Log in to the online community
Posted by Mark Tickner on Feb 14, 2019 10:13 am
But it did tweak my interest to wonder what the ages (not names, let’s keep some privacy) of the, say, 16 youngest people to achieve CEng was. Assuming the IET kept that type of information. I don’t suppose that this information is available?
I’d imagine it would be a challenge to get the youngest age that much more under 26. If a 3 year BEng can be compressed to 2 years, then possibly a MEng can be compressed down to 3. Assuming a compressed degree could achieve accreditation then that might lower it another year. However, the competences take as long as they take and it’s about being in the right place and grabbing the right opportunities.
Posted by Kenneth McNaught on Feb 15, 2019 1:01 pm
Posted by Mark Tickner on Feb 15, 2019 1:10 pm
Posted by Roy Bowdler on Feb 15, 2019 5:44 pm
Our CEng applied for a level 3 Technician Apprenticeship at the age of 17 and left school to take it up, on a promise from his employer to support his progression. He completed an NVQ2, NVQ3, ONC, HNC, BEng 1st Class Hons and MSc with Distinction over a period of 7 years by part-time/distance learning. He was appointed as a “junior” engineer after the four year apprenticeship, then moved for promotion to another employer in the sector two years later.
Clearly such a pathway is intensive and would have involved long-hours, sacrifices and self-discipline, but he wasn’t constrained by the “leisurely” timetable of a full-time academic programme.
I have also come across an example of someone who qualified as an contracting electrician before becoming a full-time student, thus being able to support themselves comfortably and continuing to gain experience by part-time work. I don’t have the details of their registration age, but they were much better placed than a graduate with no experience and made rapid progress. I anticipate that if Engineering Degree Apprenticeships grow in the way that the Government hopes, this mid-twenties milestone will become more common again. Many years ago the age of 25 was “suggested” as a minimum (Age 18 + 3yr Degree + 2 Years Initial Professional Development + 2 years Responsible Experience). There were 2-3000 CEng under 30 the last time I looked. I saw a GP the other day and he seemed under 30.
If you’re good enough you’re old enough! There are many young and not so young engineers, who think of CEng as an “honour for distinguished achievement”, awarded in middle age, when it is intended to be a threshold milestone, achievable after around 7-8 years of learning and experience.
Posted by Kenneth McNaught on Feb 18, 2019 9:00 am
Mark, I don't think it was me at that dinner as I suspect I was in Paris at that time building "entente cordial"! :)
Posted by Cheong Tsoi on Mar 13, 2019 8:10 am
Posted by Roy Bowdler on Mar 15, 2019 9:35 am
It is interesting how different “norms” and expectations have become established around the same milestone. The situation that you describe of gaining CEng around four years into career following an accredited degree reflects the experience of a substantial proportion of Chartered Engineers. Some of the “high-flyers” have taken this as a foundation/benchmark on which to build a career in corporate management, the law or another related field. By tradition we don’t ask them to keep proving their detailed technical skills, we have welcomed their ongoing contribution as “engineers by training”. However for many years now the average age of a new CEng registrant has been late thirties (ie a “20 year veteran”), so the experience of a significant proportion of Chartered Engineer registrants this century is different.
I haven’t conducted a formal study of this, but the trend creates issues and difficulties around consistency that I won’t explore here. What I have suggested is that we try to “normalise” the idea that every aspiring engineer should seek to professionally benchmark themselves by the age of 25 at the latest. For some that would lead to the award of Chartered Engineer and for others a development plan would be needed ,perhaps with a form of recognition "banked". At present some are encouraged by their employer to gain CEng, some just drift along meaning to get round to it eventually and some just assume that they will be rejected because they “don’t have the right degree” or “aren’t posh enough” etc. Some professional institutions seem rather better than others at getting members chartered at earlier ages, which creates inconsistency and potential iniquity.
Posted by Lee Nelson on Mar 15, 2019 12:54 pm
Some professional institutions seem rather better than others at getting members chartered at earlier ages, which creates inconsistency and potential iniquity.
Posted by Simon Barker on Mar 15, 2019 1:19 pm
Most professions have a well-defined path to registration. It will probably combine a mixture of an academic course and structured on-the-job training. These could be sequential or mixed together.
Engineering has BEng and MEng degrees, but then it stops. People go out into the world of industry and start doing stuff. They get whatever training their employer is willing to pay for. So instead of structured training, we get UKSpec, which essentially says that you're qualified to be a Chartered Engineer once you are already doing the things that Chartered Engineers do. That might be within 5 years of graduating, or it might be never. And if you are already doing the things that Chartered Engineers do, then actually applying for it is just an excuse to get a "badge" - it doesn't actually allow you to do anything you weren't already doing.
Thinking about it, a similar thing goes for management. There is such a thing as a Chartered Manager, but I wonder what proportion of managers ever bother to apply.
Posted by Alasdair Anderson on Mar 15, 2019 2:19 pm
Some professional institutions seem rather better than others at getting members chartered at earlier ages, which creates inconsistency and potential iniquity.I'm interested in why you believe this Roy. We are always told that CEng is awarded on competence, not by age or time served, so why does it create inconsistency and potential iniquity?
Posted by Roy Bowdler on Mar 15, 2019 5:08 pm
To keep it simple many Chartered Engineer recognitions are awarded by completion of academic qualifications, followed by some training, followed by some responsibility, with a final check that all the UK-SPEC competences have been addressed. Professional Institutions may accredit each of these steps and conduct the final assessment. If you are fortunate enough to be admitted to an accredited degree programme and then gain employment with an employer who has accredited their training with a professional institution, then you can reasonably expect with average diligence to be CEng by 25 to 27.
To borrow a golfing metaphor, this is the fairway. Minor mishits may result in having to hack out of a bunker, but if you deviate from the fairway the grass gets longer and eventually becomes a jungle. For many years “out of bounds” was close to the edge of the fairway and there was a 10 year penalty for being out of bounds, after which you could be allowed back if the captain passed your stroke as suitable on the practice ground. Things have become a little more forgiving in recent years. So if you are coached to successfully stay on the fairway for a round, then you are deemed OK for life. If you didn’t get into the club, or get the right coaching, then you risk a very long round or possibly being excluded altogether. First impressions are important! In the context of this analogy, competence is the score, so completing the course is a starting measure, but how many over par is allowed, is a handicap system in operation, is there a dress code, equipment restrictions, local rules and unofficial concessions agreed between players? Everyone can stand back and admire the very top pros, but many of the average players may feel that they haven’t had a fair rub of the green when the prizes are given out.
My suggestion was simply to ensure that every member gets some instruction and coaching then works on improving their game. Once they can play to a reasonable standard we recognise them as proper players and encourage them to improve some more. We can set the score required to be considered a “master” wherever we choose, but if we make it too difficult and belittle those who haven’t made that mark, then they will stop playing and the club will no longer be credible or viable.
When I first learned about competence, an example used was the driving test, where you were expected to demonstrate a specified standard of performance under reasonably controlled conditions, but how you reached that that standard wasn’t prescribed. What we have is a hybrid form, with different examiners placing the emphasis in different areas, or allowed to introduce some extras of their own. What Chartered Engineers do is complex and enormously varied, so a system has been evolved to measure it in a simplified way. It seems to work reasonably well on the whole for people who clearly deserve to be recognised through following an ideal pathway, but there are many uncertainties otherwise.
We wouldn’t have debated all of this for generations if the answer was a simple one , but wherever a perception of winners and losers is introduced , ill feeling won’t be far away. Also if something doesn’t seem to have “face validity” then people won’t trust it. So for example, if an employer is told that someone that they consider to be their best engineer is actually in PEI eyes their worst, because different attributes are given different value, then an obvious gap exists. In earlier more deferential times, most people just accepted qualifications at face value, or if even they didn’t, they had no means of arguing.
I don't think the intent of this thread was to generate this type of debate, so I will just reiterate my earlier comment "if you're good enough then you'r old enough". So to any 25 year old aspiring to Chartered Engineer - Good luck! As was said earlier this isn't a race, but its good to set challenging goals. We just don't all have to get round Amen Corner without dropping a shot 😉.
Posted by Cheong Tsoi on Mar 16, 2019 7:14 am
I remember that you are an IEng (if my memory is correct!).
And you are a FIET!
Will you apply for CEng? I am just curious to ask you this question and wonder what you think and reply to us! :-)
I see your English and presentation are really good!
And I think you hold senior position in The IET.
Do you want to challenge yourself to apply for CEng? :-)
Posted by Roy Bowdler on Mar 16, 2019 1:53 pm
I don't think that I have ever demonstrated the standard required of a Chartered Engineer.
At the time when I was closest about 15 years into my career, I didn't meet the "academic requirement" so wouldn't have been eligible and already held IEng which seemed to be well-respected in my work situation. As that situation evolved it became clear that a more senior management role would be a better target and I was able to migrate in that direction. To support that I completed a part-time MSc and became Chartered (FCIPD) . The IET predecessor Institution that I was a member of, required Fellows to have a minimum of 5 years management responsibility and invited me to apply in 1995. By coincidence I also started my MBA that year. I also completed a Diploma in Safety Management to help my company at one stage, but only kept the professional institution membership going for a few years when that need dissipeared.
By coincidence I used to play golf and may do so again in future, but never put enough practice in to get my handicap below 20, or felt the need to join a more prestigious club.
To the extent that it is relevant to this discussion, I would consider myself to have a portfolio of skills, attributes and capabilities which includes engineering. My advice to any young engineer demonstrating CEng is to register soon, because if you move into management and become "impure" , then it may become more difficult later. The world as seen through the eyes of those who have controlled access to CEng, values deep specialisation more than generalism. How important being CEng registered is to you, may depend on which circles you move in, but if it is a realistic prospect then take it when you can.
One of the difficulties that we face is that those who stay strongly technical prefer CEng to be seen as a career "pinnacle", whereas for those who build a career on engineering it is a "milestone" or "launchpad". I think both pathways are equally valuable, but I don't know how we resolve this tension?
Posted by Alasdair Anderson on Mar 18, 2019 3:33 pm
On the other hand I liked your golf and driving test analogies and thought them very suitable. I think that as a volunteer PRA I understand the registration process well and so can see the parallels but others may struggle to understand.
Posted by Roy Bowdler on Mar 20, 2019 8:40 am
Professor John Uff, a distinguished Chartered Engineer who also went on to become a Barrister in his twenties, suggested in his major report that there may be three million potentially eligible professional registrants in the UK who have not chosen to engage. As far as Chartered Engineer is concerned, research has shown that only a minority of those who are potentially “qualified” have chosen to register. Arguably they have also failed to understand? Alternatively perhaps they have and don't like the message?
We can’t change the past, so we can only make progress from where we are. Here is an example of another attempt to explain https://www.newcivilengineercareers.com/article/chartered-engineering-vs-incorporated-engineering/
If it is any consolation Chartered Accountancy is also unclear https://www.icslearn.co.uk/blog/posts/2018/july/accountancy-qualifications-how-to-choose-the-right-course-for-you/
I would like to see every young person who begins a career in Engineering and Technology welcomed into our professional community. I would define this “beginning” as commencing a formal apprenticeship or enrolling on programme of study leading to our threshold of recognition or beyond. We should then offer support and impartial advice about career development. As these people gain employment experience and opportunities they will pass a threshold that we have codified as an Engineer or Technician. We should help to validate and recognise that. We want our terminal threshold for the most fully developed Engineers (CEng) to be benchmarked at post-graduate standard and we don’t think that competence can be achieved without circa 4-5 years in employment, so it is rare to find anyone under the age of 25 and common to find Chartered Engineers aged 25-30.
At present, most Professional Engineering Institutions don’t offer “impartial” advice, they seek successors in their own image, which for them is as an elite fraction of engineers, based on early academic selection and subsequent specialisation. This model has some merits, but it leaves many gaps, where there isn’t an attractive proposition to a competent person of good character. On the more negative side it also helps to create a narrative based on academic snobbery, in which anything other than Chartered Engineer or a prescribed pathway towards it is diminished and disrespected.
The IET has certainly made progress with our emphasis on competence and packages of support such as “Signature” and “Advantage”, but I would like us to make more. We still accept assumptions based on the unreliable ground of selection by teenage aptitude for complex mathematics and scientific theory. Because most Engineers and Technicians disengage with academia by the age of 23, it is in my opinion premature to place them into silos by that time.
Perhaps we should just invite every 25 year old Engineer or advancing Technician to participate in a professional review? At that point I would like to see three options “Engineer”, “Chartered Engineer” and “development feedback”. I wouldn’t mind an option like “master technician” to emphasise the importance and value of professional technicians.
I’m sorry if some people might think that this is either complex or simplistically utopian. Yes it does mean that if “you’re good enough you’re old enough”. Our standards have only ever been intended as a threshold on which to build a career further.
Engineers and Technicians will become optimised for different roles at different speeds, depending on aptitude, commitment and opportunity. Our role should be to nurture them, by offering stretching but achievable goals, relevant to employer's needs. If that requires something beyond “proficiency” then we should be discussing that, not trying to aggrandise CEng at the expense of other professionals. Fellowship is an obvious contender. Are we using that in the right way?