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 54 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 3000 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

EC UK Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement

Former Community Member
Former Community Member

Quality Assurance Committee on CPD requirement



Published: 01/11/2018

 



All Engineering Council registrants are committed to maintaining and enhancing their competence, which means undertaking Continuing Professional Development (CPD).

From 1 January 2019, licensed members will be required to sample their registrants’ CPD and sampling activity will become part of the licence review process.
Professionally active registrants who persistently do not respond to or engage with requests for CPD records from their institution risk removal from the Engineering Council Register.


Parents
  • 0
    Alasdair, my ship was a bit bigger, bolted down and I went home at the end of each shift.


    Your experience should give you a good view about, which elements were of practical use. My experience and observation is that for many engineers a really solid grasp of ONC/OND material is most if not all of what they need. If you pick up an academic textbook, it assumes fluency in advanced mathematics and uses that as the medium of explanation. Although we covered some calculus at ONC and built on this a little for HNC, I didn’t need anything that couldn’t be explained using ONC level material. Although I did some more advanced statistics in and industrial management course post-HNC.  


    My memory is a little rusty, but I think that you posted an excellent practitioners guide simplifying fault level calculations which hit a good spot with me, had I still been anywhere near that sort of thing.  If I’m honest I just became bored with maths beyond a certain point and rather lost interest, especially when the logistic challenges of a part-time engineering degree at the time were onerous and the syllabus looked of dubious relevance.  It later became much clearer to me through those who I managed, that to miss or fail to understand some crucial step in the logic of maths can fatally undermine further progress. With the right teaching, time to go back to the “derailment” pick it back up, again and some focussed effort, most succeed.  The most obviously different attribute that I observe in those with a university education is the ability to use scientific method to construct and better communication skills to set out, a quality proposition.


    If the hypothesis that I set out needs challenging, then I would welcome that. Setting aside the “IEng problem” and any politics that surround it. We all want future Chartered Engineers that we can be proud of. I’m certainly not trying to undermine more academic forms of preparation for some engineers, but I’m better equipped to comment on the mainstream of engineering as practiced in those sectors that I’m more familiar with.

    It was Hamish Bell who first put the continuum argument to me and having followed the evidence I’m persuaded. My practical solution is to propose that all of graduate calibre should attain the same “level playing field” benchmark, before advancing in whatever direction is appropriate to the opportunities that arise, to reach with reasonable opportunities and motivation, chartered recognition. I have been close to the Work-based MSc programmes (eg Gateways) where there are good examples of high achievement by those who weren’t “stars” at 18. Unfortunately the costs of mid-career degrees have spiralled out of proportion, so something like this can’t become a “requirement”. It seems that the “mature student” market is in serious decline?     

Reply
  • 0
    Alasdair, my ship was a bit bigger, bolted down and I went home at the end of each shift.


    Your experience should give you a good view about, which elements were of practical use. My experience and observation is that for many engineers a really solid grasp of ONC/OND material is most if not all of what they need. If you pick up an academic textbook, it assumes fluency in advanced mathematics and uses that as the medium of explanation. Although we covered some calculus at ONC and built on this a little for HNC, I didn’t need anything that couldn’t be explained using ONC level material. Although I did some more advanced statistics in and industrial management course post-HNC.  


    My memory is a little rusty, but I think that you posted an excellent practitioners guide simplifying fault level calculations which hit a good spot with me, had I still been anywhere near that sort of thing.  If I’m honest I just became bored with maths beyond a certain point and rather lost interest, especially when the logistic challenges of a part-time engineering degree at the time were onerous and the syllabus looked of dubious relevance.  It later became much clearer to me through those who I managed, that to miss or fail to understand some crucial step in the logic of maths can fatally undermine further progress. With the right teaching, time to go back to the “derailment” pick it back up, again and some focussed effort, most succeed.  The most obviously different attribute that I observe in those with a university education is the ability to use scientific method to construct and better communication skills to set out, a quality proposition.


    If the hypothesis that I set out needs challenging, then I would welcome that. Setting aside the “IEng problem” and any politics that surround it. We all want future Chartered Engineers that we can be proud of. I’m certainly not trying to undermine more academic forms of preparation for some engineers, but I’m better equipped to comment on the mainstream of engineering as practiced in those sectors that I’m more familiar with.

    It was Hamish Bell who first put the continuum argument to me and having followed the evidence I’m persuaded. My practical solution is to propose that all of graduate calibre should attain the same “level playing field” benchmark, before advancing in whatever direction is appropriate to the opportunities that arise, to reach with reasonable opportunities and motivation, chartered recognition. I have been close to the Work-based MSc programmes (eg Gateways) where there are good examples of high achievement by those who weren’t “stars” at 18. Unfortunately the costs of mid-career degrees have spiralled out of proportion, so something like this can’t become a “requirement”. It seems that the “mature student” market is in serious decline?     

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines