The number of newly registered incorporated engineers continues to decline. The strategy of the Engineering Council is clearly not aligned to supporting the engineering technologist professional. Given the governments commitment to technical education the IET should create their own professional register to provide a relevant standard. It is obvious the current UKSPEC standard lacks credibility in terms of the IEng grade
I think there are some confusion here between IEng and Technologist in this forum discussion. As per my last thread, they are the same under International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Sydney Accord definition, only different term. Below table from IEA documents:
“
2. SYDNEY ACCORD
Sydney Accord recognition of equivalence of educational base for Engineering Technologists
Definition:
For the purposes of this Agreement, and any future Rules and Procedures made under this Agreement, engineering technology academic programmes are defined as the programmes through which practitioners normally satisfy the academic requirements for the engineering roles currently known amongst the initial signatories as:
Engineering Technologist - Australia
Certified Engineering or Applied Science Technologist - Canada
Associate Member of HKIE - Hong Kong China
Associate Engineer - Ireland
Engineering Technologist - New Zealand
Professional Technologist (Engineering) - South Africa
Incorporated Engineer - United Kingdom
“
Hard fact is IEng is an Engineering Technologist.
Because of the IEA, there are 3 level of engineering professional define under different accord namely Charted Engineer/Professional Engineer, Technologist and Technician level.
You may argue that some people with CEng are doing IEng role, some people with IEng are doing equivalent or more than CEng scope. That is people perception. We need to talk about when come to the assessment for each category. No point to talk about I doing more than CEng role and exceed the UKSpec for CEng when one isn’t register as CEng or never apply for CEng or fail in the CEng assessment.
We need to recognise that in reality CEng is the highest level of competency, then follow by IEng then EngTech as define very clearly in UKSpec and IEA accord. No point to talk about IEng is superior or inferior or equal, or to merge IEng into CEng (For me, this is mission impossible under the IEA accord unless ECUK pull out from IEA and form own rules) and ect and ect to make people more confuse. Of course, each category is important to the whole engineering workforce.
The challenge here is how to make IEng (with the mindset that IEng is Technologist) great and values added for people to apply for it. I think that the real direction need to be address and discuss here rather than talk about crossover role between IEng and CEng and ended the discussion in status quote which bring nowhere.
I think there are some confusion here between IEng and Technologist in this forum discussion. As per my last thread, they are the same under International Engineering Alliance (IEA) Sydney Accord definition, only different term. Below table from IEA documents:
“
2. SYDNEY ACCORD
Sydney Accord recognition of equivalence of educational base for Engineering Technologists
Definition:
For the purposes of this Agreement, and any future Rules and Procedures made under this Agreement, engineering technology academic programmes are defined as the programmes through which practitioners normally satisfy the academic requirements for the engineering roles currently known amongst the initial signatories as:
Engineering Technologist - Australia
Certified Engineering or Applied Science Technologist - Canada
Associate Member of HKIE - Hong Kong China
Associate Engineer - Ireland
Engineering Technologist - New Zealand
Professional Technologist (Engineering) - South Africa
Incorporated Engineer - United Kingdom
“
Hard fact is IEng is an Engineering Technologist.
Because of the IEA, there are 3 level of engineering professional define under different accord namely Charted Engineer/Professional Engineer, Technologist and Technician level.
You may argue that some people with CEng are doing IEng role, some people with IEng are doing equivalent or more than CEng scope. That is people perception. We need to talk about when come to the assessment for each category. No point to talk about I doing more than CEng role and exceed the UKSpec for CEng when one isn’t register as CEng or never apply for CEng or fail in the CEng assessment.
We need to recognise that in reality CEng is the highest level of competency, then follow by IEng then EngTech as define very clearly in UKSpec and IEA accord. No point to talk about IEng is superior or inferior or equal, or to merge IEng into CEng (For me, this is mission impossible under the IEA accord unless ECUK pull out from IEA and form own rules) and ect and ect to make people more confuse. Of course, each category is important to the whole engineering workforce.
The challenge here is how to make IEng (with the mindset that IEng is Technologist) great and values added for people to apply for it. I think that the real direction need to be address and discuss here rather than talk about crossover role between IEng and CEng and ended the discussion in status quote which bring nowhere.
