I don’t know if this is any help, but I’ll share my experience.
Around 22-23 years ago I became involved in the City & Guilds Senior Awards including attending the regular meetings (chaired by a retired Major General, the secretary now a Baroness) , because C&G had approached my then employer offering “delegated authority”. Employers (included the Armed Forces) and Universities were allowed to offer these awards under license. For employers this provided external validation of “higher level” vocational programmes. For some universities awarding graduates a Licentiateship for work placements and other vocational course elements also seemed to add value.
Approximately 10 years later I attended a “skills” conference (by coincidence held at Savoy Place). Chris Humphries (then Head of C&G) was involved. I picked up some marketing about being a registered engineer meaning you could gain GCGI or MCGI via a simplified “tick-box” application process. However, following a telephone enquiry I was informed that it was strictly CEng = MCGI and that my IEng plus chartership in another discipline wasn’t eligible, although I could if I wanted produce a portfolio via a licensed centre etc. My slight interest was potentially about engagement and influence, rather another personal qualification (I already had an MSc & MBA), so I didn’t pursue it any further.
In more recent years the majority of GCGI that I have come across, seem to have gained the qualification via an Armed Forces Senior Non-Commissioned Officer programme, typically in “Leadership & Management” with some in “Engineering Management”. This was part of an on-going agenda to ensure civilian recognition for military achievement. I don’t have any data but it seems, especially from the comments here, that C&G are no longer promoting these pathways?
Andrew, I think that your regret may be misplaced. In general, the awards do not offer any distinctive advantage and are not well understood. I don’t know if they appear in an “approved list” in certain jurisdictions , which could offer a (bureaucratic) advantage. For example, a quick check found a particular degree that would still be considered as CEng “standard route” by Engineering Council if you were applying now and gained it in 1966.
A diligent employer should weigh all relevant factors with the emphasis on relevant achievements, but in circumstances where a purely “rules based” approach is taken, it may be possible to gain an advantage by using the rules cleverly, as well as to suffer disadvantage for not. Step forward lawyers both actual and barrack-room.
In my experience, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, university awarded degrees and CEng are just better understood and more widely valued than “equivalents” or “similar to”, including IEng, NVQs , C&G, vendor qualifications etc. It doesn’t follow that alternatives are necessarily inferior, it’s just a question of “trusted brands”.
In the absence of any clear tightly focussed need, my advice to a mid-career professional , would be to seek out a “taster” such as a module offered by university on a stand-alone basis, in many subject areas your experience may place you well for something aimed at “masters level” but “back to basics” is also OK. Many offer some on-campus time or in the case of the Open University a short “summer school”. On balance, I would suggest that the two areas with most potential return on investment, if you weren’t a teenage undergraduate are “scientific method” (aka research methods) and expressing ideas more eloquently, obviously in a technical context if your focus remains technical. With these two attributes and intellectual curiosity, you can probably achieve any qualification that you are sufficiently interested in, able to pay for and stick at.
I don’t know if this is any help, but I’ll share my experience.
Around 22-23 years ago I became involved in the City & Guilds Senior Awards including attending the regular meetings (chaired by a retired Major General, the secretary now a Baroness) , because C&G had approached my then employer offering “delegated authority”. Employers (included the Armed Forces) and Universities were allowed to offer these awards under license. For employers this provided external validation of “higher level” vocational programmes. For some universities awarding graduates a Licentiateship for work placements and other vocational course elements also seemed to add value.
Approximately 10 years later I attended a “skills” conference (by coincidence held at Savoy Place). Chris Humphries (then Head of C&G) was involved. I picked up some marketing about being a registered engineer meaning you could gain GCGI or MCGI via a simplified “tick-box” application process. However, following a telephone enquiry I was informed that it was strictly CEng = MCGI and that my IEng plus chartership in another discipline wasn’t eligible, although I could if I wanted produce a portfolio via a licensed centre etc. My slight interest was potentially about engagement and influence, rather another personal qualification (I already had an MSc & MBA), so I didn’t pursue it any further.
In more recent years the majority of GCGI that I have come across, seem to have gained the qualification via an Armed Forces Senior Non-Commissioned Officer programme, typically in “Leadership & Management” with some in “Engineering Management”. This was part of an on-going agenda to ensure civilian recognition for military achievement. I don’t have any data but it seems, especially from the comments here, that C&G are no longer promoting these pathways?
Andrew, I think that your regret may be misplaced. In general, the awards do not offer any distinctive advantage and are not well understood. I don’t know if they appear in an “approved list” in certain jurisdictions , which could offer a (bureaucratic) advantage. For example, a quick check found a particular degree that would still be considered as CEng “standard route” by Engineering Council if you were applying now and gained it in 1966.
A diligent employer should weigh all relevant factors with the emphasis on relevant achievements, but in circumstances where a purely “rules based” approach is taken, it may be possible to gain an advantage by using the rules cleverly, as well as to suffer disadvantage for not. Step forward lawyers both actual and barrack-room.
In my experience, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, university awarded degrees and CEng are just better understood and more widely valued than “equivalents” or “similar to”, including IEng, NVQs , C&G, vendor qualifications etc. It doesn’t follow that alternatives are necessarily inferior, it’s just a question of “trusted brands”.
In the absence of any clear tightly focussed need, my advice to a mid-career professional , would be to seek out a “taster” such as a module offered by university on a stand-alone basis, in many subject areas your experience may place you well for something aimed at “masters level” but “back to basics” is also OK. Many offer some on-campus time or in the case of the Open University a short “summer school”. On balance, I would suggest that the two areas with most potential return on investment, if you weren’t a teenage undergraduate are “scientific method” (aka research methods) and expressing ideas more eloquently, obviously in a technical context if your focus remains technical. With these two attributes and intellectual curiosity, you can probably achieve any qualification that you are sufficiently interested in, able to pay for and stick at.
