Comments on: Special Report | Why the ICE wants to broaden its membership

By: Neil Glover

Neil Glover — Mon, 07 Feb 2022 12:56:42 +0000

In reply to Chris White. Chris, I totally agree with your sentiments

By: Peter Monk

Peter Monk — Sun, 06 Feb 2022 11:10:30 +0000

In reply to Richard Henley. SO? The answer is to vote aginst the motion - but vote you must ! ! Turnout in recent annual ballots have been miserablly low, resulting in changes being implimented on the say-so of much less than 10% of the membership.

By: Peter Monk

Peter Monk — Sat, 05 Feb 2022 11:28:44 +0000

In reply to Roger Lewis. Wellsaid - see my comments above !

By: Peter Monk

Peter Monk — Sat, 05 Feb 2022 11:26:01 +0000

In reply to Jeffrey Smith.

Good luck with trying to get the DG and others to admit that. Actually that has been the suspicion from the outset.
Surely if all the those ‘professionals’ with skills in allied areas are so well qualified academically and with appropriate experience, why are they not seeking membership via the ‘conventional’ or ‘mature entrant’ avenue ? Many HNC and other qualification holders have followed that route and have performed very successfully as Chartered Civil Engineers.
This proposal should be rejected as it will only cause confusion in our relations with the media and public because all Civil engineers are engaged in infrastructure provision in one form or another.
Incidentally – NCE has been thrusting ‘diversity’ down our throats – but now, apparently, there are no European candidates for Infrastructure Engineer status ! !

By: Richard Henley

Richard Henley — Fri, 04 Feb 2022 15:00:59 +0000

I’ve never seen Civil Engineering as being just about “concrete and steel”. For me being a chartered civil engineer gives the qualification to be a “prime agent”, subject of course to having the necessary work exposure and experience. If that capacity has been less enabled by the way we educate and train candidates then the answer is to the re-calibrate that education and training. In parallel that may well include opening the routes to qualification so less reliance is placed on solely academic journeys. I have no doubt that the status and influence of Civil Engineering has been eroded over my circa 40 years of practice (so far) and that few understand what a Civil Engineer does and why it’s of societal value. In fact I would say that rather too many in the construction sector don’t have that understanding as well as they should. That will not be solved by introducing a new “title”/”label”; an action, in my view, that will further dilute appreciation and value, by creating more rather than less confusion.

By: Roger Lewis

Roger Lewis — Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:47:41 +0000

I strongly support the idea of broadening the membership of the civil engineering profession to evolve with societal changes and future infrastructure needs. However, introducing a new job title of ‘chartered infrastructure engineer’ will undermine our efforts to educate the public as to what a ‘chartered civil engineer’ is and does. As a chartered civil engineer, I already regard myself as a developer and manager of infrastructure. The introduction of a new title adds unnecessary confusion and I have voted against it.

By: Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey Smith — Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:37:08 +0000

I would also like to point out that I have always worked with masonry and timber, as well as concrete and steel, and more recently glass and GRP. I am currently undecided on whether the proposal is a good idea or if it will just dilute matters. The more comments that people make here the better as far as I am concerned.

By: Jeffrey Smith

Jeffrey Smith — Tue, 01 Feb 2022 16:34:21 +0000

Please can someone assure me that this has absolutely nothing to do with getting more membership fees?

By: Chris White

Chris White — Tue, 01 Feb 2022 13:32:29 +0000

A narrow minded and incorrect view of Civil Engineering seems to be being used as a straw man argument here. A little insulting to the Civil Engineers who work day to day in a myriad of things other than steel and concrete. Also interesting to imply that the ICE believes the values of other professional institutions are not strong enough to prevent failures in big infrastructure projects…

By: Chris Atkins

Chris Atkins — Tue, 01 Feb 2022 10:01:55 +0000

“If you consider civil engineering to be just concrete and steel, then the ICE membership status does not need to change,” I’m FICE, working on the materials and corrosion technology side of the industry, looking at durability, deterioration etc. I don’t see civil engineering as ‘steel and concrete’. My degree wasn’t a chunk of time just looking at steel and concrete. If our routes to membership actively exclude people who have the relevant experience and ability to become a chartered civil engineer, and want to do it, then this needs addressing. Not sure how adding another type of chartered engineer achieves that.