750 AUD per year for Engineer Australia membership. Is it a joke?

uea_06 said:

So what do you think is a better way to assess then? Looks like the rest of the world is doing CPeng in a wrong way.

Click to expand...

Can we stop referring to the professional accreditation process as "CPEng"? That is the post-nominal provided by ONE accreditation body and it has been shaped largely around the states requirements which has been led by QLD. There are multiple other post-nominals from multiple bodies and all the local ones form largely similar formats as that is what the laws have required.

If all your argument is that "Looks like the rest of the world is doing CPeng in a wrong way." then that is a poor argument. If it was clear that the engineering practice in Australia was grossly substandard compared to the rest of the world then you would have a stronger case. But this has not been my anecdotal experience.

I'm also curious on why people feel the need to make accreditation more difficult. I can't speak for other engineers in other professional fields, but structural engineers are held to high accountability by law, their peers and their clients. Sure there are a few cowboys, but they are the tiny minority. And being a "cowboy" engineer has more to do with your ethics than you ability.

Oh and Australia is facing a massive structural engineer shortage already and with university enrolments stagnant or dropping for two decades it is going to get worse. I have people hounding me every day of the week for more work and I have never advertised once.


(If anybody was wondering why I'm so opinionated against more exams. I performed very poorly in my university Engineering exams. This had nothing to do with my engineering ability. So I naturally am biased against more exams even if I already am accredited and successfully running my own business.)

As I understand CPeng is voluntary, run by EA et al, RPeng is compulsory, and state based, if you provide Professional Engineering Services in or from (not to sure about 'to', that would be interesting) or in at least one definition I can no longer find perform calculations in an engineering like way (not students not scientists). Quite how a scientist using newton 2&3 and a free body diagram is any different to me doing it is going to be a fun one. I've never seen the point of engineering licensure authorities testing basic degree level knowledge, but to my amusement the US one for HVAC people includes questions I could have solved at high school (I may have stuffed up the unit conversions, then ) . They've already decided which degrees are satisfactory, and presumably they trust the uni to mark the exams fairly (hmm).

The authentication of credentials and experience for RPEng has been subcontracted to EA and friends, hence the confusion between EA and RPEng.

this thread is all very "interesting and amusing". I have 40+ years experience in the aerospace industry in the US, and in all that time NO ONE has given a rat's behind about any sort of engineering registration or licensure. thankfully we have the "industrial exemption" here and don't have to deal with useless exams or fees to grifter accreditation companies.

I’ll tell you my worst experience with EA. I let my membership lapse for two years at one point. They told me I was lapsed. Membership expired, effectively null and void. They ceased sending me the magazine. They acted precisely as if I wasn’t a member. I never heard from them for two years. When I sought to renew my membership, they demanded my “two years of outstanding fees” if they were to readmit me.

GregLocock said:

As I understand CPeng is voluntary, run by EA et al, RPeng is compulsory, and state based,

Click to expand...

RPeng is not compulsory or State based. You are confusing it with RPEQ registration which is the QLD government registration. Though it is confusion is quite understandable.
CPEng is voluntary - Assessed and issued by EA it is a title with registered post nominals
RPeng is voluntary - Assessed and issued by APEA it is a title with registered post nominals

If you have a look at the EA fee list it does show how much ticket clipping is going on and how much they are charging for it!

Tomfh said:

I’ll tell you my worst experience with EA. I let my membership lapse for two years at one point. They told me I was lapsed. Membership expired, effectively null and void. They ceased sending me the magazine. They acted precisely as if I wasn’t a member. I never heard from them for two years. When I sought to renew my membership, they demanded my “two years of outstanding fees” if they were to readmit me.

Click to expand...

Yeah they have pricing structure that almost forces you to be a member even just for just for the registry. APEA isn't much different, though I believe it is slightly cheaper.

While we are talking about industry bodies. I have found ASI - The Australian Institute of Steel to be worth being a member. The have and excellent resources and some good courses and conferences. I suppose they have to be decent because they aren't gatekeepers in the same way that EA et al are.

OK I've got the wrong name for the Victorian state run compulsory registered professional engineering scheme.

GregLocock said:

OK I've got the wrong name for the Victorian state run compulsory registered professional engineering scheme.

Click to expand...

Yeah it gets confusing fast!

human909 said:

Yeah they have pricing structure that almost forces you to be a member even just for just for the registry.

Click to expand...

This was before I was registered. Just the basic membership, which was cancelled for two years.

Can we stop referring to the professional accreditation process as "CPEng"?

Click to expand...

Sorry, but isn’t this thread about EA’s CPEng membership? I was not referring professional accreditation process as "CPEng", I was referring to CPEng itself and your disagreement with the idea that “achieving CPEng should show a high level of competence,” especially in relation to exams.

YEah CPEng isn’t compulsory. People can still practise without it. Great. But if CPEng is required for some reason, then yeah, it should be hard to get. Otherwise, what’s the point of needing it if just anyone can get it easily? It’s meant to show competence, if people find it too hard, they don't need to apply for it since they can still practise as you have already known. So what exactly are you arguing for?

If all your argument is that "Looks like the rest of the world is doing CPeng in a wrong way." then that is a poor argument.

Click to expand...

I am afraid it is not a poor argument. Here is what EA says on its website "The Chartered credential is the highest available technical credential for an engineering professional. It’s nationally and internationally recognised as a measure of excellence and signifies a certain level of skill, talent and experience." So you are telling me that your CPEng is internationally recognised while other countries require more rigorous processes?

You literally replied earlier saying it isn't quite correct to say "Achieving CPEng should indicate a high level of competence" and it is especially true of 'entry level' accreditation. Again, according to the above statement from EA, CPEng is the highest available technical credential, never the 'entry level' you were referring to. Enlighten me as to which part of EA's assessment measures the technical excellence, let alone the highest?

If it was clear that the engineering practice in Australia was grossly substandard compared to the rest of the world then you would have a stronger case. But this has not been my anecdotal experience.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this aligns exactly with my experience. I work in the building sector at a consulting firm in Australia. The earthquake design in Australia is an example I will give you. The engineering level is so low and so embarrassing—and I’m far from the only one who thinks so. The argument that “low seismicity” justifies this level of design is not convincing; the real issue is a lack of understanding among most local engineers. Concepts like soft storey behavior and structural irregularities don’t even seem to be on the radar for most engineers here. And tons of apartments have been designed by these engineers and been built.

Oh and Australia is facing a massive structural engineer shortage already and with university enrolments stagnant or dropping for two decades it is going to get worse. I have people hounding me every day of the week for more work and I have never advertised once.

Click to expand...

How is that even an excuse?

Perhaps engineering bodies like IStructE should consider following EA's approach to 'simplify' the process. More CPEngs would mean more revenue for them, why not?

Tomfh said:

This was before I was registered. Just the basic membership, which was cancelled for two years.

Click to expand...

Wow. Brutal. That is crazy. I was an EA member as a student (free).

But was never a member as after that. I started paying APEA memberships and got assessed for VIC. I then needed QLD assessment. VIC recognises QLD assessments but QLD doesn't recognise the VIC assessment. So another interview asking exactly the same questions! Thankfully with APEA it is all free IF you are a member.

Not that I'm an advocate of APEA. They are just as much a ticket clipper as EA, just one that doesn't have the historical reputation, so outside of QLD they are essentially viewed as the 2nd tier assessment body. Not that I've had any issue, none of my clients care about that BS. As long as I am competent and meet the legal requirement they are happy.

I run my own business and do work across Australia. So I might required WA, ACT registration at some point soon. NSW not required at this stage, and NT depends on what jobs I get.

Its a buddy racket with the Engineering Council UK / I Chem E / I Mech E / I E E/.... and this a much larger operation. Heaven knows where all this money goes....