe they will find themselves eligible for CEng anyway. Otherwise the employer is just narrowing their field of potential candidates - which is daft (but common).
Which is why I find the whole discussion a bit moot - far more important is to get IEng properly recognised across industries.
Nice post Maurice. The problem comes when jobs are specified as requiring CEng. Better companies say "CEng or working towards."
Such jobs should not be based on management seniority, or any other "status" point, this should only appear when such a role is likely to require the incumbant to make critical engineering judgements on situations they haven't faced before - and if they are competent to do that I believe they will find themselves eligible for CEng anyway. Otherwise the employer is just narrowing their field of potential candidates - which is daft (but common).
Which is why I find the whole discussion a bit moot - far more important is to get IEng properly recognised across industries.
