Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 158 replies
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 13470 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Is an Apprenticeship an equally valid pathway to Chartered Engineer - a historical anachronism or the future?

Roy Bowdler
This is National Apprenticeship Week.  

 

An unintended and unfortunate consequence of UK government policies and wider economic changes in the 1980s and 1990s was a very substantial decline in apprenticeships which had served previous generations so well.  They didn’t die completely because employers (like the company that I was Training Manager of) understood their value, not just for skilled craft trades, but also as an alternative option to “Graduate Training Schemes” for Engineers and Managers, traditionally leading to HNC type qualifications, but from the mid-2000s increasingly degrees. Initiative was eventually picked up by Government, turning it into a “flagship” policy.  This has had an effect, but policy is not implementation and typically the brewery visit has not been well organised (with apologies to those unfamiliar with British vulgar slang). However, changes like this can take years if not decades to “bed in”, so I hope that we will keep trying.

 

Engineering Council has always been dominated by the academic perspective and relatively poorly connected with employers, therefore it has associated Apprenticeships with Technicians and not with Chartered Engineers, although it accepted that it was possible "exceptionally via bridges and ladders” for a Technician to develop into a Chartered Engineer. Incorporated (formerly Technician) Engineer was also drawn from the Apprenticeship tradition. However, once the qualification benchmark was adjusted to bachelors level, it was also intended to become the “mainstream” category for graduates, with CEng being “premium” or “elite”.  Unfortunately the Incorporated category has not been successful and its international equivalent “Technologist” defined as it is by degree content (i.e. less calculus than an “engineer”) also seems equally poorly regarded or even legally restricted in other countries.

 

Now we have Degree Apprentices coming through, the profession has responded by offering Incorporated Engineer recognition at an early career stage. This should in principal be a good thing and I have advocated it in the past. However, I am seriously concerned that this may also stigmatise them as a “second class” form of professional, as has been the tradition to date.

 

Over the last few years Engineering Council has adopted a policy encouraging younger engineers to consider the Incorporated Engineer category as a “stepping stone” to Chartered Engineer. Some professional institutions have promoted this often with a particular focus on those “without the right degree for CEng” with some success. However the approach “kicks the can down the road” to the question of how they should subsequently transfer to CEng.  There are potentially likely to be some frustrated, disillusioned and even angry engineers, if they find that “progression” is blocked and that they are stuck on a “stepping stone”.  We don’t need more unnecessary “enemies” amongst them, we have created enough already. 

 

A further problem is that those with accredited degrees do not expect to require a “stepping stone” and consider IEng to have no value for them or even perhaps at worst insulting. Many employers of Chartered Engineers and the professional institutions are steeped in the tradition of recruiting those with accredited degrees and developing them to Chartered Engineer in around 3-5 years. Other graduate recruiters may be less academically selective, but share similar traditions and expectations.

 

Is therefore a Degree Apprenticeship an equally valid pathway compared to a CEng accredited (BEng or MEng) full-time undergraduate degree course?  Is performance and current capability (aka “competence”) the appropriate frame of reference for comparison, or should those from each pathway be separated academically and considered to be different “types”, or on “fast” and slow tracks”?

 

As Degree Apprenticeships develop further, there will be those who gain CEng accredited degrees and have work experience via an “even faster track”. My concern is that those graduates from Degree Apprenticeships who are more competent and productive than their age group peers from full-time degree programmes, but disadvantaged in academic recognition terms, may find themselves in a seemingly unfair and anomalous situation.  

 

In addition, those employers who primarily “exploit existing technology” may continue to feel that the Engineering Council proposition is contrary to their interests and discourage engagement. Employers who invest in apprenticeships state that they experience greater loyalty from former apprentices, relative to graduate trainees and often a better return on investment.  Whereas the professional institution proposition emphasises different priorities, which may align quite well with Research & Development or Consultancy type business models, but not with Operations and Maintenance or Contracting. My experience as an employer trying to encourage professional engagement was that the Professional Institution concerned advised employees informally to “move on if you want to become Chartered”, because they valued Project Engineering less than Design Engineering. As for management, this was definitely “chartered engineering” if you held the right type of engineering degree and valued if it was “prestigious”. If you didn’t hold the right type of engineering degree and weren’t “highly prestigious” then it wasn't valued much.

 

If Degree Apprenticeships become more strongly established, do we want to accept them as an equally valid pathway to a range of excellent careers including Chartered Engineer, or do we wish to continue our long-standing policy of treating them as useful but second or third class pathways? Will weasel words of platitude be offered ,whilst existing attitudes and practice are allowed to prevail?    


If the answer is we that want to give apprentices equal value, then in the current climate of retribution, should those who have enthusiastically encouraged the stigma and snobbery against them consider falling on their swords? Enthusiasm for excellence in engineering, especially in stretching academic circumstances is a virtue not a crime and I strongly support it. Unfortunately however many around the Engineering Council family, perhaps motivated by a neediness for “status”, seem to have been mainly concerned with rationing access to the Chartered category by other “graduate level” practitioners, and disparaging those drawn from the apprenticeship tradition. 

 

Further Reading

 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-new-apprenticeship-programme-kicks-off-national-apprenticeship-week-2018

 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-will-end-outdated-snobbery-towards-apprenticeships

 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/further-education/12193128/Theres-been-an-apprenticeship-stigma-for-far-too-long.html

 
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/theres-still-a-stigma-around-apprenticeships-people-look-down-on-you-3622353-Oct2017/

 
https://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/14816-overcoming-the-apprenticeships-stigma-not-before-time

 
https://www.bcselectrics.co.uk/news/pushing-back-against-stigma-apprenticeships

 
‘Stigma against apprenticeships must end,’ says Network Rail boss. Mark Carne, Network’s Rail’s chief executive (Rail Technology News)

   
https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/national-apprenticeship-week-young-women-stem-apprenticeship-a3781606.html

 
http://www.aston.ac.uk/news/releases/2017/july/uks-first-degree-apprentices-graduate/

 
https://www.stem.org.uk/news-and-views/opinions/apprenticeships-better-skills-better-careers          

 
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/blog/Pages/Why-I-chose-the-degree-apprenticeship-route.aspx               

 

 

 

  • 0
    Nobody has yet answered my question about exactly what does an engineering degree signify?


    I'm doubtful if all but a tiny handful of teenagers are even aware of what CEng is (of have even heard of it) unless they come from an engineering background where somebody already is a CEng or is aiming for it, so whether they can or cannot realistically attain CEng status is low down on the list of priorities when it comes to deciding on higher education courses or apprenticeships. Nobody in my A Level classes at college ever talked about CEng status.

  • 0
    Arran,


    What a degree “signifies”, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  


    It is possible to evaluate the product using various criteria. In Engineering & Technology and other domains where some form of professional recognition/regulation exists there is an established tradition of “accreditation”, in addition to normal forms of academic quality assurance, state regulation and financial support etc. The IET organises the accreditation of many degrees, following a process set out by Engineering Council. Accreditation is voluntary and most popular for undergraduate Bachelors Degrees intending to prepare students for later recognition as a Chartered Engineer. Some Masters degrees are also accredited.  A small number of Bachelors Degrees are specifically accredited for Incorporated Engineer, but this has become problematical (see other posts where I argue that it is probably untenable).   


    Partly for convenience, an accredited degree confers certain privileges, in respect of becoming a registered Engineer. All degrees are evaluated by specialist organisations to assist in mobility and migration.


    Some university degree courses specialise in providing academic credit for work-based or experiential learning and exploiting work activities as a vehicle for learning.   


    All of this could be placed loosely under your heading of “box ticking”.  


    Does this provide something that self-study can’t?  Yes, hopefully better optimised learning, appropriate challenge and support from experts, validation of the learning and credible recognition for it. 


    There are numerous alternative forms of validated learning that don’t involve the award of a Degree. In economic terms many could bring a greater return on investment, but may involve significant upfront cost, borne by an individual or employer (e.g. Airline Pilot Training).


    Many vocational courses also offer better quality of instruction (or “Teaching”) and by focussing on the most relevant aspects of a skill, develop competence more quickly. For example, as a Judge for some government sponsored training awards, I assessed a private journalism college that claimed to “achieve better results than a university course, in a fraction of the time”.  The claim was not unreasonable, but part of its capability was excellent connections with the right people to facilitate internships or "Cub Reporter" roles (aka “Apprenticeship”). I hadn’t previously realised quite how “exclusive” journalism can be.   


    I posted this in another thread

    A decisive shift in the balance between vocational and academic career development has occurred in The UK and to some extent many other developed countries over the last quarter century. As it has become increasing “normal” to expect a person of average academic ability to be a graduate, with other forms of development and recognition becoming seen as “inferior”.  


    This is an oversimplification , but to return my initial statement, the answer is nearly always a sociological one.  If it became widely believed that the best way to pass a Driving Test was in a Red Suit in a Red Ferrari, then Driving Test Examiners might find their working day a little different and sales of Vauxhall Corsas might decline badly, with unpleasant consequences for some.  


    Your statement about awareness of CEng amongst teenagers, reflects both your experience and mine. I have no reason to doubt that it generally applies, especially among those  drawn from less advantaged sections of society.     When it comes to role models, the average age of a Chartered Engineer is 50 plus, so even if a young person respects what they have to say, values may be different.  When I was in that situation a long time ago, I had two uncles who were CEng, but both seemed extremely boring and conventional. I didn’t know anyone near my age who had been to University and assumed that they were either like contestants on Ask The Family, or Walter or Cuthbert from The Beano. Perhaps naively ignoring counter-evidence like rioters and the Pythons. Either way, the tantalising lure of independent adulthood and earning a wage proved a stronger draw.                  



  • 0

    Roy Bowdler:

    It is possible to evaluate the product using various criteria. In Engineering & Technology and other domains where some form of professional recognition/regulation exists there is an established tradition of “accreditation”, in addition to normal forms of academic quality assurance, state regulation and financial support etc. The IET organises the accreditation of many degrees, following a process set out by Engineering Council. Accreditation is voluntary and most popular for undergraduate Bachelors Degrees intending to prepare students for later recognition as a Chartered Engineer. Some Masters degrees are also accredited.  A small number of Bachelors Degrees are specifically accredited for Incorporated Engineer, but this has become problematical (see other posts where I argue that it is probably untenable).



    Take into account that a large proportion of holders of accredited Engineering degrees who work in engineering have no interest in CEng or any other letters after their name. Their degree is a qualification for the purpose of a career in engineering, often in a rank and file technical position or middle management rather than anything grander than this. Therefore accreditation of their degree is a facility that they probably won't use or really care much about. Some of these engineers hold an accredited engineering degree because at the time they studied for it there were no other obvious or easily obtained courses or qualifications for a career in engineering, so the accreditation is just an extra - a bit like the time when you passed a driving test in a car you got category C1, a 7.5 tonne lorry, thrown in for free but only a fraction of driving licence holders ever used it. Now you have to take another driving test for category C1.

    Does this provide something that self-study can’t?  Yes, hopefully better optimised learning, appropriate challenge and support from experts, validation of the learning and credible recognition for it.

    This is debatable as university lecturers are not always up to date with their knowledge, experts in their subject, or are aware of the goings on in industry. Some of them spend their lives teaching long established textbook material to 1st year students or are engaged in esoteric areas of research. I posted this in another thread

    A decisive shift in the balance between vocational and academic career development has occurred in The UK and to some extent many other developed countries over the last quarter century. As it has become increasing “normal” to expect a person of average academic ability to be a graduate, with other forms of development and recognition becoming seen as “inferior”.

    Does this apply to engineering or mostly non-technical subjects like sociology at former polytechnics? Obtaining a place at a good university for engineering isn't really any easier than it was in the early 1990s. Foundation years have added a new dimension to HE as they enable students (in return for £9000) to bypass traditional GCSEs and A Levels. Do you have any figures for the number of engineering students who have entered via a foundation year?

    Your statement about awareness of CEng amongst teenagers, reflects both your experience and mine. I have no reason to doubt that it generally applies, especially among those  drawn from less advantaged sections of society.

    I think less connected or clued up about CEng is a more precise term. You could be a son or daughter of a dentist, barrister, or millionaire businessman who is looking at a career in engineering but has never even heard of CEng.

    When it comes to role models, the average age of a Chartered Engineer is 50 plus, so even if a young person respects what they have to say, values may be different.

    That is true. Young teenagers are rarely precise about what they want from their lives and careers but they usually have a rough idea of what they want and a clearer idea of what they don't want. Situations and technology change over the years so people's lives make unexpected twists and turns. I have an older friend who failed dismally at school but later found a career in website development and programming, and another older friend who graduated in electronic engineering nearly 20 years ago but is now a counterterrorism researcher.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Arran, I entirely agree with your points of view, and especially your use of 'rank and file' in applying to the majority of skilled engineers working in E&T.  You don't have to register as a [CEng|IEng] in a highly skilled 'rank and file' job role; but it may help someone who wants to climb up the career ladder to positions of higher status - power, influence, and of course, the large pay packet.


    It has to be appreciated that the higher up the career ladder an engineer - CEng or not -  climbs, the more vulnerable they become to depending on the 'rank and file' engineers to understand and operate the ever complex E&T system(s).


    There's a metaphor I like to use in describing my own knowledge and skills in the job role I used to do, as a 'rank and file' engineer; and that was to be the 'Pilot' (expert) who could takeoff, fly, and land the plane - E&T systems. Senior management and even team leaders, depended on my knowledge and skills to maintain the E&T systems and resolve any unforseen issues that arose.


    Unfortunately, the IET and EC don't see 'rank and file' engineers to be part of 'the engineering profession', unless they're on the EC register. They live in their own bubble.
  • 0
    Arran & Mehmood, you both offer perfectly reasonable perspectives. As far as the history of Engineering Degrees is concerned, when the IEng category of registration became benchmarked at Bachelors level, the implicit assumption was the it would serve the “mainstream”, with MEng graduates and those going on to MSc, becoming the “elite” CEng. The term “rank and file” may have a similar meaning to “mainstream”, but because of its military connotations it also suggests a hierarchy of value or “status”. In our context, someone’s trajectory within that presumed hierarchy, has to date been set by their academic performance in STEM subjects pre-career. Academic performance may be a moderately accurate indication of the person’s aptitude or potential, it is used by academia for selection and by employers as a factor in selection.


    At a time when academic opportunities were far less readily available, it was convenient to assume that becoming degree qualified was a mark of enhanced potential, so graduates were “the best” and non-graduates “the rest”.  This was a far from perfect assumption to make, but in a more deferential age, generally accepted.  In practice many of our most able engineers now in late career, gained distinction in their workplaces rather than school or university, sometimes aided by “night school” or other forms of part-time academic learning during career.


    My proposition for this thread was intended to challenge what I consider to be some seriously flawed assumptions. Before posting I tested it on a few Chartered Engineers of my acquaintance who were all sceptical to a varying extent.


    An employer in the modern age recruits an Apprentice in anticipation of them becoming skilled and making a net contribution to the business.  In some roles this can be achieved with minimal further academic input, even if very considerable “know how” is gained through work based learning. This thread is about Chartered Engineering which requires some “academic type” attributes, which we have chosen to benchmark as being post-graduate in nature. There is nothing whatsoever in an apprenticeship containing a technical degree, that limits a person’s ability to develop the post-graduate attributes that we seek, or more importantly renders them “inferior” to a former full-time student. On the contrary the former Degree Apprentice is quite likely to demonstrate superior workplace performance in the short-term. Going forward, each pathway may have optimised different attributes and strong intellectual capabilities may help some to establish a career trajectory to towards strategic leadership, whatever the earlier pathway.


    The overriding concern of members of the Engineering Council family has been to ration access to the fraction over which they have some control and to promote that fraction as being “elite” or “superior”.  There is a symbiotic relationship between senior academics and the professional institutions for which Engineering Council forms a parliament.  The missing element has been employers in particular and perhaps also stakeholders with a socially inclusive mission to counterbalance elitist attitudes. Our obsession with division and rank, especially among those who have passed the threshold of professional recognition as an Engineer as currently defined by us (IEng), has greatly undermined our credibility.


    On that basis Mehmood’s conclusion is a reasonable one.  However if the “bubble” is all that we have, then to burst it cataclysmically leaves us with nothing. No-one here is a perfect actor, including employers. The government has given apprenticeships a much overdue boost, so let’s use that opportunity to re-balance and renew. If my proposition is unacceptable to those who control the profession, then I would respectfully request that some alternative leaders are found who can fully respect an apprenticeship as an equally valid pathway.       

  • 0
    Hi Roy,


    Let's turn this round using my two favourite examples:
    1. The final technical sign-off authority for a complex or high risk piece of engineering

    • A member of an international technical standards drafting body


    Both are exemplar roles where CEng status is relevant. So, is there any reason why people who have come up an apprenticeship route can't fulfil those roles? Clearly not - such people can and do so. So that begs the more interesting question - does the CEng process adequately identify such people? I think (generally) it does, but it seems like you disagree? I can't think of anything in UKSpec which works against apprentice trained engineers? Of course, individual assessors applying UKSpec may bring their own prejudices to it.


    If I was an assessor (which of course I'm not) looking at an apprentice pathway CEng candidate, the question I'd be asking is "has this person effectively developed the ability to not just do what they're told, but to find and assess new and better ways of engineering?" And if they have developed that ability that's fine - after all that's all a degree's for.


    What I do find when helping apprentice trained engineers with their CEng applications is that I regularly have to explain that writing "I did this and it seemed to work" or "I did this because it's the way usually did it" is not showing that extra level of enquiry which you need from someone who's going to take sign-off responsibility - the "are we certain we understand this?" question. Now, graduate engineers can and do show this same behaviour, it's just far more common in my experience in apprentice trained engineers - because they are trained that "do it by the book and you'll be ok". So back to another thread that's running here, if we get better at supporting apprentice trained engineers through IEng / CEng development it'll help those who are interested get better and better at coping with those cases where there is no book, or the book is out of date. Which is of huge benefit to them, their employers, and society at large. That's a neat link, I hadn't intended that when I started writing this! Yes, all are valid pathways, but all benefit from support. (Just as graduate engineers often need support to understand the CEng areas relating the practical application of their work, including ensuring real customer benefit.)


    Right, that's enough posting for a few more weeks ?


    Cheers,


    Andy




  • 0
    Andy and Roy,

    Going back to the title of the thread, "Is and Apprenticeship an equally valid pathway to Chartered Engineer", I have to roundly support Andy's comments, mainly on the basis that I personally do not believe there is any invalid pathway. The real issue is "have you got there?", not  "how did you get there?"

    Alasdair
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member

    Posted by Andy Millar on Apr 3, 2019 1:35 pm


    Let's turn this round using my two favourite examples:

    1. The final technical sign-off authority for a complex or high risk piece of engineering 

    • A member of an international technical standards drafting body

    Posted by Alasdair Anderson on Apr 3, 2019 3:15 pm


    The real issue is "have you got there?", not  "how did you get there?"

    ---------------------------------------------


    These are typically replies we do see from CEng members, in response to those members who chose to challenge the system [IET, EC] in relation to how they see engineers operate today, in the real world of E&T.


    What gets my head scratching is: how do school Teachers, and Lecturers, manage to 'get there' in points 1 and 2 above, when the majority of rank and file engineers (academics and apprenticeships) apparently never make it?


    And further, how do professionals in the music industry manage to 'get there' when awarded Fellowships with regards to superior respinsibility, again in points 1 and 2 above? 


    I am left thinking that in such situations, one should consider 'senior decision makers' in large organisations - such as the IET and EC - as 'moving in the same mysterious way as the all mighty.'  ?
  • 0
    Andy,  I don’t think that we “disagree” as such. But if we take the UK-SPEC generic description of an CEng, then we can interpret it as being demonstrated by someone who has successfully fulfilled the roles that you describe as examples (or exemplars). In practice there is a very great deal of scope for differences in interpretation by different observers of different roles (i.e. performance evidence). To deal with these differences, instutions "contextualise" UK-SPEC and the “peer review” part of assessment (in the IET at least) convenes a small “parliament” of experts to discuss, reach consensus and make a decision, subject to validation by an interview.


    Arguably, the only thing that UK-SPEC offers about how someone should be developed, is to describe some ideal exemplifying qualifications. However, these few paragraphs open a Pandora’s Box of issues that have been the main basis for professional registration almost for its whole history. Most professional institutions will only consider someone for Chartered Engineer registration if they have first completed an academic programme that they prescribe (aka accredit), or perhaps exceptionally something close. To date, this has excluded degrees associated with an Apprenticeship or likely to be undertaken part-time during career.


    MEng Degrees for example were developed to serve the most academic 18 year olds and the predecessor of UK-SPEC, SARTOR was clear in its intent to position CEng as an “academic elite”. (I wasn’t actively involved, if anyone who was wishes to “correct” me). There were some hopes for IEng to potentially “mop up the rest”, perhaps under the banner of “Technologist” as described by The International Engineering Alliance, but this ignored the overwhelming majority of practising Chartered Engineers and the tradition of graduate recruitment with CEng in mind, which is common in many sectors of employment where technology is mostly mature, infrastructure for example.  


    I won’t pursue that history, because it doesn’t really matter, except to say that little has really changed for many professional engineering institutions over recent decades. The territory that they exercise control over hasn’t changed much and neither has their interpretation of who they want as “their” Chartered Engineers. Although nominally UK-SPEC is being used, in practice the underlying assumptions are still; Accredited Degree + 2 years training + at least 2 years responsible experience = CEng.


    Apprenticeships were never on their agenda and are presumed to only be for (inferior) Technicians (including IEng). A major one who I have dealt with, wouldn’t welcome former apprentices, or even experienced MSc graduates, it’s “their way or the highway”. Some other majors who either didn’t want to, or couldn’t afford to be so “picky”, became more pragmatic about “partially accredited” degrees and “further learning requirements”.  Having been involved during this period with the IET’s efforts, I would defend them as solid work by very able people to fairly and rigorously re-focus on competence , rather than “weaken” academic requirements. However, critics especially those who do not accept the validity of any judgement conducted outside academia, may disagree.    


    To avoid a long “ramble”, we concur that “more practical” initial development, may not develop as optimally ideal Chartered Engineer attributes when compared to a “more academic” approach. However, this is far from a simple binary argument.  Apprenticeships with higher level qualifications, now also including Degrees achieved concurrently with work experience, arguably provide the most optimal blend for all but the most Academic/R&D roles.  I fully accept that a typical practical apprenticeship leading to a skilled trade, isn’t the most optimum pathway towards Chartered Engineer and that in all probability many of those following this pathway will have no reason to develop the more "intellectual" attributes of research, analysis and persuasion that we expect of a CEng. Some always have and always will.  


    For the avoidance of doubt by any reader, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that a Chartered Engineer should demonstrate “Masters level attributes” and strongly supported work-based MSc programmes developed by various universities for mid-career professionals as one way of potentially achieving that. This doesn’t mean that someone who is already, clearly competent should have to “jump over unnecessary hoops”. It very definitely also doesn’t mean that someone from a good quality apprenticeship, should be stigmatised and disadvantaged, with no objective justification in performance. It is for that reason that I call upon those who cannot accept the principal of “equal status for equal performance” to either move aside, or to be excluded from decisions being taken for “public benefit”.  


    PS Mehmood If it seems inconsistent and dysfunctional to you, then you have the right to say so. I'm not going to disagree, but I'm arguing here for the purposes of improving the system.


    Fellowship is a different issue, based on different requirements and was explicitly decoupled from registration a long time ago. Honourary Fellowship is something slighly different as well, just like Universites chosing to recognise outstanding individuals with honorary degrees.     



  • 0

    Mehmood Birdi:


    Unfortunately, the IET and EC don't see 'rank and file' engineers to be part of 'the engineering profession', unless they're on the EC register. They live in their own bubble.

     



    That is the crux of the matter.


    It's probably safe to say that the first encounter with the IET for the majority of young people is at the start of the first year of an engineering degree, unless they already come from an engineering background. They attend an inspiring presentation on campus; have a friendly chat with the local IET reps; then sign up as a student member and receive a glossy magazine, without realising what the IET really is and isn't. When they start their career as a rank and file engineer in their early 20s, as the holder of an accredited degree, they continue their IET membership and receive a glossy magazine but CEng is rarely even on the horizon. A couple of years later they begin to wonder what the benefits of IET membership are for a rank and file engineer working in E&T if they are not interested in CEng as it's a fairly pricey club...


    IMO trying to reform the IET and the EC is like trying to turn lead into gold. The only credible workable solution is to accept the IET and the EC for what they are and create a new organisation to represent the interests of rank and file engineers who just want a career in E&T and are not interested in CEng. Membership of this new organisation and the IET will not be mutually exclusive - unless the IET prohibits dual membership out of spite!


    The new organisation will act more like a guild, or even a pseudo trade union, than the IET of today. It might even by viewed by the IET and the CEng community, or even senior management and university academics, as a bit of a downmarket organisation for the proles of the engineering world. There is a question whether most rank and file engineers who work in E&T and are not interested in CEng consider themselves as professionals or whether they view engineering as a highly skilled trade?


    The IET has a near monopoly as a society for engineers who hold accredited qualifications and there is nothing for engineers who do not hold accredited qualifications, factoring out anything run along Masonic lines.

Community Rules & Guidelines