"Old Codger" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:05:04 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

From a technical POV it is difficult to achieve, particularly for the lay
person. I am a Chartered Computer Engineer,

I'm not sure what one of those is.

The individual is a member of an appropriate Institution, e.g. the British
Computer Society, and that Institution is a member of the Engineering
Council UK (ECUK). The Individual has also attained the standards of
education, training and experience, required by the ECUK and, through his
Institution, has been assessed as competent by his peers.


I am indeed a member of the BCS, and the BCS is a member of the Engineering
Council, but to expand upon your answer:

If I was a full member of the BCS I could use the MBCS post-nominals.
If I was a Chartered Member of the BCS, I could use both MBCS and CITP
(Chartered IT Professional).
If I (personally) am registered with the EC, I can use MBCS, CITP, C.Eng and
the phrase 'Chartered Engineer'.

The difference between CITP and C.Eng is...er...around £30 actually; if you
qualify for CITP, you are all but qualified for C.Eng. I think I only pay
for EC registration for the qudos; the irony being that there isn't any.

Recruitment Agent: 'Do you have any Microsoft/Oracle/Etc certification?'
Me: 'No, I don't go for vendor certification. But I am a Chartered
Engineer.'
Recruitment Agent: 'Well...er... I suppose it's better than nothing.'
Me: 'WTF??'

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:00:21 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

I am indeed a member of the BCS

I seem to remember that my first degree exempted me from their
examination requirements but I never saw much advantage in joining.

I'm familiar with C.Eng but it was your description as "Chartered
Computer Engineer" that threw me. Google has 8 hits on that term, so
it's not widely used.

Recruitment Agent: 'Do you have any Microsoft/Oracle/Etc certification?'
Me: 'No, I don't go for vendor certification. But I am a Chartered
Engineer.'
Recruitment Agent: 'Well...er... I suppose it's better than nothing.'
Me: 'WTF??'

As an employer of IT people, I understand vendor certifications, which
by their nature are specific. C.Eng and similar tell me nothing, per
se, about the particular competencies possessed by the holder. Unlike
the terms solicitor or barrister, for example (and to keep this
on-topic), which have very precise meanings.

Mike.

Mike wrote:

As an employer of IT people, I understand vendor certifications, which
by their nature are specific. C.Eng and similar tell me nothing, per
se, about the particular competencies possessed by the holder. Unlike
the terms solicitor or barrister, for example (and to keep this
on-topic), which have very precise meanings.

I would suggest that CEng is analogous to Solicitor or Barrister. CEng
tells you that the individual is a Professional Engineer. That means
the individual has had the requisite education and training, is
experienced, has demonstrated competence and has been accepted as a
member of an appropriate institution. He can be trusted to do a
professional job. The time scale from entering university is at least 7
years, often longer. What CEng on its own does not tell you, and
neither do the Solicitor or Barrister titles, is the specialism being
practised.


--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Mike wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:00:21 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

I am indeed a member of the BCS

I seem to remember that my first degree exempted me from their
examination requirements but I never saw much advantage in joining.

AOL

My education, work experience and publication record permit me to pay
BCS something and get a Hi-Falutin' set of initials after my name (in
addition to the ones that I can already put there). But in 30-odd years
of work experience I've seen to advantage to doing so.

BCS have recently (last decade) made a big push at trying to establish
themselves as *the* professional body for computer/IT related
professionals. This seems to be succeeding in government circles where
the people setting policy seem to have no experience at all of the
professions over which they wish to exert influence. Outside government
I don't see many professionals or employers taking the BCS seriously.

CJM wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
ton.net...
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 17:35:06 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

AFAIK emails have the same legal status as a letter. It's arguably more
difficult to tamper with an email.

From a technical POV, it's very easy indeed to tamper with the content
of an email message unless it's been signed by a cryptographically
secure method.


From a technical POV it is difficult to achieve, particularly for the lay
person.

I hope you're posting that as a joke. Changing the date or content of an
email is trivial for anyone with access to a text editor (i.e. everyone
who uses a computer). True that the forgery will then be detectable *if*
the investigator has access to the computer, but it's really not
technically difficult to do. And in this case we don't seem to be
talking about independent forensic validation of the OPs computer,
simply accepting a letter or email at face value.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:50:07 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

Mike wrote:

As an employer of IT people, I understand vendor certifications, which
by their nature are specific. C.Eng and similar tell me nothing, per
se, about the particular competencies possessed by the holder. Unlike
the terms solicitor or barrister, for example (and to keep this
on-topic), which have very precise meanings.

I would suggest that CEng is analogous to Solicitor or Barrister. CEng
tells you that the individual is a Professional Engineer. That means
the individual has had the requisite education and training, is
experienced, has demonstrated competence and has been accepted as a
member of an appropriate institution. He can be trusted to do a
professional job.

Quite possibly, but it still tells me nothing about the person's
ability to conduct a security audit to determine whether an email has
been altered in transit or whether he's capable of doing all sorts of
highly-technical work that requires specific knowledge.

The time scale from entering university is at least 7
years, often longer. What CEng on its own does not tell you, and
neither do the Solicitor or Barrister titles, is the specialism being
practised.

Quite. But at least I know (or can find out) what core subjects are
studied and to what level by solicitors and barristers, whereas a CEng
is just too vague to give me any specific information other than that
the holder is reasonably well-educated. Anyone who thinks that a CEng
is an adequate qualification by itself needs to understand what
employers really want. In these challenging times, when degrees are
handed out with the cornflakes, I want a first-class degree from a
"good" university, a Ph.D and a clutch of certifications as a minimum
:-)

Mike.

"Mike" wrote in message
ton.net...
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:00:21 +0100, "CJM"
wrote:

I am indeed a member of the BCS

I seem to remember that my first degree exempted me from their
examination requirements but I never saw much advantage in joining.


Then you haven't done enough research. Becoming a Chartered Engineer is not
compulsary, but there are benefits, and more importantly, it's what it says
about you as a professional.

I'm familiar with C.Eng but it was your description as "Chartered
Computer Engineer" that threw me. Google has 8 hits on that term, so
it's not widely used.

I am a Chartered Engineer (and a Chartered IT Professional). But to I could
be a Chemical Engineer or Mechanical Engineer, so I added to 'Computer' to
clarify.

Recruitment Agent: 'Do you have any Microsoft/Oracle/Etc certification?'
Me: 'No, I don't go for vendor certification. But I am a Chartered
Engineer.'
Recruitment Agent: 'Well...er... I suppose it's better than nothing.'
Me: 'WTF??'

As an employer of IT people, I understand vendor certifications, which
by their nature are specific.

Yes, vendor certifications tell you that someone has passed a short exam to
demonstrated competency in one version of an application from one vendor.
Some vendor certifications are quite difficult and are quite worthy, IMHO,
but too many are not.

Microsoft are famous for their bloated, buggy and insecure applications, so
why is MCSD such a good acheivement?

More of a concern to me, is being head-hunted because I know version X of
product Y, rather than because of personal skills, professional skills and
general aptitude.

C.Eng and similar tell me nothing, per
se, about the particular competencies possessed by the holder.

Becoming a Chartered Engineer involves making a committment to a certain
level of professional behaviour and ethics, a committment to career-long
learning, and a desire to be a part of a representative industry body. It is
a worthy acheivement, and says a lot about the holder.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
...
CJM wrote:

From a technical POV it is difficult to achieve, particularly for the lay
person.

I hope you're posting that as a joke. Changing the date or content of an
email is trivial for anyone with access to a text editor (i.e. everyone
who uses a computer). True that the forgery will then be detectable *if*
the investigator has access to the computer, but it's really not
technically difficult to do. And in this case we don't seem to be
talking about independent forensic validation of the OPs computer,
simply accepting a letter or email at face value.


An email is an electronic document. A printout of an email is not an email.

And of course we are talking about an independent forensic examination - if
required.

"I have emails that prove my case. Here are hard copies. I obviously still
have these emails, and will release them for forensic examination, if the
other party disputes them."

Mike wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 23:50:07 +0100, Old Codger
wrote:

Mike wrote:
As an employer of IT people, I understand vendor certifications, which
by their nature are specific. C.Eng and similar tell me nothing, per
se, about the particular competencies possessed by the holder. Unlike
the terms solicitor or barrister, for example (and to keep this
on-topic), which have very precise meanings.
I would suggest that CEng is analogous to Solicitor or Barrister. CEng
tells you that the individual is a Professional Engineer. That means
the individual has had the requisite education and training, is
experienced, has demonstrated competence and has been accepted as a
member of an appropriate institution. He can be trusted to do a
professional job.

Quite possibly, but it still tells me nothing about the person's
ability to conduct a security audit to determine whether an email has
been altered in transit or whether he's capable of doing all sorts of
highly-technical work that requires specific knowledge.

What it does tell you is that the individual is a professionally
competent engineer. As such he will (should) accept only work that he
is competent to undertake. You will have noted that CJM said he was not
competent in that sphere.

The time scale from entering university is at least 7
years, often longer. What CEng on its own does not tell you, and
neither do the Solicitor or Barrister titles, is the specialism being
practised.

Quite. But at least I know (or can find out) what core subjects are
studied and to what level by solicitors and barristers, whereas a CEng
is just too vague to give me any specific information other than that
the holder is reasonably well-educated. Anyone who thinks that a CEng
is an adequate qualification by itself needs to understand what
employers really want. In these challenging times, when degrees are
handed out with the cornflakes, I want a first-class degree from a
"good" university, a Ph.D and a clutch of certifications as a minimum
:-)

Academic qualifications, on their own, are no more than an indication of
possible potential. I have seen graduates with first class engineering
degrees from good universities who struggled to become engineers. CEng
tells you the individual is a competent professional engineer, and has
been assessed as such by his peers.

The Engineering Council (UK) publishes minimum requirements (education,
training, experience) for CEng. The individual Institutions publish
their own minimum requirements, which must be of no lesser standing than
those published by the EC(UK).

--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

Invisible Man wrote:
I am having correspondence with my employers whilst I am off sick.
Hopefully not but could end up at an employment tribunal.

I tend to use email but they tend to send the main stuff on paper.

Is email accepted as readily as paper by courts and tribunals?


Many thanks to all who replied.
It was all sorted out amicably in the end.
I retire early at the end of this month.
Just got to find a job I am capable of to top up my pension.