A friend of mine shared with me an old email:

Contact ID: 544313

Dear Sir or Madam

Thank you for contacting City & Guilds Customer Relations.

The GCGI is not an award, certificate or diploma in the way that these titles refer to qualifications. The GCGI is awarded to recognize individuals for achievements. It entitles you to use the post nominal letters GCGI. Additionally, it is at a comparable level to a British honours degree.

Should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact the Customer Relations team on 0844 543 0033.

Please visit City & Guilds Bookshop: Buy Textbooks/Logbooks/Exam Success Books/Diploma Handbooks on Multiple Subjects to see how City & Guilds can support you during your studies with a variety of textbooks, exam success titles and pocket guides.

Yours sincerely


Ladenia Jones

Customer Relations Advisor | Customer Relations

City & Guilds – Believe you can

 

Hi Larkland,

 

In respect of option 2, I would still hesitate to recommend the Professional Recognition Awards except as a management qualification, in which case there are various options including   http://www.theiet.org/membership/career/courses/professional/cmi-diploma/index.cfm?origin=cmi-diploma .  Is there up to date evidence that the C&G Awards offer a distinctive advantage and will continue to do so in future. The comments here suggest that there are only one or two centres offering the qualifications?

 

I wasn’t aware that C&G had re-established something similar to the defunct Engineering Council Examinations as the “Engineering Graduate & Post Graduate Diploma (9210)”.  I’m not sure why I wasn’t aware (I may have just forgotten), but it seems that IET,ICE & IMechE offered their support, so I don’t need to add to that.  My concern is not about the content of the diplomas in principle, but availability and delivery. An internet search only came up with the C&G material for centres rather than any actual programmes for someone to enrol on?  Does anyone have further information about providers? The proposition looks good, http://www.cityandguilds.com/international/engineering  but what is the current delivery of qualifications at levels 5, 6 & 7?  

 

Option 3 you link to Middlesex which seems over recent years to have drifted away from Engineering Council Accreditation except for those programmes recognised by the British Computer Society.  I don’t personally regard this as a significantly negative factor, but it could potentially cause some graduates problems with professional registration in certain circumstances. As an example of work –based learning provision I have no problem. For example, I liked the look of this course and might have considered in my previous role enrolling some employees, although not with CEng in mind  http://www.mdx.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/engineering-management.        

 

I should declare an interest in the programmes for your option 5, because I was associated with this initiative from 2009 and still retain some residual involvement. However the numbers of participants in these work –based programmes (mostly MSc but also a BEng) are relatively small and some of the original participating universities have not found the programmes commercially viable. However, there are still a number of universities with successful work-based learning programmes that are valued and supported by employers. This isn’t the same market as teenage undergraduates paying their own fees (or borrowing the money from the government) in preparation for a career, which are the mainstay of most universities.

 

One of the early Gateways MSc graduates progressed via Apprenticeship NVQ3 , HNC, part-time BEng and distance learning (work-based) Gateways MSc, in approximately 8 years to Chartered Engineer, having left school for the apprenticeship before completing A levels. http://www.engineeringgateways.co.uk/media/97502/Engineering%20Gateways%20eBulletin%20January%202012.pdf   An early Gateways BEng, left the Air Force as an experienced Technician and completed the programme as part of re-training to become a Power Systems Engineer for National Grid.  http://www.aston.ac.uk/eas/aston-professional-engineering-centre/news/graduate-first-in-the-uk-to-achieve-prestigious-engineering-status/

 

Once again I tend to agree with your general conclusion  “The good news is there are many options to consider to fill that gap without breaking the bank”. However for the purposes of this discussion, I would observe that the “gap” for many mid-career engineers isn’t necessarily a gap in performance, it’s often just a gap in recognition.  “Breaking the bank” is relative but there are some serious investments involved in gaining formal qualifications (academic or vocational).  Many of the issues come down to a return on investment evaluation, by individual citizens, controllers of the public purse and employers of engineering practitioners.  If we add the social and political dimension around recognition or regulation then this complicates the issue further. For example some seek to restrict access and create a “professional elite”, whilst others want to broaden access and engagement in “professionalism” by Engineers and Technicians.  I don’t think we can resolve most of this anytime soon. But if we can help to better inform IET members and potential members then we are giving service.  

 

To return to the thread topic, as I indicated in an earlier post  I’m an enthusiast for the mission of C&G and might myself have become MCGI at one time.  However, it seems that the growth in University participation has led to C&G becoming increasingly stereotyped as the provider of “lower-level” qualifications. Engineering regulatory bodies have been moving to inflate benchmark academic qualifications so the two have diverged. All of this is part of a broader sociological trends over recent decades described in these two CIPD reports.  https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/skills/graduate-labour-market-report and file https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/trends/alternative-labour-market-pathways

The reports are long  and like City & Guilds not specific to engineering, but they offer a counterweight to suggestions that what the practice of professional engineering needs is an increasingly “academic” approach. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for City & Guilds to play the vocational equivalent card more strongly?     

 

Larkland

 

Your post is well-reasoned and with Moshe also adding his experience, any reader of this thread , should be better positioned to understand the different options and their context. A significant theme here is mobility and migration especially in a North American context, this is something that I have limited understanding of, for example the use of a credential evaluator. The IET uses NARIC to compare qualifications and validate overseas awarding institutions, in addition to The Washington Accord, FEANI et al where mutual recognition of qualifications is agreed by treaty.  It seems that the Professional Recognition Awards (“Senior Awards” to 2013) have value to credential evaluators, but  comments here that suggest that City & Guilds themselves have lacked enthusiasm for them in recent times. To pick up on Andy’s theme, without the explanation “degree level” most employers are just not really aware of MGCI and if they are would assume that it was a management award, similar to CMI. Unless anyone knows differently, it seems that engineering content disappeared with the change from “Senior Awards” to “Professional Recognition Awards”? It also seems that in the period before this change some (or even most?) MCGI awards were based on the person already being CEng registered and paying a fee without any further assessment. I would therefore hesitate to recommend these awards, except to those seeking a competency based management qualification, who should carefully consider the range of options available before deciding.   

 

Being a UK professional registrant requires ongoing annual fees, but these demonstrate a continuing commitment to professionalism and willingness where appropriate to engage in peer review (such as CPD monitoring). The fees involved are modest relative to typical incomes.  You lose the right to display the professional title if you leave the register, but it is fair and honest to declare on a CV when you gained recognition and how long you held it for. Chartered Engineer in particular is highly valued in many situations and expected is some.  The Incorporated and Technician categories although less commonly held, are well-respected in certain areas of employment and can be an advantage. It is common in the UK for employers to pay employees professional fees as a way of encouraging personal and career development. For example, many employers would share my expectation that today’s Apprentice Technician could become a Chartered Engineer and/or senior manager in future.  Therefore the frame of reference that I would encourage is of continuous development over a career, with registration confirming the passing of a one or more milestones and ongoing commitment.  This may explain why I dislike using a system that sorts teenagers “into sheep and goats” as the basis for differentiating between, or apportioning recognition of, engineering and technology as practiced by experienced professionals. I accept that there are more of less optimised early career pathways, for those with different aptitudes into different types of work, but argue that comparable performance deserves comparable recognition.  

 

Incidentally there are tax breaks for professional registration fees in the UK and public policy largely assumes that professional body recognition is a desirable outcome of education and training, so degrees and apprenticeships leading to this are seem as  being “gold standard”.  

 

Another way to frame this discussion would be “what are the best qualifications for me to seek”?  Inevitably the answer is - it depends on your circumstances and motivation. The context is engineering and technology and my thoughts are;  In preparation for a career or as part of early career training, if you have reasonable academic ability, then find a pathway that will potentially lead to a relevant degree qualification from a reputable institution.  If employment and training is involved then the degree might be less urgent or important, but get one if you can eventually, even if it is a distance learning “top-up”. What qualifications older people did is of historical interest only. If a good employment option isn’t available, or you just prefer to remain in full-time education, then study what interests and motivates you. If you have a clear career aim in mind then an accredited course is ideal , but don’t become too narrow too soon , or underestimate the value of the general  communication skills , that should characterise all good university graduates and exemplify many people’s definition of “a professional”.    

 

If you are interested in Engineering and Technology but less-motivated in an academic direction then there are paths leading to successful and lucrative careers through practical training and linked education.  For example there is long and distinguished list of Electricians who have become successful as engineers, business leaders or in other fields, such as the one I met a few years ago who was his country’s president and a Nobel Laureate. The world of IT also has many examples where personal initiative and entrepreneurial flair has been more important than formal qualifications.             

 

For someone with an established track record seeking further qualifications, there are too many potential variables to offer a prescription. However my experience suggests that holding a degree form a reputable university is an advantage most of the time.  The likely best option to achieve this for many mid-career professionals would be a masters programme, there are part-time, distance-learning and even work-based learning versions in the UK. It is often possible to try a module in the first instance.       

 

If you are seeking recognition by a statutory body for licensing or migration then you need to understand the rules, not just what is written down but how they are interpreted in practice, including what precedent may exist for your circumstances. Some internet research could be a start, but some form of “legal” advice may be needed.

 

The professional registration process operated by the IET is regulated by Engineering Council rules and based on UK-SPEC, this if fairly close to a statutory system in some respects, but because the published standard is generic and participation is voluntary, it would be better described as a “peer review resulting in a professional opinion”. For some Engineering Council affiliated institutions this may be mainly about counting qualifications, but the IET seeks evidence of career achievement as a whole.  In practice, few people seek registration without falling within one of the UK-SPEC categories.

 

In the context of employment, it is simply a marketplace and you need to understand the market relevant to you. For someone who doesn’t, this may be their most pressing development need. Unfortunately the first time many Engineers and Technicians think about this is when they become unemployed, under-employed or are frustrated by their inability to progress their career.  As an individual, your qualifications including professional recognitions, industry specific training or accreditations, are part of the product features that you present to the market. Employers (analogous to consumers or prospective customers) often represented by particular individuals, will have a wide variety of preferences and prejudices, even within one part of a large business one influential manager might have different preferences to another.  To avoid turning this post into a tome, you need to capture interest, avoid rejection on spurious grounds and hopefully close the deal on a win-win basis once you have engaged.             

 

Over lunch I wrote a long brilliantly worded post which got lost in the ether! Shorter version: I broadly agree with Larkland's point 2, but I'd suggest "Degree level (Level 6) qualification: CCGI in ..."


And always remember that when applying to SMEs - who have some of the most interesting jobs - they are rarely experts in this stuff, they just want a quick easy way of reducing their pile of 200 CVs to a more manageable 50 - I've done this myself (for some very nice jobs in both private and public organisations) and the stories about the first pass giving each CV 5-10 seconds to find a reason to reject it are perfectly true! Sadly at this stage you've got to meet the recruiters' expectations without having to engage their brains.


By the way, this is why I don't like standard application forms. In a free form application someone with a brilliant proven track record can come over well even if they have no qualifications at all. In this sense it can be less of a problem applying to SMEs. Public sector organisations in particular have to be so careful about being seen to be fair that they tend to feel constrained to use standard forms, which to my mind actually discriminates against those with a non-traditional career path. That's a different issue though.


​Cheers, Andy

Senior Mechanical Engineer (DSAA)

Job Reference:  

Join the Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO) 

 

ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

• A degree (or an equivalent qualification) in mechanical engineering or equivalent subject matter.

• Chartered or Incorporated Mechanical Engineer.

• Full UK Driving License

• ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Larkland, Moshe and all,


I'm still struggling here...I really think I'd need evidence that employers recognise these certifications before I could recommend them, have you seen them listed in recruitment ads etc? I agree that it's a one off fee rather than an ongoing fee, but if it's not recognised that doesn't help.


(Although nowhere near as extreme as this wonderful (and, I am sure, perfectly legal) organisation that someone I cam across recently proudly boasted a PhD from: https://sites.google.com/site/nelsonmandelauniversity/ Not really relevant, but the website amused me so much I felt I had to share it!) 


Maybe it's just me, I grew up with C&G qualifications as excellent trade focussed training and qualifications, I've picked up a few myself in my time. But as far as I can tell GCGI and MCGI would need a lot of heavy promotion by CGI before they become widely known and hence recognised, rather like EC and the IEng! In principle I think they're a really good idea (again like IEng), but one that's never taken off.


BUT if you have seen them work I'd be pleased to know, I'm always very happy to promote alternative qualification paths.


The general discussion reminds of one of the worst CVs I've ever seen (many years ago now), from somebody who actually had a good paper track record as a contract design engineer. Its 15 rambling pages included the qualifications which were 5 or 6 C&G s followed by the statement "all distinctions equivalent to a Master's degree". Now, in his case he probably would have been better getting CCGI (or possibly MCGI) and quoting that instead, or just leaving that statement out and letting his track record speak for itself. Telling employers that they must consider your qualifications are valid is always a bad idea!


All the above said, I can see that it would be possible to use these certifications even if they are not widely recognised, but it might just take a certain amount of explanation, e.g. "Gained MCGI to consolidate my development and training under a nationally (internationally?) recognised scheme. This required me to..." Whether this is worth £845 though (albeit this is actually pretty cheap for a level 7 qualification) would still be the question.


That's woken up my brain for the day, better go to work!


Cheers,


Andy

Larkland,


You highlighted in you previous post that some training programmes and associated qualifications were highly valued in certain areas of work despite barely being “on the radar” of professional institutions and regulators.  In the latest one you state “any qualification achieved should be celebrated and positive” and with some caveats I agree.  The caveats are around ethics, since there are unscrupulous providers, or those who use qualifications to misrepresent the extent of their competence.

 

In this broader context, our categorising and codifying (by voluntary or statutory means) has made gaining professional recognition difficult, negative or even impractical, for many who practice engineering to a recognised standard of competence.

 

Statutory systems, usually with the rules designed by politically influential engineers (such as leading academics for example), seek to limit who can “offer their services” as an “engineer”, for reasons such as public safety that legislators feel are justified. In the UK such interventions have been mainly aimed at those who interface with householders, who may be ill-informed customers. The UK voluntary system creates a market, but one that became dominated by the “premium” (or “elite status”) segment.  Although two other recognition categories are codified, they have a disproportionately lower market value and those affiliated to the  “premium” market describe them in inferior pejorative terms.  The same trends seem to apply where the codification has gained statutory backing.  Therefore certain qualifications have much greater value than others.

 

The value of a qualification may rationally reflect what is required to earn it, but its relative value in the market, or “market snapshot” as codified by legislation at a point in time, may be heavily distorted by sociological factors.      

 

A common theme associated with those qualifications afforded the highest value, is that they stream those teenagers who are considered the most highly developed in mathematics relative to their peer age group. Those who do not meet this threshold are streamed along other pathways deemed of lower value, even if the actual qualification is substantially similar. This approach seems particularly pernicious towards those who are destined to become excellent engineers, but who are systematically disadvantaged thenceforth.  In a UK context this would include many IEng registrants and potentially Degree Apprentices going forward. Internationally it seems to affect those deemed “Technologists”.  Another common frame of reference seems to be the number of years spent in university , rather than the intensity, variety, or relevance of learning, or nature of relevant work-practice (if any).  

 

Is seems that we have accepted the proposition that there is an extremely strong correlation between teenage proficiency in calculus and the performance of engineers in practice?  Is this valid and in particular is it a valid discriminator between types of “engineer”?  You stated “Places like California does not require a degree to take the PE exam” . Can anyone comment on the relevance of these examinations?  The Engineering Council Examinations (for a time organised by City & Guilds) and now defunct, were intended as an “open-access” alternative theory test, but in practice this was considered a very difficult option without being “taught to the exam”. 

 

It seems that perhaps the City & Guilds Senior Awards just gradually lost market share as degrees became more accessible. Although City & Guilds has long history of academic connections (Imperial College) it also seems that its market position had become seen primarily as a provider of “practical” and therefore “less prestigious” qualifications? 

 

I came across this  http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/History/IEA-History-1.1-Final.pdf   

 
While scientific discoveries continued engineering remained practical into the early twentieth century before science-based-engineering became established. . As the science  base of engineering developed a further division occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, the emergence of the engineering technologist, skilled at applying established technology as distinct from the science-based professional engineer. Thus, in the period covered by this history the roles of professional engineer, engineering technologist and engineering technician exist in many jurisdictions.

 

An alternative history, might go something like this;

 

Those with an academic science background have tried to appropriate without the consent of the legitimate holders (TWOC in British slang), the designation “Engineer”. In its place they have tried to substitute the term “Technologist” which to many speakers of the English language would be understood as a synonym for an engineer anyway and is therefore a meaningless distinction. They then influenced regulators to exclude Technologists (UK equivalent IEng), or to describe them in inferior pejorative terms.  The great majority of more practical Engineers and their employers, have just ignored this as an irrelevance.

 

Had the proposition been rigidly applied in the UK, then the registration system might have collapsed to a fraction of its former size by now. Unfortunately the price of this pragmatism is the difficulty in differentiating between two different “types” of engineer who overlap in practice, by means other than their academic preparation. So we have ended up with confusion and an artificial hierarchy instead.  

 

The model, of the City & Guilds Senior Awards, work-based learning degrees aimed at practicing professionals and the professional body peer review assessment conducted by the IET are all good in my opinion. There are similarities and overlaps but also important differences. However, it seems that each of these options has challenges and threats in the market.          

Comments in this thread seem to suggest that the C&G Senior Awards may be in managed decline?

 

However there are some grounds for optimism, in the UK . The Apprenticeship model remained highly valued in some (but not all) UK industry sectors, as a pathway for engineers and senior managers, not just for craft trades and technicians.  I need to declare an interest here, as a former Apprentice and Company Training Manager. But my UK-centric view is that the drift away from apprenticeships towards full-time engineering education hasn’t served us particularly well and it seems that recent governments have come to share my view. The UK government introduced an “Apprenticeship Levy” and increasing numbers of degree apprenticeships are now in progress.  

 

For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with apprenticeships. An engineering apprenticeship blends  experience in the workplace, coaching, formal specialised training and learning, usually with an academic qualification studied part-time. Although the model long pre-dates academic study of engineering, there is also a tradition of higher level apprenticeships leading to professional engineering and related management careers. Universities (mainly as “Polytechnics” pre-1992) contributed with higher qualifications including degrees, but more “prestigious” universities have never been particularly interested in this pathway for cultural and other reasons.

 

If we accept the historical perspective of the International Engineering Alliance, in practice mainly expressed through the Washington Accord dealing with the undergraduate education of “Engineers” and through Sydney and Dublin accords “others” engaged in engineering. Perhaps a future history might say something like.

 
During the second quarter of the 21^st Century employers of Egineers and Technicians gained a more effective voice in systems of recognition and regulation. It was recognised that demonstration of professional competence and commitment to professional ethics was common to all engineers of graduate standard worldwide, developed via many different pathways.  The practice of rigidly defining and distinguishing between an “Engineer” and “Technologist” on the basis of undergraduate education didn’t gain widespread acceptance. This idea became seen as something of an aberration from the late 20^th Century when an academic hegemony existed in recognition and the neediness of the most educated engineers for social status was prioritised over performance.      

 
Noting Moshe’s latest post it seems that Gen2 is already successful and I hope that it goes from strength to strength under City & Guilds ownership. This seems to be an excellent example of the type of model that I am advocating.