| General > General Technical Chat |
| Engineers Australia Membership Folly |
| (1/5) > >> |
| EEVblog:
I've been pointing out for decades the uselessness of Engineers Australia (formally Institute of Engineers Australia) and how hardly anyone in the electronics industry bother to join. Well, my brother in law Dr Phil (the patent attorney) decided to try and join for regular member status as a Professional Engineer, and oh boy, the fun! :popcorn: He has a done 3 year undergraduate degree (Bachelor of Technology (Optoelectronics)) which was accredited at the time as being at the Engineering Technologist level, which is what all 3 year engineers degrees are accredited as, fair enough. But he has also done a 4th year Honours degree qualification at with both a research & thesis component, and won the JC Ward prize for Excellence in Third Year Physics (achieving the maximum possible GPA of 4.00). So very the equivalent of any straight 4 years engineering degree. Then he completed a Ph.D (Physics Research) in a globally recognised field of engineering (laser/optical engineering). Then of course he has many years experience as a patent attorney specifically in the field of assessing the feasibility of engineering designs. So what does Engineers Australia award him with? The 3 year Engineering Technologist level membership! :palm: Even on appeal he lost the case to get just regular Professional Engineer status that any 4 year degree schmuck can get. It'd be funny if it wasn't so ridiculous. |
| Halcyon:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on March 03, 2020, 09:52:30 am ---So what does Engineers Australia award him with? The 3 year Engineering Technologist level membership! :palm: --- End quote --- Sounds like a government organisation. Oh I could tell you some stories! |
| tggzzz:
I'm not going to comment on the organisations or individuals involved, since they are outside my knowledge. I will make a few general points based on what I have glimpsed elsewhere. Above all, all people and organisations are imperfect; how imperfections are addressed is a key consideration. Most organisations have memberships that are based on "standard" career paths, but with escape routes for those that have followed a non-conventional path. IMHO it is reasonable that the non-conventional path should have more hurdles, since their "unfamiliar" achievements cannot be as easily assessed and understood. Familiarity does breed trust, whether or not it is justified. Engineering organisations tend to have two components to their membership requirements: academic and practical in industry. IMNSHO both are necessary. If either part isn't directly relevant to the membership, that should have to be a problem that has to be overcome. But there should be a route by which it can be overcome, by visibly directly relevant experience. Invisible experience or experience validated by people not "known" to be "trustworthy" has to be of little value in this respect. I've seen somebody denied IEE (now IET) membership because they moved out of hands-on engineering and into engineering management too soon. On balance I think that was right. I've also seen somebody with an astounding theoretical understanding of an eclectic set of topics, coupled with a strong ability to put that theoretical knowledge into practice. Since they had never had the opportunity to go to university, they weren't able to satisfy that part of the membership requirements. Very regrettable, but understandable. Fortunately the people they were working with were very appreciative of their skills, so the consequences were minimal. Summary: it ain't easy to correctly assess and include/exclude the outliers. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on March 03, 2020, 10:42:27 am ---Engineering organisations tend to have two components to their membership requirements: academic and practical in industry. IMNSHO both are necessary. If either part isn't directly relevant to the membership, that should have to be a problem that has to be overcome. --- End quote --- Sure, but in the case of any standard 4 year EE degree already recognised by Engineers Australia, they automatically get Graduate level membership at the Professional Engineer level, which is actually above the 3 year level Phil was offer with his 4 years degree, PhD, and work experience. And then, IIRC, you just need a few years work experience doing almost anything before you virtually automatically get Professional Level status if you have that accredited course. This is different to Chartered Engineer which is harder. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: tggzzz on March 03, 2020, 10:42:27 am ---Summary: it ain't easy to correctly assess and include/exclude the outliers. --- End quote --- Not hard to asses the "outlier" in this case. The degree and PhD are from Macquarie University here in Sydney, not exactly Zagazig university (yes, that's real BTW) they know nothing about. Trivial to see that was in the end a 4 year degree program with both thesis and research, and then you throw in a (practical) PhD in laser optics and it all becomes quite comical that someone at that level is assessed as being on the same level as someone with a 3 year technology diploma. They have "accredited" courses for a reason, it's so if you did that course you get automatically in at that level. And this is why they have assessments for those that didn't do an accredited course, but in this case they have assessed it and come to this ridiculous conclusion. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |