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

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 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

The current official position from the website states.

Semi-retired or partially-active members have a reduced target of 10 hours. Members who are no longer professionally active need not undertake any CPD. This may be through retirement (without volunteering), unemployment, employment in a non-engineering capacity, parental leave, long term illness etc. However, we strongly recommend recording CPD to those members who plan to be professionally active within the engineering field in the near future as this would help them become employed within that field again.

We could of course further debate the definitions of “partially-active” and “no longer professionally active”. Lawyers of the professional and barrack-room variety stand by?. Time spent debating the merits of The IET’s CPD policy, recording, reflecting on any “learning points” and preparing for future arguments can of course be legitimately recorded as CPD. Some people like to learn by exploring ideas and debating with others, some others prefer to quietly absorb information on their own, perhaps carefully analysing.

I would personally much prefer that members are just intellectually curious, open to fresh ideas and willing to learn. There are 90 year olds who exemplify these attributes, more than teenagers. Many among us often gain a desire to learn after the control and prescription of the formal education system is removed. I would be disappointed with any professional engineer or technician, who only wanted to “learn” for the purpose of meeting someone else’s rules. I’m also inherently sceptical about learning sold to “meet a requirement” rather than to drive improved performance, but pragmatically an element of “carrot and stick” inevitably comes into it.

The issue here may simply be a case of lighthearted banter among local network members, perhaps as an alternative to other subjects like the B word. Using the model of Cashiering offers light relief, to me at least, although it may worry others (I only have an IEng not very shiny “sword”?). Portraying the IET as a “controlling parent” ( https://www.uktransactionalanalysis.co.uk/transactional-analysis/key-concepts/ego-states) also allows members to “take a pop” at the institution. I find this admirable and healthy. I understand that some members might turn up to be informed about what the IET has decided, but many would prefer to offer their perspective, or understand that of others “on the ground”.

Incidentally, I have had dealings with a number of members who have allowed their registration to lapse and been required to make a CPD submission “covering the gap” before being reinstated. Those who are unenthusiastic about being a registrant but find it necessary, or useful to meet the expectations of their employer, or to enhance their status, are often recalcitrant. Others who are more committed, may understandably be irritated or annoyed initially, since their priority isn’t IET bureaucracy (which includes collecting fees), but actually recognise the importance of the issue and support the principle.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

The current official position from the website states.

Semi-retired or partially-active members have a reduced target of 10 hours. Members who are no longer professionally active need not undertake any CPD. This may be through retirement (without volunteering), unemployment, employment in a non-engineering capacity, parental leave, long term illness etc. However, we strongly recommend recording CPD to those members who plan to be professionally active within the engineering field in the near future as this would help them become employed within that field again.

We could of course further debate the definitions of “partially-active” and “no longer professionally active”. Lawyers of the professional and barrack-room variety stand by?. Time spent debating the merits of The IET’s CPD policy, recording, reflecting on any “learning points” and preparing for future arguments can of course be legitimately recorded as CPD. Some people like to learn by exploring ideas and debating with others, some others prefer to quietly absorb information on their own, perhaps carefully analysing.

I would personally much prefer that members are just intellectually curious, open to fresh ideas and willing to learn. There are 90 year olds who exemplify these attributes, more than teenagers. Many among us often gain a desire to learn after the control and prescription of the formal education system is removed. I would be disappointed with any professional engineer or technician, who only wanted to “learn” for the purpose of meeting someone else’s rules. I’m also inherently sceptical about learning sold to “meet a requirement” rather than to drive improved performance, but pragmatically an element of “carrot and stick” inevitably comes into it.

The issue here may simply be a case of lighthearted banter among local network members, perhaps as an alternative to other subjects like the B word. Using the model of Cashiering offers light relief, to me at least, although it may worry others (I only have an IEng not very shiny “sword”?). Portraying the IET as a “controlling parent” ( https://www.uktransactionalanalysis.co.uk/transactional-analysis/key-concepts/ego-states) also allows members to “take a pop” at the institution. I find this admirable and healthy. I understand that some members might turn up to be informed about what the IET has decided, but many would prefer to offer their perspective, or understand that of others “on the ground”.

Incidentally, I have had dealings with a number of members who have allowed their registration to lapse and been required to make a CPD submission “covering the gap” before being reinstated. Those who are unenthusiastic about being a registrant but find it necessary, or useful to meet the expectations of their employer, or to enhance their status, are often recalcitrant. Others who are more committed, may understandably be irritated or annoyed initially, since their priority isn’t IET bureaucracy (which includes collecting fees), but actually recognise the importance of the issue and support the principle.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

CPD for retired registrants

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines