This discussion is locked.

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

Youngest Chartered Engineers

Having received the latest copy of Member News, I noted that there was an article about the new youngest CEng. Now, obviously it isn’t a race to get CEng and it doesn’t really matter at what age you achieve it.

But it did tweak my interest to wonder what the ages (not names, let’s keep some privacy) of the, say, 16 youngest people to achieve CEng was. Assuming the IET kept that type of information. I don’t suppose that this information is available?

I’d imagine it would be a challenge to get the youngest age that much more under 26. If a 3 year BEng can be compressed to 2 years, then possibly a MEng can be compressed down to 3. Assuming a compressed degree could achieve accreditation then that might lower it another year. However, the competences take as long as they take and it’s about being in the right place and grabbing the right opportunities.

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

Lee, I’m not sure whether I should thank you for adding me to the pantheon of those who have conspicuously failed to explain the issue satisfactorily, or for reminding me of my own limitations and/or the use of metaphor as a form of explanation. I’m ill-suited the first group, so I’ll accept my failure graciously.?

Professor John Uff, a distinguished Chartered Engineer who also went on to become a Barrister in his twenties, suggested in his major report that there may be three million potentially eligible professional registrants in the UK who have not chosen to engage. As far as Chartered Engineer is concerned, research has shown that only a minority of those who are potentially “qualified” have chosen to register. Arguably they have also failed to understand? Alternatively perhaps they have and don't like the message?

We can’t change the past, so we can only make progress from where we are. Here is an example of another attempt to explain https://www.newcivilengineercareers.com/article/chartered-engineering-vs-incorporated-engineering/

If it is any consolation Chartered Accountancy is also unclear https://www.icslearn.co.uk/blog/posts/2018/july/accountancy-qualifications-how-to-choose-the-right-course-for-you/

I would like to see every young person who begins a career in Engineering and Technology welcomed into our professional community. I would define this “beginning” as commencing a formal apprenticeship or enrolling on programme of study leading to our threshold of recognition or beyond. We should then offer support and impartial advice about career development. As these people gain employment experience and opportunities they will pass a threshold that we have codified as an Engineer or Technician. We should help to validate and recognise that. We want our terminal threshold for the most fully developed Engineers (CEng) to be benchmarked at post-graduate standard and we don’t think that competence can be achieved without circa 4-5 years in employment, so it is rare to find anyone under the age of 25 and common to find Chartered Engineers aged 25-30.

At present, most Professional Engineering Institutions don’t offer “impartial” advice, they seek successors in their own image, which for them is as an elite fraction of engineers, based on early academic selection and subsequent specialisation. This model has some merits, but it leaves many gaps, where there isn’t an attractive proposition to a competent person of good character. On the more negative side it also helps to create a narrative based on academic snobbery, in which anything other than Chartered Engineer or a prescribed pathway towards it is diminished and disrespected.

The IET has certainly made progress with our emphasis on competence and packages of support such as “Signature” and “Advantage”, but I would like us to make more. We still accept assumptions based on the unreliable ground of selection by teenage aptitude for complex mathematics and scientific theory. Because most Engineers and Technicians disengage with academia by the age of 23, it is in my opinion premature to place them into silos by that time.

Perhaps we should just invite every 25 year old Engineer or advancing Technician to participate in a professional review? At that point I would like to see three options “Engineer”, “Chartered Engineer” and “development feedback”. I wouldn’t mind an option like “master technician” to emphasise the importance and value of professional technicians.

I’m sorry if some people might think that this is either complex or simplistically utopian. Yes it does mean that if “you’re good enough you’re old enough”. Our standards have only ever been intended as a threshold on which to build a career further.

Engineers and Technicians will become optimised for different roles at different speeds, depending on aptitude, commitment and opportunity. Our role should be to nurture them, by offering stretching but achievable goals, relevant to employer's needs. If that requires something beyond “proficiency” then we should be discussing that, not trying to aggrandise CEng at the expense of other professionals. Fellowship is an obvious contender. Are we using that in the right way?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

Lee, I’m not sure whether I should thank you for adding me to the pantheon of those who have conspicuously failed to explain the issue satisfactorily, or for reminding me of my own limitations and/or the use of metaphor as a form of explanation. I’m ill-suited the first group, so I’ll accept my failure graciously.?

Professor John Uff, a distinguished Chartered Engineer who also went on to become a Barrister in his twenties, suggested in his major report that there may be three million potentially eligible professional registrants in the UK who have not chosen to engage. As far as Chartered Engineer is concerned, research has shown that only a minority of those who are potentially “qualified” have chosen to register. Arguably they have also failed to understand? Alternatively perhaps they have and don't like the message?

We can’t change the past, so we can only make progress from where we are. Here is an example of another attempt to explain https://www.newcivilengineercareers.com/article/chartered-engineering-vs-incorporated-engineering/

If it is any consolation Chartered Accountancy is also unclear https://www.icslearn.co.uk/blog/posts/2018/july/accountancy-qualifications-how-to-choose-the-right-course-for-you/

I would like to see every young person who begins a career in Engineering and Technology welcomed into our professional community. I would define this “beginning” as commencing a formal apprenticeship or enrolling on programme of study leading to our threshold of recognition or beyond. We should then offer support and impartial advice about career development. As these people gain employment experience and opportunities they will pass a threshold that we have codified as an Engineer or Technician. We should help to validate and recognise that. We want our terminal threshold for the most fully developed Engineers (CEng) to be benchmarked at post-graduate standard and we don’t think that competence can be achieved without circa 4-5 years in employment, so it is rare to find anyone under the age of 25 and common to find Chartered Engineers aged 25-30.

At present, most Professional Engineering Institutions don’t offer “impartial” advice, they seek successors in their own image, which for them is as an elite fraction of engineers, based on early academic selection and subsequent specialisation. This model has some merits, but it leaves many gaps, where there isn’t an attractive proposition to a competent person of good character. On the more negative side it also helps to create a narrative based on academic snobbery, in which anything other than Chartered Engineer or a prescribed pathway towards it is diminished and disrespected.

The IET has certainly made progress with our emphasis on competence and packages of support such as “Signature” and “Advantage”, but I would like us to make more. We still accept assumptions based on the unreliable ground of selection by teenage aptitude for complex mathematics and scientific theory. Because most Engineers and Technicians disengage with academia by the age of 23, it is in my opinion premature to place them into silos by that time.

Perhaps we should just invite every 25 year old Engineer or advancing Technician to participate in a professional review? At that point I would like to see three options “Engineer”, “Chartered Engineer” and “development feedback”. I wouldn’t mind an option like “master technician” to emphasise the importance and value of professional technicians.

I’m sorry if some people might think that this is either complex or simplistically utopian. Yes it does mean that if “you’re good enough you’re old enough”. Our standards have only ever been intended as a threshold on which to build a career further.

Engineers and Technicians will become optimised for different roles at different speeds, depending on aptitude, commitment and opportunity. Our role should be to nurture them, by offering stretching but achievable goals, relevant to employer's needs. If that requires something beyond “proficiency” then we should be discussing that, not trying to aggrandise CEng at the expense of other professionals. Fellowship is an obvious contender. Are we using that in the right way?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Youngest Chartered Engineers

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines