My opinion the 5.4b Special Cases can be used for CEngs who achieved the registration via Experienced professional, Mature rout etc.

So far it is communicated that Eur Ing registration via EC UK national member of FEANI is only for CEng.  

In my opinion, IEng, as defined today in UK SPEC, is not equal to CEng and such a move can be seen as bypassing CEng and eventually equate both registration levels.

Some IEng's may have a degree that qualifies for a standard route in FEANI but they can't apply via UK member because their registration level is not of the CEng and at that time so until they become CEng under EC UK SPEC standard. I think internationally like it or not it seems like a technologist applying for Eur Ing.  

IEng is a registered Engineer in the UK but internationally it's viewed/equated to Registered Engineering Technologist or an Associate Engineer.


I think officially there is no Senior IEng or Senior CEng, no such standard.  

A case can be made for  IEng FIET.   Maybe this can have weight?


 

As this is an engineering and technology forum, I thought I would just "throw a provebial spanner in the works", and see what your reactions are?


1. For those who are registered - CEng and IEng, but especially IEng - members:


Do you believe that you are as well as, if not, more educated, and competent as engineers today then your teachers and lecturers were, even if they were CEng?


2. Holding onto those thoughts above: 


Do you think that the people (assuming they're engineers) who draw up the rules and regulations, that make up the EC UK Spec; FEANI EUR ING; PEng; IntPE; and all the other engineering qualifications available; are more educated and/or clever than you are, such that they can dictate what you represent as an engineer?


3. Do you desire recognition so much that you seek approval from superiors (if they exist at all), who must be so much more educated, experienced, and clever or intelligent than you; that you welcome being compartmentalised or pigeon holed into their categorised titles of CEng, IEng, Eur Ing, etc.


4. Have you considered that you might be just as well (or more) clever, educated, and experienced enough to represent yourself, without asking for approval from others, and their rules and regulations?


Apologies if I have repeated myself. 

Mehmood,

I am not sure what this has to do with the topic, but I will catch your spanner....

1. No I don't think I am better educated, though there is always the old adage "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach!"  I may not be more educated, but I consider myself to be competent. However I don't have any way to assess whether I am more, less or equally competent as those who were my teachers and lecturers as all I saw from them was lectures/teaching.

2. I think this question is invalid. Somebody has to make a decision as to what level of knowledge and experience is appropriate for a CEng/Eur Ing/PE etc. and it is not something I want to do myself. Whether the people making the decision are better educated/cleverer than me is irrelevant as long as the criteria they come up with are sensible to be able to grade the knowledge and experience. However whatever they decide does not dictate what I represent as an engineer, only what CEng represents. Whether I represent that or more than that or less than that is a different matter.

3. No.  Though perhaps I should elaborate. I am not bothered about recognition/approval from my superiors based on a registration title. They can accept me as I am (or not accept me, in which case I may decide to move somewhere else) but it must be on my merits, not the merits of a title. The title is just an indicator to those who do not know me of my abilities. (And I am not going to say anything about whether my superiors are more educated, cleverer, etc. since I don't think that is relevant).

4. My philosophy throughout my working life has been "Am I satisfied within myself that I have done the best that I can?" If the answer is yes then I am not bothered what others think or whether they approve. However when the answer to the question is "yes" then often the approval is there also.


Having answered your questions, I realise that I am perhaps not a typical responder, but no two people are the same so I expect you will get a full range of responses.

Alasdair Anderson, CENG FIET etc.

Ghosh Alasdair, that's a jolly impressive title you've got there. Think I'll have some of that myself, if you don't mind.


Mehmood Birdi........also etc. 

Mehmood,

As Alasdair says, I don't think we can judge the answer to the first question, and anyway, it is almost certainly different from individual to individual. Ultimately, for the role they carry out, the requirement is only to be able to impart the knowledge/content that they are teaching (and not all clever people have that ability) and to understand that subject matter. Some may have no other knowledge at all, but that's unimportant as they don't need to in order to deliver what they are there to deliver, others could be utterly brilliant with knowledge and skills that go way beyond the subject matter they're teaching, but that doesn't deliver any benefit to the student.


There are many instances, not necessarily in engineering, where the pupil is, or becomes far better at what they do than their teacher, yet still derive improvementi under the skilled hands of their teacher because what the teacher has is the skill of helping people to learn/improve.  Musicians, artists, sports people are obvious examples, as are English teachers at higher levels of education, where they help guide the student through reading, critical review, etc. not so much imparting knowledge as helping guide the student through the process of critical analysis. The same could be true in engineering in guiding the student through a process of discovery to arrive at engineering solutions of their own, which may go well beyond anything the teacher has ever achieved.


I anyway think that the word clever is a very  woolly term that can mean many different things and is potentially misleading. The important part is knowledge and understanding and the skill to help people learn. 


As for the remaining questions, I feel your starting premise is fundamentally flawed as it has never been the intention that this is one set of people judging another set of people who are less clever, skilled or knowledgeable, the intention had always been that you are reviewed by a group of your peers. I, for one, as an interviewer, am never judging whether the candidate has more or less knowledge or skills than me, nor even whether their engineering decisions/solutions are right or wrong, I'm considering whether they follow a process that will lead to valid, robust engineering conclusions, with an appropriate level of rigour, using practice that is known to deliver such robust solutions, plus the 'softer' skills of being able to present findings in a way that informs their audience, allows decision making, and is carried out in a professional, principled and ethical manner. I always learn something from the candidate. 


As Alasdair says, the value isn't in the title itself, it's in the fact that it informs others, who may not know you, or who may not operate in your field, so may not have the ability to judge your merit as an engineer, that a group of your peers have reviewed you against a benchmark and decided that you do, indeed, have the necessary attributes to carry out a professional engineering role to a required standard.

Just another thought, maybe not relevant to this topic....

Are you guys printing all the titles/qualifications you have on your name cards?

One of my superior who is a highly qualified engineer, but did not print any of his titles/qualifications on his name card....

Based on his example, I just print one qualification in my name card.....

Same for me, where possible (employers have differing policies on this) I just put CEng CMgr - I suppose because I see these as my current registration levels (and therefore relevant to readers), whereas my other post nominals are mostly either degrees I picked up several years ago, so not necessarily relevant any more, or institution memberships which I’m eligible for through having a degree so ditto! I am quite proud of my MIRSE, as that’s rather harder to get, but it either wouldn’t be relevant to readers or they’d assume I’d have it anyway.


 I think it is worth getting this right, too many post nominals on a card looks like arrogance, but I also thought it was daft when a previous employer refused to let us put any on our cards - that seems like trying to reduce everyone down to the lowest level, and anyway (as I pointed out) was silly given that they paid our membership fees so that they could say their engineers were registered!


Mind you, how many people use business cards anyway now? I mostly just swap LinkedIn details.


Cheers,


Andy

Re Eur Ing, I’ve never heard it mentioned by any of my mainland Europe colleagues, and I’ve never been asked if I have it when tendering for work there (I don’t).


Cheers Andy

Yes Andy, before my long term health issue, I too had C.Mgr,  C.Eng, FCMI, MIET, MIRSE.  As I understand that the protocol is that the most senior should come first, that dictated the order., They were all highly relevant to what I did given that I provided engineering consultancy across all sectors, but with a special focus on rail, but was also Professional Head, and also provided Management Consultancy. So I did use them all, but used to feel a sense of embarrassment when I used my business card. In other communications, I used to select only those relevant to the context. 

Eventually, I started carrying multiple business cards so that I could use one focused on the context. 

Because my C.Mgr, and my memberships of IRSE & CMI lapsed when I had my health break, given that I thought I was finished for life (thankfully I was wrong!), when I resumed work, 6 years later, I only had C.Eng and MIET, and in the work I've done since, these are the only ones relevant, so I've not pursued resurrecting the others. That has made life much simpler! 

As for business cards, absolutely Andy, I used to carry a business card portfolio in my briefcase (another thing that's in the past) and consulted it regularly, but that's now replaced (as is so much) by the phone. I  don't have them myself, these days, and when people give me theirs, I frankly don't know what to do with them, especially when I already have their contact details in my phone. It feels superfluous. I accept them out of courtesy. If I don't already have the contact details on my phone,  I enter them if I think I'm likely to contact them again. And then...... well, I somehow can't discard them as it feels discourteous (which is daft, I know), so they end up in a general pile that, realistically, is just junk.