In my opinion, the Graduate and Post graduate diploma in Engineering from C&G is another way to earn a qualification that is according to C&G is recognized by IET and some other PEI's 

as a qualifying academic qualification for the professional registration as IEng and CEng. - designed to meet the UK-SPEC requirements and to be recognised by the UK professional engineering institutions. Some lerning centers may award 

Also, there is a list/supplement of classes taken, exams etc. This would be considered in the US as Regionally Accredited equivalent.

I don't know if they will be considered in other countries as Washington or Sydney accord qualifying, I can be wrong.

Are they officially accredited by IET or another EC licensed PEI?

A C&G center in another country may be the only option in some areas for the local learners, then recognized diploma (final year of BEng) or Post graduate diploma (MEng) under the UK Royal Charter is a way to advance the profession.

I think the graduate diploma in engineering can be accepted into MEng degree program.

In the USA it will be evaluated as Bachelor of engineering degree but I don't know how professional licensing boards will evaluate it.

This is my opinion, I'm not an expert on these matters,

 



M M Waserman BEET, MCGI, CEng MBCS, MIET, CBT.

I too have been in correspondence with the CGI (and its ongoing!) having experienced the same woeful experience of the CGI website to find out how and where MCGI might be achieved.

In the latest email, they gave me this link to follow which brings up a(n odd) selection of apparent providers in the UK (Odd because a number of them are veterinary / pet related!).


"In reference to your query you could contact the centres available in the link below and they may offer distance learning so you would not need to travel to the centre. I have provided the link for the centres below: http://www.cityandguilds.com/search?n=0&c=9200&lat=52.3555177&lng=-1.17431970000007&l=england&t=centres&s=distance "


My other independent searches took me to http://www.qualified-education.co.uk/?p=level.7.professional.recognition.awards (Norwich) where for £995 you can take the NVQ7 PRA course (apparently). I have emailed them for confirmation/details, but as yet no reply.

I don’t know if this is any help, but I’ll share my experience.

 

Around 22-23 years ago I became involved in the City & Guilds Senior Awards including attending the regular meetings (chaired by a retired Major General, the secretary now a Baroness) , because C&G had approached my then employer offering “delegated authority”.  Employers (included the Armed Forces) and Universities were allowed to offer these awards under license. For employers this provided external validation of “higher level” vocational programmes. For some universities awarding graduates a Licentiateship for work placements and other vocational course elements  also seemed to add value.  

 

Approximately 10 years later I attended a “skills” conference (by coincidence held at Savoy Place). Chris Humphries (then Head of C&G) was involved. I picked up some marketing about being a registered engineer meaning you could gain GCGI or MCGI via a simplified “tick-box” application process.  However, following a telephone enquiry I was informed that it was strictly CEng = MCGI and that my IEng plus chartership in another discipline wasn’t eligible, although I could if I wanted produce a portfolio via a licensed centre etc. My slight interest was potentially about engagement and influence, rather another personal qualification (I already had an MSc & MBA), so I didn’t pursue it any further.   

 

In more recent years the majority of GCGI that I have come across, seem to have gained the qualification via an Armed Forces Senior Non-Commissioned Officer programme, typically in “Leadership & Management” with some in “Engineering Management”. This was part of an on-going agenda to ensure civilian recognition for military achievement.  I don’t have any data but it seems, especially from the comments here, that C&G are no longer promoting these pathways?  

 

Andrew, I think that your regret may be misplaced. In general, the awards do not offer any distinctive advantage and are not well understood. I don’t know if they appear in an “approved list” in certain jurisdictions , which could offer a (bureaucratic) advantage. For example, a quick check found a particular degree that would still be considered as CEng “standard route” by Engineering Council if you were applying now and gained it in 1966.

 

A diligent employer should weigh all relevant factors with the emphasis on relevant achievements, but in circumstances where a purely “rules based” approach is taken, it may be possible to gain an advantage by using the rules cleverly, as well as to suffer disadvantage for not.  Step forward lawyers both actual and barrack-room. 

 

In my experience, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, university awarded degrees and CEng are just better understood and more widely valued than “equivalents” or “similar to”, including IEng, NVQs , C&G,  vendor qualifications etc.  It doesn’t follow that alternatives are necessarily inferior, it’s just a question of “trusted brands”.  

 

In the absence of any clear tightly focussed need, my advice to a mid-career professional , would be to seek out a “taster” such as a module offered by university on a stand-alone basis, in many subject areas your experience may place you well for something aimed at “masters level” but “back to basics” is also OK. Many offer some on-campus time or in the case of the Open University a short “summer school”. On balance, I would suggest that the two areas with most potential return on investment, if you weren’t a teenage undergraduate are “scientific method” (aka research methods) and expressing ideas more eloquently, obviously in a technical context if your focus remains technical. With these two attributes and intellectual curiosity, you can probably achieve any qualification that you are sufficiently interested in, able to pay for and stick at.     

I got my LCGI (Via portfolio direct submission to C&G London – old scheme) in 2011 and GCGI in 2012 (Via IEng - old scheme). I think I consider lucky getting these 2 titles before C&G discontinue or revise in 2013.


Interestingly my LCGI award is in Electrical Engineering and GCGI is in Engineering. I did write to C&G that time how they determine the major especially in GCGI but their reply was very poor without any answer as experience by most of our member here. Apparently I had checked with few GCGI holder and all are GCGI in Engineering.


Getting these 2 titles at first was a joyful moment for me because C&G did invite me to their graduation ceremony in London where you got to wear formal dress of gown, hood and mortar board. During that time I didn’t went for it as the cost from Malaysia to UK is really expensive.


Now, to put these 2 titles in you CV especially in Malaysia do draw a lot of confusion for employer here. In Malaysia City and Guilds are very recognise because most C&G centre here in Malaysia offer up to Diploma level or level 3. So in their mind they already map C&G cert as diploma level. So when they saw my LCGI which I did bracket and said it is NQV Level 4 and same goes to GCGI Level 6, they feel confuse and ask a lot of question, like where you study and how long your study, is really hard for me to explain. In fact there are no study for these 2 titles, LCGI via workbased portfolio submission and GCGI via IEng qualification.


Technically LCGI, GCGI, MCGI and FCGI are academic qualification if based on UK NQF, but their nature of equivalent to Diploma, Degree, Master, Dr, is in very confusion state. That’s why I think why C&G make a stop to the old scheme in 2013.


If to gain LCGI, GCGI, MCGI and FCGI through new scheme where you need to study might as well you go for normal academic route like getting a degree or master.


I have a BEng(Hons) and GCGI, do I consider to have double degree? Some of the employer asks me.

So is very confusing. But of course I got no regret getting these 2 titles for my collection.


Just my life experience sharing!


Regards,

Mr. Lai,


Just like the EngTech, IEng and CEng all are in Engineering and not stating if its mechanical, electrical, electronics, water etc its general.

The same with GCGI in Engineering via IEng rout. Becuase IEng is not specifying the area of engineering so the GCGI diploma.But If you state Graduateship just the word Graduate

is sufficient.  The majority see Graduateship as a Graduate of City and Guilds of London Insitute. and Licenstiatship also well known in Europe term.

When a coworker earned a BA degree from the Open University of Israel the diploma stated this is with honor we confer on such and such the title Graduate of the Open University.

I think if my memory serves me well the LCGI had 72 different areas.  I don't really need to equate to levels.  As being Licensee and Graduate of C&G London Institute is a great achievement.

As to how to present the qualifications in other countries, it varies.

In many countries, there is an agency that evaluates foreign credentials.  For example, in Israel for registration as an Engineer, they don't accept work based, APEL etc, they want traditional or on line such as OU classes of 4 years and 160 quarter credits I think.

Yet employers will accept if the candidate has the right experience and attitude, can hit the floor running.

 

 


 

This is really quite interesting...I've just had a look at the C&G website to see what the criteria are www.cityandguilds.com/.../9200-professional-recognition-awards


It looks to me as if anyone eligible for MCGI wouldn't bother to get it, as their track record would be far more of a sellling point?


I tend to feel that with regard to job hunting qualifications are only really useful to get through the HR or recruitment agency screening filter, and I can't imagine any of the recruitment staff I have worked with having any idea what MCGI is. (And I suspect that putting "equivalent to MEng" would make the candidate look like someone too complicated to be worth dealing with.) But it would be interesting to hear if people have actually found that it has been recognised?


Not that I would ever dissuade anyone from getting a qualification or certification for their own development - or, indeed, just interest.


I've just tried finding out how you would actually get MCGI, it's highly entertaining. The C&G website will let you find a number of centres if you search for "mcgi", but so far not one of the centres they list that I have looked at come up with any results for mcgi in their search engine. Not even the Canine Studies Centre at The Dog Hut Biz, Polegate. So I guess that's the qualification - if you can find out how to get MCGI then you've earned it!!!


Unless I've completely misunderstood the C&G website FCGI is rather different, far more like an Honorary Doctorate than a Doctorate?


Cheers, Andy

In 2016 and 2017 C&G made some new acquisitions:

.The City & Guilds Group acquires Adelaide-based e3Learning – one of Australia's largest dedicated corporate e-learning and compliance providers.
The City and Guilds Institute of advanced technology.
As of 2017 City and Guilds offer University Degrees via the newly acquired  Gen2 - The City and Guilds Institute of advanced technology.

The degrees studied at Gen2 and awarded by University of Manchester and University of Cumbria.


www.gen2.ac.uk/.../


Their marketing states the following:
"Apply now for a paid degree and immediate employment with leading UK engineering companies through the Gen2 Higher Education Department. Enjoy no tuition fees, a sponsored degree and paid employment with leading national engineering companies like Sellafield Ltd, Amec Foster Wheeler, Jacobs and Morgan Sindall. Our higher education courses are delivered in Cumbria by Gen2 and are fully validated so that you can achieve nationally recognised degrees from the University of Cumbria and the University of Manchester."

• Progression Routes from Level 4 – Level 7

• Professional Engineering Body Accreditations

• University Accreditation for all Degrees delivered by Gen2

Larkland,


You highlighted in you previous post that some training programmes and associated qualifications were highly valued in certain areas of work despite barely being “on the radar” of professional institutions and regulators.  In the latest one you state “any qualification achieved should be celebrated and positive” and with some caveats I agree.  The caveats are around ethics, since there are unscrupulous providers, or those who use qualifications to misrepresent the extent of their competence.

 

In this broader context, our categorising and codifying (by voluntary or statutory means) has made gaining professional recognition difficult, negative or even impractical, for many who practice engineering to a recognised standard of competence.

 

Statutory systems, usually with the rules designed by politically influential engineers (such as leading academics for example), seek to limit who can “offer their services” as an “engineer”, for reasons such as public safety that legislators feel are justified. In the UK such interventions have been mainly aimed at those who interface with householders, who may be ill-informed customers. The UK voluntary system creates a market, but one that became dominated by the “premium” (or “elite status”) segment.  Although two other recognition categories are codified, they have a disproportionately lower market value and those affiliated to the  “premium” market describe them in inferior pejorative terms.  The same trends seem to apply where the codification has gained statutory backing.  Therefore certain qualifications have much greater value than others.

 

The value of a qualification may rationally reflect what is required to earn it, but its relative value in the market, or “market snapshot” as codified by legislation at a point in time, may be heavily distorted by sociological factors.      

 

A common theme associated with those qualifications afforded the highest value, is that they stream those teenagers who are considered the most highly developed in mathematics relative to their peer age group. Those who do not meet this threshold are streamed along other pathways deemed of lower value, even if the actual qualification is substantially similar. This approach seems particularly pernicious towards those who are destined to become excellent engineers, but who are systematically disadvantaged thenceforth.  In a UK context this would include many IEng registrants and potentially Degree Apprentices going forward. Internationally it seems to affect those deemed “Technologists”.  Another common frame of reference seems to be the number of years spent in university , rather than the intensity, variety, or relevance of learning, or nature of relevant work-practice (if any).  

 

Is seems that we have accepted the proposition that there is an extremely strong correlation between teenage proficiency in calculus and the performance of engineers in practice?  Is this valid and in particular is it a valid discriminator between types of “engineer”?  You stated “Places like California does not require a degree to take the PE exam” . Can anyone comment on the relevance of these examinations?  The Engineering Council Examinations (for a time organised by City & Guilds) and now defunct, were intended as an “open-access” alternative theory test, but in practice this was considered a very difficult option without being “taught to the exam”. 

 

It seems that perhaps the City & Guilds Senior Awards just gradually lost market share as degrees became more accessible. Although City & Guilds has long history of academic connections (Imperial College) it also seems that its market position had become seen primarily as a provider of “practical” and therefore “less prestigious” qualifications? 

 

I came across this  http://www.ieagreements.org/assets/Uploads/Documents/History/IEA-History-1.1-Final.pdf   

 
While scientific discoveries continued engineering remained practical into the early twentieth century before science-based-engineering became established. . As the science  base of engineering developed a further division occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, the emergence of the engineering technologist, skilled at applying established technology as distinct from the science-based professional engineer. Thus, in the period covered by this history the roles of professional engineer, engineering technologist and engineering technician exist in many jurisdictions.

 

An alternative history, might go something like this;

 

Those with an academic science background have tried to appropriate without the consent of the legitimate holders (TWOC in British slang), the designation “Engineer”. In its place they have tried to substitute the term “Technologist” which to many speakers of the English language would be understood as a synonym for an engineer anyway and is therefore a meaningless distinction. They then influenced regulators to exclude Technologists (UK equivalent IEng), or to describe them in inferior pejorative terms.  The great majority of more practical Engineers and their employers, have just ignored this as an irrelevance.

 

Had the proposition been rigidly applied in the UK, then the registration system might have collapsed to a fraction of its former size by now. Unfortunately the price of this pragmatism is the difficulty in differentiating between two different “types” of engineer who overlap in practice, by means other than their academic preparation. So we have ended up with confusion and an artificial hierarchy instead.  

 

The model, of the City & Guilds Senior Awards, work-based learning degrees aimed at practicing professionals and the professional body peer review assessment conducted by the IET are all good in my opinion. There are similarities and overlaps but also important differences. However, it seems that each of these options has challenges and threats in the market.          

Comments in this thread seem to suggest that the C&G Senior Awards may be in managed decline?

 

However there are some grounds for optimism, in the UK . The Apprenticeship model remained highly valued in some (but not all) UK industry sectors, as a pathway for engineers and senior managers, not just for craft trades and technicians.  I need to declare an interest here, as a former Apprentice and Company Training Manager. But my UK-centric view is that the drift away from apprenticeships towards full-time engineering education hasn’t served us particularly well and it seems that recent governments have come to share my view. The UK government introduced an “Apprenticeship Levy” and increasing numbers of degree apprenticeships are now in progress.  

 

For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with apprenticeships. An engineering apprenticeship blends  experience in the workplace, coaching, formal specialised training and learning, usually with an academic qualification studied part-time. Although the model long pre-dates academic study of engineering, there is also a tradition of higher level apprenticeships leading to professional engineering and related management careers. Universities (mainly as “Polytechnics” pre-1992) contributed with higher qualifications including degrees, but more “prestigious” universities have never been particularly interested in this pathway for cultural and other reasons.

 

If we accept the historical perspective of the International Engineering Alliance, in practice mainly expressed through the Washington Accord dealing with the undergraduate education of “Engineers” and through Sydney and Dublin accords “others” engaged in engineering. Perhaps a future history might say something like.

 
During the second quarter of the 21^st Century employers of Egineers and Technicians gained a more effective voice in systems of recognition and regulation. It was recognised that demonstration of professional competence and commitment to professional ethics was common to all engineers of graduate standard worldwide, developed via many different pathways.  The practice of rigidly defining and distinguishing between an “Engineer” and “Technologist” on the basis of undergraduate education didn’t gain widespread acceptance. This idea became seen as something of an aberration from the late 20^th Century when an academic hegemony existed in recognition and the neediness of the most educated engineers for social status was prioritised over performance.      

 
Noting Moshe’s latest post it seems that Gen2 is already successful and I hope that it goes from strength to strength under City & Guilds ownership. This seems to be an excellent example of the type of model that I am advocating.