Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 112 replies
  • Subscribers 15 subscribers
  • Views 6967 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
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

U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
​I have noted in another discussion, several comments of my own, but there seems to be a lack of interest or it takes too long to read and digest the report.

​Apart from Roy's original comments and direction to be able to read the report, it would be great to find out if IMechE, ICE and the IET have had any official comments on the report and if not, when can we expect any.?


​Daniel


P.S. Just had to get away from CEng v IEng status discussion.
Parents
  • 0
    Mark, the leaking pipeline diagram on page 104 (annex 5) is included as an illustration of the 'as is' model not the 'to be' model. It is referred to only on page 52 quote




     as well as illustrating the loss of numbers which occurs progressively from GCSE stage through to professional registration by a striking visual presentation based on a leaking pipeline (see Annex 5). 

    unquote.


    My view is that creating a hierarchical structure is bad for the professional a whole. I believe that Engtech's from a vocational route should be very highly regarded so there should be no feeling of being downgraded on the part on IEng regiatrants if REng was adopted.


    Earlier Daniel stated that REng had failed (at the time of a previous IEng review). I'm not sure if that was the case. It was one a number of designations considered, but it was discounted because  of the potential confusion with FReng (Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering). I'm not sure if anyone approached the Board or Council of the Royal Academy of Engineering to ascertain whether or not they objected. I suspect they didn't. I would like to think that the distinguished Fellows would not object if they felt it would address some of issues of which they spend alot of the time trying to resolve. 






Reply
  • 0
    Mark, the leaking pipeline diagram on page 104 (annex 5) is included as an illustration of the 'as is' model not the 'to be' model. It is referred to only on page 52 quote




     as well as illustrating the loss of numbers which occurs progressively from GCSE stage through to professional registration by a striking visual presentation based on a leaking pipeline (see Annex 5). 

    unquote.


    My view is that creating a hierarchical structure is bad for the professional a whole. I believe that Engtech's from a vocational route should be very highly regarded so there should be no feeling of being downgraded on the part on IEng regiatrants if REng was adopted.


    Earlier Daniel stated that REng had failed (at the time of a previous IEng review). I'm not sure if that was the case. It was one a number of designations considered, but it was discounted because  of the potential confusion with FReng (Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering). I'm not sure if anyone approached the Board or Council of the Royal Academy of Engineering to ascertain whether or not they objected. I suspect they didn't. I would like to think that the distinguished Fellows would not object if they felt it would address some of issues of which they spend alot of the time trying to resolve. 






Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines