Well there has been a further 1500 Engineers sign up in the last couple of day give a total of 16500. This partition covers all Engineering disciplines so spread the word!

The figure is now 24400 so get signed up!

Do we miss the point? Salaries and status have been bemoaned for years and still nothing is done. How attractive is the profession? How many graduates are becoming Structural Engineers? How is the membership is it dropping or rising? We can chat all we like but unless we're organised nothing will happen. Apparently the Institution cannot help because of the charitable status...its not a Trades Union to quote a previous response...(and why aren't we a Royal Institution? would that help..????). The petition is great but what weight will it have in reality. Who do we show it to and what do they do about it? its obviously no good to show it to the institution.

The point you perhaps should be raising is not elevating the status of the profession, as we do what we do, nothing more nothing less, but perhaps letting people know what it is that we actually do. Im sure the level of respect you earn from your peers other building professionals and members of the public at large is enormous, once they know what it is that you actually do. With regards salaries and attracting more people into the profession, both will come in time. Demmand for the services of fully qualified professional engineers will not fall just because the number of graduates is falling, quite the opposite in fact. I believe we have already reached the point where demmand is outstripping the supply. opportunities at the moment are phenomenal whereas additional recruits are a little thin on the ground. I have also found that with salaries, if you dont ask then you dont get. there is not a national salary grade for engnineers which is probably why the institution can't get involved but every individual can go to thier employer or client and state thier own case. if you are prepared to move around to achieve what you regard as a sensible salary then you will get it.

There is a great deal of negativity expressed by engineers regarding the Institution and apathy towards the C.Eng. qualification. I'm a little dismayed at the attitude of some people in the exam forum despite the understandable reason to be upset about the mistake with this years exam. But I get the feeling that this negativity is contributing to the impression that our status is not where it should be. Has anyone read "The Professional Engineer in Society" by Stephen Collins, John Ghey and Graham Mills? There is a section in the book entitled "Is Engineering a True Profession?" relating to the Finniston report, and I feel this goes a long way to understanding why we feel the way we do. It states. "In order to establish the reasons why Engineering does not appear to receive the same recognition as the medical and legal professions we need to define the characteristics of a true profession. These are generally agreed to include; 1. Custody of a clearly definable and valuable body of knowledge and understanding associated with a long period of training. 2. A strong unitary organisation which ensures that the profession generally speaks with one voice. 3. Clearly defined and rigorous entry standards, backed by a requirement to register with a professional association. 4. An overriding responsibility to maintain the standards of the profession for the publics benefit." The book claims that there are question marks placed against items 2,3 and 4 and goes onto discuss these further concluding that Engineers should seize the positive in everything they practice and how it affects society in order to achieve its goal. It also says that part of the reason we fail to achieve the status is that our first responsibility is to our employer rather than the Institution so maybe if we all got behind the Institution it would help our employers and ultimately the individual. I'm not sure if or how that can be done though in an environment that is "valued engineered" to the nth degree do drive down cost,(I will explain that if I need to) but I think the Institution needs the full support of its members no matter how they feel at the moment. The Institution has tightened its entry standard to require a masters degree, so I think they are moving in the right direction, but all we here is moans that it is now too hard and not worth bothering because it doesn't bring any benefits. Well it certainly has for me and I am proud to be associated with it. Hope I'm not offending anyone here (I have been known to!)

One possibility may be to group all Engineering Sectors under the Engineering Council banner which then could have the appropriate subdivisions. I don't think anything like that exists but correct me if I'm wrong.

Did anyone else see how our profession was gratuitously trashed by David Dimbleby on T V recently? I quote verbatim from “How We Built Britain” by David Dimbleby on BBC1. “If you were making a cathedral like this today, you’d have architectural plans, engineering drawings, structural engineers pouring over all the stresses in the load-bearing walls and the rest of it. And after a long time they’d probably conclude it couldn’t be built anyway because it would fall down. Now this building was built entirely by the knowledge, the experience, of the master masons who made it”. Ah, so the brickies know better!, apparently. Anyway, is he correct about structural analysis being unable to assess the stresses in masonry? Does finite element analysis give reasonably correct answers for something like this? Are there any F E experts reading this who can answer that? Whether or not he was correct, I don’t think his remarks are acceptable. Even if he was correct, some sort of explanation should have been given, perhaps along the lines of factors of safety, variable mechanical properties of the stone, and the failure rate of these buildings and resulting death and injury caused by the master masons. Apparently there's a book of the same title as the T V program. I wonder if we've been traduced there, too?

Yes, I saw the programme and my initial reaction was similar to yours...but then I thought about it. We probably can't prove many medieval buildings should stand - nor could the masons. I think the key is experience. The masons built from experience and introduced strengthening works on an ad hoc basis as they went along - i.e. the flying butress. Mr Dimbleby is actually right but the way it came across was a bit brash. It's probably something to do with his shirt colour.....(sickly pink for those who missed it)

These kind of programs are watched a lot. Is it feasible to have another series like this but in collaboration with the Institution? Something like "Engineering Britain" or "Great Engineers of Britain". That could be one way of getting across to the public about what we actually do.

I think that would be a great idea. Particularly in view of programmes like grand designs who only bring in structural engineers when there is a problem, and then don't tell you what the solution to the problem was! Most programs seem to interpret a building's "design" as the architectural concept and don't go into the engineering element. Even with stadiums a lot of credit is given to the architect when obviously the major input is structural. However, would programs that concentrate on structure be of interest to the general public? I think that it's easier for the public to understand an architectural concept compared with its end result rather than what goes on in between. Whilst I've heard many a people say "that's an impressive building...." I rarely hear the words "....but how did they make it stand up?" Are we kidding ourselves here? I'd like to think not but have we actually done a survey of public perception of engineers?