The IChemE Has Changed The Meaning of The Term "Chartered Chemical Engineer", and I Can Prove It
Sean Moran CEng FCIWEM
Independent Expert Engineer: Chemical, Water and Environmental Engineering
In the time since I had an article which mentioned the subject pulled on its due day of publication, I have had any number of discussions in person and online with both IChemE staff and academics about whether IChemE have devalued the status of the term "Chartered Chemical Engineer" in the time since I obtained it.
Whether its status has changed is hard to measure, but I have had many conversations with people who denied that it has changed at all, or that it has changed significantly. They are of course entitled to their own opinion, but let's get the facts straight. Changes to the IChemE's requirements for chartership have provably been made, and the nature of these changes is clearly such that having the status of a chartered chemical engineer no longer guarantees that the title holder has designed or operated any full scale plant, or demonstrated application of the principles of process safety, as I will show below.
When I obtained chartered status, having demonstrated these capabilities and experiences was implicit in the title. As I have pointed out previously, there were obligatory types of experience in 1995, optional kinds, and one particular kind which did not count (university lecturing).
This is why career university lecturers could not become Chartered Chemical Engineers in 1995, because the institution thought then that it had an obligation to ensure that "those to whom it grants professional status in chemical engineering are well versed in the activities and responsibilities of that branch of engineering".
The above statements can be proven, I have scans of my 1995 version of the "Training and Experience Diary" (as the "C+C report" was known then). You may compare them with the present requirements here. As you can see, there is no longer any obligatory type of experience at all, and university lecturing does count.
So it is not longer true that you need to have worked as a chemical engineer (designing or operating full scale plant, and demonstrating the application of safety principles to such plant) to become chartered,and that's a fact. What you make of the fact may be a matter of personal opinion, but it is undeniable that certain experience which we thought crucial in 1995 is no longer thought important.
Personally, I think if you don't meet the 1995 training and experience requirements, you aren't really a professional chemical engineer, just as you were not back then. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one. "Engineering is a practical profession" as the 1995 Training and Experience Diary stated, and no amount of theoretical excellence can make up for a lack of practical experience, any more than it would in law or medicine.
It might seem unfair to academics that they can "teach chemical engineering" but can't be professional engineers, but there is a simple reason for this. That stuff they are teaching isn't actually chemical engineering. We learn that when we go to work as engineers, as they would find if they tried it themselves.
#icheme #seanmoran #whatswrongwiththeicheme #spin #unrepresentativeleadership #censorship
Principal Safety & Risk Engineer at Advisian
6 年I totally agree! For my chartership interview, my interviewers were both university professors. They both were obviously very good with theoretical aspect of chemical engineering, but lack in practical engineering and safety aspect sides. My interviews were focused on theoretical engineering questions and nothing toward safety and real practical engineering questions. In my opinion they have no idea what process safety engineering do. One of the interviewer even admitted that he doesn’t know what is HAZOP (Hazard and Operability study) and that he will be attending a presentation regarding it. If you don’t know what is HAZOP, then I think you have failed as a Chartered Engineer. I have complained to IChemE regarding this, but it all fell on deaf ears. Since then I have left IChemE. Not interested in an institute which pretend to care about safety. I believe they are more interested in gaining and maintaining their membership numbers.
Senior Safety Engineer at Amec
6 年Spot on I think. It had already become easier when I was applying over a decade ago. Seen a few applications granted which really should not have been. I went and got my 'hands dirty', loved being plant based, but see so many that have not stepped outside the office. I also think I've used about 5% of my degree and maybe 5% of my work needed to draw on that degree. The real learning starts out on plant.
Sales Development Manager at BMG Labtech
7 年Hi Sean, I have recently been reading your articles and the trials and tribulations you're going through. I admire you for having the guts to speak out about something you believe in and wish you all the best with what is going on. To come back to this particular article, the debate around what it means to be "professional" and "competent" is one that happens frequently within most professional bodies in most sectors, so I'm not going to go into the various arguments. But what I will say, is a lot of professional bodies, mine included (the Royal Society of Chemistry) treat chartered status and membership somewhat independently. It would appear that IChemE's reluctance to do this is one of the causes of the situation you are discussing. In many professional bodies you can be a "Member" or even Fellow by meeting certain criteria (e.g. a relevant qualification, length of service, and contribution to the profession) but to gain Chartered status you must have your actual competence assessed against relevant competence requirements. For example, I am an MRSC but not a Chartered Chemist (CChem) despite having a degree in chemistry and spending 10 years working in a laboratory as an analytical chemist. (Incidentally I am a Chartered Scientist). Many of the people you mention may have made a perfectly valid contribution to the profession of chemical engineering but wouldn't necessarily meet the competence requirements of being an actual chemical engineer. It feels like IChemE's insistence to formally link membership and chartered status, but still chase membership numbers/targets, is what has caused the change (and some might say a devaluation) to the definition of a chartered chemical engineer. Sometimes you can't have quantity AND quality. (I emphasise this is my personal viewpoint). Cheers, Steve
Project & Process Engineer | Oil & Gas | Water Treatment | Expert Witness | CEng. & MIChemE
7 年Perhaps the problem with this at the moment then is that by telling academics that effectively they don't deserve to be Chartered Engineers (without having spent the requisite amount of time in industry), then that's obviously is going to rub an awful lot of people up the wrong way - possibly including a proportion of the IChemE council. Perhaps suggest an alternative that academics become CSci (although I can't see that being popular to those who are already CEng) , or maybe create some form of parallel 'Academic IChemE' grading structure ? Don't get me wrong, I agree with all of Sean's points (and yes, I well remember the one compulsory, and at least two from 4 - think I did three from memory - and make up the rest to 6) Chartership requirements. But as it stands you're implicitly taking away without offering anything in return.