Hi, The biggest challenge I find candidates face is actually getting around to writing their applications, and very often when I see their draft applications I can see why it took them so long - they have written FAR FAR too much! (Ok, some write too little, but that can be for another post.) The guidance says: The requirement is not to exceed a total of 12 pages for the whole application when printed. Detail your main responsibilities and personal contributions rather than a bland job description. You should aim to provide roughly 3000 characters as it is unlikely that less will adequately demonstrate your relevant experience. https://www.theiet.org/media/4251/cengieng-guidance.pdf Trust me, "roughly 3000 characters" is plenty of room to describe what you are responsible for and what knowledge you use for your role. A few hints for keeping it under control, these are common across many applications I've seen recently: Don't tell a story. As soon as you find you are writing "this happened...and then this happened...and then this happened..." you need to reign it in. It can be useful to use projects as examples, but keep it to the form "For example, on this project I was responsible for specification / design / signoff of this technology, which required me to develop this solution, which required me to gain an understanding of yyy which I did through..." And a very brief description to show the level of commercial and/or technical risk involved only if it isn't obvious from the project name. Don't describe other people's roles unless absolutely strictly necessary, and even then keep it very brief. You may need to describe those who work for you, or who you report to, to put your position in context, but this can be as brief as "I supervise the installation team of 6 staff at EngTech level and a team leader at IEng level" or "my reports are approved by the Technical Director for the division, however I hold full responsibility for the content and accuracy of those reports". Don't describe what other people did before you arrived. Definitely don't say "the equipment needed replacing because of previous bad decisions", a) that's nothing to do with how good your engineering is and b) it's not showing respect to other engineers. I can't really think of a case offhand where it adds value to your application to say why the projects you are working on needed doing. Similarly don't say "I was worried about...so I..." Mostly just say what you do. If you feel you really need to justify why you do what you do the best way is to show an outcome. And definitely don't say (I've seen a few of these recently) "I disagreed with the decision so I recorded my disagreement even though I had to implement the decision". That's an internal confidential matter for your organisation which you shouldn't be making "public". (And in any case, you might have been the one who got the judgement wrong!) What you actually want to show is that where you have access to company confidential information (including this) you keep it confidential. Don't say "managing the project budget is important to keep costs under control", "installing equipment to the Wiring regulations is necessary to maintain electrical safety" or any other sentence that looks like that. The panels know that already! To show that you are competent say "I manage costs on my projects by...", "I manage safety on my projects by..." And also on saying the obvious, don't say (for example) "I compiled a spreadsheet using Excel" - of course you used Excel! Ok, other tools are available, the point is more about what value your spreadsheet added to the organisation, not how you did it. So "I identified an opportunity for improvement for the logging and tracking of failure data, and developed a process and spreadsheet solution which now ensures all failures can be effectively analysed on a quarterly basis" (and ideally "...resulting in x% reduction in failures") - that's far more interesting. To sum up the above two points: assume that you are at the same level as the panels assessing your application. So you only need to explain engineering "life" if there is something specific about your organisation or industry that is strictly relevant to your competence. Don't waste words describing technology. You may need to do it briefly to put your work into context, particularly if you are explaining how your work is novel, but keep it really, really, really brief. It takes more engineering excellence to design a better pencil sharpener* than it does to fit a 13amp plug onto a supercomputer - it's not the complexity of the technology you are working on that will impress in your application, it's the complexity of the tasks you had to carry out and the amount of your own judgement you had to make. A simple (and very common) one to save unnecessary words: if you find you've written "I looked at solutions...I identified xxx as the best solution...so I implemented xxx" actually only the middle bit is useful. If you've identified a best solution then we can assume you had looked at solutions and that you implemented the best one. Also on this, and again this is where it is common to put in far, far too much detail, it doesn't matter why xxx was technically the best solution or what the alternatives were, what is interesting is how you knew it was the best one. Where did your knowledge and judgement come from. How did you check it was the right decision. In general, don't treat the panels as university lecturers spending a long rainy day marking coursework. Treat them as very busy engineers who just want to be able to make a judgement, as quickly as possible, as to where you fit into the scale of engineering professionals. And one thing they'll judge you on is how well you can keep your application brief and to the point! As usual, I'd greatly appreciate any comments and other advice (especially if it contradicts the above ? ) from PRIs / PRAs. Cheers, Andy * It really does. It is extremely rare that I come across an excellent pencil sharpener!

This discussion is locked.

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

Advice to candidates - keep it brief and to the point!

Hi,

The biggest challenge I find candidates face is actually getting around to writing their applications, and very often when I see their draft applications I can see why it took them so long - they have written FAR FAR too much! (Ok, some write too little, but that can be for another post.)

The guidance says:

The requirement is not to exceed a total of 12 pages for the whole application when printed.

Detail your main responsibilities and personal contributions rather than a bland job description. You should aim to provide roughly 3000 characters as it is unlikely that less will adequately demonstrate your relevant experience.

https://www.theiet.org/media/4251/cengieng-guidance.pdf

Trust me, "roughly 3000 characters" is plenty of room to describe what you are responsible for and what knowledge you use for your role. A few hints for keeping it under control, these are common across many applications I've seen recently:

Don't tell a story. As soon as you find you are writing "this happened...and then this happened...and then this happened..." you need to reign it in. It can be useful to use projects as examples, but keep it to the form "For example, on this project I was responsible for specification / design / signoff of this technology, which required me to develop this solution, which required me to gain an understanding of yyy which I did through..." And a very brief description to show the level of commercial and/or technical risk involved only if it isn't obvious from the project name.

Don't describe other people's roles unless absolutely strictly necessary, and even then keep it very brief. You may need to describe those who work for you, or who you report to, to put your position in context, but this can be as brief as "I supervise the installation team of 6 staff at EngTech level and a team leader at IEng level" or "my reports are approved by the Technical Director for the division, however I hold full responsibility for the content and accuracy of those reports".

Don't describe what other people did before you arrived. Definitely don't say "the equipment needed replacing because of previous bad decisions", a) that's nothing to do with how good your engineering is and b) it's not showing respect to other engineers. I can't really think of a case offhand where it adds value to your application to say why the projects you are working on needed doing.

Similarly don't say "I was worried about...so I..." Mostly just say what you do. If you feel you really need to justify why you do what you do the best way is to show an outcome.

And definitely don't say (I've seen a few of these recently) "I disagreed with the decision so I recorded my disagreement even though I had to implement the decision". That's an internal confidential matter for your organisation which you shouldn't be making "public". (And in any case, you might have been the one who got the judgement wrong!) What you actually want to show is that where you have access to company confidential information (including this) you keep it confidential.

Don't say "managing the project budget is important to keep costs under control", "installing equipment to the Wiring regulations is necessary to maintain electrical safety" or any other sentence that looks like that. The panels know that already! To show that you are competent say "I manage costs on my projects by...", "I manage safety on my projects by..."

And also on saying the obvious, don't say (for example) "I compiled a spreadsheet using Excel" - of course you used Excel! Ok, other tools are available, the point is more about what value your spreadsheet added to the organisation, not how you did it. So "I identified an opportunity for improvement for the logging and tracking of failure data, and developed a process and spreadsheet solution which now ensures all failures can be effectively analysed on a quarterly basis" (and ideally "...resulting in x% reduction in failures") - that's far more interesting.

To sum up the above two points: assume that you are at the same level as the panels assessing your application. So you only need to explain engineering "life" if there is something specific about your organisation or industry that is strictly relevant to your competence.

Don't waste words describing technology. You may need to do it briefly to put your work into context, particularly if you are explaining how your work is novel, but keep it really, really, really brief. It takes more engineering excellence to design a better pencil sharpener* than it does to fit a 13amp plug onto a supercomputer - it's not the complexity of the technology you are working on that will impress in your application, it's the complexity of the tasks you had to carry out and the amount of your own judgement you had to make.

A simple (and very common) one to save unnecessary words: if you find you've written "I looked at solutions...I identified xxx as the best solution...so I implemented xxx" actually only the middle bit is useful. If you've identified a best solution then we can assume you had looked at solutions and that you implemented the best one.

Also on this, and again this is where it is common to put in far, far too much detail, it doesn't matter why xxx was technically the best solution or what the alternatives were, what is interesting is how you knew it was the best one. Where did your knowledge and judgement come from. How did you check it was the right decision.

In general, don't treat the panels as university lecturers spending a long rainy day marking coursework. Treat them as very busy engineers who just want to be able to make a judgement, as quickly as possible, as to where you fit into the scale of engineering professionals. And one thing they'll judge you on is how well you can keep your application brief and to the point!

As usual, I'd greatly appreciate any comments and other advice (especially if it contradicts the above ? ) from PRIs / PRAs.

Cheers,

Andy

* It really does. It is extremely rare that I come across an excellent pencil sharpener!

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

The first thing that comes to my mind, is that evaluating competence is carried out by peer (i.e. equal) review. This is carried out by experienced registered members, of other as yet unregistered members. Therefore your aim is to explain simply and reasonably succinctly your achievements, with UK-SPEC as the common point of reference.

Some people (like me) want to see the “bigger picture” and are more comfortable inferring that the detail is there, subject to validation during interview. However, others are naturally “detail focussed”. Many engineers and students who went on to be engineers, were trained in this way. Much of academic practice tends towards breaking everything down and the art of passing an exam or assignment, is often to read carefully the exam question and answer every sub-clause. I mostly advise engineers to focus on the second column “examples”, not as a prescriptive list, but as ideas of the sort of things that could be helpful.

Some IET assessors (peer reviewers) might be a “better expert” than you in your specialist area, but this is not a competition, it is simply an evaluation of whether you meet the minimum threshold standard in all areas. Most IET assessors are simply experienced registrants , who are trained to recognise competence, including often that the person seeking registration is more expert than them. I always assume that the member seeking registration is more expert than I am, because they are doing their job and I’m not. Therefore, I like someone to just explain through their own eyes, some of their best work.

If you are fortunate enough to have, “ideal” academic qualifications and a career of growing leadership responsibility, then a simple description of this should suffice. Some people think that "simple" means just a few bullet points, but like newspaper headlines they only grab attention, there needs to be a “story” of examples of achievement to flesh this out.

So how long is too long? Think of the reader! An IET volunteer assessor may have over 20 applications to read through as part of the initial assessment. Some might be adept at skipping through or “speed reading” in search of the most relevant information, others go line by line. Clear presentation and white space helps, but you don’t want to fatigue and therefore lose the sympathy of the reviewer.

What about people without “ideal” academic qualifications?

The situation can be clouded by history and by the practice of other institutions who hold an Engineering Council license. Until about 10 years ago the emphasis of all institutions was on “meeting academic requirements” followed by a “training period”, followed by “responsible experience”. The IET evolved a policy that academic qualifications, training and experience are all important examples of development. So it is possible to follow an accredited pathway with accredited qualifications and professional development, which place you in an advantageous position.

Accredited qualifications are listed here https://www.engc.org.uk/acad The IET treats any accreditation by another Engineering Council body as equally valid.

Employers schemes are here https://www.theiet.org/career/accreditation/company-accreditation/.

There are also some specially mapped schemes for the armed forces https://www.theiet.org/career/professional-registration/professional-registration-for-the-armed-forces/

A common question is - does the IET accept my qualification? The IET takes into account any relevant qualification worldwide that can be independently verified and compared to UK qualifications. Some degrees that are not formally accredited are still well understood and respected. In the case of post graduate degrees it is impractical to accredit every programme, especially those of an individual bespoke nature such as “Gateways” MSc and others with bespoke work-based learning.

If IET reviewers consider that the evidence of qualifications and professional achievement does not clearly illustrate a level of knowledge and understanding appropriate to the category of registration, then they may seek additional evidence. This may include where appropriate, conducting a knowledge assessment based on a work sample or report. This is only used where a good case for competent practice is being made, but some doubt remains. Engineering Council describes this a the “Technical Report Route”. This is not an alternative to an academic qualification, but a pathway to recognition for experienced engineers.

The most difficult challenge for advisors and assessors is in my experience, dividing experienced engineers into those best aligned to IEng and those best aligned to CEng. Academic qualifications offer apparent certainty, but by the time many people apply for registration some years later, they rarely create a reliable division. The problem is magnified by the perceived difference in value between the two in many circumstances and some inappropriate prejudice.

My final observations are;

The advantage I often see in those with a strong academic background, is the ability to express ideas and arguments, based in evidence and scientific method. https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/engineering-design-process/engineering-design-compare-scientific-method

The often extremely able engineers who haven’t been exposed to these methods, such as through formal learning of a post-graduate nature, often don’t present quite as well “on paper”, although they often impress “face to face”. Deploying more complex forms of mathematics has historically been used as an differentiator, but this has limited validity in most workplace situations now.

Compliments of the season!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

The first thing that comes to my mind, is that evaluating competence is carried out by peer (i.e. equal) review. This is carried out by experienced registered members, of other as yet unregistered members. Therefore your aim is to explain simply and reasonably succinctly your achievements, with UK-SPEC as the common point of reference.

Some people (like me) want to see the “bigger picture” and are more comfortable inferring that the detail is there, subject to validation during interview. However, others are naturally “detail focussed”. Many engineers and students who went on to be engineers, were trained in this way. Much of academic practice tends towards breaking everything down and the art of passing an exam or assignment, is often to read carefully the exam question and answer every sub-clause. I mostly advise engineers to focus on the second column “examples”, not as a prescriptive list, but as ideas of the sort of things that could be helpful.

Some IET assessors (peer reviewers) might be a “better expert” than you in your specialist area, but this is not a competition, it is simply an evaluation of whether you meet the minimum threshold standard in all areas. Most IET assessors are simply experienced registrants , who are trained to recognise competence, including often that the person seeking registration is more expert than them. I always assume that the member seeking registration is more expert than I am, because they are doing their job and I’m not. Therefore, I like someone to just explain through their own eyes, some of their best work.

If you are fortunate enough to have, “ideal” academic qualifications and a career of growing leadership responsibility, then a simple description of this should suffice. Some people think that "simple" means just a few bullet points, but like newspaper headlines they only grab attention, there needs to be a “story” of examples of achievement to flesh this out.

So how long is too long? Think of the reader! An IET volunteer assessor may have over 20 applications to read through as part of the initial assessment. Some might be adept at skipping through or “speed reading” in search of the most relevant information, others go line by line. Clear presentation and white space helps, but you don’t want to fatigue and therefore lose the sympathy of the reviewer.

What about people without “ideal” academic qualifications?

The situation can be clouded by history and by the practice of other institutions who hold an Engineering Council license. Until about 10 years ago the emphasis of all institutions was on “meeting academic requirements” followed by a “training period”, followed by “responsible experience”. The IET evolved a policy that academic qualifications, training and experience are all important examples of development. So it is possible to follow an accredited pathway with accredited qualifications and professional development, which place you in an advantageous position.

Accredited qualifications are listed here https://www.engc.org.uk/acad The IET treats any accreditation by another Engineering Council body as equally valid.

Employers schemes are here https://www.theiet.org/career/accreditation/company-accreditation/.

There are also some specially mapped schemes for the armed forces https://www.theiet.org/career/professional-registration/professional-registration-for-the-armed-forces/

A common question is - does the IET accept my qualification? The IET takes into account any relevant qualification worldwide that can be independently verified and compared to UK qualifications. Some degrees that are not formally accredited are still well understood and respected. In the case of post graduate degrees it is impractical to accredit every programme, especially those of an individual bespoke nature such as “Gateways” MSc and others with bespoke work-based learning.

If IET reviewers consider that the evidence of qualifications and professional achievement does not clearly illustrate a level of knowledge and understanding appropriate to the category of registration, then they may seek additional evidence. This may include where appropriate, conducting a knowledge assessment based on a work sample or report. This is only used where a good case for competent practice is being made, but some doubt remains. Engineering Council describes this a the “Technical Report Route”. This is not an alternative to an academic qualification, but a pathway to recognition for experienced engineers.

The most difficult challenge for advisors and assessors is in my experience, dividing experienced engineers into those best aligned to IEng and those best aligned to CEng. Academic qualifications offer apparent certainty, but by the time many people apply for registration some years later, they rarely create a reliable division. The problem is magnified by the perceived difference in value between the two in many circumstances and some inappropriate prejudice.

My final observations are;

The advantage I often see in those with a strong academic background, is the ability to express ideas and arguments, based in evidence and scientific method. https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/engineering-design-process/engineering-design-compare-scientific-method

The often extremely able engineers who haven’t been exposed to these methods, such as through formal learning of a post-graduate nature, often don’t present quite as well “on paper”, although they often impress “face to face”. Deploying more complex forms of mathematics has historically been used as an differentiator, but this has limited validity in most workplace situations now.

Compliments of the season!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

Advice to candidates - keep it brief and to the point!

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines