The important thing to understand here is that as engineers, our job is to understand the laws of nature: Mathematics, Science and Engineering; and put these to use in order to create solutions (in the form of technology or products) to solve many of society's problems. If we have the inclination, then we can contribute towards running the organisation: Teams, Projects and Budgets. But the latter is not relevant to being recognised as engineers, as these things are aspects of career development: earning more money.


The whole thing about professional registration (CEng, IEng etc), and other add-ons such as the Washington Accord and level 7 on the QCF are pure administrative B.S. and an unnecessary worry for engineers who have far more important things to worry about. In the UK nobody needs to achieve CEng or IEng or even a degree - though the education value is undeniable.


If an engineer tells an employer they're CEng registered, then they'll be expected to solve all the problems; which is asking for trouble. If they say they're a second class engineer then they'll be treated as one. So the best thing is to say they're most ambitious to achieve success as an engineer. That way the engineer can get on with learning as much as they can and contribute likewise; hopefully with the gratitude of the employer.


CEng or IEng registration simply means that engineer has satisfied an administrative process that they are entitled to be on a register that says they're competent engineer. But the real status is to achieve reputation in industry and hopefully in society that they're a great engineer. The beneficial result may be: TV appearance; autobiography; documentary about their achievement; etc, etc.


Unfortunately, I've never heard of any CEng who's achieved public recognition in the way that a song writer; novelist; fashion designer; artist; or even an architect has done so. Therefore whole business about the importance of CEng vs IEng can only be looked upon as an in-house dispute; or as I would call it a pile of $%^&.


The bottom line is that it's the mind: your belief through education, experience and maturity, that determines how good an engineer you are and not your ability to elevate yourself on the EC register. Nobody as ever, in history, been considered great at something just because they're on some administrative list of greatness. Doesn't exist!




 

That would be very strange.  An Incorporated Engineer would be a technologist, while a Chartered Engineer would be an engineer.


It would make more sense to bring in something like CTech for technologists.


But all this is quibbling about terminology that is not even consistent between countries.  In the UK, the term "engineer" has never been protected, and is used by almost anyone who designs, makes or fixes things (unless those things are big and oily, in which case they are a mechanic).  Meanwhile, "technologist" isn't widely used, but would mean someone who deals with technology.


So someone who designs bridges isn't really a technologist, but someone who designs digital cameras could be.