CharlieMungus – Member

Really? How long ago did you get chartered?

not chartered, i’ve never had an employer with an MPDS scheme that worked.

plenty have claimed to have a scheme, but always ‘starting next year’ – and still asked my to pay for it.

my current employer doesn’t even acknowledge the status of ‘chartered engineer’…

ho-hum.

ahwiles – Member

not chartered, i’ve never had an employer with an MPDS scheme that worked.

plenty have claimed to have a scheme, but always ‘starting next year’ – and still asked my to pay for it.

You are a Window Visibility Maintenance Engineer? and I claim my £5

currently i’m ‘measurement geek – joint second in command’ – in a team of 3

🙂

To become a social worker you will need a university degree in social work. (not Sociology

you can convert with a post grad course that is funded with a bursary so not strictly true.

If its a standard subject-degree and I was 17/18 faced with THAT much debt TBH I think I’d have a really good years travelling then start working my way up in a company instead.

I know people still paying off their student loans now in their late 30’s. Yeah Degrees really are a magic bullit.

not chartered, i’ve never had an employer with an MPDS scheme that worked.

Ok, then not being funny and perhaps being overly pedantic, but you’re not really an engineer then. In the way that most of those engineers earning over £30 are.

There’s a whole other thread about the ‘merits’ of ‘Chartered Engineer’ status, but that really is going off-topic here…. 😉

^^^ Charlie – not chartered either, have no intention of it, for various reasons and doing very nicely without it…..

OP- You’re confused about you’re role as a parent, you do the best for your kids with the money you have, if you cant afford to pay there way through uni don’t, they’ll have to do it off there own back. If they don’t want to go ‘cos daddy ain’t paying they probably don’t deserve to be there anyway.

There’s a whole other thread about the ‘merits’ of ‘Chartered Engineer’ status, but that really is going off-topic her

Yes, i agree on that, especially in terms of merit. But there is the recognition / accreditation aspect of that title. Many people call themselves engineers, but may only be fitters. There needs to be some way to differentiate.

that is the issue though the rich will be able to afford it that is the rich not the best or most able but the rich so that their kids can also be rich. Surely it should be an equal opportunity to education rather than based on ability to pay?
Without parental support most students would not be able to do [ or an apprenticeship] it as the costs are too high. Seriously we will give people on benefits money [rightly] and yet we wont support students who will better themsleves and [ in the broadest sense] better society. Need to take a long hard look at themselves do the degree educated people making this decison…guess they know their kids will be ok as daddy is rich.

Making a number of assumptions about future earnings (payrises in line with inflation – ha ha) I’ll pay off my student loan when I’m 63. I can’t say it bothers me or keeps me awake at night.

Still don’t agree with the proposals though

the new scheme will REDUCE loan repayments for more or less everybody.

Uni just got CHEAPER for more or less everybody.

(only the very few who go on to earn £50k, £500K, whatever, will pay any more)

if you’re a parent, don’t worry. your kids will be fine. they’ll enjoy themselves, they’ll learn something, they’ll make some new friends.

the time to worry is when they want to buy a house, which they can’t afford, cos your generation have bought them all as ‘investments’ – which you’ll need to cash in to raise the cash for your kids to buy a house…

house prices – now there’s something to get angry about.

tuition fees? – nah.

bloody hell! – £30k typical – my hairy ar53. who do i have to kill to get that much?

With an MEng 2.1 (or better)

BG (i.e opperators) are recruiting this year at £35k, but expect 60+hour weeks and overtime isnt paid.

We (contractors) are recruiting arround £27-28k, working a more normal ~40hours with paid ovetime

Consulting you’d be looking at arround £45k, but living from a suitcase in hotels.

OK so the oil/gas/petchem industry isnt entirely reprisenttative, but the moneys there.

Many people call themselves engineers, but may only be fitters. There needs to be some way to differentiate.

100% agree – that is one of the many reasons I refuse to give any cash to the limp-wristed, toothless bunch of wind bags that is the IMechE. They should be leading/lobbying on this and yet they choose to be the most invisible bunch of toss-pots on this or any other subject, relevant or otherwise. The fact that I would have to give them money to maintain membership in order to maintain Chartered status devalues it to zero worth – it woudl appear that this measure of professional competance is based on your ability to keep paying fees, which isn’t right.

Said I wouldn’t rant didn’t I…. 😉

EDIT:

and i know some completely clueless ‘chartered’ engineer

Yes, and that as well…. 😉

+1

and i know some completely clueless ‘chartered’ engineers.

100% agree – that is one of the many reasons I refuse to give any cash to the limp-wristed, toothless bunch of wind bags that is the IMechE.

None of our engineers are chartered, as we do software, which (despite our company doing something that was/is widely considered to be impossible) the icheme doesn’t really look upon as something to charter for. It’s the most expensive magazine subs i’ve ever had…

it woudl appear that this measure of professional competance is based on your ability to keep paying fees, which isn’t right.

+1

I did an engineering degree (Materials) but went into sales. Then wanted to do a “proper” job so did engineering. But it was such a hugely slow career/salary ladder that I decided to jack it in. Ambition is not rewarded. Results aren’t rewarded. You just “do your time” and gradually get okay pay 10-15 years later. Sod that.
18 months after graduating I was on over £45k (then gave it up and went travelling) – compared to the snail like pace of engineering pay scales, it just made more sense.

If engineering rewarded ambition better, a lot more people would be attracted to it.

I remember being interviewed and British Steel (now Corus) for a Commercial Division job – basically Sales Engineer type stuff. I was a cocky git and kept asking about bonuses – “If I beat my targets, what do I get paid?” Basically almost nowt over doing the job badly. I was offered the job but went elsewhere.

Ambition is not rewarded. Results aren’t rewarded. You just “do your time” and gradually get okay pay 10-15 years later. Sod that.

Varys dramatically within companies. There are still a lot of old school engineering companies out there where this is true, but there are equally as many progressive companies where progression can be very rapid. I see friends at opposite ends of the spectrum within Engineering due to the nature of the company ( and a good shot of personal ambition and motivation too)

no wonder british steel went to the walls without your talents you let the country down mat 😳

If engineering rewarded ambition better, a lot more people would be attracted to it

If you want big bucks on the technical side, you’ll either have to, do something very niche very well, invent something new and do it yourself or play the game and move from job to job increasing pay as you go (I know people who are doing this, but it will only go so far).

I tend to agree that ambition, in a technical sense, is not high up there on the skills set of a typical practicing engineer, beyond getting the job done correctly, on time and on budget (and making sure as many people as possible know it was you and your team that did it! ;-). I think there is trend now to identify those with ‘ambition’ and move them into management roles where there dynamism will be rewarded (or not as the case may be) and not force those that are able and technically very good into roles that they may not want to go into or be suited to – essentially two career paths, rather than just doing time and progressing as people leave/die!

Surely ‘engineering’ is a pretty wide category?

There’s no ‘engineering’ industry sector, is there? So why would you think you could generalise all engineering jobs?

There’s no ‘engineering’ industry sector, is there? So why would you think you could generalise all engineering jobs?

Mol – in what context do you make that statement? (or, in other words, ‘what’s your point caller…’ 😉

Glad I got out of Engineering really. Really enjoyed it but if felt like a dead end, especially Oop North.

Uni just got CHEAPER for more or less everybody.

(only the very few who go on to earn £50k, £500K, whatever, will pay any more)
Well it just got more expensive for the rich, since they’re going to have to pay a premium to pay upfront, rather than get a loan!

the time to worry is when they want to buy a house, which they can’t afford, cos your generation have bought them all as ‘investments’

Well I haven’t bought them all, I’ve only got five, and I have to live in one of them.:wink:

It will be interesting to see how banks and building societies treat student loan debt in the future when interest rates above inflation are being charged.

Well Mat said engineering is this and that.. surely an engineer belongs to an industry sector, and the industry sector would dictate the general career progression and so on.

For instance, engineer in a small startup bring new products to market – dynamic, interesting and potentially rewarding, suitable for the ambitious. Engineer in.. I dunno, railways, or something government run – slow progression for those that want a steady job.

For instance, engineer in a small startup bring new products to market – dynamic, interesting and potentially rewarding, suitable for the ambitious. Engineer in.. I dunno, railways, or something government run – slow progression for those that want a steady job.

That was one of my scenarios in my post above – if you have a good idea, a bit more than just technical competancy and some “ambition” (call it what you will), then you find a way to make money (if that is what you class as being rewarded).

As LHS says, I don’t think it is sector-by-sector in terms of progression, it’ll be company-by-company – moving around a lot, or simply to a ‘better’ company, can have a huge effect on your career in a rapid space of time – particularly if you have the skills set to be of value to a range of ‘sectors’, which a lot of graduates do have as degree courses tend to be common/general for a year to two before specialising.

Gone way off-topic now….. 😉

Not as off-topic as the Southern driving one.

Not as off-topic as the Southern driving one.

LOL – is that still going?? Think I’ll steer clear – let me guess – the forum bruisers have waded in now and it’s all gone a bit silly…. 😆

Yes, and even TJ congratulated me on the scale of mudslinging contest I’d started.

praise indeed

If Uni’s shut down these mickey mouse courses (met someone the other day studying a ‘Golf Management Degree’ – couldn’t stop laughing for 10 minutes), then they can use the budget for more traditional courses.

This means, fewer places at Uni…. which means people will have to work harder if they want to go to Uni. No more getting on a degree course with only 2 A-Level’s at grade E.

Gov’t should encourage local colleges to run industry qualifications as short courses (in IT we have Microsoft, Cisco, etc).

golf is a massive industry – with requirements that are no doubt unique.

makes as much sense to me as many others…

If Uni’s shut down these mickey mouse courses (met someone the other day studying a ‘Golf Management Degree’ – couldn’t stop laughing for 10 minutes), then they can use the budget for more traditional courses

If that would work, why would they not already be doing that? There has to be some advantage in offering these courses.

@ molgrips

If the course is offered, then it will eat up some of the budget the Gov’t has allocated to that Uni.

Less courses at Uni = cheaper to run the Uni = lower tution fees (and Gov’t spending) is required.

Plus, those who graduate with a degree actually stand out against the person next to them who doesn’t…

Examples of suitable degree courses would be: medical ones (docs, dentists, vets), sciences (including engineering), language, etc. What some might call the more ‘traditional’ degrees.

Less courses at uni = fewer students = less money coming in!

I don’t know mucn about engineering -yes I did a degree in it and worked in it for a while (2 years) but still limited and possibly dated knowledge.

Just my thoughts that’s all – for someone wanting to do well in a career, having to work on cr4p money for 10+ years with no direct rewards can put some off – not just me but others that did my degree too.

I mourn the passing of our manufacturing industry too. My only attempt ti “help” is buying Hope/Luminous/a sort of British car!

Depends on the ratio of student fees to gov’t funding.

A course will cost X to run (salaries, resources), and the students tuition fees might cost Y, which is only 1/3 of X. The Gov’t makes up the extra 2/3…

Without any actual figures, it’s all just a theoretical idea…

try working in science!
starting slaries are easily below the 21k threshold

Well it just got more expensive for the rich, since they’re going to have to pay a premium to pay upfront, rather than get a loan!

There are two different loans. The loan for fees isn’t, IIRC, means tested. Only the maintenance loan is means tested.

If Uni’s shut down these mickey mouse courses (met someone the other day studying a ‘Golf Management Degree’ – couldn’t stop laughing for 10 minutes), then they can use the budget for more traditional courses.

A course will cost X to run (salaries, resources), and the students tuition fees might cost Y, which is only 1/3 of X. The Gov’t makes up the extra 2/3…

You should be in favour of this change then – the whole point of it is that a course will cost X to run, and they’re removing the government subsidy for students, and allowing universities to charge X to do the course. Thus only profitable courses run.

Although the downside of this is, some courses (eg biology, chemistry), that cost a lot to run, might not be profitable, whilst other ones that people like you love to hate (golf course management, sociology or whatever is the latest bugbear), are pretty cheap to run, so might well be profitable for universities to run.

Joe