QUALIFIED response

Things ain't what they used to be. Engineers in the UK used to be the revered architects of the industrial revolution; the designers of graceful bridges; the builders of mighty boats. But that was a century ago. Now, the general public sees them as oily rag merchants, and the university courses struggle to attract `the brightest and the best' away from the ivory towers of pure science and the arts.

But things are set to change. The Engineering Council's updated regulations, Standards and Routes to Registration (SARTOR), set out a rigorous new scheme for the training and registration of engineers. Setting out strict definitions of what engineers are expected to do - and, controversially, promoting a new echelon of engineering below chartered engineer (CEng) - SARTOR is intended to raise the profession to the same status as the other `registered' fields, such as doctors, lawyers and architects.

The chartered and incorporated streams both use a similar path (see chart). The first stage is a university course. For chartered engineer, this would be a four-year MEng or a three-year BEng (Hons) followed by a `matching section' equivalent to a further year of study; for incorporated, a three-year BEng or a two-year HND/C with a matching section.

The entry requirements for courses will also be raised. CEng candidates will generally have to obtain 24 points at `A' level (based on ten points for an A grade, eight for a B and so on), while IEng will require 18 points. This must be achieved by 80 per cent of the `cohort' of a particular course.

Following this, graduates will undergo a period of `initial professional development' where they will `build competence and professional breadth inclusive of the business aspects of engineering.' Having completed these, candidates will undergo an `enhanced professional review', including an interview at the appropriate engineering institution, to assess both their competence and their commitment to engineering.

Robin Wilson, chairman of BER, concedes that these procedures are demanding; but then, he says, that's exactly what they need to be to up the ante of engineering. `Why should we be the dustbin profession?' he queries. But he denies emphatically that this will increase drop-out rates or cause a fall in the number of applicants; after all, despite the profession's public reputation, tough engineering courses are nothing new.

THE WAKE-UP CALL

`Every parent with a child on an engineering course gets "The Phone Call",' says Wilson. `We expect it about three weeks into the course, and it goes something like this. "Mum, Dad, my mates have three lectures a week and one essay and that's it. I've got nine o'clock lectures every day and I'm always in the lab. I really want to change courses." That's one aspect of engineering courses that we don't expect to change - but after all, every applicant should know what they're getting in to.'

The council concedes that some courses will lose their accreditation, although they won't predict how many will be regraded. However, Wilson says that nobody will be `de-accredited' immediately. Current accreditations will stand until the end of their run, and then courses will be re-assessed.

The promotion and creation of Incorporated Engineer (IEng) status promises to be an even more controversial move. It seems inevitable that IEng will be seen as an inferior qualification to CEng, and courses changing their accreditation from CEng to IEng will be regarded as `downgraded'.

However, the Engineering Council insists that IEng is `different, not inferior'. Where chartered engineers will be trained to `develop and apply' new technologies, their incorporated colleagues will `maintain and manage applications of current and developing technology.' Jack Levy, recently retired as director of engineer's registration at the Engineering Council and one of the authors of SARTOR, likens the distinction between CEng and IEng to that between doctor and physiotherapist or radiographer.

The proposals don't only affect students - or rather, they promise to turn every practising engineer into a student. Every engineer on the register will have to `take all reasonable steps to maintain and develop their professional competence and knowledge' through continuing professional development (CPD) courses.

Moreover, the institutes and associations will be obliged to promote, support, and monitor the CPD undertaken by their members. Applicants will have to prove their commitment to CPD at their registration interviews, and subsequent events - such as upgrading from Member to Fellow - will be used to check the progress. `It's no longer enough for any of us to sit on our backsides and just say that we're qualified,' says Wilson.

The impact of these changes will differ between the branches of engineering. For mechanical, for example, there might be four IEngs for every CEng; but for chemical engineers, the ratio is likely to be 1:1, or even lower. The sheer diversity of the chemical engineering profession makes it difficult to pinpoint where the more technically-oriented, theory-lacking specialisms of the IEng would fit in.