-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Bad news for engineers
- Thread starter lpvoid
- Start date
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
Oh s**t, here we go..
Gonna look at OZ NOW!!
Gonna look at OZ NOW!!
LazyLion
King of de Jungle
Ja, the twenty-first century is so racist... let's go back to the stone age. At least we were all equals back then.
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
I bet even then we weren't all "equal" then...
Pilgrim
Wugger
Okay, class. Here we have yet another lesson in Logic:
Problem: Not enough black people are becoming engineers. It seems that they cannot pass the peer review.
Solution: Remove the peer review.
Problem Solved!
Problem: Not enough black people are becoming engineers. It seems that they cannot pass the peer review.
Solution: Remove the peer review.
Problem Solved!
ANC in a nutshell
iDenTiTy
Expert Member
Following in the same footsteps as the CA examinations....
Huh?
Are they not based in UK? Like the actuarial things?
I have a friend that is a black eng. and we have spoken about this before.. He agrees that we must do more to get black people qualified and ready for the jobs in all sectors, but he says that the first concern should be the safety of the people and the assurance that someone who can do the job is doing it.
Vrotappel
Bulls fan
Another reason to leave this beautiful country with its retarded, racist leaders.
SOX, if the department of pubic hairs bothered to respond to the M&G, we might get both sides of the story. However, their failure to respond suggests the truth of the article.
Oh, and the facts are well acknowledged. There are simply not enough black matriculants coming through the system. If you doubt it, google it. You will find numerous articles.
Hot potato!
Should ECSA, and other professional bodies remain independent? Yes
SAIEE to join you only need a qualification from a recognised instituion and registration fee, no test or interview required.
ECSA on the other hand, I fail to understand... A guy who since graduating with a BSc(Eng) degree has been 'designing' township reticulation for 3 years and doing a bunch of courses can be easily registered while a guy working in municipalities/Eskom/Telkom/Sasol and other huge industries will be required to know the ins and outs of the company he is working for. Its unfair.
Anyway, let me not jeopardise my chances by speaking further, as I will be handing my application for PrEng at the end of the year.
Should ECSA, and other professional bodies remain independent? Yes
SAIEE to join you only need a qualification from a recognised instituion and registration fee, no test or interview required.
ECSA on the other hand, I fail to understand... A guy who since graduating with a BSc(Eng) degree has been 'designing' township reticulation for 3 years and doing a bunch of courses can be easily registered while a guy working in municipalities/Eskom/Telkom/Sasol and other huge industries will be required to know the ins and outs of the company he is working for. Its unfair.
Anyway, let me not jeopardise my chances by speaking further, as I will be handing my application for PrEng at the end of the year.
You clearly can't read. As I asked for input from Engineers, where you got the idea that I was talking about the department is beyond me.
They are the ones I would like to know from, if this practice that the Department says is happening is ACTUALLY taking place.
If those are the only pre-requisites, where does this peer-review system come in?
PS: anonymity is great thing with online forums like these.
Last edited:
VanZan
Senior Member
I have a different experience. The likes of Eskom (historically) had an excellent engineer in training program approved by ECSA and if you put a little bit of effort in, registering as a PrIng was easy.
I don't think the problem is ECSA. The source of potential engineers - ie the education system fail to provide candidates with capability.
The real reason why the minister wants to sidestep the current process is to import 'engineers' from outside (as with doctors, etc) and rubber stamp their 'qualifications'.
Rather have non-white foreigners than a white South-Africans working for the government. But that is old news.
dlk001
Executive Member
The so called "gatekeepers" are there. However, giving the gate keys to government would invite "gatecrashers" to the engineering field which would result in catastrophic failures. The main reason for lack of transformation within Engineering is education and training. It is the same reason for lack of engineers Full Stop.
Back to Built Environment Bill:
ECSA’s role is meant to regulate professional standards and therefore, they should remain as the accrediting body for professional registration. However, ECSA is the policy-setting, governing and accreditation body. Those roles clashes with SAQA and Higher Education Act.
It’s like in Canada, you get Engineers Canada (EC) and the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) as two entities that deal with accreditation, registration and education separately. There is nothing wrong in setting up a South African Built Environment Body as long as through this body, a peer board like ECSA will still be responsible to accredit South African professional engineers to keep within the spirit of the Washington Accord.
Obviously ECSA wants to retain all its powers because there are some vested collective and individual interests (power and money). I am seeing the same thing with negotiations between ECSA and South African Institute of Rock Engineers.
Back to Built Environment Bill:
ECSA’s role is meant to regulate professional standards and therefore, they should remain as the accrediting body for professional registration. However, ECSA is the policy-setting, governing and accreditation body. Those roles clashes with SAQA and Higher Education Act.
It’s like in Canada, you get Engineers Canada (EC) and the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board (CEAB) as two entities that deal with accreditation, registration and education separately. There is nothing wrong in setting up a South African Built Environment Body as long as through this body, a peer board like ECSA will still be responsible to accredit South African professional engineers to keep within the spirit of the Washington Accord.
Obviously ECSA wants to retain all its powers because there are some vested collective and individual interests (power and money). I am seeing the same thing with negotiations between ECSA and South African Institute of Rock Engineers.
Last edited:
Does that mean Foreign Engineers are not allowed to get registration?
If those are the only pre-requisites, where does this peer-review system come in?
PS: anonymity is great thing with online forums like these.
At ECSA I would like think they use the peer-review as normally you will have the wiseheads who been through it all and know what you talking about to access your application and continuance as a registered engineer.
SAIEE and such bodies, you only presents some papers in their conferences.
You see that is a bone of my contention, how come all PrEng's have not been into such rigorous training where you put extra effort but in the end they will be labelled professionals.VanZan said:
I think all engineers must go through a similar training program as it will stop these talks about ECSA being racist and resistant to change. If you have a problem with such training program(s), you have no business being a registered engineer and it will also stop people calling themselves engineers while they never worked in the field just because they have the engineering qualification.