Only Ties?

Well put Andy!

 

It reminds me so much of sibling rivalry in families, which needs a strong parent with equal love for all to reduce.

 

What I don’t want to do, is pass some kind of historic “grudge” down the generations, especially as I think the IEng standard is a fair representation of where I was thirty years ago when I registered. I progressed plenty after that, but only modestly in a technical direction and at that time without the right degree, forget it! When asked circa 2011, I was very willing to be an “IEng Champion”, but Engineering Council having encouraged holders to take pride in the category, downgraded it. This caused damage to some senior IEng, who were just told  “upgrade if you don’t like it”. This is the nature of politics and perhaps “betrayal” is too emotive a word, but significant reform would be the price of my future personal support. I have set out that argument in other threads.     

 

The two categories of Engineer have always overlapped in practice, especially in management and there are numerous either unregistered or lapsed directors and senior managers from an IEng type pathway.  Unfortunately the dominant sibling felt threatened that another was to be “equally valued” and when the opportunity presented, persuaded a weak and ineffective parent to love them the most.  

 

I would much prefer as you are trying to do, to conduct an adult discussion about our role in nurturing the huge variety of differently optimised types of Engineering and Technology professionals. I think that we are doing some good, but that we could potentially add a lot more value and perhaps even collectively gain more of the status that so many crave. To do this we need strong “parental love” (aka strategic leadership) to reduce “childish” sibling rivalry. I don’t mean just bureaucratic tinkering which has little to do with leadership.    

 

The solution isn’t as some have advocated to “let the school decide”, this is a cop out for those that don’t have families and just perpetuates the artificial snobberies endemic in that environment. Another solution proposed is to persuade the law to get involved in the family squabble “on safety grounds”  https://sites.google.com/site/ryoichihoriguchi/home/occupational_fatality_by_county .

 

Alastair your point is also very well made.

 

I’m delighted to acknowledge expertise and achievement in its many forms. I want to strengthen Chartered Engineer and enhance the status that it affords. Unfortunately the 20^th Century approach hasn’t achieved this. Apparent snobbery and hubris only produces an equal and opposite reaction.  The result is that arguably (and hypothetically), amongst those who would consider themselves professional engineers; perhaps a quarter engage with our proposition, a quarter are vaguely interested, a quarter actively negative and a quarter unaware This does not necessarily correlate with performance;  I recall a Professor of Engineering explaining to me why he wouldn’t affiliate and a Director of Engineering scornful of the idea that registration might indicate competence.

 

Nearly twenty five years ago, I recommended to my (major) employer, that we should be very careful how we engaged with a leading PEI that I had visited. This was because we were trying to develop an inclusive, flexible and performance based culture for our Engineers and Technicians, which was the opposite of the petty snobbery that I found. Subsequently it seemed that the academics took control, with academic inflation rationing CEng for a supposed “intellectual elite” which many CEng themselves opposed. Eventually we gained UK-SPEC which I think we agree is a reasonably good basis to codify three generic types of professional practice. However, we also lost the IIE which was a large influential institution and with it the distinctive IEng proposition, which was losing its original rationale anyway and couldn’t clearly establish a new one.      

 

I actually want Chartered members to be proud of their achievement and not to be unfairly accused of snobbery for it. However, their pride should be based on performance not relative status with respect to other professionals. They can be proud of engaging actively with their professional body, seeking feedback via professional review, contributing to the professionalism of others, or nurturing up and coming professionals. Most of all they can help to convey an inviting message to non-engaged practitioners and wider society about how engineering adds value, including by enabling social mobility as one of the most open and meritocratic professions. Without this “Engineering a Better World” is something of an empty slogan.    

 

Perhaps Neck Ties will return to the height of fashion in a few years and perhaps women will start wearing them?  In the meantime can we offer something that allows members to easily signify their affiliation, such as a lapel pin (issued not sold). Also affiliation is not a simple transaction, it is a symbolic commitment to certain values and standards. The values and standards can equally be held by an Apprentice or PhD qualified Chartered Engineer and mutual respect can be built. It is only quite recently that an Apprentice would even be welcome without claiming to be a “Student” or else be directed to the “Tradesmen’s Entrance”. A particular “red rag” to me, is Higher or Degree Apprentices being presumed “inferior” to an undergraduate student, especially when they can demonstrate superior workplace performance. There seems to be blip in the government’s efforts to increase apprenticeships. This is something the really matters if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Well put Andy!

 

It reminds me so much of sibling rivalry in families, which needs a strong parent with equal love for all to reduce.

 

What I don’t want to do, is pass some kind of historic “grudge” down the generations, especially as I think the IEng standard is a fair representation of where I was thirty years ago when I registered. I progressed plenty after that, but only modestly in a technical direction and at that time without the right degree, forget it! When asked circa 2011, I was very willing to be an “IEng Champion”, but Engineering Council having encouraged holders to take pride in the category, downgraded it. This caused damage to some senior IEng, who were just told  “upgrade if you don’t like it”. This is the nature of politics and perhaps “betrayal” is too emotive a word, but significant reform would be the price of my future personal support. I have set out that argument in other threads.     

 

The two categories of Engineer have always overlapped in practice, especially in management and there are numerous either unregistered or lapsed directors and senior managers from an IEng type pathway.  Unfortunately the dominant sibling felt threatened that another was to be “equally valued” and when the opportunity presented, persuaded a weak and ineffective parent to love them the most.  

 

I would much prefer as you are trying to do, to conduct an adult discussion about our role in nurturing the huge variety of differently optimised types of Engineering and Technology professionals. I think that we are doing some good, but that we could potentially add a lot more value and perhaps even collectively gain more of the status that so many crave. To do this we need strong “parental love” (aka strategic leadership) to reduce “childish” sibling rivalry. I don’t mean just bureaucratic tinkering which has little to do with leadership.    

 

The solution isn’t as some have advocated to “let the school decide”, this is a cop out for those that don’t have families and just perpetuates the artificial snobberies endemic in that environment. Another solution proposed is to persuade the law to get involved in the family squabble “on safety grounds”  https://sites.google.com/site/ryoichihoriguchi/home/occupational_fatality_by_county .

 

Alastair your point is also very well made.

 

I’m delighted to acknowledge expertise and achievement in its many forms. I want to strengthen Chartered Engineer and enhance the status that it affords. Unfortunately the 20^th Century approach hasn’t achieved this. Apparent snobbery and hubris only produces an equal and opposite reaction.  The result is that arguably (and hypothetically), amongst those who would consider themselves professional engineers; perhaps a quarter engage with our proposition, a quarter are vaguely interested, a quarter actively negative and a quarter unaware This does not necessarily correlate with performance;  I recall a Professor of Engineering explaining to me why he wouldn’t affiliate and a Director of Engineering scornful of the idea that registration might indicate competence.

 

Nearly twenty five years ago, I recommended to my (major) employer, that we should be very careful how we engaged with a leading PEI that I had visited. This was because we were trying to develop an inclusive, flexible and performance based culture for our Engineers and Technicians, which was the opposite of the petty snobbery that I found. Subsequently it seemed that the academics took control, with academic inflation rationing CEng for a supposed “intellectual elite” which many CEng themselves opposed. Eventually we gained UK-SPEC which I think we agree is a reasonably good basis to codify three generic types of professional practice. However, we also lost the IIE which was a large influential institution and with it the distinctive IEng proposition, which was losing its original rationale anyway and couldn’t clearly establish a new one.      

 

I actually want Chartered members to be proud of their achievement and not to be unfairly accused of snobbery for it. However, their pride should be based on performance not relative status with respect to other professionals. They can be proud of engaging actively with their professional body, seeking feedback via professional review, contributing to the professionalism of others, or nurturing up and coming professionals. Most of all they can help to convey an inviting message to non-engaged practitioners and wider society about how engineering adds value, including by enabling social mobility as one of the most open and meritocratic professions. Without this “Engineering a Better World” is something of an empty slogan.    

 

Perhaps Neck Ties will return to the height of fashion in a few years and perhaps women will start wearing them?  In the meantime can we offer something that allows members to easily signify their affiliation, such as a lapel pin (issued not sold). Also affiliation is not a simple transaction, it is a symbolic commitment to certain values and standards. The values and standards can equally be held by an Apprentice or PhD qualified Chartered Engineer and mutual respect can be built. It is only quite recently that an Apprentice would even be welcome without claiming to be a “Student” or else be directed to the “Tradesmen’s Entrance”. A particular “red rag” to me, is Higher or Degree Apprentices being presumed “inferior” to an undergraduate student, especially when they can demonstrate superior workplace performance. There seems to be blip in the government’s efforts to increase apprenticeships. This is something the really matters if we are to avoid the mistakes of the past.