U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

Mark’s point is well made. Many of us expected the IMechE to become part of The IET a decade or so ago, but they pulled out. At that point the IMechE was very much a “Chartered only” institution, since the former IMechIE had merged into IIE and subsequently IET. Initially it seemed to perpetuate some of the attitudes and behaviours that the Uff report criticises. However, it has moved forward, becoming more inclusive and adept at getting potentially eligible practitioners, especially earlier career graduate engineers, into registration.

 

During The Savoy Place refurbishment, The IET rented office space in The IMechE building. Our CES expressed the hope of closer collaboration, but from my own personal perspective (which is limited) nothing much changed, although relations are generally cordial. Inevitably there are some competitive rivalries and if that drives better service, as “competition” often does, then it is a potential benefit, but there are also potential downsides if standards become compromised for commercial reasons.

 

Peter, it would be helpful to me if you were more specific about your comment “the more radical points have already been discounted”.

 

I was contacted last week by a volunteer colleague who was particularly alarmed about Prof Uff’s tentative suggestion to merge IEng & Eng Tech. A suggestion which seems to be mainly based on the poor performance of these “brands” in attracting potentially eligible “customers”. The report however also observes that “Chartered” has significantly greater market appeal. Perhaps a key question to address is; To what extent is that appeal generated by perceptions of status, prestige and exclusivity, versus a general understanding that “Chartered” is the mark of professional status across a range of UK professions?  It seems reasonable to suggest that the actions of Engineering Council have been primarily intended to present Chartered Engineer as“elite”. 

 

Privy Council requires bodies offering a Chartered title to demonstrate  “At least 75% of the corporate members should be qualified to first degree level standard.”  When Engineering Council came into being in 1981, the Privy Council “graduate level” benchmark was probably aligned (I don’t know if it has changed?), with special examinations and a mature candidate route offering an alternative to those who didn’t attend university. The cohort effect also meant that at that time, many existing Chartered Engineers held HNC + endorsement subjects. However, as the “academic requirements” were progressively inflated, the effect was to exclude many “mainstream” Engineers from CEng recognition, with TEng (later IEng) offered as an option for them.  This was explicitly set out as the strategy at the time of the 1999 SARTOR academic inflation of CEng and has continued into the UK-SPEC era.

 

Although UK-SPEC has allowed more flexibility about academic attainment and given greater emphasis to current performance , PEI policies have had the effect that the average new CEng or IEng is nearly 40, the average incumbent around 60 and few are coming to any form of registration aged under 30. Therefore, some critics argue that the chartered designation has been appropriated by an older generation for aggrandisement and withheld from all but the most academically advantaged engineers aged under 40?

 

Frustrations expressed in these forums and elsewhere, often stem from a sense of unfair exclusion. Causes include, academic inflation,  the cohort effect (“missing out” relative to an older colleague), rigid (often seemingly deliberately obstructive) interpretations of academic requirements and the practicalities of access to academic opportunities. There are also well-qualified engineers, perhaps with a sense of entitlement by virtue of their academic qualifications, deemed to not be fully demonstrating a PEIs interpretation of UK-SPEC CEng competences.  All of this magnified by pride, snobbery, prejudice, misunderstanding, questions of consistency and fairness etc.   

 

Prof Uff’s suggestion of “Registered Engineer” and “Chartered Engineer” might improve participation, but there doesn’t seem to be any solid market research?  I have suggested that perhaps the Chartered standard should also be normalised or “rebalanced into the mainstream” at a graduate level engineering practitioner circa 8-10 years into career (including academic preparation where appropriate). This suggestion isn’t researched either, but it is what most current CEng probably achieved and a perfectly appropriate benchmark.

 

In terms of Engineering Council politics, it would be much easier just to leave CEng alone and create something new for “the rest” in the hope of that new category becoming attractive. However this would in my opinion, waste the rare (perhaps once in a generation?) opportunity of a more strategic review addressing the question of what would most effectively and fairly serve the practice of UK engineering as a whole in future. Just appeasing the majority of currently powerful activists, who are mostly in late career, doesn’t address this issue. How do we ensure that those not currently enfranchised or disadvantaged (i.e. not CEng) are strongly represented in any dialogue? Employers, Politicians or perhaps even a Legal Advocate?  


Is this "radical"? 

Mark’s point is well made. Many of us expected the IMechE to become part of The IET a decade or so ago, but they pulled out. At that point the IMechE was very much a “Chartered only” institution, since the former IMechIE had merged into IIE and subsequently IET. Initially it seemed to perpetuate some of the attitudes and behaviours that the Uff report criticises. However, it has moved forward, becoming more inclusive and adept at getting potentially eligible practitioners, especially earlier career graduate engineers, into registration.

 

During The Savoy Place refurbishment, The IET rented office space in The IMechE building. Our CES expressed the hope of closer collaboration, but from my own personal perspective (which is limited) nothing much changed, although relations are generally cordial. Inevitably there are some competitive rivalries and if that drives better service, as “competition” often does, then it is a potential benefit, but there are also potential downsides if standards become compromised for commercial reasons.

 

Peter, it would be helpful to me if you were more specific about your comment “the more radical points have already been discounted”.

 

I was contacted last week by a volunteer colleague who was particularly alarmed about Prof Uff’s tentative suggestion to merge IEng & Eng Tech. A suggestion which seems to be mainly based on the poor performance of these “brands” in attracting potentially eligible “customers”. The report however also observes that “Chartered” has significantly greater market appeal. Perhaps a key question to address is; To what extent is that appeal generated by perceptions of status, prestige and exclusivity, versus a general understanding that “Chartered” is the mark of professional status across a range of UK professions?  It seems reasonable to suggest that the actions of Engineering Council have been primarily intended to present Chartered Engineer as“elite”. 

 

Privy Council requires bodies offering a Chartered title to demonstrate  “At least 75% of the corporate members should be qualified to first degree level standard.”  When Engineering Council came into being in 1981, the Privy Council “graduate level” benchmark was probably aligned (I don’t know if it has changed?), with special examinations and a mature candidate route offering an alternative to those who didn’t attend university. The cohort effect also meant that at that time, many existing Chartered Engineers held HNC + endorsement subjects. However, as the “academic requirements” were progressively inflated, the effect was to exclude many “mainstream” Engineers from CEng recognition, with TEng (later IEng) offered as an option for them.  This was explicitly set out as the strategy at the time of the 1999 SARTOR academic inflation of CEng and has continued into the UK-SPEC era.

 

Although UK-SPEC has allowed more flexibility about academic attainment and given greater emphasis to current performance , PEI policies have had the effect that the average new CEng or IEng is nearly 40, the average incumbent around 60 and few are coming to any form of registration aged under 30. Therefore, some critics argue that the chartered designation has been appropriated by an older generation for aggrandisement and withheld from all but the most academically advantaged engineers aged under 40?

 

Frustrations expressed in these forums and elsewhere, often stem from a sense of unfair exclusion. Causes include, academic inflation,  the cohort effect (“missing out” relative to an older colleague), rigid (often seemingly deliberately obstructive) interpretations of academic requirements and the practicalities of access to academic opportunities. There are also well-qualified engineers, perhaps with a sense of entitlement by virtue of their academic qualifications, deemed to not be fully demonstrating a PEIs interpretation of UK-SPEC CEng competences.  All of this magnified by pride, snobbery, prejudice, misunderstanding, questions of consistency and fairness etc.   

 

Prof Uff’s suggestion of “Registered Engineer” and “Chartered Engineer” might improve participation, but there doesn’t seem to be any solid market research?  I have suggested that perhaps the Chartered standard should also be normalised or “rebalanced into the mainstream” at a graduate level engineering practitioner circa 8-10 years into career (including academic preparation where appropriate). This suggestion isn’t researched either, but it is what most current CEng probably achieved and a perfectly appropriate benchmark.

 

In terms of Engineering Council politics, it would be much easier just to leave CEng alone and create something new for “the rest” in the hope of that new category becoming attractive. However this would in my opinion, waste the rare (perhaps once in a generation?) opportunity of a more strategic review addressing the question of what would most effectively and fairly serve the practice of UK engineering as a whole in future. Just appeasing the majority of currently powerful activists, who are mostly in late career, doesn’t address this issue. How do we ensure that those not currently enfranchised or disadvantaged (i.e. not CEng) are strongly represented in any dialogue? Employers, Politicians or perhaps even a Legal Advocate?  


Is this "radical"?