Is it possible to remain a CEng if IET membership is ended?

Nicholas’s excellent response to my earlier post reminds me of what we potentially lose, which is “the long view”.

 

Perhaps an idea would be to require at least a nominal payment to maintain the spirit of the rules, but a “pay what you can afford” option? 

 

The comments illustrate how academic inflation excluded many otherwise competent professionals from CEng and led to the creation of Tech Eng/IEng as an option for them. Much earlier in my career, I worked for an HNC qualified CEng, later taking his equivalent job at another location. UK-SPEC and IET efforts to value work-based learning more fairly have opened the door again for some in mid-career, but for around thirty years, it was very difficult to gain Chartered recognition if you hadn’t got “the right degree” (usually as a teenage undergraduate student, but some part-time courses gradually emerged). Some of the negativity found in these forums comes from those who feel that “the ladder was pulled up”, although I accept that some may just be motivated by jealousy or reverse snobbery.  

 

Nicholas, I created a false dichotomy by implying that satisfying your request somehow had to compete with gaining younger registrants, it doesn’t! This “compare and contrast” is I think part of the problem. So often it seems that we can only offer a positive message about what we do by setting up a negative “Aunt Sally”.  A recent example comes to mind where a positive message that engineering can be conducted intellectually, in clean and safe environments by women as well as men , also contained a negative contrast with work requiring hard hats, perhaps carried out in more challenging conditions, sometimes even heaven forbid involving “oily rags”.  If it isn’t that then it’s the “Service Engineer” (possibly Eng Tech) or general repair person who gets disparaged.  Sadly, although not openly prevalent in the IET, even the professional IEng is used as an “Aunt Sally” or inferior pejorative by many in the CEng community.

 

Perhaps highly educated Engineers have been dealt a rather unfortunate hand, in that so many others can colloquially style themselves “engineers”.  There is no substantial confusion and sadly the snobbery is a sign of insecurity or weakness. I was talking to an American friend the other day who observed “you Brits seem to have mastered the art of winding-up and putting-down the other guy”.

 

Wouldn’t it be nice if those who had trained to become Engineers and Technicians (including formal study) could feel comfortable and take pride in “our” collective contribution to society, which has been and remains immense? Instead for example, I got a letter from a recently retired IEng who described how he was made very unwelcome ("black-balled") when a friend invited him to a Retired Chartered Engineer’s Luncheon Club.  Sadly it seems that he might have received very similar treatment at the hands of those who claim leadership of “professional engineering”. An unfortunate consequence of giving up CEng, or having never attained it (even if otherwise distinguished), is effectively to exclude yourself from “leadership” opportunities.      

 

Perhaps some of those with “the longer view” can help to develop a fresh (or refreshed) strategic leadership vision for engineering that is, modern, inclusive, attractive, representative and overwhelmingly positive. There are many examples of highly effective leadership from those beyond nominal “retirement” age in the wider world. I’m unclear if the Uff report which seemed to support some of the things I’m saying, will spark some useful progress?       

 

To return to Nicholas’s proposition, at the very least I think we (The IET) owe an explanation of “why not” if the issue has been considered. I take time to contribute in these forums to explain and also sometimes to “stick my neck out” with an alternative view. To return to my theme of a newer generation, deference is much less than it used to be and people can contribute ideas without standing for election to a committee or getting up a special petition. In my opinion this is ultimately a good thing which should be nurtured.  

 

As for the badge mentioned by Andy, I haven’t seen it yet, but in my "best effort” Yorkshire accent (enhanced slightly by one time residence in and a long connection with “God’s own county”)  “get down Shep!”.

 

Nicholas’s excellent response to my earlier post reminds me of what we potentially lose, which is “the long view”.

 

Perhaps an idea would be to require at least a nominal payment to maintain the spirit of the rules, but a “pay what you can afford” option? 

 

The comments illustrate how academic inflation excluded many otherwise competent professionals from CEng and led to the creation of Tech Eng/IEng as an option for them. Much earlier in my career, I worked for an HNC qualified CEng, later taking his equivalent job at another location. UK-SPEC and IET efforts to value work-based learning more fairly have opened the door again for some in mid-career, but for around thirty years, it was very difficult to gain Chartered recognition if you hadn’t got “the right degree” (usually as a teenage undergraduate student, but some part-time courses gradually emerged). Some of the negativity found in these forums comes from those who feel that “the ladder was pulled up”, although I accept that some may just be motivated by jealousy or reverse snobbery.  

 

Nicholas, I created a false dichotomy by implying that satisfying your request somehow had to compete with gaining younger registrants, it doesn’t! This “compare and contrast” is I think part of the problem. So often it seems that we can only offer a positive message about what we do by setting up a negative “Aunt Sally”.  A recent example comes to mind where a positive message that engineering can be conducted intellectually, in clean and safe environments by women as well as men , also contained a negative contrast with work requiring hard hats, perhaps carried out in more challenging conditions, sometimes even heaven forbid involving “oily rags”.  If it isn’t that then it’s the “Service Engineer” (possibly Eng Tech) or general repair person who gets disparaged.  Sadly, although not openly prevalent in the IET, even the professional IEng is used as an “Aunt Sally” or inferior pejorative by many in the CEng community.

 

Perhaps highly educated Engineers have been dealt a rather unfortunate hand, in that so many others can colloquially style themselves “engineers”.  There is no substantial confusion and sadly the snobbery is a sign of insecurity or weakness. I was talking to an American friend the other day who observed “you Brits seem to have mastered the art of winding-up and putting-down the other guy”.

 

Wouldn’t it be nice if those who had trained to become Engineers and Technicians (including formal study) could feel comfortable and take pride in “our” collective contribution to society, which has been and remains immense? Instead for example, I got a letter from a recently retired IEng who described how he was made very unwelcome ("black-balled") when a friend invited him to a Retired Chartered Engineer’s Luncheon Club.  Sadly it seems that he might have received very similar treatment at the hands of those who claim leadership of “professional engineering”. An unfortunate consequence of giving up CEng, or having never attained it (even if otherwise distinguished), is effectively to exclude yourself from “leadership” opportunities.      

 

Perhaps some of those with “the longer view” can help to develop a fresh (or refreshed) strategic leadership vision for engineering that is, modern, inclusive, attractive, representative and overwhelmingly positive. There are many examples of highly effective leadership from those beyond nominal “retirement” age in the wider world. I’m unclear if the Uff report which seemed to support some of the things I’m saying, will spark some useful progress?       

 

To return to Nicholas’s proposition, at the very least I think we (The IET) owe an explanation of “why not” if the issue has been considered. I take time to contribute in these forums to explain and also sometimes to “stick my neck out” with an alternative view. To return to my theme of a newer generation, deference is much less than it used to be and people can contribute ideas without standing for election to a committee or getting up a special petition. In my opinion this is ultimately a good thing which should be nurtured.  

 

As for the badge mentioned by Andy, I haven’t seen it yet, but in my "best effort” Yorkshire accent (enhanced slightly by one time residence in and a long connection with “God’s own county”)  “get down Shep!”.