Which type of Engineering would you recommend?

seadog9

I'm currently studying engineering in UCD, but next year I'll have a choice to make, I will either delve into Biosystems, Mechanical, Electrical and Electronic, Chemical or Civil Engineering, so I suppose here is a good place to go, which of these courses would you recommend? I personally am interested in 2 of them but I want to get views on all of them anyway, just in case.....

kevin216

In 4 years time Electronic Engineers will be like gold dust. Everything is becoming more suited to the work of Electronic Engineers

Do YOU want to create:
..the next generation iPOD
..the next generation medical device to help disabled people have a better quality of life
..an innovative, renewable energy system to reduce our carbon foot-print
..automotive electronics to help drivers see pedestrians at night-time?

von Neumann

Which do you think would fit best with the rest of your life.

Just for example, if your like me and want to live in dublin, this will have a big impact.
Not many manufacturing engineers or bio engineers required around here .

Most of the chems / pharmas are in the south.

These are just examples but you should have a good think about stuff like this before deciding on the discipline.

Most eng jobs would be quite similar in practise you'd just be using different knowledge.

Just one last thing, do you have any contacts/family in engineering. These can be invaluable for getting work exprience and a foot in the door.

Kryx

Mechanical... well its what I'm doing and enjoy it. Keep in mind only abou 80% of Eng. grads go and work in the field of engineering!

Nukem

Mechanical Eng - good variance in capabilities and opportunities.

Aslo Mechatronics seems o be one of the biggest courses at the moment.

jmck87

As previously mention, Electronic engineering seems to set you up for a wide variety.

I did Manufacturing, which again would have potentially (not at moment) plenty of job oppurtunities.

In saying that, Ive met many many engineers who arent working on what field they originally studied, college really just sets you up with an engineering mind set.

I guarantee you that whichever you choose, you will be able to pick up from scratch most engineering jobs out there. Obviously there may be exceptions like bio-medical stuff.

Id be biased and recommend manufacturing, as its more geared towards doing thingns cost effectively and logically.....thats not to say other fields dont.

Im aware you dont have the option of manufacturing in UCD, but if anyone else decides on it....try and focus on nailing down the lean manufacturing philosophy....very simple ideas that make money.

Darren1o1

jmck87 wrote: »

Obviously there may be exceptions like bio-medical stuff.

Not true allot of mech people get cross trained. As is said before mechanical is the most general and therefore you can go into more fields. I would go with whatever interested you the most. You are more likely to succeed if you enjoy what you are doing.

seadog9

Kryx wrote: »

Mechanical... well its what I'm doing and enjoy it. Keep in mind only abou 80% of Eng. grads go and work in the field of engineering!

Really?

What other fields could a graduate move into?

Jonathan

seadog9 wrote: »

Really?

What other fields could a graduate move into?

Teaching, accounting, banking, management...

enmac

Electrical and Electronic
covers a very broad range of disciplines and so allows you some further time to decide if you're not entirely sure

you could go into communications, control systems, technical sales or pure electrical engineering

modmuffin

Environmental Engineering is an excellent field to be in.
So Biosystems engineering is probably more suited. you would probably need to do a masters/phd after your primary degree however there is a decent level of funding available (well there was last year!)
There is also the option of erasmus in the states.

ARGINITE

Electrical and Electronic

Kryx

seadog9 wrote: »

Really?

What other fields could a graduate move into?

Many of my former classmates have gone into administrating, accounting, managing but most have gone abroad now.
Also of the CEO's from Forbes 500 list the a huge number of them had an engineering degree! Forget what the percentage is exactly about 25 i think

DublinDilbert

well firstly it depends on your personal preference...

but in a few years time electronic / electrical engineers will be in very short supply, based on the numbers graduating...

most electronic engineers never pick up a soldering iron after they leave college, as there's so many different disciplines ( control systems, vision systems, communications, software ect.. )

Turbulent Bill

I'd go with whatever branch of engineering you enjoy most. You're much more likely to succeed in something you find interesting, especially as you'll be tied into studying it for a few years.

In terms of employment, it's almost impossible to predict what the market will want/need when you graduate. A key point is not to define yourself only as a mechanical/electronic/civil engineer - you need a wide breadth of knowledge to get the best jobs.

miss no stars

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I'd go with whatever branch of engineering you enjoy most. You're much more likely to succeed in something you find interesting, especially as you'll be tied into studying it for a few years.

In terms of employment, it's almost impossible to predict what the market will want/need when you graduate. A key point is not to define yourself only as a mechanical/electronic/civil engineer - you need a wide breadth of knowledge to get the best jobs.

I'd agree with this 100%. I started manufacturing in 2006 and hated it. The course didn't suit me and I didn't excel. So I went back and started again in structural engineering and I thrive on it and hope to do really really well.

It might seem a bit daft with the state the economy is in to be going into structural, but in my case it would be equally daft to have stayed in manufacturing. If you don't thrive on something and aren't really interested in something, it'll be a lot harder to do well in it. No matter what field you want to go into initially, you'll always be better off with a first class honours degree rather than a bare pass.

Go with where your heart is. Do you want to design the latest technology? Do you want to create the latest surgical instrument? Or would you prefer to make buildings stand up and design infrastructure?

You might find this page useful:
http://www.steps.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=68&Itemid=83

fishdog

Go with where your heart is

Although this is important, for many it is much more important to get a job.

Unfortunately even if you really enjoy and excel in a certain area it may be of little use to you if you cannot find employment in that area.

I think this thread illustrates this problem:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055423343

Turbulent Bill

fishdog wrote: »

Although this is important, for many it is much more important to get a job.

Unfortunately even if you really enjoy and excel in a certain area it may be of little use to you if you cannot find employment in that area.

The problem here is that the OP won't graduate for a few years, and it's impossible to know what the market needs will be then. For example, I'm sure lots of people chose a civil degree in '04 with the building boom in full swing, only to find it very difficult to get a decent job this summer on graduation. When I started my degree in '98 we were told of endless jobs when we finished, but lots of my classmates had problems finding good work in '02. Things were rosy when I finished my postgrad, now it's a bit dodgy. Such is life.

Unless you choose an ultra-specialised field there's always room for movement and cross-training. This is exactly why it's important not to pidgeon-hole yourself just as a particular type of engineer - transferrable skills are the way to go. For example, I use lots of my manufacturing training to inform my mechanical design of a product which is very different from anything I'd encountered before.

Sea Sharp

Electronic is the way to go. (future proof)

fishdog

Turbulent Bill

The problem here is that the OP won't graduate for a few years, and it's impossible to know what the market needs will be then

Sure but it is possible to make an educated guess. I would think that by the time the OP graduates:

1) There will still be an energy crises.
2) The Irish construction industry will not be doing so great.

Of course I may be wrong, but chances are Im not. If you believe the above assumptions it should be easier to select a suitable type of engineering if getting a job is the OP's aim.

Unless you choose an ultra-specialised field there's always room for movement and cross-training. This is exactly why it's important not to pidgeon-hole yourself just as a particular type of engineer - transferrable skills are the way to go.

I agree 100%

miss no stars

Fishdog, I'm not disputing the fact that some areas are harder to find work in than others but it all does in cycles anyway.

Besides, no point failing a degree you're not really interested in, is there?

GaNjaHaN

GaNjaHaN wrote: »

Electronic is the way to go. (future proof)

Why do people think that Elec Eng is failproof? Where will the opportunities be?
In Ireland? Abroad?

If you look at Ireland, big employers are hardly secure...Intel, Dell, Seagate, HP, CEL in Tuam, i'm sure there's more...

fishdog

Fishdog, I'm not disputing the fact that some areas are harder to find work in than others

I know you’re not. I acknowledged that your point about "going where your heart is" is important.

no point failing a degree you're not really interested in, is there?

I would think that there is little point in having a degree in an area you can not get a job in no matter how much you enjoy it or how good you are at it. There is an argument that you can use the degree to cross train and get into another area, but that is about it.


I would recommend selecting an engineering course on the basis of what your chances of getting a job in that area will be. Although none of us know for sure what will happen in the future we have a good indication that particular areas will continue to suffer badly for a long time to come.

Turbulent Bill

fishdog wrote: »

Sure but it is possible to make an educated guess. I would think that by the time the OP graduates:

1) There will still be an energy crises.
2) The Irish construction industry will not be doing so great.

Of course I may be wrong, but chances are Im not. If you believe the above assumptions it should be easier to select a suitable type of engineering if getting a job is the OP's aim.

I take your point that some future issues are probable (like the two you mentioned), but it doesn't necesarily mean that everyone should run to renewables and keep away totally from construction - it just takes a bit of ingenuity. Traditional constuction jobs may have gone, but there are always niches.

For example, I'd imagine in the next few years as energy prices rise that people will be even more aware of the home/business energy usage. Reducing building energy use requires knowledge of the building fabric (civil/construction), heating/ventilation systems (building services), new alternative energy sources etc. - constuction and energy knowledge rolled into one. This is the logical next step beyond BER ratings, where you solve energy problems rather than just analysing them, and it could be a very lucrative field.

Just my 2c.

fishdog

but it doesn't necesarily mean that everyone should run to renewables and keep away totally from construction

True, I just gave the two examples that jumped out to me because of my situation. I am now in the final year of an electrical engineering degree having worked construction sector as an electrician for many years. I choose my course based on my idea of where I would be able to find work (as well as being interested in this area)

new alternative energy sources etc.

For example I think this would be a great area to get involved in.

My view is that graduate engineers will emgrate in increasing numbers in the next few years because Ireland will have no jobs to offer them at all and/or pay and conditions will be very much better abroad.

Darren1o1

fishdog wrote: »

My view is that graduate engineers will emgrate in increasing numbers in the next few years because Ireland will have no jobs to offer them at all and/or pay and conditions will be very much better abroad.

I think it is already happening. Of my close group of friends in engineering in college I would say 25%+ are working abroad. This is from a 2007 graduating class. I am in the US, pals are in England, Canada, Oz and elsewhere. Good thing about whatever degree you do (Assuming EI accredited) they are recognized where you go.

seadog9

Thanks for all the advice:cool:

I'm edging closer to a decision now;)

Jonathan

seadog9 wrote: »

I'm edging closer to a decision now;)

What you gonna choose? :P

fluffyduffy

Can anyone tell me what they think of alarm engineering??

I was talking to an alarm engineer recently that told be it is interesting and challenging work.

Is this a good area to get into?

Gileadi

Do you mean installing alarms? If so its stretching the engineer term imo

Jonathan

Gileadi wrote: »

Do you mean installing alarms? If so its stretching the engineer term imo

Agreed. Everyone seems to be an engineer of somesort these days..

Gileadi

jmccrohan wrote: »

Agreed. Everyone seems to be an engineer of somesort these days..

Best term i heard along these lines was a guy who worked in Statoil calling himself a fuel injection engineer

fluffyduffy

Do you mean installing alarms? If so its stretching the engineer term imo

Why?? How would you define "engineer"??

Are you suggesting that phonewatch etc. dont use engineers to put in their alarms?? These alarms even have to be programed, not just anyone can do that sort of thing.

geurrp the yard

seadog9 wrote: »

I'm currently studying engineering in UCD, but next year I'll have a choice to make, I will either delve into Biosystems, Mechanical, Electrical and Electronic, Chemical or Civil Engineering, so I suppose here is a good place to go, which of these courses would you recommend? I personally am interested in 2 of them but I want to get views on all of them anyway, just in case.....

Recommendation on what basis? Job, salary etc?


Study in what your interested in! Peoples opinions on here are going to be bias towards what they studied or have an interest in.

Turbulent Bill

fluffyduffy wrote: »

Why?? How would you define "engineer"??

Are you suggesting that phonewatch etc. dont use engineers to put in their alarms?? These alarms even have to be programed, not just anyone can do that sort of thing.

Educationally speaking, someone who has completed a certified engineering course (preferably Level 8 or above on the National Framework of Qualifications). Depending on their position/responsibilities, they should also have appropriate work experience.

Phonewatch etc. use technicians to install their alarms. I'm sure they're very good, but installing equipment to instructions is a world away from solving engineering problems - could a technician design the alarm, for example?

The main problem is that Engineers Ireland have been useless at protecting 'engineer' as a professional title - anyone can call themselves one, regardless of qualifications. If I set myself up as 'Turbulent Bill, Medical Doctor and Solicitor', I'm sure the Medical Council and Law Society would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

Darren1o1

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

Educationally speaking, someone who has completed a certified engineering course (preferably Level 8 or above on the National Framework of Qualifications). Depending on their position/responsibilities, they should also have appropriate work experience.

Phonewatch etc. use technicians to install their alarms. I'm sure they're very good, but installing equipment to instructions is a world away from solving engineering problems - could a technician design the alarm, for example?

The main problem is that Engineers Ireland have been useless at protecting 'engineer' as a professional title - anyone can call themselves one, regardless of qualifications. If I set myself up as 'Turbulent Bill, Medical Doctor and Solicitor', I'm sure the Medical Council and Law Society would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

EI sent out a survey to members recently and allot of it focused on did the members want the title "Engineer" protect similar to other professions. The framework is already in place (AMIEI, MIEI, CENG etc) and there are several models from other countries which could be implemented. To protect the profession and to maintain quality it makes sense. Problem is in certaon professions (mechanical, electrical etc) there is no emphasis to get chartered unlike in Canada where most job require it when you reach a level.

Turbulent Bill

Darren1o1 wrote: »

EI sent out a survey to members recently and allot of it focused on did the members want the title "Engineer" protect similar to other professions. The framework is already in place (AMIEI, MIEI, CENG etc) and there are several models from other countries which could be implemented. To protect the profession and to maintain quality it makes sense. Problem is in certaon professions (mechanical, electrical etc) there is no emphasis to get chartered unlike in Canada where most job require it when you reach a level.

Thanks Darren1o1, but the fact that they had to ask whether the title should be protected is ridiculous - why else would someone belong to a professional organisation if not to support the members' interests?! Did it take the 'washingmachine engineer' small ads for them to realise that 'engineer' might need to be protected? EI controls engineering titles in Ireland, acredits suitable courses etc. but does little to protect them once they've been granted or even stress their value to the general public.

I think the main driver in Ireland for becoming chartered is legal - as far as I know, chartered civils are required to sign off on certain works. The chartering process requires mentors / leaders who are chartered (as far as I remember). It's much more difficult for engineers in other fields to become chartered simply because there are few chartered colleagues around - it's chicken-and-egg. Until the title is properly protected, I don't think this is likely to change.

Dundhoone

I think we have two issues here

1. "Education Inflation" where pass "degrees" are being issued by ITs and an "honours" degree can be obtained by simply completing the fourth year. This is a factor of the increased commercialisation of our third level institutions, where quantity is more important than quality.

2. The dilution of degree titles ie Civil into environmental, structual, and the multiple other engineering degree titles springing up all over the place. These make cross specialisation after qualification more difficult IMO.

If I were starting off again I would make sure I did either civil, mech or electrical, depending on what I liked best.

fishdog

"Education Inflation" where pass "degrees" are being issued by ITs and an "honours" degree can be obtained by simply completing the fourth year

I am doing a level 7 degree (electrical engineering). It takes 3 years full time. I know that this will not make me an engineer. I am told that I will be a "technologist" or "technician" depending on who I ask.

To get an hounours degree would take me another 2 years full time, it is not just a case of "completing the fourth year".

It is possible for me to become a chartered engineer without going for the hounours degree, it would just take a very long time!!

Darren1o1

Dundhoone wrote: »

I think we have two issues here

1. "Education Inflation" where pass "degrees" are being issued by ITs and an "honours" degree can be obtained by simply completing the fourth year. This is a factor of the increased commercialisation of our third level institutions, where quantity is more important than quality.

2. The dilution of degree titles ie Civil into environmental, structual, and the multiple other engineering degree titles springing up all over the place. These make cross specialisation after qualification more difficult IMO.

If I were starting off again I would make sure I did either civil, mech or electrical, depending on what I liked best.

I did an honours degree and seen people coming from IT's struggle with the levels after three years of education (Despite the fact we had only done two). To say come in and simply do "fourth year" is quite untrue and a little irresponsible.

I did my degree in Medical mechanical engineer (now titled biomedical). I did my degree because I felt it would give me a route into mechanical and/or biomedical. As it turns out I have to date practiced solely as a Mech but I have the option to return to a biomed industry. I would not have done it any other way, I think courses are the way the are based on opinion of those going into them. I think course focus should be judged by demand and as such regulated by the universities. Some people have an idea of a focused industry the want to proceed into and as such do these course. I could not have bared 2 years common education as was the case in an other university so I choose my course.

Dundhoone

fishdog wrote: »

To get an hounours degree would take me another 2 years full time, it is not just a case of "completing the fourth year".

That wasnt a technician bashing post, I just think that this whole national framework for qualifications setup was in order to "inflate" diplomas into degrees (pass).

Can someone enlighten me? If you complete your pass degree in 3 years and go on to do two more on an honours degree course, what do you graduate with? I presume so that if you scrape a pass after the five years that you get a pass level 8 degree (and same for a uni four year course)???

Trad engineering courses always allowed transfer from distinction in a diploma to third year of a degree course. And those students were behind on the maths, and way ahead on practical subjects in my experience.

Darren1o1

Dundhoone wrote: »

That wasnt a technician bashing post, I just think that this whole national framework for qualifications setup was in order to "inflate" diplomas into degrees (pass).

Can someone enlighten me? If you complete your pass degree in 3 years and go on to do two more on an honours degree course, what do you graduate with? I presume so that if you scrape a pass after the five years that you get a pass level 8 degree (and same for a uni four year course)???

Trad engineering courses always allowed transfer from distinction in a diploma to third year of a degree course. And those students were behind on the maths, and way ahead on practical subjects in my experience.

They are still differentiated. They are just trying to equalise with other standards all part of the bologna process. As a pal of my has been told (not certain myself), the english MENG is similar to our BENG (Hons). This change is known across the industry and was not part of any inflation but mean't to help equalise us with europe.

I had two friends coming out top of their respective courses (Diploma/ordinary degree) into third year. They had to complete as if coming from second year and were behind on the maths as you said. Level 8 courses have less emphasis on practical work for a reason. Not to sound condescending but we were told, engineers design and develop, techs make it.

I am now working as a Design engineer and this has always been true for me. It is good to have a practical background, but more often that not, it is easier to pick up in industry. The mathematics is more difficult to pick up again. This is just from my experience (working with an in house casting and machining facility).

Turbulent Bill

Dundhoone wrote: »

That wasnt a technician bashing post, I just think that this whole national framework for qualifications setup was in order to "inflate" diplomas into degrees (pass).

Can someone enlighten me? If you complete your pass degree in 3 years and go on to do two more on an honours degree course, what do you graduate with? I presume so that if you scrape a pass after the five years that you get a pass level 8 degree (and same for a uni four year course)???

Trad engineering courses always allowed transfer from distinction in a diploma to third year of a degree course. And those students were behind on the maths, and way ahead on practical subjects in my experience.

I don't think the NFQ is inflating diplomas - it's fairly clear that a pass degree isn't equivalent to an honours one, and I'm sure employers are aware of the difference (if they have any interest). In most cases having a degree is a box-ticking exercise for engineering recruiters if you went to a big university, whereas they mightn't be as familiar with IT degrees and would check them out.

As far as I know, if you transfer into an honours degree course you're treated the same as the other incoming 3rd years - exactly as it should be. You can then go on to pass/fail/honour the Level 8 course.

As an example, a friend of mine who was weak at maths but otherwise an exceptional engineer did a diploma and followed on with an honours degree in a big Dublin uni (5 years total). He finished with a 1st, so it's entirely possible to do well by going this route.

Darren1o1

Turbulent Bill wrote: »

I don't think the NFQ is inflating diplomas - it's fairly clear that a pass degree isn't equivalent to an honours one, and I'm sure employers are aware of the difference (if they have any interest). In most cases having a degree is a box-ticking exercise for engineering recruiters if you went to a big university, whereas they mightn't be as familiar with IT degrees and would check them out.

As far as I know, if you transfer into an honours degree course you're treated the same as the other incoming 3rd years - exactly as it should be. You can then go on to pass/fail/honour the Level 8 course.

As an example, a friend of mine who was weak at maths but otherwise an exceptional engineer did a diploma and followed on with an honours degree in a big Dublin uni (5 years total). He finished with a 1st, so it's entirely possible to do well by going this route.

Agreed. One of the top people in our course was from an IT and beat allot of people from a direct level 8. It depends in the person in the end!

fishdog

That wasnt a technician bashing post

I know. I was just trying to explain it to you that it is not just a case of "just doing the 4th year"

And those students were behind on the maths,

For me to transfer to year 3 I need a minimum of 70% in maths because of this.

Not to sound condescending but we were told, engineers design and develop, techs make it.

I would think that is quite accurate. Some (not many) with level 7 only do progress on to work as if they were engineers after several years from what I have seen.

I don't think the NFQ is inflating diplomas - it's fairly clear that a pass degree isn't equivalent to an honours one, and I'm sure employers are aware of the difference (if they have any interest).

Exactly

casey jones

fluffyduffy wrote: »

Why?? How would you define "engineer"??

Are you suggesting that phonewatch etc. dont use engineers to put in their alarms?? These alarms even have to be programed, not just anyone can do that sort of thing.

I think this demonstrates how the status of engineers in Ireland is compromised by the loose manner in which it is used. This in turn makes it unattractive to people, especially girls, as a career. The "engineer" is the guy who programmes the alarm or fixes the phone, not the person who develops new technology or applications. The media are really poor on this also, they report on how "engineers" are climbing poles to fix phone or ESB lines after a storm. Engineers Ireland need to tackle this as a priority or engineering will never attract good people in sufficient numbers. As someone said recently Irish students are divided between those who have no aptitude in maths and those who study accountancy or law. If Engineers Ireland cannot deal with this there is no point in subscribing to it.

von Neumann

You can't force people to recongise the value of engineering.
You can set standards, but these standards have to stack up in the real world if anybody is going to take any notice.

Unfortunately, A good engineering degree does not equal a good engineer, so therefore nobody really cares about qualification as they don't prove anything in the real world.

I do agree that the profession requires a rebranding and better protection of the title.

fishdog

A good engineering degree does not equal a good engineer

Yes you are correct that it does not always follow, but for example it is often the case that only a chartered engineer can sign off on certain work.

so therefore nobody really cares about qualification

In some cases yes, but for many engineering jobs if you have not got the qualifiaction that is required you will not even get an interview.

miss no stars

von Neumann wrote: »

I do agree that the profession requires a rebranding and better protection of the title.

I recently saw a funny one. A girl described herself as a janatorial engineer. What she actually does is clean toilets. Not to mention the bin men calling themselves waste management engineers.

Carroller

Im currently doing electronic and computer engineering and must say its quite enjoyable.

Stoner

casey jones wrote: »

I think this demonstrates how the status of engineers in Ireland is compromised by the loose manner in which it is used. This in turn makes it unattractive to people, especially girls, as a career. The "engineer" is the guy who programmes the alarm or fixes the phone, not the person who develops new technology or applications. The media are really poor on this also, they report on how "engineers" are climbing poles to fix phone or ESB lines after a storm. Engineers Ireland need to tackle this as a priority or engineering will never attract good people in sufficient numbers.

+1,
It is very easy to be classed as an engineer these days, and easier than ever to become one with the array of degrees out there. Quite simply many of these courses don't handle any level of difficult maths, I have seen some basic papers for 3rd and 4th year students, but is difficult maths required in all engineering fields? no it's not IMO.
Colleges that once held high standards still do, but they offer other qualifications that are easier to obtain and will still provide a student with a degree in engineering. Fair play to anyone who completes these courses.

The standard, entry level requirements and work load are all lower/less then the traditional courses, but both people end up with a degree in engineering, One student may have studied hard to get honors maths in the leaving, the other got a C or B in pass maths he/she may have opted for a diploma in Engineering with an option to spend an extra year to get a degree, there was a time when this was 2-3 years extra (or five part time).

At the end of the day both can become an IEI member one just knows a hell of a lot more then the other about the subject. The other guys seldom recognise this and consider themselves on par. Most industries agree with them.
I use to recommend that people study with the IEI (a difficult studying environment). However recently I have advised people to get a handy qualification in as fast a time as possible, if you kill yourself for the harder course and end up in the same interview what's the point? I know the odd place will be fussy, but most will not, of course this is not a good attitude to have but I try to tell people that there is an easy road and a hard one and in many cases they lead to the same place.

Students in college IMHO seem to over estimate how their particular course is valued. I remember all the crap that went on when in was in college about which course was better, it was in the most part complete rubbish.
The real world is different, at an interview having degree may be required to get the interview but the interviewer will look at different aspects of an application once the existence of a degree has been established.

Take for example the amount of times someone from HR give the green light for an engineer to be taken on. In the past I saw some of the pay scales for Intel and HP staff, a cert, diploma, degree and post grad were all grades, where you received these qualifications was not an issue.

Real work experience is what determines an engineer IMO. Most positions require a lot of training, many times it is required to almost start again when the work place is entered. Since they say we only use about 10% of our training in the work place, maybe knowing all that extra material is not as important as some might think.
For example if someone joined HP with a cert they will be provided with some fantastic training opportunities for years, someone with a degree might work somewhere with little or know professional development, who is to say that after 5 or 6 years that the HP guy is not better trained then the guy with a degree? or is less entitled to be called an engineer, not me anyway.

I don't know about the IEI TBH, I have written to them at length in the past about some issues I have with them. They can make it difficult for some things and too easy for others IMO, at an elementary level I have an issue with big boys clubs, but the doors are wide open now.
I have noticed in the last 3-4 years a huge improvement in their communications methods, their regular updates and CPD info is well documented and very appropriate IMO. I think they are doing some excellent work. Once the polly techs in the UK started to offer degrees in the UK it was only a matter of time before we followed here, their hands were tied IMO, the country needs stats to show how qualified we are as a nation. The UK and Ireland work too closely together to have such a discrepancy IMO, colleges here followed the UK lead.