Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 92 replies
  • Subscribers 8 subscribers
  • Views 6673 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Value in IEng Registration

Allan Rowan
Afternoon all, just sitting behind a laptop screen pondering and found myself plotting course for my career progression and seemingly unlikely professional registration for CEng.


My current employer has encouraged that I achieve CEng registration (easier said than done) and any promotion to the next grade would be subject to attaining CEng. I'm wary of submitting my application for CEng due to not having an adequate level of education (I have a Bachelors degree only)  and at my age there's little chance of me returning to university for further study. I'm employed as a senior engineer and acting principal engineer within a project I'm currently commissioned. I appreciate that working at a principal engineer level does not necessarily provide the evidence required to prove that my understanding and knowledge is at a MEng level.


Rewind a few years, I was reasonably proud of successful registration and to achieve IEng, however, to date I'm of the opinion that it has done little else other than measurement / benchmark of my competence and identify area's in which I need to strengthen. My employer (at the time of registration) did not professionally recognise IEng registration and from my own observations nor do other employers (that I've noticed). A cursory glance of job listings on LinkedIn, shall normally state a requirement for applicants to hold CEng registration or working towards CEng with no mention of IEng. There's an immense pressure to achieve Chartership and with failure to do so could be possibly observed as I'm either inadequate or not quite cutting the grade by a prospective or current employer.


Is there any value to the IEng registration other than a personal achievement and worth maintaining? I imagine the nervousness and apprehension about navigating the CEng route and the fear of failure that I'm not unique in this respect and other's may have a similar story? Not sure what I would wish to hear, but knowing of others that succeeded with a similar background and level of education would provide some encouragement.


Regards,

Allan. 

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi Guys


    Just finished reading Roy's article and as always very interesting and full of the truths that many would like to deny. On my part had the rules that govern registration to CEng now been in place back in the day I am fairly confident that I would have made it in around 1986 when I was appointed to Group Principal Engineer for Ewbank Preece's Building Services Division. I believe that whilst IEng may serve a purpose it has always been regarded as subservient to CEng and the EC has done little to nothing to remove that thinking to the extent of making IEng a stepping stone to the gods.


    When you look at the numbers; CEngs far outnumber the IEngs so that if you regard the IEng registration as a step towards CEng you have, in statistical terms, an upside down pyramid and as engineers we all know (I hope) that that doesn't work.


    I have felt for a long time, and made my point at the IEng working party that I was involved in a couple of years back, that you either scrap IEng as a category, uplifting existing IEngs, with an agreed period of registration, to CEng. The requirements for CEng are then set out to cover all aspects of Engineering (probably mission impossible) then you formalise the progression scenario with recognizable steps from the bottom up through EngTech, IEng etc which is then understood by everybody. If your career path means that you do not want progress further it would not be a problem you, your employer and your industry would know where you stand. Then you don't get the scenario that I endured for a number of years with highly qualified CEng staff reporting up to me and occasionally even having my authority challenged on occasions because  I was "Only" an IEng.


    On the second scenario to ensure all are treated fairly, I would have a simple format for existing IEngs with say 10 years registration the opportunity to to register to CEng. They would need to show by demonstrating their work experience and with a verifier in senior position to transfer to CEng. I'm not saying either scenario is perfect but they could be a starting point.


    Changing the name (again) to REng will do nothing to make the situation clearer - no one outside the institutions (and some inside) have any idea what an Incorporated Engineer is so nothing will change there. A lot of people understand that a Chartered Engineer has some status within his profession but that certainly is not the case with IEng.


    Certain disciplines such as the Civils and Structural Engineers have a legal standing and responsibility with their registration, their qualifications are set by statute. We in the IET are not in that situation but as we welcome all disciplines to our fold but a Civil or Structural Engineer with CEng MIET does not have the same legal standing as CEng MICE or StructE etc.


    There I've said my piece, again - thank you all for reading this - it's an interesting subject with no real answers because those at the top are not really interested.


    Regards Jim W
  • 0
    Many thanks to Roy and Jim for the comments above. Unfortunately due to the redesign of the site I have only just picked up on this thread...

    I fully agree with the comments made, but I think that the Incorporated/Chartered issue goes beyond the Engineering profession and is a reflection on the general populace's understanding of the terms. If we look at other professions, how many of us would understand the difference between a Chartered Accountant and an Incorporated Accountant? (...and yes, there are Incorporated Accountants as well as Chartered Accountants, but just what the difference is I don't know.)

    I agree that a change in name is not the solution, but on the other hand we can't just keep rejecting proposals as that way we end up doing nothing.
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Hi guys


    Alasdair’s comment about doing nothing just about sums it up - all we have is a few concerned members voicing off but no one is listening - I am sure this debate goes on in most if it all of the Engineering Institutions and despite a working party whose aim was never really met; all we have is a proposal to change the name. Try this one - change “Incorporated” To “Corporate” then we’d all be CEng and everybody would be happy.


    Footnote - I’ve never met anyone who voted for the change from Technician Engineer In the first place!?


    Regards Jim W
  • 0
    Hi All


    As one coming to (I hope) I Eng in my late 50s (Eng Tech for 30 ish years) I think one big issue is wider coverage in the whole engineering community.

    My background is military and civil aviation maintenance, electrical contracting, insurance compliance (Engineer surveying) and finally (so far) a government department.

    The whole awareness of the EC/PEI set up is quite strong, in terms of awareness, in all of these, electrical contracting being less so.

    My point is, we tend to preach to the converted a little too much.

    I am involved as a Volunteer with the Electrician Eng Tech standard. This is highlighting and drawing in people from outside the net.

    Are there any other industry areas that remain slightly isolated?


    Colin

  • 0
    Hi Jim, thanks for your response and to everyone else who responded. 


    I've taken a few weeks away from the application and have returned to it with a fresh outlook and motivation. I received some positive feedback from the IET Professional Development Coordinator which would suggest my application should be ready to submit subject to PRA review. 


    To be clear, the process navigating the CEng (IEng or EngTech) application was never the issue. I recognise the value of the process and the individuals involved to assist those of us aspiring to achieve professional registration at whatever level we pursue. I was more disappointed with the lack of recognition / value of IEng for roles at my level. Permanent promotion within a post in which I currently reside is at the mercy of achieving CEng (it's a frustration at my end and possibly not indicative of the industry as a whole).


    I have taken some comfort from the responses within this discussion and given time I'm confident I'll achieve CEng with some work.


    As a side note, does anyone else find it awkward adding responses using the reply boxes on the IET Forums?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Allan


    Your in post problem is very common and has been for many years - the problem is not with engineers but with HR or Personnel  as they used to be called.

    I know the IET has done a lot to try and educate companies but the ignorance remains in so many companies.


    Regards Jim W
  • 0
    In the 70s and 80s, Tech Eng which became IEng had a large potentially amenable market, of those who followed apprenticeships combined with higher qualifications. Many large employers, often state owned, such as Coal, Steel, Energy, Transport, Post, Telecommunications, MOD etc. Trained many more Engineers (i.e. “white collar” supervisory/managerial) to Higher National standard, than they took University Engineering Graduates for training.  

     
    By the 80s an honours degree was required for CEng and opportunities to “top-up” from HNC to degree were not generally easy to access. Other routes were notoriously tricky and long-winded, including the invitation only “mature” scheme for engineers over 35.

    I should also note, that all of these forms of “progression” emphasised complex mathematics. Which for many, if not most work roles, was of limited relevance. A good grasp of mathematics is important for many engineers. However, in my opinion It has been used inappropriately as a method of academic competition, selection and differentiation.

    Older Chartered Engineers often see having grasped complex calculus as an important “rite of passage”, but in the same way that the ability of a toolmaker to craft metal by hand to fine tolerances has been largely superseded by technology, so has the need to carry out lengthy calculations.   

        
    Even at its high-water mark, the take up of IEng by potentially eligible people was modest.  However, as smaller “niche” institutions amalgamated, The Institution of Incorporated Engineers, became one of the largest within Engineering Council. 

    At the end of the 20th Century, Engineering Council decided that CEng should be benchmarked at a 4 year “MEng” or 3-year Bachelors + MSc. The academic frame of reference was dominant and Apprenticeships were assumed to be for “tradespeople”.  It was hoped that the “mainstream” of Engineers would become Bachelors Degree qualified IEng (probably renamed “Chartered Engineering Technologists), with a more “elite”, highly educated Masters degree qualified Chartered Engineer.

    What actually happened was that Chartered Institutions (including the IEE) pressed Bachelors graduates to “get in under the wire” (there was a transition period) and graduates didn’t want IEng, which was thought of like a third class or unclassified degree (i.e. a “consolation prize”).

    By 2008 the numbers of new IEng registering had collapsed. In the face of this collapse, Engineering council decided to “re-launch”, the category as a “stepping stone to chartered”.  Unfortunately, they lost the support of most long established IEng, by assuming that they (often in late career and at senior level) were also on the “stepping stone”. 
    A significant sales and marketing effort was made from around 2010, with IMechE in the vanguard. IET also pushed hard.  However, for all the reasons that have been debated at length in these forums, on the basis of the last figures I saw from Engineering Council registrations had plateaued at a modest level, both in absolute terms and in relation to CEng registrations.

    I have encouraged and supported “up and coming” engineers to register as IEng. But on the basis of having done it for the last 30 years, the overwhelming majority of them just didn’t find it attractive.  Even employer’s incentives came to little once they did their own informal market research. As it stands, if an increase in IEng new registrations occurs, then it is likely to lead to many becoming quickly disgruntled when they see others treated more favourably, often on dubious grounds related to historic academic performance, rather than current work performance.  This tiresome debate will sadly just run and run ad nauseam, without significant reform by Engineering Council.  

    Yes, IEng may continue to have some value in the right circumstances, but in others it is an invitation for negative prejudice and ongoing exclusion from the “commanding heights” of the profession, as a “part-qualified and inferior type of lower social class and rank”.  I cannot see how this will be overcome. Hence my proposal of clear and “fair” in-career progression for everyone on current merit.

    I’m sorry that I have nothing new to say!  Time for someone else to pick up this particular Baton.
            

  • 0
    Morning

    I think, as Roy stated, it does depend on the culture of the organisation you belong to. My own experience, initially, was military.

    Registration is very strong here. Most Engineering Officers (Junior ones) are I Eng.

    Eng Tech is widely encouraged.

    I am involved as a volunteer, moving the Eng Tech and Electrician Eng Tech agenda along.

    This seems the place to start if you are going to have any hope of halting the demographic decline.

    As said, and no disrespect intended, people on high looking down their noses at others is very 1950s and not sustainable.


    Colin
  • 0
    Good luck Colin, I ‘m very supportive of Technician Electricians and “mainstream Engineers”. Some of the mainstream are called in many countries “Technologists”, on the basis of holding a more “applied” or slightly shorter degree, with less emphasis on theoretical maths and science.


    The “mainstream” also includes most Chartered Engineers, who are simply good competent professionals. The threshold of CEng has been set for many decades at around the age of 25-26. This leaves plenty of room for growth beyond the threshold. However, it is important to understand that this “chartered status”, is an essential element for admission into “polite society”. Without it you may gain some recognition and respect, but always with limitations explicit or implicit.

    I won’t list here the organisations which either deny admission to non-chartered engineers, offer inferior membership, or allow patronising attitudes to flourish, which would be condemned if they were based on gender or race. Any reader is welcome to do their own research. Over recent years many have de-emphasised the chartered pre-requisite, but almost everyone in control is CEng. Even if like me, they haven’t done much “real” engineering for years.    

    If we are ever to have any hope of growing the numbers of Technicians and mainstream engineers/technologists, engaged in Engineering Council registration, then they must find respect for what they have achieved and opportunities to develop in ways that help their careers, not prescriptions handed down from various ivory towers, with those ensconced in them steeped in outdated practices, snobbery and class distinction.  


    This is less of a problem in the military because people are used to a stratified system of ranks and top-down control.  

    For the avoidance of doubt, in my opinion we should support excellence in all its forms, including academic, scientific research etc. However, we are stuck in the mindset of aggrandising a minority, selling affiliation to this “high status” to some more and diminishing the majority of competent practitioners of good conduct.  

    I’m actually even more supportive of CEng and high standards (e.g. “masters level”), because as it stands it’s the only good product we have to offer. The others have some value, but limitations and image problems. Not least the assumption that any CEng is “higher” than them.    

    What really frustrates me is that a career in engineering and technology can offer so much to so many people. Many will be happy to earn well and practice as a professional technician, some will become more managerial, others may have an aptitude for an analytical science-based approach or be talented mathematicians etc. 

    If the IET genuinely wants to serve these people equally, then it needs to use its influence to reform the profession. It is more than 3 years since Prof Uff reported and his findings were hardly news!  I could and probably did write something similar to this a decade ago. Has anything changed, beyond a few platitudes and subtle changes of spin?                             

  • 0
    Roy Bowdler

    Ive read this thread with great interest, and in the main agree with all that's been said. The institution really does need to change with the times.

    One of the comments reminded me when I was at BSi in the 70's to early 90's, when I was advised, "we know you can do the next level job, but you need a qualification" by which they meant get a degree. As at that time the organisation was very much in line with the civil service. and you're grade bound. this seems a simler indoctrination. And one thing I remember was director resigning when we were doing job evaluation, asking "what about the university of life".

    I was an indentured apprentice, and now all but 50 years in various forms of engineering, find I am thwarted, and now for me its not for career prospects, but to be able to give back.

    Something I do in my working life, and one of the reasons I'm still being sought.

    For those of you a position to elicit change, please do. not for my benefit, but the youngsters coming through.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines