I don't know if the last couple of posts have any connection or relation to my previous post about my experience regarding salary and EC registration, but as far as I am aware the job I applied for would have been the same regardless of whether I had IEng or not - it was only salary that would have varied.


Im not sure how I feel exactly about employers specifying they want IEng or CEng, as its a sort of qualification or official recognition of competence and skill - and I don't see anything wrong in companies asking for it if they feels its necessary, in the same way I don't disagree with companies asking for specific qualifications.

Lee,

I've also wondered about age, and I do know that the IET is making a conscious effort to encourage younger applicants at all levels, and celebrates as success instances where younger engineers gain them.

As for the difference, as an interviewer, i personally feel that the academic level is the least part of it, and it's my opinion that the only reason that distinction was made is because it was felt they couldn't leave them both the same.

​​​​​​ The far more important part is how the engineering is practiced. Part of that is management, but the most important distinction is on the level of innovation, with I.Eng being satisfied by selecting solutions from a range of previously defined solutions, but C.Eng featuring development of new solutions to requirements. To clarify that a little, this doesn't mean r&d, nor new and novel design, necessarily, but could equally be applying a known technology in an application where it hasn't previously been applied - quite simply, thinking outside the box.


I hope that helps

A lot of times employers are willing to accept someone who is working toward the registration and this should encourage younger engineers.

Indicating in the job application (in stage 2) of IEng or CEng registration can be beneficial.

Its overlooked at times but what it demonstrates about the prospective job applicant can be factored in the hiring and salary decisions. 


Moshe W BEET, MCGI, CEng MBCS, MIET

Lee,

you're right, but there is lots of evidence to show that employers are regularly simply selecting C.Eng as the criterion, often set by HR departments who dummy understand the differences, where I.Eng world be perfectly adequate for the role.

In some cases, they might even be in danger of setting themselves up for a discrimination case as, if taken to an industrial tribunal in the UK, if they can't demonstrate a causal link between the requirements of the job and the selection criteria, that can be seen as unnecessary discrimination, and if there is a correlation between the levels of qualification and age, this would be a breach of one of the legally protected characteristics, age.

Potentially, it could also relate to the sociological issues that Roy B mentions, though that would be harder to establish objectively and is not, strictly speaking, a protected characteristic

Most of all, they are missing the opportunity to recruit perfectly good engineers, and to offer those engineers appropriate career opportunities. Furthermore, for those who are at C.Eng level, the role may feel very limiting.

I regularly approve the appointment of contractors engineers to engineering roles, and there are very few instances where the role requirements would not be met by I.Eng, yet non engineering recruiters continually stipulate C.Eng if they stipulate anything. Often they don't stipulate at all, because they find they simply can't fill the role if they stipulate C.Eng, or can't afford the rate a C.Eng will expect, and don't even contemplate I.Eng, so they give up, which means we end up with no benchmark at all, which makes my job difficult.

Mehmood,

I'm going to have to correct you on the first part of your response. UKSPEC most definitely does not require a Masters degree or any other form of academic qualification. It sets a level of knowledge and understanding that can be satisfied by multiple means and is completely indifferent to how that knowledge and understanding had been acquired 

The possession of a PEI accredited Masters degree is simply one way to satisfy that requirement that removes the need to demonstrate k&u by other evidence.

Roy Pemberton:

Mehmood,

I'm going to have to correct you on the first part of your response. UKSPEC most definitely does not require a Masters degree or any other form of academic qualification.

Roy, I try to keep my messages short and to the point; so I might leave out some information, on the assumption that it has already be discussed to death on previous debates.


Having looked at the third edition of the UK-SPEC, page 30/48; education for CEng; it does agree with the cut down interpretation in my first paragraph. There is reference to MEng, and alternative routes to registration.


Hope that helps.

Roy,


Just to clarify my point further, I was only referring to the K&U part above. I appreciate there are 5 competence based requirements altogether, and that an MEng alone isn't enough to achieve CEng registration.

Mehmood, 

I, too, am referring only to A competence, K&U, and having undergone training as interviewer, considerable emphasis was placed on the fact that M.Eng is not a requirement, it is merely one possible way to demonstrate k&u. It's mentioned in UKSPEC in that context only. It was one of the most significant changes from SARTOR to UKSPEC.