This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Diversity - Engineering Council is in its five-yearly Standards Review

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Diversity <diversity@engc.org.uk>



Jul 4 at 2:10 AM

Good afternoon,



 



The Engineering Council is currently undertaking its five-yearly Standards Review, including the requirements for registration as a professional engineer or technician, along with the rules and guidelines for carrying out registration and the processes that support it.



 



As part of this review, we aim to make sure there are no barriers in the language that would mean otherwise qualified engineers and technicians are unable to work towards registration, or might perceive they are. Our goal is to establish a standard of English that is as accessible as possible and can be used across the documents.



 



The review includes these core documents:



  • UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC)

  • Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP)

  • Approval and Accreditation of Qualifications and Apprenticeships Handbook (AAQAH).

 



As users of the documents involved in the review, we would be interested in your thoughts on the readability of the language used and any ways this can be clearer. We would be interested in your own thoughts and in any feedback you may have had from students or academics who have engaged with the text.



If you or anyone in your organisation would like to be involved, please let us know at diversity@engc.org.uk by 18 July and I will send through a section of the text in question and a short online consultation to be completed.



Regards,



 



The Engineering Council



 



Tel:         +44 (0) 20 3206 0500

Engineering Council

Woolgate Exchange, 25 Basinghall Street, London, EC2V 5HA

Website: http://www.engc.org.uk

P Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail



Description: Description: cid:image001.png@01CDBB6D.8CC32100Description: Description: cid:image003.png@01CDBB6D.8CC32100


  • As fas as I can can see there are no substantive changes from the previous edition. The EC summary of changes document states inter alia


    1. Greater clarity between IEng and CEng. The requirements for IEng and CEng have been clarified, specifically:




      • -  Differentiating between IEng and CEng, principally at competences A and B (for example, A2 (CEng) emphasises technical complexity and level of risk).




    2. -  Closer alignment between the requirements for competence C, recognising that the management/leadership requirements are more similar than they are different.





    From my comparison of the documents there is more explanation of the differences in competencies A and B between IEng and CEng. Specifically that IEng is clearly set at a much lower level and more narrowly based than CEng. In terms of competency C, I can't see any difference from the previous version, part from a little reordering of text. From an IEng perspective it looks a bit of a stitch up.


    It would be interesting to see the numbers for new IEng registrations. Unfortunately the Engineering Council have decided this key performance indicator is of no importance any more.

  • Peter Miller:

    As fas as I can can see there are no substantive changes from the previous edition. The EC summary of changes document states inter alia





    1. Greater clarity between IEng and CEng. The requirements for IEng and CEng have been clarified, specifically:




      • -  Differentiating between IEng and CEng, principally at competences A and B (for example, A2 (CEng) emphasises technical complexity and level of risk).




    2. -  Closer alignment between the requirements for competence C, recognising that the management/leadership requirements are more similar than they are different.





    From my comparison of the documents there is more explanation of the differences in competencies A and B between IEng and CEng. Specifically that IEng is clearly set at a much lower level and more narrowly based than CEng. In terms of competency C, I can't see any difference from the previous version, part from a little reordering of text. From an IEng perspective it looks a bit of a stitch up.


    It would be interesting to see the numbers for new IEng registrations. Unfortunately the Engineering Council have decided this key performance indicator is of no importance any more.

     




    And still no distinction made by the Engineering Council between specialist responsibility for those engineers who don't want to be managers and "managerial responsibility" for those engineers who want to become managers for IEng in terms of competences under its UK-SPEC review.