I’m unclear about what Engineering Council's policy is about making the annual registration statistics report available. I’m assuming from the comments that people have credentials to view via the “Partner Portal”. Having received the newsletter, I was unable to use my previous “extranet” credentials, so a colleague looked for me. The attempt was unsuccessful, but another colleague was able to locate and download the report, so it is there somewhere.  

 

I haven’t had chance to review it in detail, but would of course be happy to participate in any discussion around it. There have been some changes in the way the report has been presented this year, with one change to section 10 in particular causing me concern.

 

I have always found the age cohort by registration category information interesting but this has been replaced with a pie chart of aggregated data for all registration categories. There is substantial attention on the way in which different genders engage with registration. However, ages of joining the register are simply averaged, with age cohort data only used to illuminate “losses” not “gains”.  For example if I examine the previous (2016) report the mode average age of a new Eng Tech registrant is circa 23 with a long tail of more modest levels of fresh engagement by those in later in career, which makes the “average” age of a newly registered technician around 10 years older. This data isn't in the 2017 report. On a similar basis the “average” age of a new male CEng is 37, with female 34. However, age cohort data (gender combined) from 2016 suggests a mode around 28, with 27 occurring as frequently as 37 and a strong stream from around 25-26 in line with long-established patterns of graduate engineer training.  The size of sample being used for gender comparison in the IEng and Eng Tech categories would also be a concern, since according to the 2016 report the numbers of female Eng Tech & IEng registrants combined are circa 0.5% of the total.

 

There have been several changes of in each year’s report recently. I would be interested in others views about such choices. I wouldn’t argue for no changes, but as we know statistics can be deployed  to illuminate or cast shadows and to support or oppose different propositions.  The "headline" story of an increases in Eng Tech registrations is pleasing, but I would like to understand more fully , the demographics involved. Are more apprenticeships actually the cause?

I’m unclear about what Engineering Council's policy is about making the annual registration statistics report available. I’m assuming from the comments that people have credentials to view via the “Partner Portal”. Having received the newsletter, I was unable to use my previous “extranet” credentials, so a colleague looked for me. The attempt was unsuccessful, but another colleague was able to locate and download the report, so it is there somewhere.  

 

I haven’t had chance to review it in detail, but would of course be happy to participate in any discussion around it. There have been some changes in the way the report has been presented this year, with one change to section 10 in particular causing me concern.

 

I have always found the age cohort by registration category information interesting but this has been replaced with a pie chart of aggregated data for all registration categories. There is substantial attention on the way in which different genders engage with registration. However, ages of joining the register are simply averaged, with age cohort data only used to illuminate “losses” not “gains”.  For example if I examine the previous (2016) report the mode average age of a new Eng Tech registrant is circa 23 with a long tail of more modest levels of fresh engagement by those in later in career, which makes the “average” age of a newly registered technician around 10 years older. This data isn't in the 2017 report. On a similar basis the “average” age of a new male CEng is 37, with female 34. However, age cohort data (gender combined) from 2016 suggests a mode around 28, with 27 occurring as frequently as 37 and a strong stream from around 25-26 in line with long-established patterns of graduate engineer training.  The size of sample being used for gender comparison in the IEng and Eng Tech categories would also be a concern, since according to the 2016 report the numbers of female Eng Tech & IEng registrants combined are circa 0.5% of the total.

 

There have been several changes of in each year’s report recently. I would be interested in others views about such choices. I wouldn’t argue for no changes, but as we know statistics can be deployed  to illuminate or cast shadows and to support or oppose different propositions.  The "headline" story of an increases in Eng Tech registrations is pleasing, but I would like to understand more fully , the demographics involved. Are more apprenticeships actually the cause?