Allan


I understand where you are coming from and it is a pity that employers still fail to see the purpose of IEng. A common one line description of the two registrations is that CEngs are the thinkers and the IEngs are the doers. That in itself is fair enough but those of us who have had to work for a living know only too well it is never that simple and is often just wrong. I have had numerous CEngs on my teams over the years and many I wouldn't let loose on site let alone ask them how to use a screwdriver - extremely well qualified but often just not very practical.


For myself I originally achieved registration as a "Technician Engineer" in 1987 from Building Services background in Local Government and that was tied to promotion back then! - the title in itself makes little sense - technician? engineer? what are you? Time passed and the term Incorporated Engineer came into being no one knew then what it meant so not a lot has changed over the decades. I had no chance of ever making CEng; I never went to university, I worked full time and twice on Sundays (yes often seven days a week on pressure projects) and I had a family, mortgage etc that needed funding. The rules started to change when the merger of the IEE and IEEIE took place and the EC started recognising that many IEngs were punching way beyond the the accepted roles of IEng. For myself I was close to retirement so other than self satisfaction there was nothing to be gained by putting myself through that process. However now volunteering for the IET as an Assessor, Interviewer and PRA I am sure that if my ego pushed me to it I could walk it.


I would seriously suggest that you get hold of the UK Spec - 3rd Edition (available on both the IET and EC websites and due for revision later this year) and read not just the main body of the document but the matrix at the back where it sets out the 17 Competences that need to be demonstrated. It shows the differences between the three main registration categories. If you believe that you can achieve the CEng competences with confidence. Then start filling in the application form on the IET Career Manager get yourself a PRA and take note of their advice (so many don't). Us volunteers all undergo training so that everybody is supposed to be singing from the same sheet.


Just a couple of hints I always give as a PRA to prospective candidates - the application is not your CV - no one involved is going to be offering you a job during this process. Start every paragraph with an "I" and "doing it" is always better than being just "responsible" for it (we've all worked for those who are "responsible" for it). This especially applies to the 5 Competences in categories A&B - C is a little different - just read the matrix. When you get to the interview use a subject that you are confident in - upside down and inside out - and be prepared to be questioned on it; no one is trying to catch you out we just need to understand that you know what you are doing. Get a colleague to quiz you on it you might find minor amendments are needed.


The process is a peer review the initial assessment of your application is undertaken by a Panel of two Assessors and a Moderator/Registrar, the interview is carried by two interviewers and the Post PRI assessment is carried out by a similar Panel. With your PRA that's nine volunteers; very little is left to chance and we all want you to get through - providing you meet the requirements.


I trust this is of some help - but whatever you decide Good Luck.


Regards Jim W

Hi Allen, 

I can understand your current situation. 

I was an IEng for many years and I encourage you to continue this.

 I successfully transitioned to CEng and I don’t see why you cannot.

 I have assisted all branches of Engineer to gain Chartered in my role of PRA for the IET. 

Do not be daunted by this as there is a well defined process to follow. As you are an IEng already and have been through this before, you can start by using the UKSPEC for Chartered and see where you sit against the requirements. 

A PRA will then help you to provide the best application that reflects your suitability. 


Hope this helps you get focused!!


Cheers,  Paul Gould CEng CMgr FIET MCMI

Allen,

To add to and endorse what has been said by others, many who have been IEng have subsequently applied for and achieved CEng. The fact you only have a Bachelor degree is not a problem - it just means that there will be a bit more scrutiny of some aspects of UK SPEC.

To pick up on James's comment about the 4th edition of UK SPEC, this was originally scheduled for publication last month, then this month, and when it is now due I couldn't say, but the message is that it will provide more clarity of the differences between IEng and CEng, so it may be worth waiting for.

I certainly sympathise with your comments about whether there is any value in IEng. This has been debated at length on this forum (if you are interested you can search some of the older threads to see the different viewpoints) and while I believe there is value in it (IEng), it is really the employers who count. Some employers are happy to see IEng but too many see CEng as the ideal and won't take what they consider second best (though as James has said, there are some CEng who can't be trusted with a screwdriver, so the employers are not necessarily getting what they need).

Alasdair (CEng and BEng)

Hi Allan

It does look all rather daunting, I must agree. I am hoping to gain I Eng this year. I do not have a degree and 80%, roughly, of my career has been as a technician.

I am encouraged, by both my employer (Government) and PRA after only one meeting with him.

As others have alluded to: follow the form and read the requirements. I did not think I could do it (60 this year!!) but I am confident now.

All the best to you.


Colin

Out of interest, I've just had a quick browse around the IET site,

here https://www.theiet.org/career/professional-registration/chartered-engineer/

and here https://www.theiet.org/career/professional-registration/chartered-engineer/am-i-eligible/

and here https://www.theiet.org/media/5301/ukspec-ceng-competence-and-commitment-standards.pdf

and here https://www.theiet.org/media/5561/ceng-ieng-application-guidance-notes.docx


I am delighted to say that I can't find the word "Master's" anywhere! Of course, there's still the problem that UKSpec says
"An accredited Bachelors degree [...] plus either an appropriate Masters degree [...] or appropriate further learning to Masters level"

and that we know that this gets misinterpreted as having to sit in a lecture theatre with someone in a silly* hat and gown at the front. But at least the IET info is guiding candidates in the right direction. Unfortunately as we know, and postings on here show, the idea that you need a Master's degree to become Chartered this is still one of the most common misunderstandings around - and so is probably holding back many excellent potential candidates who feel as Allan does. I think it's going to take a long time to stop this rumour mill (which is also propagating the other big myth that you can't become CEng - or IEng - unless you're "a manager"). 



Good to see you back Roy! And now you're retired you don't need to hold back in your comments any more ?


Cheers,


Andy

* Apologies to those who think a PhD bonnet is not a silly hat. And it certainly shouldn't reflect on the person wearing it!

" Good to see you back Roy! And now you're retired you don't need to hold back in your comments any more ?"


I say Amen to that! I always appreciate your wisdom Roy.

Thanks for posting that Chris. Now of course, there is a potential problem that jobs advertised in E&T are a self-selecting group so I thought I'd have a look at LinkedIn, and actually there's (sort of) good news there, 171 jobs mentioning IEng compared to 399 for CEng. Yes it's still a lot less when there "should" be perhaps 4-5 time more IEng than CEng (based on my estimate of the number of job roles that exist where IEng is most relevant as compared to CEng), but at least it appears to be moving in the right direction. Although that said, a number of these didn't require IEng, they allowed the participant to gain it.


It's a bit sad that the figures for both are so low, but that's another subject.


I have just (!) picked up one line from the original post:

Well, that's a point I always make to candidates at any registration grade - measuring yourself against UKSpec (and having an independent third party ratify that measurement) is incredibly useful. A registrant may not have needed to show IEng to get another job, but may very well have got another job because they had improved your management skills, interpersonal skills, knowledge of environmental obligations etc etc etc. The sensible employers  will know that they've done this because they'll see "IEng" (or whichever) on the CV. The others will see it during the interview process, or through working with them in the case of internal promotions. Whether it's worth the individual engineer paying a couple of hundred pounds a year to maintain that is of course another issue, but I'll leave that to the IET marketing department ?


Cheers,


Andy

I probably should have kept out of this, but a change in the weather brought me indoors and tempted me to take a look at the forums.

Anyone coming fresh to IEng and wishing to understand it, or encountering some form of negative prejudice that discomforts them, will continue to question the purpose of the category and/or the value of holding it. The fact that there are three generic categories and two types of “engineer” (or “Technologist”), naturally invites comparison, explanation or even competition.  The three categories are a simplification of literally hundreds of different types of work being carried out by trained and skilled professionals.      

When the explanation is offered by those who control the profession, who are either themselves Chartered Engineers or affiliated to that category,  then in some shape or form, the explanation is always that IEng is a “lesser” or “lower” type of practitioner.  There was a time when the “official” explanation, was that each type was “ideally optimised for different types of activity” ("different but equally valuable"), but that was lost once the IIE was no longer present at Engineering Council.  In practice, the widely used “Chartered” designation is all most people think that they need to know from a professional body.  Engineering has chosen to offer “intermediate”, “part-qualified” or “associate professional” categories, which a small proportion of practitioners have chosen to participate in.   
 
The system for division, is also far from perfect , with widespread misunderstanding, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and iniquities, both real and perceived.  Perhaps the most widely used and easily understood means of division uses academic qualifications, at the simplest based on the number of years of study. However, this apparent certainty, quickly falls apart under even superficial scrutiny. For example, a 22 year old with an “IEng degree” and real experience, will often outperform a typical MEng graduate of the same age. The latter may “catch up” or even in an R&D situation possibly become more effective; but what proportion of engineers are academic or industrial R&D? Many engineers also migrate away from their first degree domain.

Competent practice can be defined in a set of specific circumstances, but in a generic sense it is vague and open to a wide variety of interpretations.  The IET has made enormous efforts over many years in competence assessments, but clarity and consistency still remains “difficult” and many Engineering Council PEIs have barely evolved since 1999, when the exemplifying quailfication for CEng was moved from Bachelors to Masters. A significant number are also dismissive of IEng or Eng Tech, as “not the type of people” who are welcome (or respected) in their club.                     

I’m delighted to see a contribution from Chris, who has given exceptional voluntary service to The IET and its members over many years. As his evidence illustrates, there are employers who value IEng. This is typically for engineer roles up to a certain level of seniority, however they also typically expect CEng for more senior roles.  The MOD and its sphere of influence is perhaps the most prominent example. 

So is there value in IEng?  Yes in certain circumstances, but there are also some negative risks, otherwise the issue wouldn’t keep coming up.

Largely positive situations include; Where an IEng is clearly demonstrating a lesser capability, or carrying less responsibility than a Chartered Engineer doing a similar type of work, or where there is little prospect of negative comparison with a Chartered Engineer. Where the IEng standard is being used as an early career benchmark, such as after a “degree apprenticeship”, or other form of training or career transition.  Where the IEng is working towards CEng with a reasonable prospect of success in the foreseeable future.

Some experienced professionals may also be unconcerned about potentially negative comparisons and register largely for their own satisfaction.  I fitted into that category myself for many years, I didn’t need it, rarely used the post-nominal, but kept it “just in case”.  It proved useful and I used it when I got more involved with the IET, but that was quickly followed by a “slap in the teeth” as Engineering Council “downgraded” the category, so I didn’t use it any more. I still currently hold it, in the hope that it might enable me to give some useful service post-retirement.   

As I see it (from some distance) Engineering Council feels that it has to retain a three tier system to fit in with international accords which are based around academic qualifications. A number of Degree Apprenticeships have also been linked to the IEng standard, so a significant proportion of graduate engineers may pass through IEng. If every developing engineer did the same, then there would be a much greater level of clarity and consistency!

A suggestion that I made was for the IEng benchmark to become “Registered Engineer” (or another title).  Any registered engineer could then, at a pace of their choosing, work towards CEng under the supervision of a professional institution.  A minimum of say, four years before seeking CEng seems reasonable? Others have argued that control by PEIs is part of the problem, but I won’t pursue that here.   

A registered professional engineer should in my opinion demonstrate graduate level understanding (i.e. bachelors) and Chartered Engineer should be benchmarked at “masters level”. However, this doesn’t mean that the best way to achieve these benchmarks is by full-time academic study prior to a career.  A more effective approach is to blend learning and career experience.  Many highly successful mid-career Engineers have developed to “masters level” through self-directed learning  and many others are a little short, but often nothing that some learning in “research methods” can’t fix.  It is not necessary for everyone as a “rite of passage” to prove their capability in advanced mathematics.  

PS

In the light of current events,

 

• We must redouble our efforts to provide training opportunities for all young people appropriate to their potential, if the long term consequences of this pandemic are not to become even worse.

• I should also mention the international wave of revulsion and outrage about the death of George Floyd. In my experience the engineering profession is less inclined towards racism, than society generally. However, most institutions involved are extremely enthusiastic to perpetuate their versions of the class system and academic snobbery. This makes it difficult for anyone who is not excelling in maths and science by early teens, such as those who are socially disadvantaged. We should do better!  Why does the Cleese, Barker & Corbett Sketch from 1966 still seem to resonate in our profession?  Sorry for not “knowing my place”! 

• A particular hero of mine, who Rev Al Sharpton considers a “father figure”, also declared in 1966 that “it’s a man’s world”, built by engineers no less! Is that still true? He was also widely credited as saving Boston from burning after the assassination of Dr King a couple of years later. I visited his statue and the museum in Augusta with a section dedicated to him a couple of years ago.