I'm not sure how much it actually is harder now - although I certainly think there is a perception that it is. Interesting Mehmood that you pick up up on my musings on this a few years back, which was before I was a PRA - just goes to show the value of PRAs in breaking misconceptions, including our own! The biggest challenge I come across for CEngs today is commonly the "innovation" criteria, but that's because the PEIs and EC have not been very good at all at promoting the "technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk" path (which I must admit I hadn't noticed until Alasdair pointed it out to me, shortly followed by Colin Sellers trying to point it out to all PRIs and PRIs).
I think of my dad who got his CEng in the 1940s or '50s based on the equivalent of HNC qualifications from night school, and who certainly wasn't at the forefront of innovation, could he have got it today? Yes, I think he could, given the right advice.
Thinking about the creative engineer who doesn't necessarily show so many strengths in the management and interpersonal areas, I don't know about the 1940s and before, but certainly when I was vaguely looking at CEng from the late '70s through to the late '90s (when I finally did apply) it seemed fairly clear that applying on that basis was going to be extremely difficult. But if I'd had modern UKSpec and an adviser back in the '80s maybe we could have made a good case - the BIG advantage applicants have now is that the required standards are, I would suggest, vastly clearer than they have ever been.
Alex: I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding whether someone with difficulty in communication skills could achieve at interview and more generally with registration. Gosh that's a difficult subject. The challenge for the panel is to separate difficulty in communicating from other traits with similar appearances which actually would impact engineering competence: I'm specifically thinking of arrogance, aggressiveness, inability to accept other opinions, which can ultimately end in bad and indeed downright dangerous engineering. And human beings, particularly those who are good at communicating, are often very bad at telling the difference. (For example, anyone who's painfully shy will know how often it gets mistaken for arrogance and disdain.) I'd suggest that the critical point is that candidates who struggle in communicating need support to ensure that from their application it is clear that they must have been able to communicate adequately to achieve the successful engineering outcomes that they have achieved. And where I come across such candidates I always recommend that they try to get interview practice - most of this stuff comes down to skills as learnable (at least at a basic level) as making the perfect soldered joint. I'm sure that many senior members of this institute would declare, after a couple of glasses of port, "if they can't interview well then they shouldn't be calling themselves engineers - telling people about your work is part of the job". Not quite. You have to be able to communicate bi-directionally with your immediate peers, but sitting in front of a panel of grey men is a whole different ball game. Yes, it's a useful skill, and I'd always encourage it, but for most engineers it's not essential for the day job.
I think Tesla would have nailed his interview, but wonder if Turing would have struggled.
Brunel, father or son, I reckon would no problem at all applying today! Ditto James Watt. Richard Trevithick though, one of my favourite engineers, I think he might have struggled for numerous reasons. He'd have probably ended up with James Watt on the interview panel and that would have been the end of his application...
I'm not sure how much it actually is harder now - although I certainly think there is a perception that it is. Interesting Mehmood that you pick up up on my musings on this a few years back, which was before I was a PRA - just goes to show the value of PRAs in breaking misconceptions, including our own! The biggest challenge I come across for CEngs today is commonly the "innovation" criteria, but that's because the PEIs and EC have not been very good at all at promoting the "technical accountability for complex systems with significant levels of risk" path (which I must admit I hadn't noticed until Alasdair pointed it out to me, shortly followed by Colin Sellers trying to point it out to all PRIs and PRIs).
I think of my dad who got his CEng in the 1940s or '50s based on the equivalent of HNC qualifications from night school, and who certainly wasn't at the forefront of innovation, could he have got it today? Yes, I think he could, given the right advice.
Thinking about the creative engineer who doesn't necessarily show so many strengths in the management and interpersonal areas, I don't know about the 1940s and before, but certainly when I was vaguely looking at CEng from the late '70s through to the late '90s (when I finally did apply) it seemed fairly clear that applying on that basis was going to be extremely difficult. But if I'd had modern UKSpec and an adviser back in the '80s maybe we could have made a good case - the BIG advantage applicants have now is that the required standards are, I would suggest, vastly clearer than they have ever been.
Alex: I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding whether someone with difficulty in communication skills could achieve at interview and more generally with registration. Gosh that's a difficult subject. The challenge for the panel is to separate difficulty in communicating from other traits with similar appearances which actually would impact engineering competence: I'm specifically thinking of arrogance, aggressiveness, inability to accept other opinions, which can ultimately end in bad and indeed downright dangerous engineering. And human beings, particularly those who are good at communicating, are often very bad at telling the difference. (For example, anyone who's painfully shy will know how often it gets mistaken for arrogance and disdain.) I'd suggest that the critical point is that candidates who struggle in communicating need support to ensure that from their application it is clear that they must have been able to communicate adequately to achieve the successful engineering outcomes that they have achieved. And where I come across such candidates I always recommend that they try to get interview practice - most of this stuff comes down to skills as learnable (at least at a basic level) as making the perfect soldered joint. I'm sure that many senior members of this institute would declare, after a couple of glasses of port, "if they can't interview well then they shouldn't be calling themselves engineers - telling people about your work is part of the job". Not quite. You have to be able to communicate bi-directionally with your immediate peers, but sitting in front of a panel of grey men is a whole different ball game. Yes, it's a useful skill, and I'd always encourage it, but for most engineers it's not essential for the day job.
I think Tesla would have nailed his interview, but wonder if Turing would have struggled.
Brunel, father or son, I reckon would no problem at all applying today! Ditto James Watt. Richard Trevithick though, one of my favourite engineers, I think he might have struggled for numerous reasons. He'd have probably ended up with James Watt on the interview panel and that would have been the end of his application...
