You don't need practical skills to be an engineer

Andy, thanks for picking up on some of my reflections with some excellent thoughts of your own. I didn’t share my own story for the self-indulgence of “everyone’s favourite story –themselves” but to create debate.

 

Readers can form a judgment about my career story, during which I didn’t meet the requirements of CEng at any time. Some would probably opine that I'm not a "proper engineer" but a Technician with added management or an "associate professional". That's fine, but fortunately, I have some other achievements to counterbalance any negativity that this might imply. Others who have continued to work as “engineers” may feel diminished and insulted by such a judgment. Their sense of grievance being stoked by the large numbers of CEng registrants who retain the designation as an "honour" often based on meeting academic+experience requirements of decades ago. Those who have been evaluated against UK-SPEC are actually a small minority. I see no benefit in taking CEng off anyone except for malpractice, but PEI "supervision" of registrants (such as voluntary supportive review) has historically been virtually nil.

 

When the IET came into being, it chose an "inclusive" approach to membership, IMechE and ICE have eventually followed a similar path. However, other influential PEI constituents of Engineering Council want to maintain a much more "exclusive" model, intended to promote Chartered Engineers as being a "superior highly intellectual elite". I can empathise with that position, since most have studied hard, developed to a high standard, been sold “superior status”and are naturally resistant to diluting it. A significant proportion of our own members may feel similarly, but have accepted that suitably competent people should be registered as CEng using UK-SPEC.

 

My main concern is what proposition are we offering to those who develop "engineering" careers. Arguably, to all of those except entrants to CEng accredited (Washington Accord type) Degrees it is a confused, inconsistent, potentially unfair and often partly negative one.

 

The IET and some other PEIs have begun to offer more support to Apprentices or Undergraduates studying "different but equally valuable" (according QAA at least) types of technical degrees. Unfortunately,however, as they begin to progress their careers they may discover that they have been placed on to the "second class" pathway to start with. A Degree Apprentice for example, may be placed at a disadvantage in the Engineering Council world, even if their workplace contribution is much greater than peer colleague with “more maths” from the first year of their course.

 

They may also find that if they progress into project engineering or management then, “that isn't chartered", unless you have the right degree, in which case it is. If your work is mainly the application of established technologies “that isn't chartered either”, unless you have the right degree then it is, likewise how do we define "creativity and innovation" - having the right degree!

 

Is there good evidence about the usefulness of “good” and “not so Good” types of degree and are there proven correlations with relative performance across a reasonable range of engineering roles? If there isn't any proof of a strong correlation, then the education system is just deciding preemptively about the performance of engineers practice some years later. This isn't valid or fair! A childhood IQ test might have similar predictive validity?

 

I'm not seeking to discourage academic excellence, but diminishing and excluding other engineers with slightly different optimisation, isn't “excellence”, it is naïve and counter-productive to the common good. Fine for bureaucrats, rule makers, box tickers and status seekers, but of very little value to most engineers, which may be a reason why many of them don't engage. Incidentally I have very strongly supported programmes such as Engineering Gateways, which help to develop and give academic value to work-based learning once it has been acquired.

 

My suggestion to help bear down upon this “academic 1^st class, vocational 2^nd class” attitude which drives some of this snobbery and counter snobbery, is just to decide that as professional Engineers and Technicians we don't want to be Snobs or Counter-Snobs. Just like we don't want to be Sexists or Racists. We just want to develop our collective contribution to society. This is my interpretation of “Working to Engineer a Better World”.

 

We can and should add value by supporting the registration of competent Technicians & Engineers committed to professional conduct. Defining that distinction isn't easy, but we have UK-SPEC to start with. The idea that Engineers beyond graduate level sit in different “silos” via academic selection is “artificial” and I think discredited.

 

When HNC/HND engineers were excluded from CEng decades ago, they had to form a new category of their own and they adopted the “more practical” value statement. However this distinctive proposition and the market that it served has been in decline for decades. Once the academic benchmark was moved to bachelors level, it became what CEng was, with CEng supposedly moving to become a “masters level elite”. However, to avoid misunderstanding, I don't think that this didn't happened, although some people might disagree.

 

Where this leads me, is that if professional engineers of graduate standard are on the same pathway then there is no “us and them”, everyone should be a “registered engineer”first. Then after a significant period of monitoring by their institution, they may be transferred to CEng.


 

Perhaps before we leave the EU, we can borrow the Eur Ing criteria for our “Registered Engineer”? https://www.feani.org/feani/eur-ing-title/what-eur-ing-title.

A couple of key extracts

Education and experience together is less than the minimum seven years' formation required, the balance to seven years should be covered by education (U), experience (E), or training (T) monitored by the approved engineering institutions, or by preliminary engineering professional experience.

The duration of professional engineering experience shall be at least two years and include the following:

• 
  

  The solution of problems requiring the application of engineering science in the fields such as research, development, design, production, construction, installation, maintenance, engineering sales and marketing, and Management or guiding of technical staff or The financial, economical, statutory or legal aspects of engineering tasks, or Industrial and/or environmental problem solving.

  
  

My underlining is mine, illustrating where I have have frequently encountered opinions that this is “not CEng, but IEng work”, based on interpretation of UK-SPEC. Of course Engineering Council barred Incorporated Engineers from Eur Ing registration, even if they met the requirements.

 

If we adopted something around Eur Ing as our “mainstream” standard with CEng on top (beyond most UK charterships) some adaptation would be needed to avoid blocking those on the underlined career paths from progression. Would that be possible or acceptable - does anyone have an opinion?

Andy, thanks for picking up on some of my reflections with some excellent thoughts of your own. I didn’t share my own story for the self-indulgence of “everyone’s favourite story –themselves” but to create debate.

 

Readers can form a judgment about my career story, during which I didn’t meet the requirements of CEng at any time. Some would probably opine that I'm not a "proper engineer" but a Technician with added management or an "associate professional". That's fine, but fortunately, I have some other achievements to counterbalance any negativity that this might imply. Others who have continued to work as “engineers” may feel diminished and insulted by such a judgment. Their sense of grievance being stoked by the large numbers of CEng registrants who retain the designation as an "honour" often based on meeting academic+experience requirements of decades ago. Those who have been evaluated against UK-SPEC are actually a small minority. I see no benefit in taking CEng off anyone except for malpractice, but PEI "supervision" of registrants (such as voluntary supportive review) has historically been virtually nil.

 

When the IET came into being, it chose an "inclusive" approach to membership, IMechE and ICE have eventually followed a similar path. However, other influential PEI constituents of Engineering Council want to maintain a much more "exclusive" model, intended to promote Chartered Engineers as being a "superior highly intellectual elite". I can empathise with that position, since most have studied hard, developed to a high standard, been sold “superior status”and are naturally resistant to diluting it. A significant proportion of our own members may feel similarly, but have accepted that suitably competent people should be registered as CEng using UK-SPEC.

 

My main concern is what proposition are we offering to those who develop "engineering" careers. Arguably, to all of those except entrants to CEng accredited (Washington Accord type) Degrees it is a confused, inconsistent, potentially unfair and often partly negative one.

 

The IET and some other PEIs have begun to offer more support to Apprentices or Undergraduates studying "different but equally valuable" (according QAA at least) types of technical degrees. Unfortunately,however, as they begin to progress their careers they may discover that they have been placed on to the "second class" pathway to start with. A Degree Apprentice for example, may be placed at a disadvantage in the Engineering Council world, even if their workplace contribution is much greater than peer colleague with “more maths” from the first year of their course.

 

They may also find that if they progress into project engineering or management then, “that isn't chartered", unless you have the right degree, in which case it is. If your work is mainly the application of established technologies “that isn't chartered either”, unless you have the right degree then it is, likewise how do we define "creativity and innovation" - having the right degree!

 

Is there good evidence about the usefulness of “good” and “not so Good” types of degree and are there proven correlations with relative performance across a reasonable range of engineering roles? If there isn't any proof of a strong correlation, then the education system is just deciding preemptively about the performance of engineers practice some years later. This isn't valid or fair! A childhood IQ test might have similar predictive validity?

 

I'm not seeking to discourage academic excellence, but diminishing and excluding other engineers with slightly different optimisation, isn't “excellence”, it is naïve and counter-productive to the common good. Fine for bureaucrats, rule makers, box tickers and status seekers, but of very little value to most engineers, which may be a reason why many of them don't engage. Incidentally I have very strongly supported programmes such as Engineering Gateways, which help to develop and give academic value to work-based learning once it has been acquired.

 

My suggestion to help bear down upon this “academic 1^st class, vocational 2^nd class” attitude which drives some of this snobbery and counter snobbery, is just to decide that as professional Engineers and Technicians we don't want to be Snobs or Counter-Snobs. Just like we don't want to be Sexists or Racists. We just want to develop our collective contribution to society. This is my interpretation of “Working to Engineer a Better World”.

 

We can and should add value by supporting the registration of competent Technicians & Engineers committed to professional conduct. Defining that distinction isn't easy, but we have UK-SPEC to start with. The idea that Engineers beyond graduate level sit in different “silos” via academic selection is “artificial” and I think discredited.

 

When HNC/HND engineers were excluded from CEng decades ago, they had to form a new category of their own and they adopted the “more practical” value statement. However this distinctive proposition and the market that it served has been in decline for decades. Once the academic benchmark was moved to bachelors level, it became what CEng was, with CEng supposedly moving to become a “masters level elite”. However, to avoid misunderstanding, I don't think that this didn't happened, although some people might disagree.

 

Where this leads me, is that if professional engineers of graduate standard are on the same pathway then there is no “us and them”, everyone should be a “registered engineer”first. Then after a significant period of monitoring by their institution, they may be transferred to CEng.


 

Perhaps before we leave the EU, we can borrow the Eur Ing criteria for our “Registered Engineer”? https://www.feani.org/feani/eur-ing-title/what-eur-ing-title.

A couple of key extracts

Education and experience together is less than the minimum seven years' formation required, the balance to seven years should be covered by education (U), experience (E), or training (T) monitored by the approved engineering institutions, or by preliminary engineering professional experience.

The duration of professional engineering experience shall be at least two years and include the following:

• 
  

  The solution of problems requiring the application of engineering science in the fields such as research, development, design, production, construction, installation, maintenance, engineering sales and marketing, and Management or guiding of technical staff or The financial, economical, statutory or legal aspects of engineering tasks, or Industrial and/or environmental problem solving.

  
  

My underlining is mine, illustrating where I have have frequently encountered opinions that this is “not CEng, but IEng work”, based on interpretation of UK-SPEC. Of course Engineering Council barred Incorporated Engineers from Eur Ing registration, even if they met the requirements.

 

If we adopted something around Eur Ing as our “mainstream” standard with CEng on top (beyond most UK charterships) some adaptation would be needed to avoid blocking those on the underlined career paths from progression. Would that be possible or acceptable - does anyone have an opinion?