Hi,


I can't actually find the 2017 annual review or the 2017 registration statistics report on the EngC website, anyone know where they are?


Cheers,


Andy

Looks like they haven't put the 2017 review online yet.
www.engc.org.uk/.../

Whilst you're waiting at the surgery to see the Doc (pun intended), here are some more publications for your enjoyment. www.engc.org.uk/.../

I’m unclear about what Engineering Council's policy is about making the annual registration statistics report available. I’m assuming from the comments that people have credentials to view via the “Partner Portal”. Having received the newsletter, I was unable to use my previous “extranet” credentials, so a colleague looked for me. The attempt was unsuccessful, but another colleague was able to locate and download the report, so it is there somewhere.  

 

I haven’t had chance to review it in detail, but would of course be happy to participate in any discussion around it. There have been some changes in the way the report has been presented this year, with one change to section 10 in particular causing me concern.

 

I have always found the age cohort by registration category information interesting but this has been replaced with a pie chart of aggregated data for all registration categories. There is substantial attention on the way in which different genders engage with registration. However, ages of joining the register are simply averaged, with age cohort data only used to illuminate “losses” not “gains”.  For example if I examine the previous (2016) report the mode average age of a new Eng Tech registrant is circa 23 with a long tail of more modest levels of fresh engagement by those in later in career, which makes the “average” age of a newly registered technician around 10 years older. This data isn't in the 2017 report. On a similar basis the “average” age of a new male CEng is 37, with female 34. However, age cohort data (gender combined) from 2016 suggests a mode around 28, with 27 occurring as frequently as 37 and a strong stream from around 25-26 in line with long-established patterns of graduate engineer training.  The size of sample being used for gender comparison in the IEng and Eng Tech categories would also be a concern, since according to the 2016 report the numbers of female Eng Tech & IEng registrants combined are circa 0.5% of the total.

 

There have been several changes of in each year’s report recently. I would be interested in others views about such choices. I wouldn’t argue for no changes, but as we know statistics can be deployed  to illuminate or cast shadows and to support or oppose different propositions.  The "headline" story of an increases in Eng Tech registrations is pleasing, but I would like to understand more fully , the demographics involved. Are more apprenticeships actually the cause?

Roy, assuming you have your cookies turned on (must do as you wouldn't be able to login to IET), and you can login to EC's Partner Portal; then the only step is to contact the EC by pressing the Contact Us button or try the following: www.engc.org.uk/contact-us

EC Contact: 020 3206 0500

Thanks Mehmood , my colleague requested some fresh credentials and I have received an e-mail.  

 

You and others will probably be aware, that I was at one time quite involved with and supportive of Engineering Council.  However, following decisions taken to downgrade IEng registrants and in particular to adjust regulations in a way that impugned my professional credibility and that of other experienced IEng, I felt that I had to take a different stance. Perhaps an analogy would be that, rather than leave the house, I moved symbolically to the “opposition benches”.  

 

This train of thought led me to reflect on the latest political fiasco. Whilst I wouldn’t equate a professional slight, with the adverse consequences suffered by some members of our community with Caribbean roots, there are parallels in process. A policy was developed to end the “different but equally valuable” idea and make clear that some members of the registered engineering community should be considered as of “lower value” than others. The intention of some may have been to offer a “progressive ladder” to new entrants which could be laudable, but instead it was implemented by downgrading veterans who were arrogantly informed that they should apply for an “upgrade” and prove what they were doing decades ago. Modern engineering in practice (not theoretical thinking) always begins with a risk assessment of who could be harmed and how it this harm can be eliminated or mitigated. Politics by its very nature is about favouring some over others, with lawyers kept busy when harm inevitably arises as a result.

Roy, understood! If I can offer you, and other members in similar situation a piece of wisdom; great Mathematicians, Scientists and Engineers are remembered for their great theorems; discoveries, and inventions over centuries. They are world famous, and their achievements are enshrined in textbooks in schools, colleges and universities. They are honoured by way of statues erected in their images. Somewhere in the world, people are mentioning their names on a daily basis. I am talking about greats such as Pythagoras, Euclid, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Michael Faraday, James Clark Maxwell, Isambar Kingdom Brunel, and many more, too much to mention. What is greater about them is that they didn't have the benefits of electronics, computers, Internet, world-wide-web, Google search engine, artifical intelIigence, television, smartphones and tablets, a plethora if application software. By contrast, can you think of any CEng, past or present, that you could say is a truly great engineer, equal to the great names mentioned above? We need to put things into perspective and come to our senses by recognising that we - as engineers - have more in common than some wish to admit. Hope that helps.