Only Ties?

Hi all - really interesting discussion!  Thank you for all the comments and feedback.  I will be passing the ideas of lapel pins and lanyards on to our marketing team to consider implementing in line with the IET-wide brand review that is due to happen later this year! 


thanks,

Rebecca

Hi Roy,

I was having a good day until I read that (having just managed to submit an IET conference paper a whole 5 minutes before the deadline!)

I get very, very,very frustrated about the huge amount of snobbery within our profession - in all directions, inverted, verted, sideways. (Throughout my career - including to the present day - I've been critcised for being too theoretical, too practical, too buried in the detail, too high level, too pedantic, too "charging in like a bull in a china shop" *, too much like a manager rather than an engineer, too much like an engineer rather than a manager, too nice, and too uncaring of people. Which I guess must mean I've got it about right ) It is BONKERS that engineers have so little respect for other engineers. Engineers often claim that "the profession is not respected", well we could start by working harder to respect each other. Mini rant over (bit more than a micro rant this time!)


So yes, I do understand your point of view, however I still stick to my view that IEng is a useful and valuable designation and I'd like to see people being pleased to show it - but as we've all discussed to death elsewhere on these pages that's an uphill battle.


Time for bed...


Cheers,


Andy


* That's a quote from input someone provided to my first ever appraisal in 1984. The very wise manager who gave me that apprasial said, and this has always stuck with me, "I think sometimes these comments reflect more on the people who made them than they do on you".

Roy and Andy,

Unfortunately I think you have the situation completely right (that is to say, the situation is unfortunate, not the fact that you have it right).

I often feel that my work represents a mixture of IEng and CEng and couldn't be completed without both aspects playing their part. I have always valued those who are IEng and consider registration to be registration regardless of 'level'. I think the most important knowledge anyone needs is to know your own limitations, and I have met many CEng who have not gained this understanding, which seems to be more prevalent among IEng registrants.

Getting back to the subject, I note Roy's point about IEng (or even EngTech) perhaps being reluctant to allow CEng registrants to feel superior and perhaps the answer is to have one tie for IET Registered Engineers (whether CEng, IEng or EngTech), with possibly a second one for Fellows (which is independent of the level of registration, but shows additional commitment to the industry). This would start to show that within the IET at least all levels of registration are equally valued.

Alasdair

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.

Just looked at the IMECHE - they offer a large range of mechandise...


''There are standard items like pens, pencils and rulers for use on school visits and other events, as well as gift items including cufflinks, tankards, lapel badges and whisky tumblers. Clothing items include Member and Fellow ties, fleeces, polo shirts and ladies’ scarves.''

http://www.imeche.org/exclusive-member-offers/imeche-merchandise-store?rURL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.imeche.org%2fmy-account%2fmerchandise


As a Mechanical Design Engineer I (sadly) occasionally feel that I am in the wrong institution! And now I see that the IMECHE specificaly lists items for ladies and so are more inclusive I really begin to wonder if I should swop!


Just registered on the IMECHE website (you dont have to be a member to do this) and their merchandise is easy to find off the account page!

They have lovely umbrellas, card cases, ties, pens, torches, pin badges, etc. but I cant find the promised ladies scarfs!

Hi Grace Munday‍ 


My colleague Rebecca Vohra in our Membership dept is monitoring this thread and will take any suggestions to our Marketing team. 


Lisa