ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Hi Alasdair,


Absolutely agree. It's like when recruiters ask for specific degrees, or specific grades of degrees, or experience on specific CAD systems, and then complain that they don't get enough candidates! I have no sympathy in those cases. But if you are in an industry or location where you get 100s of applications for each role I can see it would be tempting to set some bars. But as you suggest, it's risky doing so - I personally wouldn't.


When I was recruiting engineers at whatever level I would always say "degree or equivalent experience" and leave it at that. I never mentioned registration level, but if they had it then it might make a good talking point in the interview. I was much more interested in getting good people in to the right roles, and then helping them to achieve the appropriate registration level, which as an employer we could then use in our competency evidence for our staff (and, of course, we paid all their fees for this).


But that all said, the reason I said above that I see IEng as potentially more useful than CEng is that it could help a lot in recruitment - I'm sure you've been in the same postion as me where you see a lot of CVs where it's really hard to tell if the candidate is at technician level or engineer level, particularly where they've come up the HNC type route or perhaps from a military background. Pure job roles on a CV can be very misleading. That's where I think IEng has a fabulous opportunity to give a peer reviewed reference point where a recruiter can see that the candidate is (to give a classic example) likely to be an IEng maintenance engineer rather than a EngTech maintenance technician. Have you learned to do a general role, or been trained to do a specific role. But I would still give anyone very short shrift who claimed that maintenance engineers were "superior" to maintenance technicians.


I have admitted here before that I originally got IEng and then CEng in attempt to distract recruiters from my awful first degree grade (before I got my Master's). I don't think it ever worked. Those that were obsessed with grades and certifications ruled me out anyway, and those that were - like me - more open minded and just wanted to know what I'd actually achieved focussed on my career, not my registration! But other industries may be different. (I spent ages helping the - very good - maintenance tech at our last company get his EngTech, and he was promptly able to use it to get himself another job elsewhere! Frustrating from a company view, but good on him for showing initiative.)


Right, coffee break over, thanks for the nice post,


Cheers,


Andy


P.S. Thinking about it, I don't remember recruiting anybody who was CEng or IEng, and I've recruited a lot of people over the years! I've helped a lot of people get it once they were in post though! But I suppose on the whole I have tended to recruit early career engineers and then develop them on.

Hi Alasdair,


Absolutely agree. It's like when recruiters ask for specific degrees, or specific grades of degrees, or experience on specific CAD systems, and then complain that they don't get enough candidates! I have no sympathy in those cases. But if you are in an industry or location where you get 100s of applications for each role I can see it would be tempting to set some bars. But as you suggest, it's risky doing so - I personally wouldn't.


When I was recruiting engineers at whatever level I would always say "degree or equivalent experience" and leave it at that. I never mentioned registration level, but if they had it then it might make a good talking point in the interview. I was much more interested in getting good people in to the right roles, and then helping them to achieve the appropriate registration level, which as an employer we could then use in our competency evidence for our staff (and, of course, we paid all their fees for this).


But that all said, the reason I said above that I see IEng as potentially more useful than CEng is that it could help a lot in recruitment - I'm sure you've been in the same postion as me where you see a lot of CVs where it's really hard to tell if the candidate is at technician level or engineer level, particularly where they've come up the HNC type route or perhaps from a military background. Pure job roles on a CV can be very misleading. That's where I think IEng has a fabulous opportunity to give a peer reviewed reference point where a recruiter can see that the candidate is (to give a classic example) likely to be an IEng maintenance engineer rather than a EngTech maintenance technician. Have you learned to do a general role, or been trained to do a specific role. But I would still give anyone very short shrift who claimed that maintenance engineers were "superior" to maintenance technicians.


I have admitted here before that I originally got IEng and then CEng in attempt to distract recruiters from my awful first degree grade (before I got my Master's). I don't think it ever worked. Those that were obsessed with grades and certifications ruled me out anyway, and those that were - like me - more open minded and just wanted to know what I'd actually achieved focussed on my career, not my registration! But other industries may be different. (I spent ages helping the - very good - maintenance tech at our last company get his EngTech, and he was promptly able to use it to get himself another job elsewhere! Frustrating from a company view, but good on him for showing initiative.)


Right, coffee break over, thanks for the nice post,


Cheers,


Andy


P.S. Thinking about it, I don't remember recruiting anybody who was CEng or IEng, and I've recruited a lot of people over the years! I've helped a lot of people get it once they were in post though! But I suppose on the whole I have tended to recruit early career engineers and then develop them on.