Edited to correct typos!


That's interesting and, now I think about it, reminds me of the part of my career when I was I.Eng and not yet C.Eng, which suddenly suggests a different take on the "old boys club" perception than has been evident in either this thread, or that on reinvigorating I.Eng.


Bear wth the following rant, which I was planning to post among other reactions in that other thread, but I outline it here purely as a prelude to my sudden realisation, to set the scene for it.


One of the big issues that I took issue with on that other thread was this suggestion, by certain contributors that C.Eng members are part of an old boys club, and I felt this was unfair, making assumptions about people's motives that were not appropriate to make without evidence, or discussion with them to understand their motives (in fact, I should be saying our motives). 


The thing I fully acknowledge, as several of us have already, is that there is a perception out there that this is the case, but, from all dealings and discussions I've had with other C.Eng members, I feel that it is an unfounded perception, in the IET at least, and that most C.Eng, and most older active members, are truly motivated by the desire to pay back, at the advanced stages of their career, to the profession that they are part of and that, in their time, has provided them with the support and mentoring that they now hope to offer to others who are at earlier stages of development, but also, to find a way to remain active and fulfill their own CPD needs. Naturally, those who are fully or partially retired will have both more time to do this, and more motivation, so it can create an impression of institute activity being dominated by older members. But that doesn't mean it's motivated by any desire to form an old boys club.


I therefore took exception to posts that simply made these assumptions about their motivations and promoted what I see to be a myth as if it were established fact. Frankly, it felt like some of the awful Facebook malignment of people with little or no knowledge of them that has become prevalent, and frankly smacks of age discrimination, and thus a breach of the ethical codes on diversity and protected characteristics. Furthermore, it is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy in that, if the perception is widely spread among younger engineers, and as a result they fail to pursue either membership or registration so do in fact create an institute with a steadily increasing proportion of older members, and a registration profile that becomes steadily older.


So, my sudden realisation arises from memory of a very similar scenario to that described by Lee. At that time (around 1998) I joined an engineering consultancy as I.Eng. I took a senior position (initially lead telecoms engineer for my office, but very quickly moving to Technical Director and Professional Head, first nationally, then Internationally. 


Because the company, like most engineering consultancies, was dominated by Civil Engineers, and they all considered C.Eng an essential requirement, especially as they were often called on to sign off calculations and engineering opinions for structural stability, etc. Consequently, I hit some surprise and initially resistance for the fact that I should occupy such a senior position whilst being a mere I.Eng without a degree. In honesty, I believe that this was what created the strongest motivation for me to correct the situation as soon as I was able using the mature candidate route that was the only non-degree route to C.Eng at that time. In practice, if it were in my nature to be so (which it isn't) I could have been quite smug about this some two years down the road when I was appointed to the International Professional Board, which made me one of the 6 most senior engineers in this 3000 strong company and which gave me the responsibility to review the professional practice and standards of those very people who had formerly looked down their nose at me, and present them, in many cases, with improvement plans and targets!


The point of all this, my realisation, is that perhaps, in reality, the old boys club exists not within the institute(s), or even the profession as a whole (though these experiences do make me wonder about Civil Engineers and the ICE) but within certain types of company/organisation, and without a doubt, I feel that multi disciplinary engineering consultants would generally be high among the "guilty parties".


So, given that several of us acknowledge the perception and feel a need to do something about it, maybe this is where we should be looking first, wth the important point that we probably should be promoting the benefit of making registration a requirement, but importantly, to try to counter any tendency to turn it into an old boys club, but also to promote the point that C.Eng is only one of the registration grades, and that the most appropriate one should be selected, rather than always requiring the highest level (C.Eng)


Thoughts?

Edited to correct typos!


That's interesting and, now I think about it, reminds me of the part of my career when I was I.Eng and not yet C.Eng, which suddenly suggests a different take on the "old boys club" perception than has been evident in either this thread, or that on reinvigorating I.Eng.


Bear wth the following rant, which I was planning to post among other reactions in that other thread, but I outline it here purely as a prelude to my sudden realisation, to set the scene for it.


One of the big issues that I took issue with on that other thread was this suggestion, by certain contributors that C.Eng members are part of an old boys club, and I felt this was unfair, making assumptions about people's motives that were not appropriate to make without evidence, or discussion with them to understand their motives (in fact, I should be saying our motives). 


The thing I fully acknowledge, as several of us have already, is that there is a perception out there that this is the case, but, from all dealings and discussions I've had with other C.Eng members, I feel that it is an unfounded perception, in the IET at least, and that most C.Eng, and most older active members, are truly motivated by the desire to pay back, at the advanced stages of their career, to the profession that they are part of and that, in their time, has provided them with the support and mentoring that they now hope to offer to others who are at earlier stages of development, but also, to find a way to remain active and fulfill their own CPD needs. Naturally, those who are fully or partially retired will have both more time to do this, and more motivation, so it can create an impression of institute activity being dominated by older members. But that doesn't mean it's motivated by any desire to form an old boys club.


I therefore took exception to posts that simply made these assumptions about their motivations and promoted what I see to be a myth as if it were established fact. Frankly, it felt like some of the awful Facebook malignment of people with little or no knowledge of them that has become prevalent, and frankly smacks of age discrimination, and thus a breach of the ethical codes on diversity and protected characteristics. Furthermore, it is a form of self-fulfilling prophecy in that, if the perception is widely spread among younger engineers, and as a result they fail to pursue either membership or registration so do in fact create an institute with a steadily increasing proportion of older members, and a registration profile that becomes steadily older.


So, my sudden realisation arises from memory of a very similar scenario to that described by Lee. At that time (around 1998) I joined an engineering consultancy as I.Eng. I took a senior position (initially lead telecoms engineer for my office, but very quickly moving to Technical Director and Professional Head, first nationally, then Internationally. 


Because the company, like most engineering consultancies, was dominated by Civil Engineers, and they all considered C.Eng an essential requirement, especially as they were often called on to sign off calculations and engineering opinions for structural stability, etc. Consequently, I hit some surprise and initially resistance for the fact that I should occupy such a senior position whilst being a mere I.Eng without a degree. In honesty, I believe that this was what created the strongest motivation for me to correct the situation as soon as I was able using the mature candidate route that was the only non-degree route to C.Eng at that time. In practice, if it were in my nature to be so (which it isn't) I could have been quite smug about this some two years down the road when I was appointed to the International Professional Board, which made me one of the 6 most senior engineers in this 3000 strong company and which gave me the responsibility to review the professional practice and standards of those very people who had formerly looked down their nose at me, and present them, in many cases, with improvement plans and targets!


The point of all this, my realisation, is that perhaps, in reality, the old boys club exists not within the institute(s), or even the profession as a whole (though these experiences do make me wonder about Civil Engineers and the ICE) but within certain types of company/organisation, and without a doubt, I feel that multi disciplinary engineering consultants would generally be high among the "guilty parties".


So, given that several of us acknowledge the perception and feel a need to do something about it, maybe this is where we should be looking first, wth the important point that we probably should be promoting the benefit of making registration a requirement, but importantly, to try to counter any tendency to turn it into an old boys club, but also to promote the point that C.Eng is only one of the registration grades, and that the most appropriate one should be selected, rather than always requiring the highest level (C.Eng)


Thoughts?