This sort of question is impossible to answer without specific information. As far as I know the IEE / IET have always welcomed engineers with experience, but being able to prove that you have the right amount of knowledge is more difficult. 

I agree that you can pick up a lot of knowledge just by doing the job, and having the knowledge gained from a university degree without knowing how to apply it, is not much good. Once you get to a certain level in your profession, it is all about experience.

Experience needs to be more than "This is the way to do it, because it is always done this way", to being "This is the way we should do it, to meet this requirement and avoid these problems".

What I think the level the Professional Institutions are looking for is - do you know the principles underlying how we build certain things, can you identify where we need to know the principles, and knowing the principles, could you apply these to a similar but unrelated application?

Essentially, you'd need to persuade the IET that you have experience and training equivalent to a BEng if you're applying for IEng, or equivalent to an MEng if you're applying for CEng.


If you can do that, then there's nothing to stop you applying.

Chris, your experience and your drive is what makes you an Engineer. As they say, "The journey of a 1000 miles begins with a Single step". I believe your have taken those steps, you just need to keep going forward. If you can prove and show your competence to the Engineering council you can surely become a qualified and recognized Engineer. I wish you the best of luck. 


Regards,


Omar

One of the things that sometimes surprises engineering students is that a degree gives you very little knowledge, in fact it could be argued (and I'd tend to agree) that that the better the degree is, the less knowledge it gives you! Why? Because engineering knowledge dates very very quickly. What a degree should be helping you discover is how to assess, process, and apply knowledge, and that skill can certainly equally well be learned by experience, it's just that a good degree programme gets you there faster.


So I think the way to answer this is, if you're faced with an engineering problem which you've never seen before, can you work out how to solve it? (Of course including working out how to solve it in a way that's as safe, reliable, and efficient as possible, and meets all the customer's needs etc etc. I'm not including the way I solve problems I've never seen before in my workshop, which tends to involve a 2x4 ? ) If so, then you've got to the point that a degree is trying to get you to.


What is important is breaking the idea that the best way to solve problems is always the way they've been solved before. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Very simplistically, technical training (FE education) teaches how the last generation of engineers solved problems, degree education helps think about how the next generation of engineers can solve problems, and as we all know most problems fall somewhere across these. 


Cheers,


Andy

At the risk of resurrecting a 3 year old thread, it rather depends on the reason the question
" I don't have a degree but with the knowledge I have accumulated over the years, I think would be on par with the knowledge gained with a degree.  What do you think? "

Was originally asked.

If it was  should I call myself "degree or equiv?" it all rather depends for what purpose.


I mostly agree with the comments above, especially the bit about engineering degrees not teaching anything very deeply. I see a reverse hierarchy at my place of work, where the more 'lowly' technician staff are far more useful if you are in a tight spot than a number of folk who on paper have more recent and far better qualifications.

But it depends on the individual and their approach to new techniques - 20 years of experience where it is more or less the same year repeated 20 times, is not the same as  5 years of experience in 5 widely diverse situations. Some of us enjoy the fun of being put on the spot for new problems, and read the journal articles on new components, new techniques etc and think about them . Others just watch the clock till mid afternoon and then slip off.

I'm certainly wary of qualifications only based judgements, and systems that are too inflexible to allow someone to take on a role if they lack a piece of of paper, but have the knowledge.  When I did some of my scout leader training refresher quite recently, I was introduced to the mantra " competence essential, qualification optional'  to the situation which often occurs with things like deciding to award someone a camping permit, (allowing one to be the responsible person for a team of youngsters out camping - various levels from making a bivvy to sleep in a  green field to visiting an enclosed official site with bunk houses) . Clearly there is no NVQ for this, and watching a power point presentation and answering 20 questions does not fully guarantee that someone will do the right thing in an emergency.

The method is then that you do run a camp, but someone else, already ticketed, comes along for the ride, and in principle takes over if it all goes off the rails. A sort of proof by demonstrating ability in real life - almost a practical exam.

In things like high voltage pulse power engineering (a personal favourite) almost each case is different, but the 'rules of play' when designing things are similar, and again it is hard to teach in a sterile classroom environment .

The balance between hands on knowledge and intuition (based on  previous problems) and the new and strange (the academic analysis)  needs to be struck each time.


regards Mike

Hi Mike,


I must admit I'd missed that this was an old thread resurrected! Whoops. But always a pertinent subject anyway.


I really like your point about "the same year repeated 20 times". Which of course applies to all engineers regardless of their background. It's always interesting watching engineers change industry, there's some sort of standard progress of:











Sadly all too often the engineer leaves at the second step and returns to their old industry, where they can feel terribly pleased with themselves for solving the same problem the same way over and over again - whether anyone wants that problem solved or not!


Not just a random Sunday afternoon thought, because you've raised a point here which is a serious problem in many, possibly most or all, engineering industries - how do you get engineers out of their comfort zone and into new areas, when you also want them to keep being productive in the day job? And equally, how do you encourage employers to take a risk on recruiting such engineers if they decide to make a radical change? Personally I've made some huge sideways leaps in my career, but it was really really tough each time finding new employers prepared to take a chance on me - and yet once I was in they were delighted (once we'd sorted ourselves out as above) that I was bringing a different perspective.


Simply solve that and we can revolutionise the world of engineering ? In the meantime, I'd better get back to the wallpapering...


Cheers,


Andy

I have no solutions, but I agree.

But getting stuck in a comfortable rut, is not just a risk for the engineer, it may be a dangerous for the whole company.

An employer interested in maximum profit on this project now,  without setting aside time for staff to learn new skills, even if it is just time to self teach and accept investing some profit into the occasional experimental disaster ,  will end up with risk averse staff, and no innovation. This is profitable but risky in the way that making the horn gramophone incrementally better without looking at new developments in electronics would have been profitable in the early 1930s. However, it is also a narrowness of thought that allows your business to follow the J Fowler & Co. Traction Engine company, or more recently, and slightly more successfully, the examples of Kodak or Olivetti.

The ' dare not do anything new' attitude and process heavy management, that stifle the more 'have a go' individuals are then sometimes formally recognised and that leads to novel bypass solutions such as the idea of a skunkworks for special projects within a larger business.