I have been concerned for some time about the inexplicable verdicts of the membership committee on applications to join the institution. Receipt of the chief executive鈥檚 recent circular, entitled 鈥淗elp your institution grow鈥�, was the catalyst for me to express this concern.

As many as 10 years ago, I was pleased to propose for membership a very bright engineer, then in his late 20s, and was stunned when he was deemed to require further experience. The irony in this case was that, just before this unexpected verdict, he had been nominated as a Young Engineer of the Year by a panel that included past presidents of CIBSE.

Much more recently two other applicants, both senior engineers, have been refused membership, again on the grounds of further experience being required. Both had served their practices on a wide range of projects, one for 20 years and the other for 17 years.

The experience gained from such a number of years in the working environment cannot be underestimated, both in terms of the breadth of work undertaken by the firm and the example set by superiors. The firms of both individuals are leading UK practices whose partners and directors include CIBSE past presidents.

It is disturbing that membership interview panels can decide, on the basis of a 45-minute interview with an applicant, that broad, reputable experience approaching half a working career is not sufficient to meet professional standards. It is also worrying that the membership committee does not appear to question these assessments.

Against such a background it seems valid to question the experience of interviewers and membership committee personnel and their ability to fulfil a role of vital relevance to the career prospects of prospective members.

One way to 鈥渉elp our institution grow鈥� would be to ensure a more rational assessment of applicants.

RJ Oughton, Essex

CIBSE responds:

In principle, there is nothing untoward in a Young Engineer of the Year needing further experience to be admitted as a member. The award recognises a bright, new member of the profession, while membership and chartered engineer status require a level of responsibility and experience rarely achieved by those in their late 20s; the average age for new entrants to the CEng register is currently 34 years.

As to those with longer service in the industry, it is impossible to comment on the treatment of two individuals whose circumstances are not known. It should be noted that during the interview process, applicants are given the opportunity to communicate their competence to the interviewers and some candidates fail to demonstrate the level of competence required.

As to the working of the membership panel, all the evidence presented is thoroughly reviewed, including the engineering practice reports and the interviewers鈥� marks and notes. Where there is any doubt, the panel always arranges a new interview.

While it would be rash to claim a perfect record, the procedures in place are externally audited by the Engineering Council UK and are robust. In addition, the recruitment and on-going training of interviewers is thorough. There is surely a certain 鈥渘o win鈥� element to this activity. A 100% pass rate would rightly be questioned, while the deferral of any candidate is felt to be an insult to that individual and their employer. The panel is mindful of this conflict and attempts to ensure fairness and maintain standards with regard to its procedures and the treatment of each individual.

Source

星空传媒 Sustainable Design