I am concerned that ICE is confusing acceptable standards with its desire to increase membership numbers. Why, having set a qualification standard for both AMICE and MICE do we now feel the need to bring these together and leave it for the Engineering Council to provide the differentiation? I disagree Mr Whitby - there is a difference between the grades. We signed up for Sartor. I'm not sure I entirely agree, but Sartor does recognise that degree level qualifications have changed with time and hence our entry requirements should change to reflect this. I believe this proposal will devalue the MICE grade and I will not be voting in favour.
On the other hand I was heartened by the proposal to consider a mature route from AMICE to MICE since career development, experience and contribution to the profession are issues that should be considered for entry to MICE.
Ian Price, 89 Tuxford Terrace, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, US
Confused MICE Just what are the Council members being asked to consider? We are informed that Council has been asked to discuss an initiative which would allow ICE members registered as IEng. AMICE being granted corporate status MICE (NCE 24 February). However, in the same issue, we are told of a Professional Development Committee paper before Council which states that it may be appropriate for young engineers to qualify early as AMICE as they may find it hard to demonstrate having reached MICE status.
Apparently, Council has to vote on both issues at its April meeting.
It is little wonder there is confusion within the industry surrounding the value of IEng, AMICE. What is actually happening?
Bill Samson (A), 67 Belvedere View Galston, East Ayrshire