How do we solve the Catch 22 of Skills?

Employers are frustrated that young people emerging from education don’t have the skills they are looking for. Young people emerging from education are keen to work but can’t get jobs because they don’t have the skills employers are looking for. A classic Catch 22 conundrum – how do we fix this?

Last month the IET published a skills survey that was launched at a joint event with Student Energy, who were presenting a report of their own on young people entering the energy transition labour market. The lively debate that took place is available to view. The organisations spoke respectively to employers and students both groups expressing a clear desire for more and better training to help bridge the gap between formal education and employment, and for career progression into new roles or to cover new responsibilities.  

Apprenticeships, graduate programmes, and internships are a great way to receive practical training, but these programmes are only available to a minority, and often those working for larger organisation.

How do we find different ways to bridge this gap? Could accessible online learning be an acceptable alternative that employers would consider? Perhaps young engineers already have the skills, but they are not presenting them in the right way because they don’t know how?

If engineers can’t find a solution to this, I don’t know who can – what are your thoughts?

  • It does feel like we've moved as a nation so far into the 'price' bracket that we've forgotten about 'value' . The example I was taught was that there are three things - low cost / speed / quality - you can have two out of three but never all three together. I get the sense that in the UK (and maybe elsewhere too) we are all about low cost and speed and we sacrifice quality for that. We need to invest, and that will drive price up in some areas, in skills we need to take a bit of time to see whether the candidates, the trainees, the apprentices have the right qualities and can absorb the skills and cultivate the passion needed, but that comes with some risk, and risk costs. It's so difficult when there are no margins and little subsidy or support, especially for SMEs.

  • Employers are frustrated that young people emerging from education don’t have the skills they are looking for.

    I find this interesting that employers are saying this.  Do those employers interact with the local schools or FE colleges?  Do those employers offer Apprentaships?  Do those employers consider adult learners or thoses wishing to retrain?

    There are a lots of people in industry that just say there is an issue but then don't get involved to help solve the issue.  They probably want the most qualified person for the lowest salary.  Companies need to invest in people.

    As an example

    When people leave the Armed forces they are given an allowance to help get trained up for a different career or to help get their MOD qualification recognised on the civillian side.  Take an electrician in the Army.  They may not always have a Gold card but they are very capable and most imporantanly they are competent.  A few courses later they could have their 18th edition BS7671 wiring regs and a C&G 2391 and then get an ECS card.   With this being said an employer then needs to give them a job with the understanding that they may not have the same work experience as a time served Spark.  The employer just needs to put in some extra effort and maybe put this person with a mentor that already works for the company.  After a few years this ex-MOD electrician could be the mentor for the next trainee. 

    Companies need to develop an ethos to grow and develop from within if they cannot find people with the exact skills.  Get the closest fit and then invest in those people rather than treat people that are trained as a ready made commodity. 

  • James Hacker :
    The three articles of civil service faith: it takes longer to do things quickly; it's more expensive to do them cheaply; it's more democratic to do them in secret.

    The first two apply to a lot of enginering as well. ..
    Mike.

  • Where is the ifATE in all this?

    We have this quango who is supposed to drive this agenda. Then we have sector skills bodies who all claim to be dealing with this skills gap. In my industry we have three overlapping skills bodies.

    No wonder companies think its so confusing!

    The Levy has not made anywhere near the impact it should have. Effectively a company stealth tax which will only get bigger.

    Trailblazers combined with route panels under the ifATE, make the process of developing technical education so complicated and then to top it off occupational route sign off, why would any company really get involved to develop something they really need with all these "barriers".

    Have a look at occupational maps, I'm not sure who put them together but for some sectors they make no sense, even the new ones.

    The whole system is against most if not all employers with absolutely no agility.

    My particular discipline is suffering massively due to the current setup we are stuck with a level 3 which is years out of date, a level 4 that is too niche and a level 7 that couldn't get off the ground due to complexity.

    Things need to change but I have no idea with all the organisations there are who can actually make any difference and this is the really frustrating part!!

  • This is a new one on me - but it's very true. I'm going to turn that into a screen saver......!

  • Yes, it is hugely complex and hugely frustrating. It's no wonder people just give up trying!