ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Daniel Scott:
​Andy

"Which is why I find this whole discussion a bit moot - far more important is to get IEng properly recognised across industries".


​Maurice is posting his opinions based on his work experiences and I have no problemn with that, but so have other members based on their experiences, which I have no problem with either.  It is a discussion forum and if you considered that the original question "ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS", was a moot question, then it was open for debate.  


​Regarding having " IEng recognised across industries", along is it going to take.?  Back in 2001 Dr.Mike Sanderson, the then Chief Executive, EMTA , himself a materials engineer was making his personal comments on the HAWLEY REVIEW -1999-2000 which had just been released and made this following comment as part of his discussion.:-


​"A real problem in the past has been with the Engineering Council and its register of engineers has been perceived by industry to be largely irrelevant, I say this with some authority.  Over the last 35 years I have employed literally hundreds of engineers.  I have chosen them largely on the basis of the degree or apprenticeship programme that they followed..  The designations CEng, IEng or EngTech have been largley irrelevant to me"


​The following year 2002, the IIE and the then EMTA ( formally the NTO), joined forces to tackle the skills crisis in the industry.

​John Beale, head of publications and promotions at the time, and Dr. Mike Sanderson, Chief Executive, EMTA had made the following comments.:-


​"We're working with EMTA to ensure the right standards are in place in company apprenticeships schemes so people on them are eligible for registration as engineering technicians or, perhaps through additional study or experience at work, as incorporated engineers".

It is part of a bid to increase the number of engineers professionally qualified at the intermediate level, ​relative to those attaining the highest status of chartered engineer. 


​Notice the words status and intermediate level.? 


Daniel

1. Brilliant point re "moot", you used it right, I used it wrong!

• I disagree with Dr Sanderson's use of the word "status", "senior technical authority" would be what I would use, that's the whole point. And if you find yourself as the senior technical authority making major technical decisions - writing the rules rather than following them - and you're IEng, then what you need to do is apply for CEng. There's no reason why you shouldn't get it.

• Can we stop worrying about this and think about how to get IEng recognised for what it is instead? It's a darn sight more useful certification in my mind than CEng, I am hugely, hugely frustrated that it is not recognised and used. But we're stuck in a viscous circle where employers won't ask for it because there aren't enough IEngs  to be worth it, and people won't apply for it because employers don't ask for it.  Very, very, very very annoying.

Daniel Scott:
​Andy

"Which is why I find this whole discussion a bit moot - far more important is to get IEng properly recognised across industries".


​Maurice is posting his opinions based on his work experiences and I have no problemn with that, but so have other members based on their experiences, which I have no problem with either.  It is a discussion forum and if you considered that the original question "ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS", was a moot question, then it was open for debate.  


​Regarding having " IEng recognised across industries", along is it going to take.?  Back in 2001 Dr.Mike Sanderson, the then Chief Executive, EMTA , himself a materials engineer was making his personal comments on the HAWLEY REVIEW -1999-2000 which had just been released and made this following comment as part of his discussion.:-


​"A real problem in the past has been with the Engineering Council and its register of engineers has been perceived by industry to be largely irrelevant, I say this with some authority.  Over the last 35 years I have employed literally hundreds of engineers.  I have chosen them largely on the basis of the degree or apprenticeship programme that they followed..  The designations CEng, IEng or EngTech have been largley irrelevant to me"


​The following year 2002, the IIE and the then EMTA ( formally the NTO), joined forces to tackle the skills crisis in the industry.

​John Beale, head of publications and promotions at the time, and Dr. Mike Sanderson, Chief Executive, EMTA had made the following comments.:-


​"We're working with EMTA to ensure the right standards are in place in company apprenticeships schemes so people on them are eligible for registration as engineering technicians or, perhaps through additional study or experience at work, as incorporated engineers".

It is part of a bid to increase the number of engineers professionally qualified at the intermediate level, ​relative to those attaining the highest status of chartered engineer. 


​Notice the words status and intermediate level.? 


Daniel

1. Brilliant point re "moot", you used it right, I used it wrong!

• I disagree with Dr Sanderson's use of the word "status", "senior technical authority" would be what I would use, that's the whole point. And if you find yourself as the senior technical authority making major technical decisions - writing the rules rather than following them - and you're IEng, then what you need to do is apply for CEng. There's no reason why you shouldn't get it.

• Can we stop worrying about this and think about how to get IEng recognised for what it is instead? It's a darn sight more useful certification in my mind than CEng, I am hugely, hugely frustrated that it is not recognised and used. But we're stuck in a viscous circle where employers won't ask for it because there aren't enough IEngs  to be worth it, and people won't apply for it because employers don't ask for it.  Very, very, very very annoying.