ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Hello All Participants


My primary aim of this thread was to clear the ture image and status of Engineering Technologists out of Engineers in context of the CEng and IEng.  But i am afraid that the discussion is diverting sometimes towards the "legal protection of titles" and "status in other countries" etc.


In this discussion, it is said that the IEng is an Engineering Technologist and inferior to the CEng on basis of level of Academic studies.  If all of us pause here at this point then we could sort out something positive by just considering the UK only.


What am i saying is that Engineering Technologist is a professional having its own specially designed Academic Degree and defined job functions.  It has its own degrees from Bachelor of Technology up to Doctor of Technology.  If ECUK says that IEng is at least Bachelor of Technology and CEng is at least Master of Technology, then it does not make sense.  Because at the same time, ECUK says that IEng is at least Bachelor of Engineering and CEng is at least Master of Engineering.  ECUK is dilluting the defintion of both kind of professionals i.e. Engineering Technologist and Engineer by this way.


I say that IEng or Engineering Technologist may have Academic Qualifications from Bachelor of Technology to Doctor of Technology, likewise CEng or Engineer may have Academic Qualifications from Bachelor of Engineering to Doctor of Engineering.  Therefore, ECUK should not make its IEng inferior than CEng because both titles do not relfect the level of studies but the two distinct professions which have their own well defined job functions in a Technology or Engineering Team Structure.


In this sense, I am saying that Sydney Accord is not inferior than the Washington Accord because SA is for Engineering Technologists and WA for Engineers.


I hope that i have made clear my view point here.....

Hello All Participants


My primary aim of this thread was to clear the ture image and status of Engineering Technologists out of Engineers in context of the CEng and IEng.  But i am afraid that the discussion is diverting sometimes towards the "legal protection of titles" and "status in other countries" etc.


In this discussion, it is said that the IEng is an Engineering Technologist and inferior to the CEng on basis of level of Academic studies.  If all of us pause here at this point then we could sort out something positive by just considering the UK only.


What am i saying is that Engineering Technologist is a professional having its own specially designed Academic Degree and defined job functions.  It has its own degrees from Bachelor of Technology up to Doctor of Technology.  If ECUK says that IEng is at least Bachelor of Technology and CEng is at least Master of Technology, then it does not make sense.  Because at the same time, ECUK says that IEng is at least Bachelor of Engineering and CEng is at least Master of Engineering.  ECUK is dilluting the defintion of both kind of professionals i.e. Engineering Technologist and Engineer by this way.


I say that IEng or Engineering Technologist may have Academic Qualifications from Bachelor of Technology to Doctor of Technology, likewise CEng or Engineer may have Academic Qualifications from Bachelor of Engineering to Doctor of Engineering.  Therefore, ECUK should not make its IEng inferior than CEng because both titles do not relfect the level of studies but the two distinct professions which have their own well defined job functions in a Technology or Engineering Team Structure.


In this sense, I am saying that Sydney Accord is not inferior than the Washington Accord because SA is for Engineering Technologists and WA for Engineers.


I hope that i have made clear my view point here.....