This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Can we say that the CEng and IEng be considered equal titles in professional status or IEng is inferior than CEng.

As the Application Form for both CEng and IEng is same.

0 Former Community Member over 8 years ago

After reading more of the report, I have a few more comments.

From lessons learned 2 points:

(1) A good 'product' is essential to attract partners.

(2) There is never going to be %100 sign up to such a programme.

Takes me back to when the IET was being formed and 2 of the PEI's backed out, namely IMechE and ICE, especially since they along with IET have requested this report, which recommends PEI's amalgamate.

DECLINING NUMBERS:

PEI's registrant numbers for the years 2004-2014 indicate quite a drop for IEng and EngTech numbers which does'nt surprise me, considering how the IEng's somehow over these years have been pushed to the "back of the bus", so to speak. In 1998 the Engineering Council suggested that Chartered Engineers and Incorporated Engineers have a prefix 'Engineer' title.

In the year 2000 there were 200,000 CEng's, 50,000 IEng's and 16,000 EngTech's. Tells a story, does'nt it.?

Chartered Engineer and Registered Engineer, only.

Could be a good idea, but how about trying to use a system similar to the old German system of Dipl.Ing (U) and Dipl.Ing (FH), engineer and technologist called a Dipl.Ing, but having to add their actual level of university (U or FH) after the Dipl.Ing.

Chartered Engineer (ML) , Chartered Engineer (BL). (ML) = Masters Level, (BL) = Bachelors Level. Only a suggestion, considering we tried to have the title Incorporated Engineer changed, quite a few years ago and failed.

Daniel
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 8 years ago

I would suggest back to the basic, BEng degree to be Chartered Engineer. Master level is an additional for individual. I do not see employer value Mater degree except MBA as it is different skill than engineering. By the way the additional one year MEng is major in Management, not get any deeper in Engineering.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 8 years ago

I think as of 2010 the Germans stopped awarding Dip Ingr.
They are now on a Degree only system.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 8 years ago

Moshe,

Read my input properly and you will see that I mentioned "the old German system"of Dipl.Ing.

Daniel
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 8 years ago

Daniel, yes I missed that.

So basically Genrmany in 2010 adupted the Bologna Process in Germany’s Engineering Education.

From the EU doc , I read

"The European Higher Education Area has been launched on March 12 2010. Many of the original objectives have made a lot of progress,

such as increasing the mobility amongst students in Europe in order to foster intercultural competencies and preparing the graduates for a global job market.

it is still difficult to let go of the former degree ‘Diplom-Ingenieur’, which is comparable to the Professional Master of Engineering and implies excellent engineering qualities.

Their academic title ‘Dipl.-Ing.’ stood for a solid engineering education combined with technical expertise and functioned as a door opener for attractive positions.

From the beginning of the process worries have been growing that the German engineering education and therefore the reputation of German engineers could be afflicted by the new system.

By losing the title Dipl-Ing German engineers risk to lose their seal of quality, their uniqueness and their distinguishing characteristics."
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Andrew Banks over 8 years ago

Daniel Scott:
Could be a good idea, but how about trying to use a system similar to the old German system of Dipl.Ing (U) and Dipl.Ing (FH), engineer and technologist called a Dipl.Ing, but having to add their actual level of university (U or FH) after the Dipl.Ing.

Chartered Engineer (ML) , Chartered Engineer (BL). (ML) = Masters Level, (BL) = Bachelors Level.

Daniel - the old system annotates the Diploma (ie the academic qualification)... in the UK we already do this as BSc/BEng (Bachelors) and MSc/MEng/MBA (Masters)

Are you suggesting that a CEng(ML) is supperior to a CEng(BL) ??? But we haven't yet reached agreement as to whether CEng is superiour to IEng ;-)
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 8 years ago

Thanks for this response Andrew.

It was my understanding that the (U) after the Dipl.Ing stood for 5 years at a University and the (FH) stood for 4 years at a Fachhochschule (School of Applied Sciences.)

If you read the Engineering Report and that there just be two designations, one being Chartered Engineer and the other Registered Engineer, for me, this indicates that along with this report and the many other previous reports, that CEng is regarded at a higher level. I don't like the words superior, inferior, Gold Standard or Silver Standard, but believe from my over 50 years in engineering (now retired), that trying to compare the work that I performed as an IEng compared to CEng's or EngTech's was of lesser importance than the other team members would be rediculous. In the companies I worked for, it would be of equal importance and status, as in many projects the 3 positions overlaped.

Daniel
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Andrew Banks over 8 years ago

believe from my over 50 years in engineering (now retired), that trying to compare the work that I performed as an IEng compared to CEng's or EngTech's was of lesser importance than the other team members would be rediculous.

I do not doubt it...

When I was offered IEng (as being not of appropriate level for CEng) I was managing a team of 12 (I think) of whom all but two were CEng - I found that illogical.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 8 years ago in reply to Sparkingchip

24 07 17

Sirs,

There are questions being asked
which concern Professional Engineers of all categories and
origins.

The questions referred to in
these blogs have been taken up by the President of
IET.

Ref member news is 44 April
2017-03-25

–P8 – From the President; -P8- R
Spalding Council up date; _ P3 CEO.

The IET was formed in 2006 taking
many innovative ideals from IIE including the name Engineering
& Technology. IIE was founded by amalgamation of PEIs with I
Eng membership, promoting I Eng that met UK Spec to C Eng by the
long-route). IET was meant to continue this procedure including all
categories of Scientists, Technologists and Engineers.

At the start of IET the objective
was that all PEs in IET would be of equal status and that The IIE
Mechanical members would have an equal say in the formation and
running of IET. What has
happened?

What I see is a drift to return
to IEE by a small percentage of C Eng who do not have the
experience of change, mobility or international engineering.
E&T this month asks questions about the UK engineering future
after : 1/ BREXIT, 2/ after the UK power crisis - now until
2035.

This means that Engineering will
be called upon to resolve the problems caused by others. No
politics, or other side tracking; we are concerned about the next
generation of PEs in the UK and attached countries.

Let’s get back to
basics.

IET was formed with a mandate, EC
UK was created to try and organise professional engineering in the
21st Century. You have quoted references and documents to support
this argument. We are starting a new Technology Revolution, either
we are in and prosper; or we are out and take pot
luck.

Scientists, Technologists &
Professional Engineers, Technicians included, male & female;
must have their say; now.

·
IET is managed by the CEO,
respecting the IET statutes. He is unquestionable, in all due
respect he is FIET, BSc MBA, this is not EC UK C Eng UK Spec, I
believe that he is C Eng by the older route which is not respected
outside of the UK – (EU -LMD). IET decided that all C Eng not
attaining M Eng before 2002 could keep their C Eng
status.

·
The CEO is guided by IET Council,
which is directed by the IET President (it is complicated to
follow)

·
The President leads innovation
and guides the advancement of IET.

From a personal point of view
which is also the case of many other IET members; I have been
hindered in my career in the UK by C Eng (not IET) and ECUK
stalwarts that refute change. The IET mandate called for,
international, cross-technology advancements.

Some of you will not agree and
will start blogging again.

Statistics show that there is a
problem with PE recognition, registration within IET & other
PEIs.

I have asked questions on future
power technology on an IET blog, three people have viewed that
blog. This blog is monopolised by you who read it and many C Eng
IEE stalwarts that do not accept change. There are not many of the
now 168 000 members that view these blogs, imagine what would
happen if everyone replied**** !

IET made a survey; there were the
same number of participants as last time 3% of members -so I
imagine the results have no value.

Statistical conclusion from
figures from ECUK, IET membership & staff shows that PEI
members are not interested in PEIs as they are today, they have to
be members to gain PE ECUK registration; I conclude that as in my
case PEs join PEIs in the first instance to gain PE &
Technician registration, and then get interested in the
Institute.

The statistics show the EC UK
does not represent the majority of UK PEs and that the majority of
PEs in the UK is of I Eng profile.

IET has a poor record of I Eng
activity and representation. Most of the IIE I Eng staff left IET
soon after the amalgamation in 2006.

So basically IET and ECUK is
statistically a failure.

The Mandate IIE to IET
amalgamation

THE FORMATION OF THE INSTITUTION
OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY –A  proposal
by

IEE & IIE. –exact
extracts from the official document 2006

The Vision ref
1.1

Interdisciplinary, global,
Inclusive.

(IIE was the UKs largest
interdisciplinary PEI); now is the time 2006 for IEE to consider a
bigger and more courageous step than has been necessary for some
time! By joining IIE it will be possible to create a vibrant
institution which is truly interdisciplinary, global and
inclusive.

JG - what went
wrong?

The international context was
aimed at Engineers from the British PEs, PEs resident in the UK or
UK registered PEs working anywhere in the world. (not on
Engineers & Technologists outside of these boundaries). No
disrespect to our overseas members, but EC UK is UK based we need
an identical separate register for PE registration for our overseas
members.

Imagine if my past Chinese
colleagues and their associates registered, IET would have over 50
million PEs registered with ECUK!

THE IET’s objective was the
advancing of Science, Technology and Engineering.

The IET Board will be established
on parity of representation from IEE & IET.

The IET will develop new
qualifications where necessary, particularly to meet the needs of
interdisciplinary working.

The IET will be a home for life
for all professional engineers involved in the areas of Science,
Engineering and Technology.

IIE Appendix F proposed
bye-laws

IIE APPENDIX E

3/ the object and purpose of the
IET are to promote the general advancement of Science, Engineering
& Technology and to facilitate the exchange of information and
ideas on these subjects amongst the members of IET and
otherwise.

JG: It is not to rest in a
restrained sector of electrical & IT
Technologies.

12/ Every member of IET
shall be bound by this charter and bye-laws.

1.2/Mission IET

To be a 21^st Century PEI advancing
science engineering & technology

JG: This was the IIE objective ,(
including Technicians, & Incorporated
Engineers)

2.1/ The IET will value all
members equally.

3.1/ One major growth area
will be to meet the needs of members of the Mechanical sectors. IET
will draw on and expand the existing services of IIE.

JG:Tthis is in dire need of
implementation.

3.5/ IET will continue CPD of IIE
& IEE through learned society activities, short courses &
publications.

3.4/ IET will develop new
qualifications where necessary. IET will develop the effective
procedure & clear routes that Professional Engineers need to
gain qualifications.

JG : This was a fine proposition
which was soon abandoned . IET in the hands of voluntary advisors,
electrical C Eng, not meeting UK Spec standards, has drifted into
the old IEE PEI with 19^th century, restrictive,
restrained practice and ideals. The ideas set in our respective
mandates and published in IET documentation and the E&T are not
upheld by the majority of PE voluntary advisors.

You only need to read these blogs
to see that there is considerable discontent. Read the mandates,
look at the statistics and decide for yourselves if IET has
respected its reason for creation, or has been taken back by
stalwarts refusing change and progress. IET is not electrical &
IT it is as proclaimed in its rules
& regulations which must be respected by all MIET.

Appendix F

JG : 91 rules, 1 – 24
concern membership, 25 to 91 concern discipline and running of the
IET.

20/ transfer of a member from
one category to another category of membership shall be by the
board.

Every candidate for transfer from
one category shall be subject to the same requirements as someone
trying to join the IET in that category of membership and shall be
proposed and supported in the same way.

JG This is not in compliance with
ECUK.

IET has the competence to
register:     I Eng

or BSc, MEng, PEs from IEng
to CEng

23/ The Board can make
& publish regulations ----- for candidates seeking election to
any grade of membership of IET

JG : The Board can set CEng
examinations or call on C&G CEng Examinations for the long
route PEs not having the chance to pass by university only academic
learning and examination.

In “MEMBER NEWS IS 44 April
2017,

The President, Jeremy Watson CBE,
FREng, C Eng, FIET, IET President has asked some important
questions.

He has presented a serious
reflection on IET and its future. It echoes what I and many have
questioned in this blog.

1.
He has visited Paris IET, (Paris
IET up until recently was an IEE private French company run by C
Eng IEE, an anomaly in IET) IET France is now in new
hands.

2.
He calls for collaboration
through cross & inter-disciplinary working.

3.
He calls for Technology that work
in one sector to be applied in other domains.

4.
He asks how to re-launch our
Learned Society.

5.
He asks that reports and
publications be open to impartial evidence(No open lobbying such as
Fusion).

6.
He calls for collaboration with
other PEIs. (this was the object of IET, I Mech E dropped out of
our initial project)

7.
He asked how learned societies
might operate.

The Head of IET Council, Richard
Spalding C Eng, FIET echoes this quest with four basic objectives –
Page 8.

I ask, how can the 167 000
MIETs reply and act on this call to go back to our basic
objectives. It is not by bloging, it is not by voting as the
majority (I Eng ) is not on the voting list.

I am into retirement, I want to
see all PEs not active, retire from ECUK at all grades and let the
working PEs decide what future they need.

I have been disappointed by what
i have read from C engs who denigrate and abuse there position.
Engineering needs young basically trained professional engineers to
develop into experts and leaders, not to gain useless titles and
close the doors on others.

We have BREXIT and a Power
shortage – let the dynamic younger generation in and get
working.

Regards to all

J Gowman

MIET Ingénieur
recherche
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 8 years ago in reply to Sparkingchip

24 07 17

Sirs,

There are questions being asked
which concern Professional Engineers of all categories and
origins.

The questions referred to in
these blogs have been taken up by the President of
IET.

Ref member news is 44 April
2017-03-25

–P8 – From the President; -P8- R
Spalding Council up date; _ P3 CEO.

The IET was formed in 2006 taking
many innovative ideals from IIE including the name Engineering
& Technology. IIE was founded by amalgamation of PEIs with I
Eng membership, promoting I Eng that met UK Spec to C Eng by the
long-route). IET was meant to continue this procedure including all
categories of Scientists, Technologists and Engineers.

At the start of IET the objective
was that all PEs in IET would be of equal status and that The IIE
Mechanical members would have an equal say in the formation and
running of IET. What has
happened?

What I see is a drift to return
to IEE by a small percentage of C Eng who do not have the
experience of change, mobility or international engineering.
E&T this month asks questions about the UK engineering future
after : 1/ BREXIT, 2/ after the UK power crisis - now until
2035.

This means that Engineering will
be called upon to resolve the problems caused by others. No
politics, or other side tracking; we are concerned about the next
generation of PEs in the UK and attached countries.

Let’s get back to
basics.

IET was formed with a mandate, EC
UK was created to try and organise professional engineering in the
21st Century. You have quoted references and documents to support
this argument. We are starting a new Technology Revolution, either
we are in and prosper; or we are out and take pot
luck.

Scientists, Technologists &
Professional Engineers, Technicians included, male & female;
must have their say; now.

·
IET is managed by the CEO,
respecting the IET statutes. He is unquestionable, in all due
respect he is FIET, BSc MBA, this is not EC UK C Eng UK Spec, I
believe that he is C Eng by the older route which is not respected
outside of the UK – (EU -LMD). IET decided that all C Eng not
attaining M Eng before 2002 could keep their C Eng
status.

·
The CEO is guided by IET Council,
which is directed by the IET President (it is complicated to
follow)

·
The President leads innovation
and guides the advancement of IET.

From a personal point of view
which is also the case of many other IET members; I have been
hindered in my career in the UK by C Eng (not IET) and ECUK
stalwarts that refute change. The IET mandate called for,
international, cross-technology advancements.

Some of you will not agree and
will start blogging again.

Statistics show that there is a
problem with PE recognition, registration within IET & other
PEIs.

I have asked questions on future
power technology on an IET blog, three people have viewed that
blog. This blog is monopolised by you who read it and many C Eng
IEE stalwarts that do not accept change. There are not many of the
now 168 000 members that view these blogs, imagine what would
happen if everyone replied**** !

IET made a survey; there were the
same number of participants as last time 3% of members -so I
imagine the results have no value.

Statistical conclusion from
figures from ECUK, IET membership & staff shows that PEI
members are not interested in PEIs as they are today, they have to
be members to gain PE ECUK registration; I conclude that as in my
case PEs join PEIs in the first instance to gain PE &
Technician registration, and then get interested in the
Institute.

The statistics show the EC UK
does not represent the majority of UK PEs and that the majority of
PEs in the UK is of I Eng profile.

IET has a poor record of I Eng
activity and representation. Most of the IIE I Eng staff left IET
soon after the amalgamation in 2006.

So basically IET and ECUK is
statistically a failure.

The Mandate IIE to IET
amalgamation

THE FORMATION OF THE INSTITUTION
OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY –A  proposal
by

IEE & IIE. –exact
extracts from the official document 2006

The Vision ref
1.1

Interdisciplinary, global,
Inclusive.

(IIE was the UKs largest
interdisciplinary PEI); now is the time 2006 for IEE to consider a
bigger and more courageous step than has been necessary for some
time! By joining IIE it will be possible to create a vibrant
institution which is truly interdisciplinary, global and
inclusive.

JG - what went
wrong?

The international context was
aimed at Engineers from the British PEs, PEs resident in the UK or
UK registered PEs working anywhere in the world. (not on
Engineers & Technologists outside of these boundaries). No
disrespect to our overseas members, but EC UK is UK based we need
an identical separate register for PE registration for our overseas
members.

Imagine if my past Chinese
colleagues and their associates registered, IET would have over 50
million PEs registered with ECUK!

THE IET’s objective was the
advancing of Science, Technology and Engineering.

The IET Board will be established
on parity of representation from IEE & IET.

The IET will develop new
qualifications where necessary, particularly to meet the needs of
interdisciplinary working.

The IET will be a home for life
for all professional engineers involved in the areas of Science,
Engineering and Technology.

IIE Appendix F proposed
bye-laws

IIE APPENDIX E

3/ the object and purpose of the
IET are to promote the general advancement of Science, Engineering
& Technology and to facilitate the exchange of information and
ideas on these subjects amongst the members of IET and
otherwise.

JG: It is not to rest in a
restrained sector of electrical & IT
Technologies.

12/ Every member of IET
shall be bound by this charter and bye-laws.

1.2/Mission IET

To be a 21^st Century PEI advancing
science engineering & technology

JG: This was the IIE objective ,(
including Technicians, & Incorporated
Engineers)

2.1/ The IET will value all
members equally.

3.1/ One major growth area
will be to meet the needs of members of the Mechanical sectors. IET
will draw on and expand the existing services of IIE.

JG:Tthis is in dire need of
implementation.

3.5/ IET will continue CPD of IIE
& IEE through learned society activities, short courses &
publications.

3.4/ IET will develop new
qualifications where necessary. IET will develop the effective
procedure & clear routes that Professional Engineers need to
gain qualifications.

JG : This was a fine proposition
which was soon abandoned . IET in the hands of voluntary advisors,
electrical C Eng, not meeting UK Spec standards, has drifted into
the old IEE PEI with 19^th century, restrictive,
restrained practice and ideals. The ideas set in our respective
mandates and published in IET documentation and the E&T are not
upheld by the majority of PE voluntary advisors.

You only need to read these blogs
to see that there is considerable discontent. Read the mandates,
look at the statistics and decide for yourselves if IET has
respected its reason for creation, or has been taken back by
stalwarts refusing change and progress. IET is not electrical &
IT it is as proclaimed in its rules
& regulations which must be respected by all MIET.

Appendix F

JG : 91 rules, 1 – 24
concern membership, 25 to 91 concern discipline and running of the
IET.

20/ transfer of a member from
one category to another category of membership shall be by the
board.

Every candidate for transfer from
one category shall be subject to the same requirements as someone
trying to join the IET in that category of membership and shall be
proposed and supported in the same way.

JG This is not in compliance with
ECUK.

IET has the competence to
register:     I Eng

or BSc, MEng, PEs from IEng
to CEng

23/ The Board can make
& publish regulations ----- for candidates seeking election to
any grade of membership of IET

JG : The Board can set CEng
examinations or call on C&G CEng Examinations for the long
route PEs not having the chance to pass by university only academic
learning and examination.

In “MEMBER NEWS IS 44 April
2017,

The President, Jeremy Watson CBE,
FREng, C Eng, FIET, IET President has asked some important
questions.

He has presented a serious
reflection on IET and its future. It echoes what I and many have
questioned in this blog.

1.
He has visited Paris IET, (Paris
IET up until recently was an IEE private French company run by C
Eng IEE, an anomaly in IET) IET France is now in new
hands.

2.
He calls for collaboration
through cross & inter-disciplinary working.

3.
He calls for Technology that work
in one sector to be applied in other domains.

4.
He asks how to re-launch our
Learned Society.

5.
He asks that reports and
publications be open to impartial evidence(No open lobbying such as
Fusion).

6.
He calls for collaboration with
other PEIs. (this was the object of IET, I Mech E dropped out of
our initial project)

7.
He asked how learned societies
might operate.

The Head of IET Council, Richard
Spalding C Eng, FIET echoes this quest with four basic objectives –
Page 8.

I ask, how can the 167 000
MIETs reply and act on this call to go back to our basic
objectives. It is not by bloging, it is not by voting as the
majority (I Eng ) is not on the voting list.

I am into retirement, I want to
see all PEs not active, retire from ECUK at all grades and let the
working PEs decide what future they need.

I have been disappointed by what
i have read from C engs who denigrate and abuse there position.
Engineering needs young basically trained professional engineers to
develop into experts and leaders, not to gain useless titles and
close the doors on others.

We have BREXIT and a Power
shortage – let the dynamic younger generation in and get
working.

Regards to all

J Gowman

MIET Ingénieur
recherche
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

ARE CENG AND IENG EQUAL IN STATUS

Community Rules & Guidelines