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"? 

event (I wander if the report addressed)

This is a time of change for the IET.

There was much debate about the recent re-organisation and an extraordinary general meeting for a vote, which confirmed it would go ahead. How has this progressed and what more is there to do?

There will be political changes with the UK and Europe which could affect the recognition of qualifications and memberships, and thus alter the ability to work in Europe. We may not have any answers to this as yet but the IET will have to operate in the new environment.

Over recent years the IET has rebuilt itself and should have a good future ahead of it. Dr Peter Bonfield, a Trustee and the Vice President of the IET, will present a brief update on the reorganisation and his view of the future of the IET. He will also look at how local and technical networks fit into this and the benefits it brings for the engineering community.

Programme
1830 Networking & Refreshments
1900 Seminar starts
2000 Seminar finishes, followed by Q&A
2100 Event finishes

Reasons to attend
This is an opportunity to meet a Trustee and the Vice President of the IET, and to hear his views on the future and how he sees IET members fitting into this.
Continuing Professional Development
CPD logo declaring this event can contribute 2 hours towards your Continuing Professional Development
This event can contribute towards your Continuing Professional Development (CPD) as part of the IET's CPD monitoring scheme.
CPD Certificates (if required) are available after the event upon request from our Secretary, Mr Ian Brooker (ibrooker@theiet.org).

Cost
Free of Charge
Additional information
Speaker: Dr Peter Bonfield - As well as being a Fellow, Trustee, and the Vice President of the IET, Peter is a materials engineer with a PhD in wind energy and the design of turbine blades. He has been with the BRE Group since 1992, rising to become Managing Director of BRE's Construction Division and then Chief Executive of the BRE Group of companies in 2012. From 2006 until 2012, Peter was on part-time secondment to the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA). He co-created the sustainable development strategy for the Olympics and supported its delivery, playing a key role in ensuring that the significant quantities of materials required to construct the games were sustainably procured and delivered and performed as required.
He is a Visiting Professor at Bath University, where he has also been awarded an Honorary Doctorate in Engineering. He is a Fellow of several engineering institutions and has been a Chartered Engineer for over 20 years. Peter is Chairman of the Health, Safety and Environment Committee of the Association for Independent Research and Technology Organisations (AIRTO).


Registration information
Please register for this event.

This event is organised by the IET Beds & Herts Local Network as part of our 2016-17 program.

Roy, To me is seems the 5 workstreams ICE, IMechE and IET have agreed to put in place are a continuation of what is already happening. There is nothing new!

 

What then is the future of Incorporated Engineers? I looked at the ABET site which had details on the various 'Accords.' I live in the US. Under the Washington Accord application I came to a standstill twice. Firstly, City and Guilds is not an educational option. Secondly, if your qualification was awarded before the document was signed(2002) you could not apply anyway. IEng was not an option either - only a recognised degree.


At one of my jobs here, the Engineering manager commented to me once: "Anthony, only you and a Chinese girl who used to work here ever do any calculations." I suppose the degreed engineers did not need to. Another boss who was un-degreed and very Southern, distrusted Yankees and was completely at a loss with me(a white African) had me calculate the SFL of a wooden mezzanine floor. I had the numbers checked by a friend in the UK who said I was a bit conservative. The numbers were thrown out because my leader did not believe them!


As I have pointed out on previous posts, recruiting software filters out applicants based on qualifications required versus those listed. IEng is an afterthought(in the UK) and a non-starter here.


If things change dramatically will I(and other non-degreed IEngs) be 'grand-fathered' in or given the boot(thanks for your subs for the last 20 odd-years)? I would think the IET would be going out of its way to help its members, even if for purely mercenary reasons. Mr.Waserman's information on a CGLI graduateship(as a B.Eng equivalent) being awarded to IEngs until 2013 still sticks in my craw as I think the IET should have been advertising this information.

Mr.Gowman. No doctor works for a 'basic salary.' Being a doctor is a combination of socialism, secret-society-ism and cronyism. All doctors of the same speciality are reimbursed at the same rate - regardless of outcomes or quality of work. A friend's child started at medical school a few years ago and was told (along with the class) 'we can't afford to fail any of you.' The good doctors never have the incompetent ones struck from the rolls.

A person can get a 2 year degree in draughting and get $15-20/hr. The nurse with a 2 year degree and RN exam will get $40/hr. A 4-year degree nurse(same RN certificate) can do a 2 year online degree(nurse practitioner) make $150000 per year and the the doctor lets her see me and charges me as though I had seen him!

They have engineers beat !