Thanks for the mature replies so far. This is, as Ghengis suggests, a debate about the proper relationship between theoretical and practical experience for engineers.
I am not a graduate engineer. My particular mix of qualifications includes many, many years as a supervisory technician / LAE combined with a few years of senior management supported by an honours degree in Economics. I'd rather have read engineering, but with family committments I couldn't afford the time off from paid employment that such a programme entailed. One way or another, I feel that I am qualified to operate at the strategic planning level in the aircraft maintenance / engineering industry and my current employers seem to feel the same way.
What is an Engineer? The examples I gave above were certainly at the head of the field. What distinguishes them, I believe, was their ability to see the future, ignore the limitations of the present, and that they dared to be different. They were also, (with the exception of Brunel), clever enough to overcome the disadvantages of a working class background. None of them, including Brunel, were Gentlemen in an age when that was particularly important. I feel that this is one of the things that has caused the Engineering Profession such difficulties as exist to the present day.
Who cares about being a member of the Learned Societies? We all seek the recognition of our fellows, but it is up to each and every individual to make his own mark upon history - the best of the past are our guides - Bert Rutan (who is a graduate engineer) is perhaps the best example for our designers to follow today.
In the meantime, the recognition of our fellow practitioners is the best we each can aim for. Maslow had it right in his Hierarchy of Needs....