Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 11 replies
  • Subscribers 9 subscribers
  • Views 1024 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

CPD for retired registrants

Andy Millar
Hi,


This old chestnut came up yet again at our LN AGM yesterday, I just wondered if anyone - including CPD assessors - had any good suggestions of likely but perhaps not obvious CPD activities that retired members should consider claiming if asked?


The chap who started the discussion does voluntary work refurbishing old pieces of equipment for a heritage railway - which often involves him having to work out how they are supposed to work first! - and also edits a local classic car club newsletter. I assured him that he at least wouldn't have a problem! But it's interesting that he felt concerned enough to ask.


Cheers,


Andy
Parents
  • 0
    Let’s set aside for one moment, guidance about hours or content, given by the IET and by other Engineering Council licensed bodies.


    The use of a professional title is intended to inform others that you reached a certain standard at a point in time and continue to act under the supervision of your professional institution.  If you are not active to a standard commensurate with that “advertisement”, then it is arguably inappropriate to use the title either to seek employment or take responsibility (paid or voluntary).  However, there is a long tradition of Chartered being treated as a "qualification" and as an “honour” which many registrants feel proud to have earned and like to display when appropriate.  So assuming that they self-regulate and do not misuse the title, there has been no good reason for its removal.


    My own personal view of this issue, is that for an inactive registrant, self-regulation is all that is required. Those who are professionally “active” such as Registration and Standards Volunteers should hold themselves to the same standard as an employed engineer, since they are acting as a “peer”.  This is not a competition, so they don’t have to be equally “up to date” or even equally skilled, which is likely to be impractical, but they should be capable of empathising with and exercising valid judgements about, working engineers.  I would take a similar view about those who achieved a registerable standard, before migrating away from working directly as “an engineer”. There are many examples of Chartered Engineers in very senior roles who by their example “give back” rather than draw benefits from registration.  There was a time when some similarly senior IEng or Eng Tech registrants could be found, but unfortunately that has largely died out, I’m sad to say partly in the face of withering snobbery and one-upmanship. 


    With increasing use of professional registration as a factor used to help indicate individual and even corporate competence, there is greater need for the IET to exercise “due diligence” in supervising registered members.  I’m sure that many members find the bureaucracy of this irritating and treat it as a “chore” on that basis.  I would personally like to encourage registrants to submit to some form a professional review at intervals of their choosing, perhaps around transitions.  The review should be supportive not punitive.  By educating the market of employers and other relevant stakeholders, they could ask; what were your institution’s comments at your last professional review.


    The guidance is here

    https://www.theiet.org/career/professional-development/continuing-professional-development/policy-on-cpd/


          

Reply
  • 0
    Let’s set aside for one moment, guidance about hours or content, given by the IET and by other Engineering Council licensed bodies.


    The use of a professional title is intended to inform others that you reached a certain standard at a point in time and continue to act under the supervision of your professional institution.  If you are not active to a standard commensurate with that “advertisement”, then it is arguably inappropriate to use the title either to seek employment or take responsibility (paid or voluntary).  However, there is a long tradition of Chartered being treated as a "qualification" and as an “honour” which many registrants feel proud to have earned and like to display when appropriate.  So assuming that they self-regulate and do not misuse the title, there has been no good reason for its removal.


    My own personal view of this issue, is that for an inactive registrant, self-regulation is all that is required. Those who are professionally “active” such as Registration and Standards Volunteers should hold themselves to the same standard as an employed engineer, since they are acting as a “peer”.  This is not a competition, so they don’t have to be equally “up to date” or even equally skilled, which is likely to be impractical, but they should be capable of empathising with and exercising valid judgements about, working engineers.  I would take a similar view about those who achieved a registerable standard, before migrating away from working directly as “an engineer”. There are many examples of Chartered Engineers in very senior roles who by their example “give back” rather than draw benefits from registration.  There was a time when some similarly senior IEng or Eng Tech registrants could be found, but unfortunately that has largely died out, I’m sad to say partly in the face of withering snobbery and one-upmanship. 


    With increasing use of professional registration as a factor used to help indicate individual and even corporate competence, there is greater need for the IET to exercise “due diligence” in supervising registered members.  I’m sure that many members find the bureaucracy of this irritating and treat it as a “chore” on that basis.  I would personally like to encourage registrants to submit to some form a professional review at intervals of their choosing, perhaps around transitions.  The review should be supportive not punitive.  By educating the market of employers and other relevant stakeholders, they could ask; what were your institution’s comments at your last professional review.


    The guidance is here

    https://www.theiet.org/career/professional-development/continuing-professional-development/policy-on-cpd/


          

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines