My own particular favourite http://www.engineering-timelines.com/who/Parker_T/parkerThomas.asp left school at the age of 10, but sought and soaked up knowledge wherever he could find it. He was perhaps the antithesis of a person destined to become a member of an “elite London club”, yet his achievements earned him an invitation to three of them, firstly The Institution of Telegraph Engineers and Electricians/IEE, then at the behest of Lord Kelvin who proposed him, The Institution of Civil Engineers and eventually also The Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Had the Institution of Chemical Engineers existed at the time then they would also have keenly sought him. When he died during the First World War he was quite quickly forgotten by our institution, probably because he was not a militarist, conservative or part of “the establishment”. He had become a relatively wealthy inventor and industrialist who retired to live in the largest house in his home town, now a hotel, but he was by conviction strongly left leaning. http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/genealogy/Parker/Election.htm
A common thread runs throughout the history of UK professional recognition for engineers which is that of senior professionals organising into learned societies and honouring others who have illustrated distinction with some form of status. So the number one product benefit currently suggested for becoming a Chartered Engineer is “The status of being part of a technological elite”https://www.engc.org.uk/EngCDocuments/Internet/Website/CEng%20Leaflet.pdf . The first definition of “elite” that I came across is “a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society”. All that has really evolved over 150 years are the mechanisms by which such elite status is afforded.
Some other professions are “closed” so if you don’t gain admission to a medical degree course you can’t become a Doctor. Some are relatively “open” so if you pass the exams you can become a Chartered Accountant. In certain types of professional career, it is expected that a high proportion of participants will reach a “terminal threshold” at nominal post-graduate level, so such achievement is considered relatively “normal” rather than “elite”. If we take a long term view, then control over recognition gradually moved from learned societies towards institutions of learning, mostly in practice universities. However a UK compromise has left responsibility shared under Engineering Council governance.
Advocates of the more “closed” approach might reference the academic consensus of the International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) which influenced the adoption of 4 year MEng programmes, with high admission tariffs in maths and science, creating an “elite” pathway for an 18 year old. So 20+ years ago an intent developed for this to become the main route to “Chartered Engineer”. “The rest” would need an additional MSc to qualify or become a “Chartered Engineering Technologist” instead. Who knows where that might have taken us , two terminal thresholds , but one more prestigious than the other? That ran into the sand, so at least we have been spared the battles over which type of chartered engineering professional is better, replaced as it has been by; what is the purpose of IEng?
When university participation was confined to a small proportion of the population (perhaps 2% at my school) then that conveniently defined an elite group. However, I have just reviewed the proposed guidance for Accredited Engineering Degrees in 2020 and it creates no less than five divisions in what might typically be a couple of years of study. In practice this is even worse because the divisions are predicated on fluency in calculus, gained for perhaps as little as a few weeks. Even if these divisions are valid or useful, which they aren’t in my opinion, most people disengage with academia by their early twenties so we need something else. Incidentally “Mature Student” participation is currently falling off a cliff.
For a more “open” approach, we have UK-SPEC which is mostly applied to experienced practitioners. Some opine that it should only be used in addition to an accredited degree, some instead of. The IET gives primacy to competence demonstrated and values academic achievement highly, but without making it a pre-requisite. However, this is a relatively recent innovation and a “suitable academic rite of passage” was long required, although it was possible for those aged over 35 to be invited to produce a report in lieu. Some other institutions still in effect operate that policy.
So does UK-SPEC achieve our historic mission of dividing “the best from the rest” in the second decade of the 21st century? I would say yes it does and as applied by the IET it also offers “open” access. Could we do better? Yes! Do some people legitimate grounds to feel aggrieved? Yes, firstly because a binary division of engineers, who carry out a vast range of overlapping activities is artificial and ours is based on “learnedness” with a strong academic bias; secondly because to fall on the either side of the division has very different consequences. Failure to become recognised as “one of the best” can for an experienced engineer, be humiliating and even career limiting. Because as currently codified the division falls in the “mainstream” of the profession, it can be debated whether the benefits outweigh the risk of harm for most practising engineers.
Is our historic mission appropriate for the 21st Century? The vision of some who contributed to UK-SPEC was to describe three “different but equally valuable” career pathways suitable for registration. That certainly hasn’t been delivered, perhaps because from a top down perspective the concept of “equality” is threatening. The registration product is sold through premium dealerships, who mostly have limited or no interest is selling “more basic models” to “lower status” customers. Some of these lower status customers like affiliating to higher status, or have aspirations to gain it themselves, but most don’t see the value or are even aware, unless they begin to move in circles where registration is prevalent.
We have debated endlessly, whether we should market the once popular and useful Incorporated (previously TechEng) model or drop it. Many including myself have sought to highlight the potential benefits, but this has proved a hopeless futile struggle in an environment where it is so widely taken to be an inferior pejorative. Most of the modest “sales” over recent years have been to a large employer, for the benefit of those employees who’s “status” is already fixed by their role. Perhaps a good analogy here is the free provision of company cars allocated on the basis of grade. For around 20 years of my career, I had use of a company vehicle, this started with an Orange Transit Van during working hours only, then a gap during which I acquired IEng, then a two-litre Cavalier, then a couple of Mondeos, A Volvo S60, then a BMW 3 Series. Does this tell you more of less, than using a post-nominal?
On the general point of trying to compare the best in different eras, this is difficult because the context is always different, when I played youth football it was in the shadow of Billy Wright https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-billy-wright-1446877.html how would he fare in the modern game? Likewise Arthur Rowley who I saw play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rowley . The first politician that I spoke with was Dennis Healey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Healey Perhaps the Second World War did create a “golden generation” because what we have now seem lightweight in comparison (or am I rose tinting?). Fifty and sixty year old music still seems enormously popular even with younger people.
Some people have suggested that our current system of engineering regulation is distorted by the age gap between the current cohort of active volunteers with an average age of 60+ and those aspiring to recognition. As I have pointed out in these forums there is also a limited understanding and therefore negative prejudice around apprenticeships. In the older age group there is usually respect, but often an assumption of “craft not brain”(Secondary Modern not Grammar) . Many of the younger cohort have no experience of the pathway, but some have swallowed the academic snobbery and status obsession handed down by a minority of their elders (often not engineers).
Alan Turing went to public school and Cambridge University so he was well set in that respect, but was perhaps like many a genius was something of a social misfit and poor “club-man”. He was deprived of his dignity and persecuted for his sexuality as was common in that era, leading to his untimely death. We should take very great care when we impose negative value judgements on anyone, including as we do rejection and insult. Our system of regulation isn’t anywhere near perfect enough to justify insulting and demeaning people as “lower” or “incompetent” which is an underlying cause of why there are so few registered IEng and Technicians. If you are fortunate enough to have been designated one of “the best” then thank your lucky stars, don’t disrespect “the rest” because however good you are, most of them can do some really clever things that you can’t.
My own particular favourite http://www.engineering-timelines.com/who/Parker_T/parkerThomas.asp left school at the age of 10, but sought and soaked up knowledge wherever he could find it. He was perhaps the antithesis of a person destined to become a member of an “elite London club”, yet his achievements earned him an invitation to three of them, firstly The Institution of Telegraph Engineers and Electricians/IEE, then at the behest of Lord Kelvin who proposed him, The Institution of Civil Engineers and eventually also The Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Had the Institution of Chemical Engineers existed at the time then they would also have keenly sought him. When he died during the First World War he was quite quickly forgotten by our institution, probably because he was not a militarist, conservative or part of “the establishment”. He had become a relatively wealthy inventor and industrialist who retired to live in the largest house in his home town, now a hotel, but he was by conviction strongly left leaning. http://www.historywebsite.co.uk/genealogy/Parker/Election.htm
A common thread runs throughout the history of UK professional recognition for engineers which is that of senior professionals organising into learned societies and honouring others who have illustrated distinction with some form of status. So the number one product benefit currently suggested for becoming a Chartered Engineer is “The status of being part of a technological elite”https://www.engc.org.uk/EngCDocuments/Internet/Website/CEng%20Leaflet.pdf . The first definition of “elite” that I came across is “a select group that is superior in terms of ability or qualities to the rest of a group or society”. All that has really evolved over 150 years are the mechanisms by which such elite status is afforded.
Some other professions are “closed” so if you don’t gain admission to a medical degree course you can’t become a Doctor. Some are relatively “open” so if you pass the exams you can become a Chartered Accountant. In certain types of professional career, it is expected that a high proportion of participants will reach a “terminal threshold” at nominal post-graduate level, so such achievement is considered relatively “normal” rather than “elite”. If we take a long term view, then control over recognition gradually moved from learned societies towards institutions of learning, mostly in practice universities. However a UK compromise has left responsibility shared under Engineering Council governance.
Advocates of the more “closed” approach might reference the academic consensus of the International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) which influenced the adoption of 4 year MEng programmes, with high admission tariffs in maths and science, creating an “elite” pathway for an 18 year old. So 20+ years ago an intent developed for this to become the main route to “Chartered Engineer”. “The rest” would need an additional MSc to qualify or become a “Chartered Engineering Technologist” instead. Who knows where that might have taken us , two terminal thresholds , but one more prestigious than the other? That ran into the sand, so at least we have been spared the battles over which type of chartered engineering professional is better, replaced as it has been by; what is the purpose of IEng?
When university participation was confined to a small proportion of the population (perhaps 2% at my school) then that conveniently defined an elite group. However, I have just reviewed the proposed guidance for Accredited Engineering Degrees in 2020 and it creates no less than five divisions in what might typically be a couple of years of study. In practice this is even worse because the divisions are predicated on fluency in calculus, gained for perhaps as little as a few weeks. Even if these divisions are valid or useful, which they aren’t in my opinion, most people disengage with academia by their early twenties so we need something else. Incidentally “Mature Student” participation is currently falling off a cliff.
For a more “open” approach, we have UK-SPEC which is mostly applied to experienced practitioners. Some opine that it should only be used in addition to an accredited degree, some instead of. The IET gives primacy to competence demonstrated and values academic achievement highly, but without making it a pre-requisite. However, this is a relatively recent innovation and a “suitable academic rite of passage” was long required, although it was possible for those aged over 35 to be invited to produce a report in lieu. Some other institutions still in effect operate that policy.
So does UK-SPEC achieve our historic mission of dividing “the best from the rest” in the second decade of the 21st century? I would say yes it does and as applied by the IET it also offers “open” access. Could we do better? Yes! Do some people legitimate grounds to feel aggrieved? Yes, firstly because a binary division of engineers, who carry out a vast range of overlapping activities is artificial and ours is based on “learnedness” with a strong academic bias; secondly because to fall on the either side of the division has very different consequences. Failure to become recognised as “one of the best” can for an experienced engineer, be humiliating and even career limiting. Because as currently codified the division falls in the “mainstream” of the profession, it can be debated whether the benefits outweigh the risk of harm for most practising engineers.
Is our historic mission appropriate for the 21st Century? The vision of some who contributed to UK-SPEC was to describe three “different but equally valuable” career pathways suitable for registration. That certainly hasn’t been delivered, perhaps because from a top down perspective the concept of “equality” is threatening. The registration product is sold through premium dealerships, who mostly have limited or no interest is selling “more basic models” to “lower status” customers. Some of these lower status customers like affiliating to higher status, or have aspirations to gain it themselves, but most don’t see the value or are even aware, unless they begin to move in circles where registration is prevalent.
We have debated endlessly, whether we should market the once popular and useful Incorporated (previously TechEng) model or drop it. Many including myself have sought to highlight the potential benefits, but this has proved a hopeless futile struggle in an environment where it is so widely taken to be an inferior pejorative. Most of the modest “sales” over recent years have been to a large employer, for the benefit of those employees who’s “status” is already fixed by their role. Perhaps a good analogy here is the free provision of company cars allocated on the basis of grade. For around 20 years of my career, I had use of a company vehicle, this started with an Orange Transit Van during working hours only, then a gap during which I acquired IEng, then a two-litre Cavalier, then a couple of Mondeos, A Volvo S60, then a BMW 3 Series. Does this tell you more of less, than using a post-nominal?
On the general point of trying to compare the best in different eras, this is difficult because the context is always different, when I played youth football it was in the shadow of Billy Wright https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-billy-wright-1446877.html how would he fare in the modern game? Likewise Arthur Rowley who I saw play https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Rowley . The first politician that I spoke with was Dennis Healey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Healey Perhaps the Second World War did create a “golden generation” because what we have now seem lightweight in comparison (or am I rose tinting?). Fifty and sixty year old music still seems enormously popular even with younger people.
Some people have suggested that our current system of engineering regulation is distorted by the age gap between the current cohort of active volunteers with an average age of 60+ and those aspiring to recognition. As I have pointed out in these forums there is also a limited understanding and therefore negative prejudice around apprenticeships. In the older age group there is usually respect, but often an assumption of “craft not brain”(Secondary Modern not Grammar) . Many of the younger cohort have no experience of the pathway, but some have swallowed the academic snobbery and status obsession handed down by a minority of their elders (often not engineers).
Alan Turing went to public school and Cambridge University so he was well set in that respect, but was perhaps like many a genius was something of a social misfit and poor “club-man”. He was deprived of his dignity and persecuted for his sexuality as was common in that era, leading to his untimely death. We should take very great care when we impose negative value judgements on anyone, including as we do rejection and insult. Our system of regulation isn’t anywhere near perfect enough to justify insulting and demeaning people as “lower” or “incompetent” which is an underlying cause of why there are so few registered IEng and Technicians. If you are fortunate enough to have been designated one of “the best” then thank your lucky stars, don’t disrespect “the rest” because however good you are, most of them can do some really clever things that you can’t.
