Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Jobs worth

Letters

The on-going discussion between the ICE and the Engineering Council fills me with hope that the Professional Review process might, at long last, reflect the individual candidate's professional capabilities.

The current system of interview by our peers will never reflect the true worth of individual candidates. It is a lottery that results in excellent candidates failing and absolute duffers passing.

Without wishing to denigrate their efforts, it is inevitable that most reviewers will rank the three candidates that they interview in order of merit.

They are then likely to fail the one that they consider to be the worst. Of course, sometimes they will pass all three but are unlikely to fail more than one.

Many of us could quote examples of excellent engineers and technicians who have left the industry because they have failed the review process. So let us take this opportunity to rectify this injustice once and for all.

If the ICE has a problem with taking the plunge, there are many members out here who would be pleased to lend a hand.

Stephen A Hare (M), 21 Ragees Road, Kingswinford, West Midlands DY6 8NB

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.