Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Hi John,

AM: it is perfectly legal for UK employers to insist on CEng if they wish - 

JG: No It is illegal, it is discriminative as confirmed by ECUK 

I think at this stage to be helpful you do really need to start quoting relevant laws please. The aim of these forums is to raise the level of understanding, and this is a really important point with significant implications for employers. The only relevant Act I am aware of is the Equality Act 2010 which we have discussed above. Although I know a lot about HR law* I am not an HR lawyer, so it is of course possible that there are other Acts (or provisions of Acts) I am not aware of. But having undertaken an extensive search this weekend - because I got quite interested in this, as I say this is a very important issue - I cannot find any reason why specifiying any UKSpec PR level would be grounds for discrimination.


Thanks,


Andy

* when I was doing a lot of recruitment (and other staff managment) we didn't have a UK HR department so I had to find it out for myself!

Andy Millar:

Just to add emphasise to Roy's point, which I have addressed more fully in another thread, it is perfectly legal for UK employers to insist on CEng if they wish - it would be equally legal for them to insist on a GCSE in Classical Civilisations if they wanted (even if it wasn't relevant to the job).


I have never met an employer who does insist on CEng (or GCSE Classical Civilisations), because in practice this limits their field of choice of candidates too much. But if John has found one, then that's up to that employer. If they feel they can find good enough candidates by using this selection critieria that's up to them.


Thanks, Andy

Re: Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists
Posted by Roy Pemberton on Dec 16, 2017 2:07 pm
John Bowman, Firstly, I am FIET but MIET, but that's only a recent change. I'm not sure why you ask the question, but never mind, let me mount my challenge to your post. 
Roy the name is Mr Gowman
ROY
You have made a good argument to defend IET, CENG and Honorary Fellow.
The problem is that CEng is not a legal requirement.

 
CEng, EC UK and UK elitism has had its day. It is a UK pervert, peculiarity like May Day dancing or drinking yards. It is a combination of subjective approval and a set of professional requirements.
There are many CEng that do not meet UK Spec but have powerful employers or friends.
There are three times more good engineers who are UKSpec equivalent and not ECUK CEng registered.

 
If we take all your positive arguments and then call for an independent UK assessor to verify that a Professional Engineer meets the basic Professional Engineer requirements, then we can let PEIs get on with their true task of promoting their technology disciplines.

 
Your personal attack is typical of the PEI hard core – Fellow CEng.
I refused to be a Fellow of this institute just as I stood down to let a woman try her chances as CEO of a founding IET Institute. I was co-editor of our journal, committee member and founder of an Institute that I encouraged to amalgamate to become IET.

 
As for my training & education and qualifications, I was a UK Ministry of Defence apprentice recruited by the most severe UK recruiting and security procedures. Like you, I under took CPD during my career. I had a taught master before a BSc (BA) and ECUK registration. I have two other accredited Masters.
And have been consulted by the heads of Technology research worldwide (and it still continues).

 
Roy you have a good attitude – exploit it to make UK Technology respected , not restrictive and elitist.
This is your challenge:
75% PEs not interested in ECUK PEIS.
10 % of PEs are women.

 
Change the system to register and promote Professional engineers.

 
Your arguments apply to the day of CEng IEng PEI registration only. You are a leading example of how those registrations and experiences can change. They are not valid with todays changing technology after 5 years +/-. Your arguments lead to the requirement of ECUK Spec verification every 5 years just as medical doctors have to justify that they are in touch with modern medcin.

 
If you want a protective club, join the Masons, the golf or sailing club. Professional engineers need to be recognized and registered -  HNC or BSc.
 -PEs need PEIs only to guide them.

 
You have to be thick skinned to do what I have done for the last few years, I have called on my experience and the aid of the top experts to resolve the blocking points in many multi-disciplinary industries, I simply present the facts - Heads have rolled.

 
I have been consulted by the leading R&D organizations and Major Industrialists.
I do not show off with Titles, I have a CV and HNC plus Plus; I also transmit my knowledge and experience and create technology teams of, as you stated, specific experts.
I have posted blogs on IET no one is interested in Technology. They are just interested in prestige, and closed shops of restrictive practices.
Blogs see below

 
You cannot be a Generalist Technologist but after about 30 years you can be a Generalist Technologist Advisor and expert in a few domains, mine are applied to special industries, nuclear and aerospace which use Special Techniques materials, fatigue, cryogenic-UH vacuum, in energy & power development.
I am a trained precision fitter and journeyman indentured to the Minister of Aviation with further experience and education gained mainly in the UK & EU – bilingual as all engineers should be.
Thanks to progress no one will have to follow my path.

 
I find that most of the CEng & Fellows are simply out of touch with reality. Many do not even meet UK Spec.

 
John Gowman
Professional engineering

• IET EngTalks: Future Energy

• Future Energy community

 

• John Gowman on Do You Support Or Oppose The Use Of Nuclear Energy As One Of The Ways To Provide Electricity? in blogs

• SMRs: Nuclear Fad or Nuclear Future?

• SMRs: Nuclear Fad or Nuclear Future? - Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Development at Wylfa

• Nuclear future seen from the past.

• FUTURE ENERGY - Fake science & technology - Car Batteries & Electrical storage

• Energy vs Power : RI Christmas Lectures

• Power or Energy, IET Xmas lecture - Fusion Confusion Power or Energy

• Paris bans old polluting diesel cars

• What route for the UK Energy policies after 2019

• Making clean water using solar power

 

• The Paris EPR meeting

• SMR NPP Projects (4 posts)

• SMR NPP Projects - Thorium NPP

 

• by John Gowman on President’s Blog - UK-Israel Innovation Hub Mission On Intelligent Mobility in blogs

• Do You Support Or Oppose The Use Of Nuclear Energy As One Of The Ways To Provide Electricity?

 
Any comments?
Or are you just chasing prestige.
UK Future Power production & distribution is important;  IET = no comments

Andy Millar:

Just to add emphasise to Roy's point, which I have addressed more fully in another thread, it is perfectly legal for UK employers to insist on CEng if they wish - it would be equally legal for them to insist on a GCSE in Classical Civilisations if they wanted (even if it wasn't relevant to the job).


I have never met an employer who does insist on CEng (or GCSE Classical Civilisations), because in practice this limits their field of choice of candidates too much. But if John has found one, then that's up to that employer. If they feel they can find good enough candidates by using this selection critieria that's up to them.


Thanks, Andy

Re: Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists
Posted by Roy Pemberton on Dec 16, 2017 2:07 pm
John Bowman, Firstly, I am FIET but MIET, but that's only a recent change. I'm not sure why you ask the question, but never mind, let me mount my challenge to your post. 
Roy the name is Mr Gowman
ROY
You have made a good argument to defend IET, CENG and Honorary Fellow.
The problem is that CEng is not a legal requirement.

 
CEng, EC UK and UK elitism has had its day. It is a UK pervert, peculiarity like May Day dancing or drinking yards. It is a combination of subjective approval and a set of professional requirements.
There are many CEng that do not meet UK Spec but have powerful employers or friends.
There are three times more good engineers who are UKSpec equivalent and not ECUK CEng registered.

 
If we take all your positive arguments and then call for an independent UK assessor to verify that a Professional Engineer meets the basic Professional Engineer requirements, then we can let PEIs get on with their true task of promoting their technology disciplines.

 
Your personal attack is typical of the PEI hard core – Fellow CEng.
I refused to be a Fellow of this institute just as I stood down to let a woman try her chances as CEO of a founding IET Institute. I was co-editor of our journal, committee member and founder of an Institute that I encouraged to amalgamate to become IET.

 
As for my training & education and qualifications, I was a UK Ministry of Defence apprentice recruited by the most severe UK recruiting and security procedures. Like you, I under took CPD during my career. I had a taught master before a BSc (BA) and ECUK registration. I have two other accredited Masters.
And have been consulted by the heads of Technology research worldwide (and it still continues).

 
Roy you have a good attitude – exploit it to make UK Technology respected , not restrictive and elitist.
This is your challenge:
75% PEs not interested in ECUK PEIS.
10 % of PEs are women.

 
Change the system to register and promote Professional engineers.

 
Your arguments apply to the day of CEng IEng PEI registration only. You are a leading example of how those registrations and experiences can change. They are not valid with todays changing technology after 5 years +/-. Your arguments lead to the requirement of ECUK Spec verification every 5 years just as medical doctors have to justify that they are in touch with modern medcin.

 
If you want a protective club, join the Masons, the golf or sailing club. Professional engineers need to be recognized and registered -  HNC or BSc.
 -PEs need PEIs only to guide them.

 
You have to be thick skinned to do what I have done for the last few years, I have called on my experience and the aid of the top experts to resolve the blocking points in many multi-disciplinary industries, I simply present the facts - Heads have rolled.

 
I have been consulted by the leading R&D organizations and Major Industrialists.
I do not show off with Titles, I have a CV and HNC plus Plus; I also transmit my knowledge and experience and create technology teams of, as you stated, specific experts.
I have posted blogs on IET no one is interested in Technology. They are just interested in prestige, and closed shops of restrictive practices.
Blogs see below

 
You cannot be a Generalist Technologist but after about 30 years you can be a Generalist Technologist Advisor and expert in a few domains, mine are applied to special industries, nuclear and aerospace which use Special Techniques materials, fatigue, cryogenic-UH vacuum, in energy & power development.
I am a trained precision fitter and journeyman indentured to the Minister of Aviation with further experience and education gained mainly in the UK & EU – bilingual as all engineers should be.
Thanks to progress no one will have to follow my path.

 
I find that most of the CEng & Fellows are simply out of touch with reality. Many do not even meet UK Spec.

 
John Gowman
Professional engineering

• IET EngTalks: Future Energy

• Future Energy community

 

• John Gowman on Do You Support Or Oppose The Use Of Nuclear Energy As One Of The Ways To Provide Electricity? in blogs

• SMRs: Nuclear Fad or Nuclear Future?

• SMRs: Nuclear Fad or Nuclear Future? - Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Development at Wylfa

• Nuclear future seen from the past.

• FUTURE ENERGY - Fake science & technology - Car Batteries & Electrical storage

• Energy vs Power : RI Christmas Lectures

• Power or Energy, IET Xmas lecture - Fusion Confusion Power or Energy

• Paris bans old polluting diesel cars

• What route for the UK Energy policies after 2019

• Making clean water using solar power

 

• The Paris EPR meeting

• SMR NPP Projects (4 posts)

• SMR NPP Projects - Thorium NPP

 

• by John Gowman on President’s Blog - UK-Israel Innovation Hub Mission On Intelligent Mobility in blogs

• Do You Support Or Oppose The Use Of Nuclear Energy As One Of The Ways To Provide Electricity?

 
Any comments?
Or are you just chasing prestige.
UK Future Power production & distribution is important;  IET = no comments

Andy Millar:

Just to add emphasise to Roy's point, which I have addressed more fully in another thread, it is perfectly legal for UK employers to insist on CEng if they wish - it would be equally legal for them to insist on a GCSE in Classical Civilisations if they wanted (even if it wasn't relevant to the job).


I have never met an employer who does insist on CEng (or GCSE Classical Civilisations), because in practice this limits their field of choice of candidates too much. But if John has found one, then that's up to that employer. If they feel they can find good enough candidates by using this selection critieria that's up to them.


Thanks, Andy

Re: Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists
Posted by Roy Pemberton on Dec 16, 2017 2:07 pm
John Bowman, Firstly, I am FIET but MIET, but that's only a recent change. I'm not sure why you ask the question, but never mind, let me mount my challenge to your post. 
Roy the name is Mr Gowman
ROY
You have made a good argument to defend IET, CENG and Honorary Fellow.
The problem is that CEng is not a legal requirement.

 
CEng, EC UK and UK elitism has had its day. It is a UK pervert, peculiarity like May Day dancing or drinking yards. It is a combination of subjective approval and a set of professional requirements.
There are many CEng that do not meet UK Spec but have powerful employers or friends.
There are three times more good engineers who are UKSpec equivalent and not ECUK CEng registered.

 
If we take all your positive arguments and then call for an independent UK assessor to verify that a Professional Engineer meets the basic Professional Engineer requirements, then we can let PEIs get on with their true task of promoting their technology disciplines.

 
Your personal attack is typical of the PEI hard core – Fellow CEng.
I refused to be a Fellow of this institute just as I stood down to let a woman try her chances as CEO of a founding IET Institute. I was co-editor of our journal, committee member and founder of an Institute that I encouraged to amalgamate to become IET.

 
As for my training & education and qualifications, I was a UK Ministry of Defence apprentice recruited by the most severe UK recruiting and security procedures. Like you, I under took CPD during my career. I had a taught master before a BSc (BA) and ECUK registration. I have two other accredited Masters.
And have been consulted by the heads of Technology research worldwide (and it still continues).

 
Roy you have a good attitude – exploit it to make UK Technology respected , not restrictive and elitist.
This is your challenge:
75% PEs not interested in ECUK PEIS.
10 % of PEs are women.

 
Change the system to register and promote Professional engineers.

 
Your arguments apply to the day of CEng IEng PEI registration only. You are a leading example of how those registrations and experiences can change. They are not valid with todays changing technology after 5 years +/-. Your arguments lead to the requirement of ECUK Spec verification every 5 years just as medical doctors have to justify that they are in touch with modern medcin.

 
If you want a protective club, join the Masons, the golf or sailing club. Professional engineers need to be recognized and registered -  HNC or BSc.
 -PEs need PEIs only to guide them.

 
You have to be thick skinned to do what I have done for the last few years, I have called on my experience and the aid of the top experts to resolve the blocking points in many multi-disciplinary industries, I simply present the facts - Heads have rolled.

 
I have been consulted by the leading R&D organizations and Major Industrialists.
I do not show off with Titles, I have a CV and HNC plus Plus; I also transmit my knowledge and experience and create technology teams of, as you stated, specific experts.
I have posted blogs on IET no one is interested in Technology. They are just interested in prestige, and closed shops of restrictive practices.
Blogs see below

 
You cannot be a Generalist Technologist but after about 30 years you can be a Generalist Technologist Advisor and expert in a few domains, mine are applied to special industries, nuclear and aerospace which use Special Techniques materials, fatigue, cryogenic-UH vacuum, in energy & power development.
I am a trained precision fitter and journeyman indentured to the Minister of Aviation with further experience and education gained mainly in the UK & EU – bilingual as all engineers should be.
Thanks to progress no one will have to follow my path.

 
I find that most of the CEng & Fellows are simply out of touch with reality. Many do not even meet UK Spec.

 
John Gowman
Professional engineering

• IET EngTalks: Future Energy

• Future Energy community

 

• John Gowman on Do You Support Or Oppose The Use Of Nuclear Energy As One Of The Ways To Provide Electricity? in blogs

• SMRs: Nuclear Fad or Nuclear Future?

• SMRs: Nuclear Fad or Nuclear Future? - Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Development at Wylfa

• Nuclear future seen from the past.

• FUTURE ENERGY - Fake science & technology - Car Batteries & Electrical storage

• Energy vs Power : RI Christmas Lectures

• Power or Energy, IET Xmas lecture - Fusion Confusion Power or Energy

• Paris bans old polluting diesel cars

• What route for the UK Energy policies after 2019

• Making clean water using solar power

 

• The Paris EPR meeting

• SMR NPP Projects (4 posts)

• SMR NPP Projects - Thorium NPP

 

• by John Gowman on President’s Blog - UK-Israel Innovation Hub Mission On Intelligent Mobility in blogs

• Do You Support Or Oppose The Use Of Nuclear Energy As One Of The Ways To Provide Electricity?

 
Any comments?
Or are you just chasing prestige.
UK Future Power production & distribution is important;  IET = no comments

Andy Millar:

Just to add emphasise to Roy's point, which I have addressed more fully in another thread, it is perfectly legal for UK employers to insist on CEng if they wish - it would be equally legal for them to insist on a GCSE in Classical Civilisations if they wanted (even if it wasn't relevant to the job).


I have never met an employer who does insist on CEng (or GCSE Classical Civilisations), because in practice this limits their field of choice of candidates too much. But if John has found one, then that's up to that employer. If they feel they can find good enough candidates by using this selection critieria that's up to them.


Thanks, Andy

Re: Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists
Posted by Roy Pemberton on Dec 16, 2017 2:07 pm
John Bowman, Firstly, I am FIET but MIET, but that's only a recent change. I'm not sure why you ask the question, but never mind, let me mount my challenge to your post. 
Roy the name is Mr Gowman
ROY
You have made a good argument to defend IET, CENG and Honorary Fellow.
The problem is that CEng is not a legal requirement.

 
CEng, EC UK and UK elitism has had its day. It is a UK pervert, peculiarity like May Day dancing or drinking yards. It is a combination of subjective approval and a set of professional requirements.
There are many CEng that do not meet UK Spec but have powerful employers or friends.
There are three times more good engineers who are UKSpec equivalent and not ECUK CEng registered.

 
If we take all your positive arguments and then call for an independent UK assessor to verify that a Professional Engineer meets the basic Professional Engineer requirements, then we can let PEIs get on with their true task of promoting their technology disciplines.

 
Your personal attack is typical of the PEI hard core – Fellow CEng.
I refused to be a Fellow of this institute just as I stood down to let a woman try her chances as CEO of a founding IET Institute. I was co-editor of our journal, committee member and founder of an Institute that I encouraged to amalgamate to become IET.

 
As for my training & education and qualifications, I was a UK Ministry of Defence apprentice recruited by the most severe UK recruiting and security procedures. Like you, I under took CPD during my career. I had a taught master before a BSc (BA) and ECUK registration. I have two other accredited Masters.
And have been consulted by the heads of Technology research worldwide (and it still continues).

 
Roy you have a good attitude – exploit it to make UK Technology respected , not restrictive and elitist.
This is your challenge:
75% PEs not interested in ECUK PEIS.
10 % of PEs are women.

 
Change the system to register and promote Professional engineers.

 
Your arguments apply to the day of CEng IEng PEI registration only. You are a leading example of how those registrations and experiences can change. They are not valid with todays changing technology after 5 years +/-. Your arguments lead to the requirement of ECUK Spec verification every 5 years just as medical doctors have to justify that they are in touch with modern medcin.

 
If you want a protective club, join the Masons, the golf or sailing club. Professional engineers need to be recognized and registered -  HNC or BSc.
 -PEs need PEIs only to guide them.

 
You have to be thick skinned to do what I have done for the last few years, I have called on my experience and the aid of the top experts to resolve the blocking points in many multi-disciplinary industries, I simply present the facts - Heads have rolled.

 
I have been consulted by the leading R&D organizations and Major Industrialists.
I do not show off with Titles, I have a CV and HNC plus Plus; I also transmit my knowledge and experience and create technology teams of, as you stated, specific experts.
I have posted blogs on IET no one is interested in Technology. They are just interested in prestige, and closed shops of restrictive practices.
Blogs see below

 
You cannot be a Generalist Technologist but after about 30 years you can be a Generalist Technologist Advisor and expert in a few domains, mine are applied to special industries, nuclear and aerospace which use Special Techniques materials, fatigue, cryogenic-UH vacuum, in energy & power development.
I am a trained precision fitter and journeyman indentured to the Minister of Aviation with further experience and education gained mainly in the UK & EU – bilingual as all engineers should be.
Thanks to progress no one will have to follow my path.

 
I find that most of the CEng & Fellows are simply out of touch with reality. Many do not even meet UK Spec.

 
John Gowman
Professional engineering

• IET EngTalks: Future Energy

• Future Energy community

 

• John Gowman on Do You Support Or Oppose The Use Of Nuclear Energy As One Of The Ways To Provide Electricity? in blogs

• SMRs: Nuclear Fad or Nuclear Future?

• SMRs: Nuclear Fad or Nuclear Future? - Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Development at Wylfa

• Nuclear future seen from the past.

• FUTURE ENERGY - Fake science & technology - Car Batteries & Electrical storage

• Energy vs Power : RI Christmas Lectures

• Power or Energy, IET Xmas lecture - Fusion Confusion Power or Energy

• Paris bans old polluting diesel cars

• What route for the UK Energy policies after 2019

• Making clean water using solar power

 

• The Paris EPR meeting

• SMR NPP Projects (4 posts)

• SMR NPP Projects - Thorium NPP

 

• by John Gowman on President’s Blog - UK-Israel Innovation Hub Mission On Intelligent Mobility in blogs

• Do You Support Or Oppose The Use Of Nuclear Energy As One Of The Ways To Provide Electricity?

 
Any comments?
Or are you just chasing prestige.
UK Future Power production & distribution is important;  IET = no comments

Andy,

I don't want to argue with you on this as you probably know the legal status better than I do. You will notice that I prefaced it with "I was told", which means it was our HR Departments interpretation of the law, and as they seemed to be paranoid regarding tribunals (having fallen foul of them a number of times previously) they were probably being overcautious. However I felt that whatever the legal requirement, only asking for things that could be justified for the position advertised is a very good attitude to take. This attitude also aligns with John's comments that it is the person who is important, not the title, which I fully support. I have met too many excellent engineers who are not CEng for one reason or another to believe that limiting a recruitment pool to CEng is worthwhile, and I suspect you will agree with me on this.

All the best,

Alasdair

Hi Alasdair,

Absolutely! (on all points )


What tends to happen is that HR departments will put this out as an edict as, frankly, it is dangerous for most managers to make these sort of decisions themselves as it is very easy to get it wrong - it's not just first order effects but also second and third order implications. It's an identical situation to Health and Safety, you and I know well that mostly when people say "you can't do that because of H&S law" what they actually mean is "you can't do that because our internal guidelines as to how we show compliance to H&S law say you can't". If a manager does show proactively that they have considered discrimination then if it does go to tribunal it will certainly be much easier for all concerned, so it's a good thing to do, just not a legal requirment.


Apologies, I meant to put into my first post that I know the very good reasons you were advised of this, but sent it quickly (hence also spelling mistake )  due to this wretched work stuff


Cheers, Andy

P.S. The reason I get a bit pedantic about issues like this is because it's very common for laws to be criticised as over-bureaucratic (again H&S law is an excellent example) when actually it's organisations over-simplification of those laws - and often sheer blind panic - that is getting in the way. So I think it's good to encourage people to go back to the source legislation whenever something seems daft (or just, as in this case, potentially over-bureaucratic) - it's very rarely the law itself that's daft, although it is often too imprecise and open to interpretation.  If only major tabloid newspapers would do the same...


I think if I hadn't taken up engineering I might have taken up law - I suppose that's how I ended up doing what I'm doing - although I don't think I could have coped with cases that were legally right but - to me - morally wrong (or vice versa). Good example here - all of my comments above relate to what employers do and don't have to do, not what I think they should do!


Sorry, off topic again...tea break over 

It seems that we are merely conducting an argument around whether or not the current system has “failed”.  As is so often the case with such arguments it depends on where you stand.  Those who have found it useful support it ( recognising that problems exist) whilst others have much more negative experiences and demand change. Meanwhile the majority of practitioners of engineering and technology take little interest.  

 

A system of professional recognition exists, which in the UK includes a voluntary register governed by Engineering Council as the “Parliament” of Professional Engineering Institutions.  Other main influential bodies include the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Engineering Professors Council et al. To my knowledge (I’m happy to stand corrected) there is one Incorporated Engineer and no Engineering Technicians directly involved in governing any of this. It is presumed by such organisations that a person who has not attained Chartered Engineer is not a “full member” of the profession. However, subsidiary registrations are offered in the categories of Incorporated and Technician. The categories could be characterised as “Gold, Silver and Bronze”. Engineering Council itself describes recognition as a Chartered Engineer as offering “the status of being part of a technological elite”.  

 

The UK-SPEC standard is a consensus based on the cumulative efforts of many, to discriminate between three generic types of practitioner.  This standard added an important dimension to the previous UK practice, still widely used internationally, of discriminating mainly on the basis of academic qualifications, sometimes supplemented  by other examinations.

 

Good quality argument has been offered about how a distinction can be drawn between the two types of engineer described by UK-SPEC and justifications made for the IETs approach to implementing this. I don’t disagree, except to observe that across the great variety of engineering the overlap is huge (see earlier continuum).  If the division was value neutral and merely helped to signpost an engineer’s optimisation for different types of activity (such as R&D v production management) then only minor harm could occur.  Unfortunately this isn’t the case, since one category is held to be significantly inferior than the other.

 

Clearly the world of employment is enormously varied and it would be impractical to generalise too much.  Many employers hold professional titles to have little value, for various reasons. Of those who do value them, some may consider them to be an externally validated competency benchmark, but this is usually only assessed once (on average 30+ years ago for incumbent engineer registrants).  The threshold for recognition also appears to have changed over time, with masters degrees and  “creativity and innovation” appearing more recently on the registration landscape. 

 

It seems to me that on the whole employers are looking for professional engineers of “graduate standard” with a range of other attributes. Few employers seeking to employ and/or develop Chartered Engineers have much interest in the current criteria used to divide CEng and IEng. Many have no significant understanding and merely expect CEng to represent a “terminal standard” achieved from  8-10 years into career.

 

Our efforts and this discussion are focussed in the wrong place to achieve what should be our primary objective. Simply put, this is to nurture the knowledge skills and commitment of our members. Recognition in the form of registration is an important element including an obligation of ongoing mutual engagement and support.

 

My proposal is that graduate level (including by work-based learning) practitioners of engineering and technology with relevant achievement and commitment should be recognised as Professional Engineers. Professional Technicians applying a more practical approach are an equally valuable part of the engineering community.  In each case a period of monitored development (say 5 years) should allow for enhanced recognition as a Chartered Engineer or “Master Technician” (TBC). Transfer between the two should be possible , but not presumed to be desirable, or only in one direction. There would still be some overlap in practice between Technician and Engineer, but this would be easier to codify, including by graduate level attributes.            

 

This places our primary focus where it should properly be, at the threshold of professional recognition not dividing “the elite” from “the rest”. I don’t think that we can change for cultural reasons without fresh strategic vision and action.  What I’m suggesting wouldn’t lower our standards, it would raise them overall. However, we are so deeply wedded to rationing our chartered title that we can’t see the space beyond it where most engineers should still be “progressing” in different, but equally valid ways depending on opportunities.

Mr. Gowman,
First of all, apologies for the single letter typo in my post of your name. I will notice that my post was riddled with typos, my phone really does have a mind of its own! If you look closer, you will also see my sweeping apology for the typos across all of my posts - interestingly, I definitely typed your name correctly when I started this reply, yet I just scrolled back to the top only to notice that it had been changed to Bowman once again. Wouldn't that have been adding insult to injury!
It's easily explained - I do have a contact named Bowman with whom I correspond, so my predictive text assumes that's what I indeed to type.
Far me importantly, though, the reason I'm responding is that I'm somewhat stunned. I would love to hear what part of my post you felt was a personal attack. Telling someone that you have an issue with their viewpoint, or what they've said, as contrasted with an attack on their person or personal attributes is most definitely not a personal attack. Had I called you an idiot, or a bigot or any other attack on who or what you are or your personal attributes, then that would be a personal attack. I find this ironic when your reply, if not an actual personal attack as I've just defined it, goes considerably closer to being one than anything that I posted, with comments about PEI hardcore and suggestions of elitism, and of "everyone" (whether literally everyone in the institute or the Fellows that you appear to have such an issue with - either way, it appears to include me) being only interested in prestige and closed shops of restrictive practice. As an interviewer (albeit a new one) for registration, and in the knowledge of the rigorous standards applied to interviewers and assessors, I find it quite offensive that you suggest that it is possible to become registered, despite not meeting UKSPEC, as a result of influence by powerful employers or friends. You don't know what motivated me to become an interviewer. I do, and it was definitely not prestige, protectionism, restriction or closed shop - quite the reverse, it was to "pay back" to my profession and to encourage and help a broader base of PEs to pursue registration.
Do I understand from your declaration of your training and education that you felt I was suggesting you were deficient in some way? Not so - how would I have known? I only commented, in reaction to your comments about training and education requirements, that if this were an area of concern, you could rest assured that the process attempts to provide every opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and understanding (which is the actual requirement, formal education being only one way to attain it) by diverse means that opens up the path to registration to all regardless of the route taken. I would have hoped this would be a goal you would endorse as it addresses the very issues that you espouse of making it more relevant. Can we not try to improve the process and by so doing make it more relevant and accessible, rather than simply throw it out? It's why I and others such as Andy and the other Roy are taking the time and trouble to post on here - after all, if we were only interested in prestige, protection and closed shop restrictions, wouldn't we just sit back on our laurels and think "we've already made it, why should we care"?
PS, though I don't propose to enter into a training and education measuring competition, I'll just say - quad-lingual if that's the right term for it! :) Please take that in the spirit of friendly joke it's intended to be!