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

I won’t pursue it here, but for various reasons many engineers are not drawn towards registration until mid-career. At this point they are more experienced, more responsible and broadly “knowledgeable”. I have posted this elsewhere, but I think that these comments made to me by a Professor who was one of the key contributors to IET thinking about UK-SPEC. The comments were not intended for publication.

An Incorporated Engineer I would expect to be knowledgeable about specific engineering products or services, processes and machinery and able to explain things about them to people within his or her engineering organisation; I would expect them to be “streetwise” and able to supervise others confidently. An engineering or ICT technician I would expect to be a proficient user of particular tools, have patience and be thoroughly knowledgeable about the operation of a particular process or machine. A Chartered Engineer should have to be able at justifying engineering decisions to anyone especially themselves, be prepared to deliberate and research, set out an argument and work confidently in unfamiliar situations.

It is the case that intellectual skills of deliberation and argumentation of a Chartered Engineer demand a longer time than the intellectual skills of an Engineering technician, however the technician has to develop “know how” for which an academic setting is not necessarily appropriate. And it is the case that there are some commonalities in the intellectual skill development of all categories but at some point they each go in a different direction to develop different portfolios.

I wouldn’t suggest that this is “the last word” on describing differences, but importantly the comments refer to developing “different portfolios”. Not “lower or higher” but “different”. So for example, the application process for recognition as a Technician is less demanding in terms of “constructing an argument”, relying primarily on qualifications and vocational training with some supplementary questions. The focus for an engineer is on being able to organise evidence, evaluate it and draw persuasive conclusions. Those conclusions don’t have to be a “written report” , they may be expressed, through designs, plans or even practical realisation. Relatively few engineers have control of an engineering “life cycle” from concept through delivery and ultimately destruction. The UK-SPEC model has tended to value design or consultancy work as chartered, with realisation, project management, commissioning, operation, life cycle maintenance etc, being more aligned to IEng. To a younger group who aspire to chartered recognition, academic qualifications are the primary frame of reference, but to an older cohort responsibility tends to be more relevant.

I have debated at length (often with myself) in these forums, how we engage more people as early as in practical within their career, support them and recognise continuing competence and commitment to professionalism.

I agree with the thrust of earlier comments that someone who cannot present “a case” and explain it, has no place as a Chartered Engineer. I would see this as a “graduate attribute”, although the capability can be acquired outside a university environment. However, since 1999 our benchmark for Chartered Engineer has been set at “post- graduate” level, although once again such capability can be acquired without academic participation. It seems likely that these benchmarks will remain similar following the UK-SPEC review?

Rather than give an academic description of the differences between undergraduate and post-graduate programmes, I prefer the following crude and simplistic observation. You will gain a bachelors if you are able to assimilate and regurgitate what you have been taught in assignments and examinations. A masters should require you to develop ideas of your own, informed by the existing body of knowledge in your field, which you may need to research and evaluate. There are often not “right or wrong” or “black and white” answers, although many taught masters degrees tend to offer a preferred model or even be in effect be extended bachelors degrees.

Based on quite a bit of experience supporting modular masters programmes for experienced professionals (and having done one myself 25 years ago), some key elements, such as “research methods” are often easily grasped by experienced professionals and many do very well without having been teenage undergraduates. I think our model of “just put yourself forward” for registration assessment, without necessarily more structured preparation and support over a longer period, sometimes manages expectations poorly and places an unrealistic demand on volunteer advisors. They do sterling work in helping people to choose the right category and to “get over the line”, but I think that we can do better.

Even if we are able in the future to become fully respectful of the different types of professional contributions made by Engineers and Technicians. It seems unlikely that the situation where Chartered Engineer is dominant in the marketplace for recognition will change. In this context, I see the duty of The IET as enabling those members who aspire to achieve that benchmark to do so, if they are able to. Others may disagree and see our role as “weeding out” the majority who should not be part of the “elite” group.

Half of all young people in the UK now engage in higher education and probably only those with specific problems, including being failed by the public education system, lack the talent to reach our benchmarks with the right opportunities. Such people may of course choose to pursue “more practical” options because that is what they enjoy and/or the market needs, doing “different but equally valuable” work.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

I won’t pursue it here, but for various reasons many engineers are not drawn towards registration until mid-career. At this point they are more experienced, more responsible and broadly “knowledgeable”. I have posted this elsewhere, but I think that these comments made to me by a Professor who was one of the key contributors to IET thinking about UK-SPEC. The comments were not intended for publication.

An Incorporated Engineer I would expect to be knowledgeable about specific engineering products or services, processes and machinery and able to explain things about them to people within his or her engineering organisation; I would expect them to be “streetwise” and able to supervise others confidently. An engineering or ICT technician I would expect to be a proficient user of particular tools, have patience and be thoroughly knowledgeable about the operation of a particular process or machine. A Chartered Engineer should have to be able at justifying engineering decisions to anyone especially themselves, be prepared to deliberate and research, set out an argument and work confidently in unfamiliar situations.

It is the case that intellectual skills of deliberation and argumentation of a Chartered Engineer demand a longer time than the intellectual skills of an Engineering technician, however the technician has to develop “know how” for which an academic setting is not necessarily appropriate. And it is the case that there are some commonalities in the intellectual skill development of all categories but at some point they each go in a different direction to develop different portfolios.

I wouldn’t suggest that this is “the last word” on describing differences, but importantly the comments refer to developing “different portfolios”. Not “lower or higher” but “different”. So for example, the application process for recognition as a Technician is less demanding in terms of “constructing an argument”, relying primarily on qualifications and vocational training with some supplementary questions. The focus for an engineer is on being able to organise evidence, evaluate it and draw persuasive conclusions. Those conclusions don’t have to be a “written report” , they may be expressed, through designs, plans or even practical realisation. Relatively few engineers have control of an engineering “life cycle” from concept through delivery and ultimately destruction. The UK-SPEC model has tended to value design or consultancy work as chartered, with realisation, project management, commissioning, operation, life cycle maintenance etc, being more aligned to IEng. To a younger group who aspire to chartered recognition, academic qualifications are the primary frame of reference, but to an older cohort responsibility tends to be more relevant.

I have debated at length (often with myself) in these forums, how we engage more people as early as in practical within their career, support them and recognise continuing competence and commitment to professionalism.

I agree with the thrust of earlier comments that someone who cannot present “a case” and explain it, has no place as a Chartered Engineer. I would see this as a “graduate attribute”, although the capability can be acquired outside a university environment. However, since 1999 our benchmark for Chartered Engineer has been set at “post- graduate” level, although once again such capability can be acquired without academic participation. It seems likely that these benchmarks will remain similar following the UK-SPEC review?

Rather than give an academic description of the differences between undergraduate and post-graduate programmes, I prefer the following crude and simplistic observation. You will gain a bachelors if you are able to assimilate and regurgitate what you have been taught in assignments and examinations. A masters should require you to develop ideas of your own, informed by the existing body of knowledge in your field, which you may need to research and evaluate. There are often not “right or wrong” or “black and white” answers, although many taught masters degrees tend to offer a preferred model or even be in effect be extended bachelors degrees.

Based on quite a bit of experience supporting modular masters programmes for experienced professionals (and having done one myself 25 years ago), some key elements, such as “research methods” are often easily grasped by experienced professionals and many do very well without having been teenage undergraduates. I think our model of “just put yourself forward” for registration assessment, without necessarily more structured preparation and support over a longer period, sometimes manages expectations poorly and places an unrealistic demand on volunteer advisors. They do sterling work in helping people to choose the right category and to “get over the line”, but I think that we can do better.

Even if we are able in the future to become fully respectful of the different types of professional contributions made by Engineers and Technicians. It seems unlikely that the situation where Chartered Engineer is dominant in the marketplace for recognition will change. In this context, I see the duty of The IET as enabling those members who aspire to achieve that benchmark to do so, if they are able to. Others may disagree and see our role as “weeding out” the majority who should not be part of the “elite” group.

Half of all young people in the UK now engage in higher education and probably only those with specific problems, including being failed by the public education system, lack the talent to reach our benchmarks with the right opportunities. Such people may of course choose to pursue “more practical” options because that is what they enjoy and/or the market needs, doing “different but equally valuable” work.
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