Working from home..

[rockershovel]

I’ve just wrapped up some documentation for a drilling project proposal, wfh in conjunction with the Dutch technical bureau. Not really much different from how this very dispersed niche industry works anyway, although productivity is down a bit - in the  past, sessions “round the table” usually appeared at one point or another, to get things moving quickly. 

 

The civils people find it harder, I notice. They aren’t used to it. Still, we’re mobilising to site quite soon, so they will get some fresh air to improve their dispositions. I’m apparently supposed to be going to an HR course if some sort in Wigan for two days, my line manager is resisting this on the basis that I should be left to get on with what I’m paid to do. I’m treating it as an SEP

 

No 1 Son is making it work, for his web design business although the old British problems of micro-management (usually rooted in insufficient confidence in employees, based in turn on insufficient assessment of abilities), are occasionally present. DiL has definite problems; it’s clear that HER employers need quite a high level of interpersonal interaction to keep their team dynamics on-track. 

 

No 2 Son has just changed posts within the same company, but the overall dynamic remains much the same. Like me, he receives a steady workload of clearly defined issues which he deals with through generally understood forms. He has been in to meet his new team, but they seem to share the view that office practices are so restrictive that wfh is still an important part of their operation, which suits him just fine.

 

I don't know  anyone who is happy with any aspect of how education is operating. At least two acquaintances have student-age children who have simply abandoned their courses, and several others have children who have abandoned their accommodation (only compulsory for freshmen); one nephew tells me that only six students of twenty, remain on his floor, with others having gone home, appearing  occasionally for their minimal interaction with tutors. The colleges clearly don’t have a solution to this; dismissing or suspending students en masse has few supporters. 

 

Parents of secondary school children age seem 100% dissatisfied, with the notable exception of one nephew attending a strongly selective school, which can probably rely on high levels of staff, student and parent motivation and support.

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by rockershovel

[Nearholmer]

Interesting.

 

I'm doing a little WFH, being very much a part-timer these days anyway, and find it "sort of OK". I effectively got told in another thread that I am a dinosaur for not much liking WFH.

 

My good lady is WFH nearly full-time and, despite the rest of us distracting her, she likes WFH.

 

Secondary school son doesn't like it, but his school is doing a very good job, running every lesson to normal timetable as a "virtual class", which is probably as good as it gets unless individual-tutoring is the game. He has lost some ground, and Lockdown sure isn't helping his general demeanor, but academic loss is recoverable.

 

Primary school daughter is again well-served by the school, three "virtual classes" each day, plus a lot of supporting material, but, and it is a huge BUT, she just does not properly engage with it, and is falling badly behind, despite me trying really hard to support her. We had exactly the same during L1. Some children of that age can learn, a bit, "virtually", others really struggle with it. TBH, I think she probably ought to repeat the year if school will allow.

[TheQ]

I can't work from home, but about 1/3 of our factory do. That's software engineering, HR, Finance, IT ( internal not product related) . Hardware engineering are part time WFH..

Our team meetings are online anyway since our bosses are in the USA.. in normal times they only come over once a year..

Many would be quite happy to remain WFH.

 

Education, I did Open University, and certainly remote education can work. But I suspect that a great many regard uni as a three year gap year between school and work interrupted  with occasional panic  studying.

 

Similarly with school, Australia has had the" School of the Air" successfully for many years. The problems many UK children, are having is both the school, and the children are unprepared.

 

I went to school in remote areas, when not term time, there was no one of my school, let alone age group around. The children are just not used to isolation..

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

1 minute ago, TheQ said:

The children are just not used to isolation..

 

 

That, I think, is the central problem for my daughter. School, and everything to do with it, has always been "mostly social, with some education acquired along the way" for her, so trying to learn virtually and with Dad just doesn't cut it for her.

[Fenman]

6 hours ago, rockershovel said:

...

I don't know  anyone who is happy with any aspect of how education is operating. At least two acquaintances have student-age children who have simply abandoned their courses, and several others have children who have abandoned their accommodation (only compulsory for freshmen); one nephew tells me that only six students of twenty, remain on his floor, with others having gone home, appearing  occasionally for their minimal interaction with tutors. The colleges clearly don’t have a solution to this; dismissing or suspending students en masse has few supporters. 

...

 

An interesting article about the current failures of HE and questioning their future, by the always thoughtful John Naughton (who can draw on many years experience as an academic at the Open University).

 

Paul

[rockershovel]

8 minutes ago, Fenman said:

 

An interesting article about the current failures of HE and questioning their future, by the always thoughtful John Naughton (who can draw on many years experience as an academic at the Open University).

 

Paul

 

Interesting stuff, but anyone who thinks engineers, surveyors, agriculturalists, programmers, meteorologists, hydrographer, doctors, radiologists, pharmacists and others like them can be trained at a computer screen, has no understanding of the disciplines, or what employers require. 

 

In the past fifteen years, we have vastly expanded our tertiary education system, with no coherent plan and very little overall control. We now produce huge numbers of graduates, yet appear to lack a sufficiency of almost any real-world expertise you care to name. The obvious conclusion is that most of these institutions could be allowed to return whence they came, or just fade away completely, with no real loss to the community as a whole. 

[Fenman]

3 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Interesting stuff, but anyone who thinks engineers, surveyors, agriculturalists, programmers, meteorologists, hydrographer, doctors, radiologists, pharmacists and others like them can be trained at a computer screen, has no understanding of the disciplines, or what employers require. 

...

 

I’m curious that you don’t think the Open University has been graduating engineers for, well, decades...?

 

Paul

[Nearholmer]

39 minutes ago, Fenman said:

I’m curious that you don’t think the Open University has been graduating engineers for, well, decades...?

 

A degree doesn't qualify one as a practising engineer, though, it is only a step along the way, and I think the point that Rocker is driving at is that the rest of the steps need close involvement in the practical work of the profession.

 

For c20 years, I was Industrial Sponsor for a graduate training programme, which took engineers from first or second degree, through directed experience for two years, but even beyond that they needed experience in junior posts to acquire the experience that fitted them for full qualification.

 

(And, SFAIU, the OU doesn't teach Electrical engineering, for instance - I'll check with my good lady, since she works at the OU and used to work in the engineering faculty.)

[DaveF]

I spent 31 years slowly climbing the promotion ladder to a position as a senior manager in my field of work, for most of that time my degree in Biology was useful, though I picked up a lot of IT knowledge and skills along the way.

 

Then I was offered another promotion, but it meant working from 1-7pm at work, and doing anything else at home.  Naturally I accepted it.

 

2 years later I realised I could afford to retire and did so.  My employer then offered me a salaried role as IT consultant, part time, but I could choose when and where I worked - so I spent almost all my time at home.  It worked well, I "happened" to save my employer several times what they were paying me each year.  Part of the arangement was that I would only go to meetings if I felt the need to.  Even my appraisals were done by phone.

 

I did that for 8 years before I retired again, in 2013 at the age of 64.   If you have a suitable room at home and enjoy working alone I can recommend it. 

[rockershovel]

22 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

A degree doesn't qualify one as a practising engineer, though, it is only a step along the way, and I think the point that Rocker is driving at is that the rest of the steps need close involvement in the practical work of the profession.

 

For c20 years, I was Industrial Sponsor for a graduate training programme, which took engineers from first or second degree, through directed experience for two years, but even beyond that they needed experience in junior posts to acquire the experience that fitted them for full qualification.

 

(And, SFAIU, the OU doesn't teach Electrical engineering, for instance - I'll check with my good lady, since she works at the OU and used to work in the engineering faculty.)

 

Engineering varies, but in all phases you need professional experience. Civil engineers must do a year at work, before graduating; usually between the second and third years, I believe. THEN you embark on the whole ladder of professional registration. Radiologists, pharmas etc must complete several months in supervised professional placements, before graduating. I’m a mining engineer, and I spent on average 20 hours a week in the mineralogy lab, underground on practical or field visits, or surveying around the tips. 

 

Thats disregarding the whole structure of Day Release and Block Release, ONC, HND, OND, HND and degree... 

 

I’ve known OU engineering graduates, occasionally. Usually they are older graduates, catching up their firmal education after experience in work. 

[Ozexpatriate]

In my professional experience in a deeply technical field I have seen work environments spanning walled offices, high-walled cubicles, low-walled cubicles, 'bull-pens', unassigned (hot-desk) workspaces* and work-from-home.

 

* The 'facilities' pre-pandemic fad

 

Technology made 'work-from-home' possible years ago, and a culture of remote teams and teleconferencing encouraged it. It was widely used in my company. Pre-pandemic we avoided video-conferencing for most team communication, though apparently it has become a norm during the pandemic.

 

The productivity question is the most interesting one. Modern computing and connectivity is incredibly productive. It permits an enormous amount of time-wasting at people's desks while still "getting their work done", whether they are in an office setting or at home.

 

There is what I think is a myth that people who work from home, work longer due to 24x7 connectivity - working early or late because their computers are home with them with full connectivity. While it is accurate that people who WFH perform more tasks outside core hours, they do this to 'catch-up' on dealing with lost productivity during the day, and present themselves as working harder.

 

There are so many daytime distractions at home - children (particularly with pandemic home-schooling), significant others, pets, exercising, preparing food, running errands etc, that in my opinion, exceed the notorious 'coffee break' or 'water cooler' distractions at the office. Pre-pandemic, I sat in a walled company office while interacting with colleagues doing all these things while they "worked from home".

[Fenman]

7 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

A degree doesn't qualify one as a practising engineer, though, it is only a step along the way, and I think the point that Rocker is driving at is that the rest of the steps need close involvement in the practical work of the profession.

 

For c20 years, I was Industrial Sponsor for a graduate training programme, which took engineers from first or second degree, through directed experience for two years, but even beyond that they needed experience in junior posts to acquire the experience that fitted them for full qualification.

...

But hasn’t that always been the case? Oxford started awarding degrees to lawyers in the 13th century: but over most of those 800 years before qualifying as a professional they’ve also then needed either work experience as a clerk or an apprenticeship in one of the Inns of Court. 

Similarly with graduates of medical schools: after graduation they need on-the-job experience (plus usually further exams) to qualify as a professional. 
 

Why would we suddenly expect universities to start graduating fully-formed professionals? That’s not their job. At most, they offer the equivalent of “Part 1” of a professional qualification. 
 

And all that assumes the purpose of universities is vocational training when many (most?) of their graduates are studying subjects they love without a thought of becoming a “professional” in that subject.

 

I think English universities will have a tough time: their primary role is to act as finishing schools for the middle classes, with academic study being one of a number of purposes. The socialising and network-building elements of a traditional university education can’t be done as effectively in a virtual world. 
 

Paul

 

[Nearholmer]

1 hour ago, Fenman said:

Why would we suddenly expect universities to start graduating fully-formed professionals? That’s not their job. At most, they offer the equivalent of “Part 1” of a professional qualification

I wouldn’t.

 

I was merely pointing out what I thought Rocker was driving at.

[rockershovel]

46 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I wouldn’t.

 

I was merely pointing out what I thought Rocker was driving at.

 

I think we are all pursuing similar points, here. Why are the “Inns of Court” so named? Because they provided the milieu in which the vocation was developed and pursued. A barrister cannot be “called to the bar” or progress thereafter without developing the skills of analysis and debate, the attendant interpersonal interactions, and the interpersonal networks of contacts derived from their education. 

 

Why should Universities be fundamentally about developing vocations? Because without that, they would not exist. They cost money, take time, occupy premises. Do you think the warring monarchs and prelates of the past, devoted themselves to learning for its own sake? Well, occasionally yes, but mostly no. Both of my younger children had their choice of job offers upon leaving University, an outcome which had everything to do with their choice of course and venue; they were offering qualifications of recognised value in the world of work. 

 

We appear to have almost entirely abandoned vocational training, in favour of a structure whose function is far from clear, and which depends upon its acolytes impoverishing themselves in its pursuit. That can’t last. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by rockershovel

[rockershovel]

8 hours ago, Ozexpatriate said:

In my professional experience in a deeply technical field I have seen work environments spanning walled offices, high-walled cubicles, low-walled cubicles, 'bull-pens', unassigned (hot-desk) workspaces* and work-from-home.

 

* The 'facilities' pre-pandemic fad

 

Technology made 'work-from-home' possible years ago, and a culture of remote teams and teleconferencing encouraged it. It was widely used in my company. Pre-pandemic we avoided video-conferencing for most team communication, though apparently it has become a norm during the pandemic.

 

The productivity question is the most interesting one. Modern computing and connectivity is incredibly productive. It permits an enormous amount of time-wasting at people's desks while still "getting their work done", whether they are in an office setting or at home.

 

There is what I think is a myth that people who work from home, work longer due to 24x7 connectivity - working early or late because their computers are home with them with full connectivity. While it is accurate that people who WFH perform more tasks outside core hours, they do this to 'catch-up' on dealing with lost productivity during the day, and present themselves as working harder.

 

There are so many daytime distractions at home - children (particularly with pandemic home-schooling), significant others, pets, exercising, preparing food, running errands etc, that in my opinion, exceed the notorious 'coffee break' or 'water cooler' distractions at the office. Pre-pandemic, I sat in a walled company office while interacting with colleagues doing all these things while they "worked from home".

 

Hot desks are pretty awful, but very valuable in environments in which personnel are mobile, or work round the clock. The oil industry couldn’t function without them. 

 

I believe you are referring to “presentee-ism” , a common malady by which availability is confused with productive activity. Clearly you are well aware of the difference! 

 

We are presently combining wfh on my part, with providing on-call child care for my grand-daughter so that No 1 Son and DiL can get some work done themselves. I get by because I work for a specialist niche company, which gives me fairly clear direction as to what is required, and where I know the task. 

[Nearholmer]

30 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

We appear to have almost entirely abandoned vocational training, in favour of a structure whose function is far from clear,

 

Perhaps an exaggeration, but there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

 

With honourable exceptions, and I tried to make sure that "my" grad scheme remained one, vocational training in the UK fell from being "fairly decent" about 40+ years ago, to being bl@@dy terrible by the early 2000s, and has only recovered to a small degree since.

 

Good grad schemes, run by the largest firms and the largest public sector bodies, mostly rode-through the collapse, but very little of the rest of what existed survived without severe damage - possibly only in the armed services, emergency services, and to some degree the NHS, teaching, and the gas and electricity industries. There has been some recovery of apprenticeships since, although TBH a lot of the apparent recovery there is fairly poor-quality schemes in trades that really don't have a great many competences to pass-on, but there is still a yawning chasm sized gap in the training of highly-skilled technical personnel, what used to be called "technician-engineer training", and which is the area that Germany excels at, through its technical high-schools.

 

The sort of truly skill-building training that I'm talking about can only occur by very tight collaboration between 'industry' and education/academia, and I'm not convinced that any of the potential parties of government "get it", largely because so few politicians actually possess the skills I'm talking about - PPE, economics, history etc degrees, followed by jobs in media, PR, or as party hacks do not to any degree at all fit people to understand this stuff.

 

Anyway, its Sunday, and my family wont welcome me raising my own blood pressure over this topic rather than being with them!

 

 

[Fenman]

17 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Perhaps an exaggeration, but there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

 

With honourable exceptions, and I tried to make sure that "my" grad scheme remained one, vocational training in the UK fell from being "fairly decent" about 40+ years ago, to being bl@@dy terrible by the early 2000s, and has only recovered to a small degree since.

 

Good grad schemes, run by the largest firms and the largest public sector bodies, mostly rode-through the collapse, but very little of the rest of what existed survived without severe damage - possibly only in the armed services, emergency services, and to some degree the NHS, teaching, and the gas and electricity industries. There has been some recovery of apprenticeships since, although TBH a lot of the apparent recovery there is fairly poor-quality schemes in trades that really don't have a great many competences to pass-on, but there is still a yawning chasm sized gap in the training of highly-skilled technical personnel, what used to be called "technician-engineer training", and which is the area that Germany excels at, through its technical high-schools.

 

The sort of truly skill-building training that I'm talking about can only occur by very tight collaboration between 'industry' and education/academia, and I'm not convinced that any of the potential parties of government "get it", largely because so few politicians actually possess the skills I'm talking about - PPE, economics, history etc degrees, followed by jobs in media, PR, or as party hacks do not to any degree at all fit people to understand this stuff.

 

Anyway, its Sunday, and my family wont welcome me raising my own blood pressure over this topic rather than being with them!

 

 

Even in the medieval period universities were a strange mix of vocational and academic training (the vocation was originally primarily religious), but in recent years there’s certainly been huge pressure to teach for employment, combined with degree-isation of previously FE level professions (nursing is one of the more recent examples). 
 

The conversion of polytechnics into universities didn’t help (especially since most of the good polys tended to become 2nd-rate universities). And technical colleges seem to occupy a weird middle ground between being alternative sixth form centres and vocational training centres (and, in some cases, hosting “university centres”, too). I’d agree with you that we have horribly neglected the technical side of education and training — though that’s always been a complaint about the English system (the RSA was loudly lobbying for mechanics institutes in the early nineteenth century, lamenting the appalling state of education and pointing out that Germany was overtaking us...). 

 

Until we can agree what education is for, we’re unlikely to develop a coherent system of provision.

 

Paul

[rockershovel]

Exactly. We have, in large part, substituted the semblance of University education for the reality of technical and vocational training. This was one great virtue of the nationalised industries; they operated the sort of technical training programmes, integrated with the related industries, which we have never provided before or since. 

 

The NCB transformed itself from a technically backward industry, to world leaders supporting a thriving consultancy and manufacturing sector. Rail, once it had passed the dieselisation false start, produced wholesale renewal of the p/way and signalling system and the quite brilliant HST, electrification and the tilt-body technology. Aerospace produced the Harrier, although it was probably the least successful of the nationalised sectors. The great national adventure of North Sea Oil was founded upon the skills learnt in the declining ship-building sector. 

 

One thing I learnt a long while ago, was that we needed to properly address the issue of technical and vocational training, and the financially obsessed management structure common here (and the political leadership derived in large part from it) would never, ever do this; because it required the recognition that they had a much reduced role in the future.  

 

Nursing degrees are a case in point. My daughter is a radiologist, who just about qualified during the last years of NHS tuition fee sponsorship. She openly admits now that she would have gone straight to the USA under modern financial structures, that they cannot recruit the staff they require and that degree costs are a direct cause. She speaks of whole wards, even whole wings without a single U.K. trained nurse or other personnel, for the same reason; why incur £50,000 debts, for a £30,000 maximum salary? Especially when combined with the destruction of job development and security which accompanies it. 

 

We seem to have strayed from WFH, but perhaps not; WFH seems to me, ideally suited to certain categories of professional and white-collar work, and we are not developing the necessary skills base. 

Edited February 14, 2021 by rockershovel

[black and decker boy]

12 hours ago, rockershovel said:

 

Engineering varies, but in all phases you need professional experience. Civil engineers must do a year at work, before graduating; usually between the second and third years, I believe. THEN you embark on the whole ladder of professional registration. Radiologists, pharmas etc must complete several months in supervised professional placements, before graduating. I’m a mining engineer, and I spent on average 20 hours a week in the mineralogy lab, underground on practical or field visits, or surveying around the tips. 

 

Thats disregarding the whole structure of Day Release and Block Release, ONC, HND, OND, HND and degree... 

 

I’ve known OU engineering graduates, occasionally. Usually they are older graduates, catching up their firmal education after experience in work. 

I am a chartered civil engineer. There is no requirement for a year of mandatory industrial placement to gain a civil engineering degree.

 

To become a charted civil engineer (CEng MICE) you need to have an MEng or do further accredited learning with a BEng.

 

Civil Engineering degrees would be nigh on impossible to teach 100% remotely as probably 40-50% of the course is practical, lab based experiments. These are used to demonstrate / validate any computer based modelling.

 

Civil engineering and WFH is a complicated mix. It depends heavily on your role & discipline. I work for a contractor. My role allows me to WFH though it is not as effective as having some face to face time. I’ve not had a desk in an office for 4 years but never WFH more 1 day per week, spending the other 4 on site, with clients or colocating with design partners. As a business, we have hundreds of project offices (portacabins) but very few firm fixed offices so WFH doesn’t offer huge gains to our Group finances.

 

Design consultants by contrast are able and now moving to a majority WFH with only a day or so per week in an office. The saving on office costs will be dramatic for them, especially as they like high profile, high value city centre space.

[Mike Bellamy]

3 hours ago, Fenman said:

 

The conversion of polytechnics into universities didn’t help (especially since most of the good polys tended to become 2nd-rate universities). 

 

 

Some of the 'new' universities were not even polytechnics - for example locally, Derbyshire College of Higher Education had gone through the approval process and was about to be 'upgraded' to a polytechnic when the Government of the day decided to make all polys into universities and so it became University of Derby without the polytechnic stage (I think a few other colleges went through a similar process. 

 

[rockershovel]

2 hours ago, black and decker boy said:

I am a chartered civil engineer. There is no requirement for a year of mandatory industrial placement to gain a civil engineering degree.

 

To become a charted civil engineer (CEng MICE) you need to have an MEng or do further accredited learning with a BEng.

 

Civil Engineering degrees would be nigh on impossible to teach 100% remotely as probably 40-50% of the course is practical, lab based experiments. These are used to demonstrate / validate any computer based modelling.

 

Civil engineering and WFH is a complicated mix. It depends heavily on your role & discipline. I work for a contractor. My role allows me to WFH though it is not as effective as having some face to face time. I’ve not had a desk in an office for 4 years but never WFH more 1 day per week, spending the other 4 on site, with clients or colocating with design partners. As a business, we have hundreds of project offices (portacabins) but very few firm fixed offices so WFH doesn’t offer huge gains to our Group finances.

 

Design consultants by contrast are able and now moving to a majority WFH with only a day or so per week in an office. The saving on office costs will be dramatic for them, especially as they like high profile, high value city centre space.

 

Thats interesting.. might I ask when you qualified? When I was sufficiently involved with civil engineering to be following such things, which is not recent (1980s), MEng were rare, BEng the norm and many contractors offered no accredited path to CEng at all. I don’t doubt it has changed since then.

 

Part of the reason I reverted to the oil and gas sector was that I didn’t want to remain in civils contracting, but saw no useful path forwards. The general consolidation of Professional Institutes between about 1995 and 2005 changed all that for me.

 

my overall view of British civil engineering is that compared with the European and Asian industries, it lacks trade and skills training, which combined with their fixation on the staff/labour division leads to excessive supervision requirements, lack of ownership of issues at the site level, difficulty dealing with technical problems at site level and general lack of competitiveness. They also lack support from government. The outcome is that while companies like Skanska, BAM and Nishimatsu have no difficulty cherry picking the UK market, and EDF own wide swathes of the utility and consulting sectors, the reverse is not true. 

 

When I was in Baku with BP, the Balfours expat staff wanted nothing to do with the British arm of the company. 

 

How WFH operates in a British civils contractor, I couldn’t say. The oil and gas sector developed the technology and techniques long ago, I find it quite straightforward working fir an HDD contractor, I learnt it during the “dash for gas” in the 90s. Civils seems to have little grasp of, or interest in work/life balance, returning to civils shift patterns was a rude shock and one I won’t be repeating! 

[Bernard Lamb]

16 hours ago, Fenman said:

 

I’m curious that you don’t think the Open University has been graduating engineers for, well, decades...?

 

Paul

At the Welding Institute they would take a graduate and ask them to sign their name on a piece of 25mm steel plate with a welding rod. It soon sorted the book learners from the hands on people. Their was one lecturer who would always say to students that he would not try and teach them about welding theory until they could do that.

Bernard

[Nearholmer]

20 minutes ago, rockershovel said:

When I was sufficiently involved with civil engineering to be following such things, which is not recent (1980s), MEng were rare,

The standard path to chartered status in all of the ‘heavier’ engineering professions has involved a masters degree for many years (maybe c15 yrs, I can’t remember), see ‘U.K. Spec’, which is available on-line.

 

When I ceased working full-time, and ceased to be a sponsor for a grad scheme, about four years ago, there was a debate going-on among the institutions about whether the academic side of the U.K. Spec requirements had become needlessly onerous, excluding a lot of perfectly good engineers who only had first degree, but how/whether that debate has been resolved I don’t know.

 

The Institutions can/will accept candidates from ‘unusual paths’, but that can be quite an ordeal by fire for the individual, as I well know. I studied to HNC on a very well-structured technician-engineer programme, then went into auto-didact mode to study on to degree level, completely on my own, while working full time. I approached the IEE about membership, and they allowed me to submit a dissertation under scrutiny from a Prof at ICL, and undergo a face-to-face examination of theoretical knowledge by a committee. They must have liked it all, because they accepted it as meeting their academic standards. That way of entry was never in any membership guide!

 

Much later, when I already had Chartered Status, I then studied to masters level in a slightly different subject, but only because I wanted to broaden my knowledge, not as an entry requirement.

[black and decker boy]

I graduated in 1996. I was the last cohort that qualified for CEng just with a BEng. All students in subsequent years at Newcastle Uni were automatically on MEng courses. There are many who still graduate with a BEng and now can qualify as IEng MICE or progress to full CEng with further learning (or the experience route).