This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Incorporated Engineer (IEng) UK vs Engineering Technologist (ET) Pakistan

Hi / Assalam u Alaikum

I am registered with the EC as Incorporated Engineer (IEng) through the IET UK. Now i am very pleased to inform all of you that i am also registered with the National Technology Council (NTC) www.ntc-hec.org.pk Pakistan as Professional Engineering Technologist (PE.Tech).

Four Years B.Tech-Hons or BS Tech or BSc Engineering Technology Degrees (attested by the Higher Education Commission - HEC) are the primary requirement to get register with the NTC Pakistan as the Engineering Technologist. On the other hand, EC UK requires two years HND or three years Bachelors Engineering or Technology Degree for the title of Incorporated Engineer (IEng).

I would suggest that the EC UK should also upgrade the eligibility criteria for IEng as four years degree and change the title from IEng to Chartered Engineering Technologist (CET). Its my point of view. The Standards of other countries may also be compared other than Pakistan in this context.

Thank you.

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

Nouman,

I have found that constructive suggestions made in these forums usually come to the attention of those involved in IET governance. More traditional approaches such as writing “letters” to E&T or directly to Nigel Fine may also be considered. As Chief Executive and Secretary Nigel is ultimately responsible for developing and implementing IET strategy and policy, working with and held to account by The Board of Trustees.

As a registrant of Engineering Council you can also make representations to them directly. They are currently consulting with all stakeholders. https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-review-consultation/. It is only necessary to make clear whether you are offering a personal opinion, or speaking as a representative of others (e.g. IEng registered Technologists in Pakistan).

The IET Registration and Standards Committee (member led and accountable to MPD Board) will develop an IET collective response. The last time such a consultation was held, I was involved in helping to develop a collective response, as well as making a personal one. I would characterise Engineering Council at the time as being strongly committed to “making the progressive hierarchy clearer” which many older IEng felt as a “downgrade”. We are now five years further on, so the issues and priorities may be different.

It is possible with some basic research to identify individuals who may be involved, as both IET and EC tend towards transparency, but I don’t think that this helps you. The main reason that I have been able over recent years to contribute an independent view with some level of insider knowledge in these forums, is because I am not responsible therefore and obliged to “tread very carefully”. However, we must also acknowledge that these forums attract only a small cross-section of members opinion, although I try to fairly acknowledge the range of perspectives when I can.

IET staff generally who get involved these forums will mainly seek to correct anything which could mislead, or to moderate inappropriate content. Dissent is healthy in my opinion, if expressed respectfully even if it is not always comfortable. We cannot all possibly agree on the range of complex issues that we face, although I hope that we are all willing to be persuaded by evidence.

I have recently taken more interest in the difficult situation of our sister institution IMechE. Following a period of turmoil the new interim CEO has sought to communicate heavily with their members. You may wish also to be aware of this, if you want to understand better some of the issues and the politics involved in governing the profession. If we set aside the separate structures that exist between us following the failure of the proposed 2006 merger, we should remember that we are very close cousins and that our interests mainly coincide. I assume that some overseas registrants who are Technologists are affiliated to IMechE and other PEIs.

Mehmood,

I’m sure someone with a recent interest in or involvement with each different university’s regulations applied to MEng and BEng (and by extension BSc, MSc, FDSc, BA, MA etc) could address the issue. I have also highlighted the problem of BEng (Hons) degrees holding IEng rather CEng accreditation, which is an Engineering Council rather than university issue.

What I think is unfortunate, is that we seem to have created a culture, where such grading is held to be consequential beyond the confines of academia.

As someone who spent much of my career selecting and training, I am aware that relying on examination grades to select candidates for employment has dubious validity. I understand that if employers are potentially inundated with applications (as are some universities), then grading may help to filter down applications into a manageable number for further evaluation. There is also some correlation between higher grades and “intellectual potential” and/or “contentiousness” . However, I would expect responsible HR professionals to have a good working understanding of Occupational Psychology. I would also expect larger organisations to have carefully validated selection processes based on this. We are dealing here with potential to become an engineer in the organisation, not a proven track record of achievement in a relevant role.

I noted that some recently developed Degree Apprenticeships (level 6&7) may have adopted unquestioningly the academic selection criteria for the linked degree. This is understandable, but if they select for employment in this way then they may be ignoring much talent, who haven’t engaged so successfully with the “exam factory” school system. I would want to use appropriate psychometric tests to give a more objective view of aptitude. Personality is also absolutely crucial to success in many industries to a far greater extent than anything measured by academic examinations.

I recently encountered a division of a major technology led business where a culture had developed (through a leader) of recruiting where possible from “Oxbridge or Russell”, this seemed to meet the business needs well (with a cost implication) and I would characterise the internal culture as hardworking, results based and entirely unpretentious. I also know a different technically world-leading division, where the leaders having come via apprenticeships themselves, seem in academic terms less “selective”, but their younger engineers drawn from a mix of BEng/MEng graduates from universities new and old including some part-time student ex-apprentices, demonstrated the same values and performance levels.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

Nouman,

I have found that constructive suggestions made in these forums usually come to the attention of those involved in IET governance. More traditional approaches such as writing “letters” to E&T or directly to Nigel Fine may also be considered. As Chief Executive and Secretary Nigel is ultimately responsible for developing and implementing IET strategy and policy, working with and held to account by The Board of Trustees.

As a registrant of Engineering Council you can also make representations to them directly. They are currently consulting with all stakeholders. https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-review-consultation/. It is only necessary to make clear whether you are offering a personal opinion, or speaking as a representative of others (e.g. IEng registered Technologists in Pakistan).

The IET Registration and Standards Committee (member led and accountable to MPD Board) will develop an IET collective response. The last time such a consultation was held, I was involved in helping to develop a collective response, as well as making a personal one. I would characterise Engineering Council at the time as being strongly committed to “making the progressive hierarchy clearer” which many older IEng felt as a “downgrade”. We are now five years further on, so the issues and priorities may be different.

It is possible with some basic research to identify individuals who may be involved, as both IET and EC tend towards transparency, but I don’t think that this helps you. The main reason that I have been able over recent years to contribute an independent view with some level of insider knowledge in these forums, is because I am not responsible therefore and obliged to “tread very carefully”. However, we must also acknowledge that these forums attract only a small cross-section of members opinion, although I try to fairly acknowledge the range of perspectives when I can.

IET staff generally who get involved these forums will mainly seek to correct anything which could mislead, or to moderate inappropriate content. Dissent is healthy in my opinion, if expressed respectfully even if it is not always comfortable. We cannot all possibly agree on the range of complex issues that we face, although I hope that we are all willing to be persuaded by evidence.

I have recently taken more interest in the difficult situation of our sister institution IMechE. Following a period of turmoil the new interim CEO has sought to communicate heavily with their members. You may wish also to be aware of this, if you want to understand better some of the issues and the politics involved in governing the profession. If we set aside the separate structures that exist between us following the failure of the proposed 2006 merger, we should remember that we are very close cousins and that our interests mainly coincide. I assume that some overseas registrants who are Technologists are affiliated to IMechE and other PEIs.

Mehmood,

I’m sure someone with a recent interest in or involvement with each different university’s regulations applied to MEng and BEng (and by extension BSc, MSc, FDSc, BA, MA etc) could address the issue. I have also highlighted the problem of BEng (Hons) degrees holding IEng rather CEng accreditation, which is an Engineering Council rather than university issue.

What I think is unfortunate, is that we seem to have created a culture, where such grading is held to be consequential beyond the confines of academia.

As someone who spent much of my career selecting and training, I am aware that relying on examination grades to select candidates for employment has dubious validity. I understand that if employers are potentially inundated with applications (as are some universities), then grading may help to filter down applications into a manageable number for further evaluation. There is also some correlation between higher grades and “intellectual potential” and/or “contentiousness” . However, I would expect responsible HR professionals to have a good working understanding of Occupational Psychology. I would also expect larger organisations to have carefully validated selection processes based on this. We are dealing here with potential to become an engineer in the organisation, not a proven track record of achievement in a relevant role.

I noted that some recently developed Degree Apprenticeships (level 6&7) may have adopted unquestioningly the academic selection criteria for the linked degree. This is understandable, but if they select for employment in this way then they may be ignoring much talent, who haven’t engaged so successfully with the “exam factory” school system. I would want to use appropriate psychometric tests to give a more objective view of aptitude. Personality is also absolutely crucial to success in many industries to a far greater extent than anything measured by academic examinations.

I recently encountered a division of a major technology led business where a culture had developed (through a leader) of recruiting where possible from “Oxbridge or Russell”, this seemed to meet the business needs well (with a cost implication) and I would characterise the internal culture as hardworking, results based and entirely unpretentious. I also know a different technically world-leading division, where the leaders having come via apprenticeships themselves, seem in academic terms less “selective”, but their younger engineers drawn from a mix of BEng/MEng graduates from universities new and old including some part-time student ex-apprentices, demonstrated the same values and performance levels.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Incorporated Engineer (IEng) UK vs Engineering Technologist (ET) Pakistan

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines