Have Faith in the IET

You have spoken true words, i have started my application from scratch with the institute of Water but it is truly a shame that i won't be able to assist IET become multidisciplinary institute. I got my assessment report today from IET with all the redacted names. There wasn't a single person on the panel from the water industry or Asset management sector. The worst part was reading the comments of the interviewers who were instructed prior to my interview to probe my application and presentation on Competency B. After an 1hr and 15 mins of interview, my assessors were only able to ask me one question each, but it was clear these were question not to probe me but to justify the inherent decision they had already made before the interview. Their report stated i lacked the basic knowledge of first principles of pipe design, after approximatly two years of sizing, designing, constructing and providing engineering design solutions for resilience and pressure related water network issues.


When instructed to probe they don't mean ask one fall question each. The academic lecturer asked me if i accounted for surge in my calculation and i told him no. All manufacturers allow 20% of the permissible operating pressure for any transient surge pressures in water main. It is only in extreme situations where the risk of getting surge pressures is present and the consequence is high that allowance is made for surge by the designer. He would have known this if he had ever worked on a construction site or undertaken a feasibility study for different design options. Another reason why an Academic should only be allowed to assess and Academic applicant. It's weird that out of all the technical knowledge i demonstrated in my application, presentation and calculations, the two things they asked me and we didn't agree on made them come to the conclusion i don't understand basic principles of pipe design.

The IET has conducted thousands of registration assessments in recent years, mostly resulting in a successful outcome. There is a formal appeals process, which is taken very seriously and it has often decided to re-run interviews with a successful recommendation on the second occasion. The number of appeals relative to the number of assessments is very small.  

 

The interview is probably the most important factor for an IEng or CEng application, because it is the only face-to-face opportunity. However as many will testify, there is a thorough process of review before a Professional Review Interview is arranged. This pre-interview aspect is especially important for those without fully accredited qualifications and/or qualifications in a different discipline to their current area of practice. If interviewers are asked to probe a particular competence area, then a residual doubt exists after initial scrutiny, which it is hoped can be resolved successfully. Interviewer's recommendations are reviewed by a final panel before a decision is taken.

 

I understand why Hubert is frustrated and disappointed. As he describes it, the wrong recommendation may have been made by the interviewers. However they are not able to engage in public debate via the forums to offer their side of the story. From his description, it appears that the Interview would have been successful had it been for IEng, but he has been judged slightly short in one or more of the crucial  CEng A&B competences. This suggests that he is a perfectly good engineer, but in the interpretation of the interviewers, a little over reliant on “standard solutions”, rather than using deeper analysis to  “innovate” or resolve more “complex” technical challenges, which is how CEng is described in UK-SPEC.

 

As with any interview process, only those present will have a legitimate perspective on what went on. I am sure that many readers have been involved in a job selection interview or other similar situation where they felt that an interviewer disliked them, or discovered that “the motions were being gone through” to justify selecting an existing favourite. In a Professional Review Interview everyone can be successful, but in practice some will not be, because is it an assessment.

 

As I see it, these forums are an opportunity for members to discuss issues of common interest, not a vehicle to pursue personal grievances. In this situation there is a confidential appeals process.

 

From a personal perspective it disappoints me to see someone who is clearly a perfectly capable engineer feeling “a failure”, especially when it seems that quite a fine margin separated him from achieving CEng, in which case he may have been positing of his pride. There are ways in which we could reduce this “knife-edge” effect. For example, in another thread I suggested that perhaps if “Registered Engineer” (or similar) was introduced, then a monitored pathway could be put in place for those seeking a transition to CEng. Some Professional Institutions have been promoting IEng as a "stepping-stone" for this purpose, but as comment in these forums will testify, their approach seemed primarily intended to position CEng as "elite or exclusive", offended experienced IEng registrants and seems to have had very limited success in attracting “up & coming” Engineers.   

 

I'm sorry Hubert that you feel your interview was poorly conducted. It is obvious to me that you are a competent professional engineer, but unfortunately you weren’t recommended for CEng on this occasion. Not everyone passes every assessment in life at the first attempt. Seek support and advice which will be willingly given by IET members. You could pursue an appeal and/or continue you development and seek another assessment in due course.  I hope that a promised work promotion or some other consequence hasn’t been placed on gaining CEng now.

 

It is the right of members to criticise The IET, which has strengths and weaknesses, including the ambitious scope of Engineering that it seeks to embrace, building upon its pre-eminence in electrically related disciplines. However this needs to be rational and well-argued, not just emotive. The relative merits of different frames of reference when designing pipework is a perfectly reasonable discussion, I don’t have sufficient expertise to comment usefully, but your point seems reasonable.  The personality element of criticising someone else for being “too academic” achieves little, although “academic versus practical” is a common theme in much of the professional engineering institution world.

Hello Roy and All

I think, You are addressing the wrong person. I dont remember that I, Nouman, is taking part in this Discussion. Can you recheck please.

Thank you

My apologies Nouman and Hubert, of course I meant to address Hubert. I don't know how the names got conflated in my head. Unfortunately I have just missed the 15 minute window allowed for editing after posting.

Hi Roy/Nouman.


I have edited the original post for completeness.


Regards,


Kathryn