The value proposition for IEng is weak. The 4th Edition of UKSpec makes it clearly weaker. In this life you can become richer, either by earning more, or spending less on things that are not necessary. IEng sits firmly in the latter category.

Good point Simon,  and if nobody else used paying it,  let's not forget tax relief which,  at the level of remuneration you should be able to attract as I.Eng, must surely mean it only really costs you 60% of the headline figure. 


Personally,  I feel the registration and membership fees (especially if you're already MIET, hence only referring to the incremental change due to registration) are small peanuts when compared to the annual remuneration you should be able to receive. 


I feel I can say,  with quiet certainty,  that registration should improve your prospects, whether it's in the ability to 'sell' your services if it's your responsibility to do so or through an appraisal process with an employer.  If you really believe you're in a position where your prospects are not improved from it then it's time you took action and your prospects of success in that action will definitely be improved.  And let's not forget that not all value is financial. 

One of the best ways to improve the value is,  having achieved registration, to walk tall,  promote it. As you see from what Andy and I say,  this isn't an imagined value,  we,  and many others like us,  will feel greater confidence in your fitness for a role,  and this absolutely has to improve your prospects,  even if it's imperceptible at first.

Also, when we see candidates working through the process we see them getting a much better perspective on how well rounded their approach to professional engineering is. Typically two things come out, candidates realise that there are are areas (maybe technical, maybe management, maybe thinking about HSE etc etc) which they could strengthen and therefore become more valuable to employers, and on the other hand they often find that they were actually underrating their skills.


A company's view of an engineering employee is necessarily narrow and somewhat biased as they are only looking at them for a particular role / career path. Friends and colleagues will generally just tell you what you want to hear (or, sadly, some colleagues will go the other way and delight in putting you down - or dragging you into their own pit of despair and despondency - for a variety of reasons). There really aren't that many ways engineers can get an impartial and proactive third party assessment like this of their current position and possibilities. And given that the Mentor and PRA support is free once the membership is paid for then compared to any other form of consultancy / counselling / therapy / call it what you will, the cost is peanuts!


Thanks,


Andy

Well said Andy,  and that was part of what I meant when I said that not all value is financial,  though I'm still pretty convinced that, eventually,  the benefit of these developmental values does trickle through to your career prospects and ultimately your financial reward.

Unfortunately, the view that professional registration improves salary potential is not widely held.

https://theengineer.markallengroup.com/production/content/uploads/2019/06/2019-Salary-Survey.pdf

 

% agree professional registration leads to higher salary – by seniority

• Directors or above 24.6 

• Senior engineers /managers 21

• Junior engineer 11.8

My main point is that the competency descriptions and examples for IEng are those of a Junior Engineer.

I 100% disagree with that. This is on the basis of having worked as a PRA with many engineers over the past couple of years, at mid ranking and senior level, who have been aiming at CEng but - and I think all PRAs will say the same story - because they are primarily project engineers rather than "deep technical" engineers they meet the IEng criteria but not CEng. Across particularly the PEI's core sectors, infrastructure, utilities, military, a huge proportion of the engineers absolutely bang on meet the IEng criteria up to very senior project engineer / manager / director level. And sometimes they don't like hearing "you don't meet CEng".  


A junior engineer, i.e. a recent graduate / recent ex-apprentice with 1-3 years experience is very very (vanishingly) unlikely to meet IEng criteria. They don't normally have the "management" (very much in quotes, it's a whole range of broad based skills) experience. Once they have it they are eligible for IEng AND for a full engineer position - but they will need the full engineer position first.


Thanks,


Andy

Simon Barker:

Peter Miller:

The value proposition for IEng is weak. The 4th Edition of UKSpec makes it clearly weaker. In this life you can become richer, either by earning more, or spending less on things that are not necessary. IEng sits firmly in the latter category.  

But if somebody else is paying for your IET membership and IEng registration the value proposition changes.

When I've started company programs to get people registered, this is invariably the firts quesiotn I was asked - "will the company pay the fees/subs?"


The MOD is one of the biggest proponents for Prof Reg, to the extent that it pays a bonus for getting IEng and CEng, which definitely changes the value proposition...


Tim

And I 100% agree with you Andy.  Like you,  I've encountered many a senior responsible engineer who would not meet the requirements of C.Eng and, sadly, have also declined candidates at interview for C.Eng for exactly the reasons you outline. There is an automatic assumption by many (usually who've not availed themselves of the guidance from a PRA, or have ignored it) that seniority is an automatic admission to C.Eng. 


I can also confirm that,  as he says,  there is no way a junior engineer would succeed in an application for I.Eng.


I get it that most of us would like to think we deserve to be at the top of our profession and that it possibly hurts pride to accept that you're not in that position,  but are somewhere within a very broad band of people who are "in the middle" - though I'll reiterate that it's a very broad band,  but the fact is that these people are the  backbone of the profession,  so rather than doing it down, referring to it as junior,  or dwelling on wounded pride,  it would be more appropriate to embrace it for what it is - the description of a solid professional engineer. 


I will reiterate what I've previously said on many occasions,  an I.Eng is most definitely not a junior engineer,  even with the new,  clearer specification set out in the 4th edition.  Frankly,  the bulk of those carrying out a solid,  professional engineering job, even at very senior level,  fit the I.Eng profile, and that is a healthy proportional situation for any profession. It may be a stepping stone to C.Eng, but it may be as far as many people want to (or should) go.  


I became an I. Eng back in the 90s and I was a technical director in an international engineering consultancy,  a member of the company's International Professional Board and one of the highest paid employees in the company.  I was still proud to gain I.Eng. I did eventually move on to C.Eng and that is,  as Andy said,  because I got into deeper and deeper engineering detail. The 4th edition of the specification is very little different in overall terms,  though much more clearly stated,  than it was then, so there's no basis to consider that it's been downgraded, but, as Simon said,  it has put to bed this "different but equal" concept that was always untenable. 


It's only a shame that,  because of the type of view that Peter has put forward,  the number of registrations does not reflect this and that the qualification is so talked down,  or even dismissed. 


To repeat my earlier point,  which Andy endorsed,  if presented with multiple candidates for a role (and that includes people put forward by contractors as responsible engineers on the assumption they can just appoint them in line with what they perceive they recruited them to do,  but which require my approval - I've definitely had instances when a contractor is badly disappointed because I've rejected an appointment they were hanging their hat on), where one is I.Eng, it wouldn't guarantee them the role as there are other factors,  but it would definitely increase ther likelihood that they will be accepted.  This makes that engineer of greater value to their employer so must improve their prospects. 


One final point - that survey only provides an indication of perception.  It doesn't mean they're right, it only means they have not considered it holistically or simply have a distorted view (or to use a certain world leader's favourite phrase,  but more accurately,  it is probably fake news). The link between qualification,  value and salary is often not direct or self evident, but i am utterly convinced that it does lead you to improved positions (whether by salary, quality or other non- financial personal reward), though all three of those are usually linked.