A very interesting discussion on professional qualifications and titles.


The recognition of professional qualifications in different countries is rather completed and I will not comment on that.


However the CEng ,IEng and Eng Tech professional qualifications are granted if the candidate meets the requirements (have gained the competencies) specified in the UKSPEC (the Engineering Council standard for professional registration). Although the academic qualifications are relevant to the registration level, they are not the deciding factor. Even if somebody is in a possession of an MEng or even a Phd and is working as a technician the competencies gained can help in registration to Eng Tech category. On the contrary if he/she works as an engineer, according to the competencies gained can either register as CEng or IEng.


Savvas

Dr.Georgios


Our discussion is encircling about the professions Engineering and Technology, hence about the professionals Engineers and Technologists.  UK is giving same title, for example IEng to both Engineers and Technologists, likewise CEng to both Engineers and Technologists, which means that according to the title, both Engineers and Technlogists are Engineers, according to the UK.  I am not strongly convinced by this scheme.


Therefore, i suggest that Bachelor of Engineering Degree Grads may be entitled as IEng and Master of Engineering Degree Grads may be entitled as CEng (it will already according to the UK-SPEC).  But for the Bachelor of Technology Degree Grads may be entitled as ITech and Master of Technology Degree Grads may be entitled as CTech.  This suggestion covers the competencies level also.  Both IEng and ITech should be at par.  Likewise both CEng and CTech should be at par.  


I think, by doing so, both professions of Engineering and Technology may be justified.  Otherwise mixing and mixing and mixing.


If someone does not agree with above suggestion then i further suggest that the profession Technology and professionals Technologists may be terminated.  Only Engineers and Technicians should be existed.  On the other side, the profession Science and professionals Scientists are already well defined and recognized (no conflict).


Replies would be highly appreciated.  Thank you.

Nouman,


All have to meet Science councils specifications and competencies I call it UK Sci SPEC.

I was registered as Registered Scientist. WHen I changed jobs my CPD was ore toward Engineering and less toward Sciense lab work so I resigned my registration as RSci.  
Registered Science Technicians work in technical roles

Registered Scientists can be found in a huge variety of scientific and higher technical roles

Chartered Scientists represent the best professional scientists working in the UK and abroad. Leading teams and departments,   

Going back to our discussion, WHen IEng qualification was recosidred the title Chatered Technologist was considered but Engineer prevailed. During the period following relaunch of the Engineering Council in 2002, as EC(UK), there were a number of initiatives that bore on the understanding of the description, Incorporated Engineer. The original specification for UK-SPEC envisaged Chartered Engineering Technologist as a new title for Incorporated Engineers. However the proposal met with widespread opposition from existing Incorporated Engineers, who believed it indicated a watering down of their engineering competence. A working group was set up by the new Board to look further into the adoption of the term “technologist”. This responded to an initiative by the Institute of Marine Engineers10 to widen its role to cover scientists and technologists working in the maritime industries, and their decision to create a title “marine technologist”, aimed at those with an applied science background. The academic standard was set at masters degree level. It was therefore not directly related to the standing of Incorporated Engineer.

 

In UK indeed any one can call them selves an Engineer, there are Boiler Engineers and I seen a train operator who is an Engineer etc etc.

Now in USA is the same.  The other day we had dinner at a restaurant and we decided to seat outside, it was a Hilton hotel I think in DT Irvine, CA.

It got cold so my friends wive asked the waitress if they can turn on the heater/lamp next to us, she replied that an Engineer will come shortly to turn on the Heater. Then I asked if a CPA the US equivalent of Chartered Accountant will bring us our check.

It seems to me after reading the responses to Noumans very first question, that it has all been about how good many of you are at being able to use the internet and produce the qualification requirements from several countries and comparing them with the U.K.  It's about CEng and IEng and status.

I agree wih Mahmood on many of his points and in my opinion and over 50 years of engineering experience,whether you are CEng, IEng, CTech or not registered at all, the company manager or your immediate supervisors will be the ones who compare you with the other employees, recommend the pay raises and promotions, which then over time comes status, rank and respect in your work environment.


Daniel

I think all IEng should be given a special rout to become CEng.  IEng as it is today to be discontinued.

Chartered Engineering Technologist or Chsrtered Technologist implemented as highly respected qualification.  

CEng, CTech, EngTech, ICTTech.

 

Daniel


I really like your simplicity, directness and preciseness.  Yes, that is why i am trying to convey again and again that we should be precise on the ECUK Titles with respect to the relevant professions.  But participants are going again and again into the comparisons and discussing more other countries.  Up to some extent, these comparisons are required but first we need to discuss fully the ECUK titles and their professional status.


In a Technology Team, there are generally five Team members defined as Scientist, Engineer, Technologist, Technician and Craftsman.  So these are equally recognized as professionals.  (Reference:  The Book:  Engineering Design Second Edition By George E.Dieter).  Primarily, each one have his/her own specified tasks/functions/job responsibilities, which distinguish them with each other.  Obviously some functions are overlapping.


When we compare these professionals with respect to the academic level of studies, obviously Scientist, Engineer and Technologist are at higher levels than the Technician.  Likewise, Technician is at higher level than the Craftsman.  Now lets see about the Scientist, Engineer and Technologist.  All three kind of professionals have their own specifically designed Degrees from Bachelor upto PhD.  Therefore, no one can be said as junior/inferior in comparison to other as far as professional status, pay scale and other benefits are concerned.


Titles should be given according to type of professionals but not according to the level of Academic Studies, for Scientist, Engineer and Technologist.  Whilst the ECUK has defined the title IEng for Engineer and Technologist having Bachelors Degree and the title CEng for Engineer and Technologist having Masters Degree, which is not appropriate.  When ECUK takes its entitled professionals to International Engineering Alliance (IEA), IEngs are entitled as "International Engineering Technologists" and CEngs are entitled as "International Professional Engineers".  Moreover, it is being said that IEngs are not equal to the CEngs because IEngs have less knowledge than CEngs.  Personally, it mixes up the definition of professionals and deteriorates their professional equivalence.


I suggest that three streams of professionals i.e. Scientists, Engineers and Technologists, may be well defined and relevant equivalent titles may also be well defined.


If, in UK, Technologists have consesus that they also be entitled as Engineer, then UK  is helpless internationally through the IEA where the Technologist is called the Technologist and Engineer is called the Engineer.  Therefore, UK or ECUK should align their professionals according to international standard and should give respect to each pofessional at equal level but in their own field.


Moshe and Georgios


The point that titles are legally protected in the relevant Engineering Councils but not protected in the Society.  I agree.  Let me give you the example of my country Pakistan.  Here are separate councils for Engineers and Technologists.  For Engineers, Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC) and for Technologists, National Technology Council (NTC).  PEC takes Engineers to Washington Accord and NTC is taking Technologists to Sydney Accord.  Before establishment of the NTC, Engineers are making theirselves superior than Technologists but now after NTC, both are being treated at par both in employment and education.  Anyways, the title Engineer is legally protected by the PEC but in our society, anyone uses this title of Engineer by his/her own.  PEC publishes Legal Notices in the National Newspapers time to time that the title Engineer is the property of the PEC and can only be used by those who are registered with the PEC, otherwise strict action may be taken.  PEC has succeeded upto some extent i.e. the title Engineer is now protected in Govt. Departments but still failed to imply fully on the society.  The Society or layman calls every Technical worker as Engineer .  Likewise, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) has also legally protected the title Doctor but Society calls every Dispenser or Radiographer as Doctor.  It is very hard to implement fully in any country of the world because layman is not interested in such kind of technicalities, they need solutions only.  Whoever provides them the solution, the society will award them the title by their own as Engineer or Doctor.



Now back to our main topic i.e. Are CEng and IEng equal in Status,  please give your replies in the light of my above reply please.  Thank you.


By the way, i am really enjoying this interesting discussion .

  

Moshe


You are reaching near to the right solution.  I am happy.  But there is a little problem.  IEng cannot be omitted because it relates to the Bachelors Degree whereas CEng relates to the Masters Degree.  Therefore, it would be much better that IEng should be continued and ITech should be introduced.  The ECUK may consider these titles:

CEng (Chartered Engineer) - minimum 18 years of Masters of Engineering Degree - related to Washington Accord (Professional Engineer)
CTech (Chartered Technologist) - minimum 18 years of Masters of Technology Degree - related to Sydney Accord (Engineering Technologist)
IEng (Incorporated Engineer) - minimum 16 years of Bachelors of Engineering Degree 
ITech (Incorporated Technologist) - minimum 16 years of Bachelors of Technology Degree
EngTech (Engineering Technician) - minimum 12 years of Engineering or Technology Diploma.


I reiterate that CEng and CTech, likewise IEng and ITech should be treated at par (equivalent) but in their own field.  If someone says that CEng and CTech, likewise IEng and ITech are not euivalent then i strongly disagree and i shall consider it as biasness.    


I dont know, whether our this discussion would be endorsed or forwarded to the ECUK to consider or not, but at least i am satisfied that we are reaching on some fruitful conclusions.


Please note that above are defined as standard route (academic route).  individual or work based route can also be discussed separately.


Thank you.

Hello Participants


I have another idea.  I dont know how can it be implemented but here it is:


There is a separate Council for Scientists and Science Technicians named "Science Council" of UK.  Likewise, there is a separate council for Engineers and Engineering Technicians named "Engineering Council" of UK.  It seems that Technologists and Technology Technicians are hidden in between Science Council and Engineering Council of UK, it is therefore also suggested that a separate council for Technologists and Technology Technicians proposed name "Technology Council" of UK may be established.


is this a silly idea or a genious idea????    Please comment.  Thank you.