Creation of a new Engineering Institution 1

[ScottyUK]

The IEE and IIE are proposing to form a new professional body, the Institution of Engineering or IET. The IMechE earlier rejected the proposal after considering a merger with the IEE.

What do the UK members think of the proposed change? For the better or for the worse?



----------------------------------

One day my ship will come in.
But with my luck, I'll be at the airport!

 

[gwolf]

I have never heard any members speak highly of either institution. In fact, the few older members I know say that it has been a waste of time joining at all. Most young people seem to join out of fear (that they won't get a job without membership) rather than desire. Once they join they are not impressed with the selection procedure or the following transactions.

I think that past employment references are far more important than membership of these dubious clubs. They are a modern irrelevance, I have never been a member, and I have never been asked for membership.

 

[GregLocock]

I'm an Associate Member of the IMechE. I'm sort of tied to them as I have a piece of paper that says I have fulfilled all the academic requirements for Chartership etc, so if I ever feel the burning desire to get mine then it should be pretty easy.

The IEE is a somewhat more effective voice for their members than the IMechE is, but is still nowhere near the BMA when it comes to influencing the establishment.

Personally I think the UK Engineering Institutions would be well advised to amalgamate into one body, become a professional trades union, and have done with it. We should also exclude all employers reps, and academics.

Then, limit the number of new engineers, enforce a registration scheme, and stop sucking up to the universities.

And when the pigs have stopped flying, we'll sort out the rest of the world.

Cheers

Greg Locock

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

 

[gwolf]

Greg, would this be a good or bad time to mention the Nazis?

\hand \hand

(from other threads ScottyUK).

 

[Blackcountryman]

I'm a member of both IIE & IEE. I've voted for the merger.

I agree with Greg the Institutes should form a single institute, in the perfect world this would stop all the internal squabbles. But I fear there are too many little private kingdoms for this to happen.

I don't think that academia should have such a great say in the running of the institutes but they appear to have the time. The only way to change it is for working engineers to get involved more involved.

The other good point is one subscription to pay

 

[ScottyUK]

Sorry Blackcountryman, we've cancelled each others votes!

I'm totally opposed to the IEE's proposal to merge with a 'lower' institution - no offence intended to technicians - because I see it as another step toward diluting the standards which the IEE has protected so well in the past. Already the link between corporate membership and chartership has been severed to allow the IEE to increase its membership revenue. The C.Eng standard itself will be the next to fall, following the general direction of academic and professional standards in this country.

If the IEE was to propose merging on equal terms with the IMechE, ICE and IChemE then possibly I would look at it differently. If Greg's utopian dream of regulating Engineering and its practitioners through the statute books was a likely outcome then I would be all in favour of the merger, but I too think I'll see pigs flying over Savoy Place before that happens.


----------------------------------

One day my ship will come in.
But with my luck, I'll be at the airport!

 

[andyenergy]

I don't get too upset about stuff associated with the Engineering institutions generally, but unfortunately, by using the term 'lower' institution and then saying no offence to technicians, ScottyUK has made me put pen to paper (metaphorically speaking). You will inevitably upset technicians by that remark, but hey, I'm not going make a thing about it, because frankly, I don't care enough anymore.

As an ex-technician, who has become a CEng through the mature/experiential route, I have experienced at first hand from the inside, the workings of some of these organisations and the EC (whatever they're now called) as well. You're right that this is all about league tables and being 'big' Institutions and finance. Survival of the fittest (biggest). The overheads associated with some of these organisations premises are astronomical and that's a very important factor for them.

I can't speak for the orgainsations mentioned specifically, but again, my experience is that these tend to be heavily populated by academics who simply don't understand the needs of industry.

The problem with mergers is that you can please all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time...

By the way, I sort of agree that standards have or may be falling, look at me - CEng with no degree. Outrageous. But to achieve IEng status, the requirements have become much more difficult. That will, I fear, inevitably have an impact on people taking up membership as well. The engineering education system is up the creek too. But that's another debate.

This is an interesting debate. I look forward to more comments.

At last we Brits have a debate on professional qualifications to rival some of the debates on the forum about P.E. status.

 

[ScottyUK]

Hi Andy,

I genuinely didn't intend to cause offence by that remark, I just couldn't think of any concise way to explain the relationship between a technician-level institution and an engineer-level institution. I've come up through technician level too, and I have a lot of respect for the guys who work at that level.

I wholeheartedly agree that the academics have far too much influence in the way that the IEE is run. But how many of us actually bother to even attend the regional or national events, let alone stand for election to the IEE? Frankly I haven't got the time, and in many ways that makes me part of the problem: my lack of effort toward improving the organisation is a contributor to the reason I feel such apathy toward it in the first place.

We have a long way to go before this little thread rivals the US P.Eng argument! In many ways their system is better than ours because engineers are required to be licensed, but I fear that battle is already lost in the UK.



----------------------------------

One day my ship will come in.
But with my luck, I'll be at the airport!

 

[andyenergy]

Hi Scotty.

No offence taken at all.

I've always believed in the Engineering Institutions as a concept (mine is materials)and have been lucky enough to be invited to contribute to some of them. I've done this partly for my own development and partly for reasons of wanting to put something back. But I find it difficult to find the time and enthusiasm outside of the day to day work.

I think there is fundamental flaw with these organisations - some are simply talking shops and vehicles for professional registration, offering limited practical value to their members, whereas some organisations have developed into quite business-like organisations that provide valuable services to their members bit personal and coroporate. The Welding Institute is a good example of the latter.

From what I know of the IIE, they filled a significant gap for those 'intermediate level' qualified people and because they offer valuable services in the form of developemnt courses for their members its little wonder that other organisations wonder why IEng numbers have not increased.

It's a complicated old business.

I also agree that the US system seems better due to the licensing system, but I certainly wouldn't be operating at my level if it was. I would also like to have seen a similar registration system / edutation system as practised in Europe as well, but in the UK we seem to want to do everything differently. Ho hum. I gues thats a different debate and as apathy sets in I can't be bothered to go down that route.

Cheers !!

Andy

 

[DrillerNic]

I'd agree with andyenergy- the service from the different institutes varies with the institute. The best professional institute I've ever come across is the Society of Petroleum Eengineers, which isn't recognised by the Engineering Council in the UK.

I'm very, very, wary of creating a large overall "Institute of Engineering" for a variety of reasons:

1) the Engineering Council already exists- they are the body that actual runs the CEng system and so on....they are the body that should be tightening up on the whole registration thing and possibly moving towards a US PE or continental registered engineer scheme. I think they are body that should start to emulate the BMA.

2) I my experience the larger institutes cannot cope with people with 'non-standard' backgrounds- the IMechE got snotty with me as I had a BSc in Geology, and MSc in Petroleum Engineering, and this didn't fit into the "BEng" box.

3) Engineering is a very diverse field- working as drilling engineer while an associate member of the IMechE, I had no interest in manfacturing engineering or automotive stuff that seemd to fill the IMechE's magazine and meeting programme. And judging from the 4 people (including me) who attended an IMechE sponsored meeting on a new downhole drilling tool, few members of the IMechE in London seem to be interested in the upstream oil industry.

I'm now a Chartered memeber of IM3...this institute was pretty irrelvant to me when it was the Institute of Mining & Metallurgy (apart from CEng status, which I needed to sign off reserves etimates and to ease getting foreign work visas), now it's endless articles about plastic in their magazine, which I don't even bother opening, and seminars on Australian open cast mines.

So I'd suggest we follow the medical profession: the BMA (ie the Engineering Council) as the 'union' lobbying the government, registering us and stopping plumbers from becoming "domestic engineers", and the individual institutes being talking shops for different branches of thh professsion with similar interests, just like the different Royal Colleges of medicine.