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

Therefore to require a degree, indirectly discriminates against older people, unless the requirement is objectively justified.

And, indeed, to require a "1st or 2.1" - when I graduated maybe 1 or 2 people per cohort got a 1st (in any subject), and handful got 2.1s. In any case, as I've often said before, by 10 years after graduation your track record says far more about you than your degree does. However, when I was in my 40s I was being turned down at CV submission stage for R&D jobs because I didn't have a 1st or 2.1 - despite having run two highly successful and high profile R&D teams by then. I don't, of course, know whether the policy in these cases was set be the recruiter or by the engineering manager.


For anyone who still hasn't seen it - it's probably a couple of years since I last posted it - I've yet again attached my favourite (apocryphal) story on this below.


I'd better not comment too much on your last paragraph or I'll start ranting  I think we're on the same page here. As a PRA and as a competence assessor for safety critical systems I'd just add that the main thing I want to see is reliability and validity - irrespective of where the levels are set and what they're called. Two people who are equally competent in comparable roles should be able to achieve the same registration level, irrespective of their backgrounds. And that registration level should tell any third party why they can be trusted to work at that level - whatever it is decided "that level" is.


Cheers,


Andy

John Kallam graduated with a BA in criminology and entered the US Army. He served for 20 years beginning in the late 1930s. He was an investigator during the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, and stayed in Germany for many years organising civilian police forces in the post-war era. He also wrote numerous books on criminal justice. He retired from military service in the late 1950s at the rank of full colonel.


Returning to Fresno, California, he began teaching criminology at what was then Fresno State College (later to become the California State University, Fresno). His work was well respected, but after about ten years of service, he was called to see the president of the college.


He was informed that he could no longer teach with just a bachelor's degree. Times were changing, he was told, and the school demanded that faculty members hold a graduate degree. Merely having 20 years of distinguished experience was no longer considered sufficient qualification to teach. All new faculty were being required to hold a doctorate, it was explained, and the school was actually doing him a favour by letting him keep his job by getting 'only' a master's degree.


So John enrolled in a summer program at an out of state college. Three months of intensive seminars and then nine months of home study would get him his MA.


On the first day of class, the instructor was taking roll. He stopped when he read John's name.


"Are you related to the John Kallam who wrote the textbook we'll be using?" he asked.


"I am the John Kallam who wrote the textbook you're using," came the dry response.

Therefore to require a degree, indirectly discriminates against older people, unless the requirement is objectively justified.

And, indeed, to require a "1st or 2.1" - when I graduated maybe 1 or 2 people per cohort got a 1st (in any subject), and handful got 2.1s. In any case, as I've often said before, by 10 years after graduation your track record says far more about you than your degree does. However, when I was in my 40s I was being turned down at CV submission stage for R&D jobs because I didn't have a 1st or 2.1 - despite having run two highly successful and high profile R&D teams by then. I don't, of course, know whether the policy in these cases was set be the recruiter or by the engineering manager.


For anyone who still hasn't seen it - it's probably a couple of years since I last posted it - I've yet again attached my favourite (apocryphal) story on this below.


I'd better not comment too much on your last paragraph or I'll start ranting  I think we're on the same page here. As a PRA and as a competence assessor for safety critical systems I'd just add that the main thing I want to see is reliability and validity - irrespective of where the levels are set and what they're called. Two people who are equally competent in comparable roles should be able to achieve the same registration level, irrespective of their backgrounds. And that registration level should tell any third party why they can be trusted to work at that level - whatever it is decided "that level" is.


Cheers,


Andy

John Kallam graduated with a BA in criminology and entered the US Army. He served for 20 years beginning in the late 1930s. He was an investigator during the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, and stayed in Germany for many years organising civilian police forces in the post-war era. He also wrote numerous books on criminal justice. He retired from military service in the late 1950s at the rank of full colonel.


Returning to Fresno, California, he began teaching criminology at what was then Fresno State College (later to become the California State University, Fresno). His work was well respected, but after about ten years of service, he was called to see the president of the college.


He was informed that he could no longer teach with just a bachelor's degree. Times were changing, he was told, and the school demanded that faculty members hold a graduate degree. Merely having 20 years of distinguished experience was no longer considered sufficient qualification to teach. All new faculty were being required to hold a doctorate, it was explained, and the school was actually doing him a favour by letting him keep his job by getting 'only' a master's degree.


So John enrolled in a summer program at an out of state college. Three months of intensive seminars and then nine months of home study would get him his MA.


On the first day of class, the instructor was taking roll. He stopped when he read John's name.


"Are you related to the John Kallam who wrote the textbook we'll be using?" he asked.


"I am the John Kallam who wrote the textbook you're using," came the dry response.