You highlighted in you previous post that some training programmes and associated qualifications were highly valued in certain areas of work despite barely being “on the radar” of professional institutions and regulators. In the latest one you state “any qualification achieved should be celebrated and positive” and with some caveats I agree. The caveats are around ethics, since there are unscrupulous providers, or those who use qualifications to misrepresent the extent of their competence.
In this broader context, our categorising and codifying (by voluntary or statutory means) has made gaining professional recognition difficult, negative or even impractical, for many who practice engineering to a recognised standard of competence.
Statutory systems, usually with the rules designed by politically influential engineers (such as leading academics for example), seek to limit who can “offer their services” as an “engineer”, for reasons such as public safety that legislators feel are justified. In the UK such interventions have been mainly aimed at those who interface with householders, who may be ill-informed customers. The UK voluntary system creates a market, but one that became dominated by the “premium” (or “elite status”) segment. Although two other recognition categories are codified, they have a disproportionately lower market value and those affiliated to the “premium” market describe them in inferior pejorative terms. The same trends seem to apply where the codification has gained statutory backing. Therefore certain qualifications have much greater value than others.
The value of a qualification may rationally reflect what is required to earn it, but its relative value in the market, or “market snapshot” as codified by legislation at a point in time, may be heavily distorted by sociological factors.
A common theme associated with those qualifications afforded the highest value, is that they stream those teenagers who are considered the most highly developed in mathematics relative to their peer age group. Those who do not meet this threshold are streamed along other pathways deemed of lower value, even if the actual qualification is substantially similar. This approach seems particularly pernicious towards those who are destined to become excellent engineers, but who are systematically disadvantaged thenceforth. In a UK context this would include many IEng registrants and potentially Degree Apprentices going forward. Internationally it seems to affect those deemed “Technologists”. Another common frame of reference seems to be the number of years spent in university , rather than the intensity, variety, or relevance of learning, or nature of relevant work-practice (if any).
Is seems that we have accepted the proposition that there is an extremely strong correlation between teenage proficiency in calculus and the performance of engineers in practice? Is this valid and in particular is it a valid discriminator between types of “engineer”? You stated “Places like California does not require a degree to take the PE exam” . Can anyone comment on the relevance of these examinations? The Engineering Council Examinations (for a time organised by City & Guilds) and now defunct, were intended as an “open-access” alternative theory test, but in practice this was considered a very difficult option without being “taught to the exam”.
It seems that perhaps the City & Guilds Senior Awards just gradually lost market share as degrees became more accessible. Although City & Guilds has long history of academic connections (Imperial College) it also seems that its market position had become seen primarily as a provider of “practical” and therefore “less prestigious” qualifications?
While scientific discoveries continued engineering remained practical into the early twentieth century before science-based-engineering became established. . As the science base of engineering developed a further division occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, the emergence of the engineering technologist, skilled at applying established technology as distinct from the science-based professional engineer. Thus, in the period covered by this history the roles of professional engineer, engineering technologist and engineering technician exist in many jurisdictions.
An alternative history, might go something like this;
Those with an academic science background have tried to appropriate without the consent of the legitimate holders (TWOC in British slang), the designation “Engineer”. In its place they have tried to substitute the term “Technologist” which to many speakers of the English language would be understood as a synonym for an engineer anyway and is therefore a meaningless distinction. They then influenced regulators to exclude Technologists (UK equivalent IEng), or to describe them in inferior pejorative terms. The great majority of more practical Engineers and their employers, have just ignored this as an irrelevance.
Had the proposition been rigidly applied in the UK, then the registration system might have collapsed to a fraction of its former size by now. Unfortunately the price of this pragmatism is the difficulty in differentiating between two different “types” of engineer who overlap in practice, by means other than their academic preparation. So we have ended up with confusion and an artificial hierarchy instead.
The model, of the City & Guilds Senior Awards, work-based learning degrees aimed at practicing professionals and the professional body peer review assessment conducted by the IET are all good in my opinion. There are similarities and overlaps but also important differences. However, it seems that each of these options has challenges and threats in the market.
Comments in this thread seem to suggest that the C&G Senior Awards may be in managed decline?
However there are some grounds for optimism, in the UK . The Apprenticeship model remained highly valued in some (but not all) UK industry sectors, as a pathway for engineers and senior managers, not just for craft trades and technicians. I need to declare an interest here, as a former Apprentice and Company Training Manager. But my UK-centric view is that the drift away from apprenticeships towards full-time engineering education hasn’t served us particularly well and it seems that recent governments have come to share my view. The UK government introduced an “Apprenticeship Levy” and increasing numbers of degree apprenticeships are now in progress.
For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with apprenticeships. An engineering apprenticeship blends experience in the workplace, coaching, formal specialised training and learning, usually with an academic qualification studied part-time. Although the model long pre-dates academic study of engineering, there is also a tradition of higher level apprenticeships leading to professional engineering and related management careers. Universities (mainly as “Polytechnics” pre-1992) contributed with higher qualifications including degrees, but more “prestigious” universities have never been particularly interested in this pathway for cultural and other reasons.
If we accept the historical perspective of the International Engineering Alliance, in practice mainly expressed through the Washington Accord dealing with the undergraduate education of “Engineers” and through Sydney and Dublin accords “others” engaged in engineering. Perhaps a future history might say something like.
During the second quarter of the 21st Century employers of Egineers and Technicians gained a more effective voice in systems of recognition and regulation. It was recognised that demonstration of professional competence and commitment to professional ethics was common to all engineers of graduate standard worldwide, developed via many different pathways. The practice of rigidly defining and distinguishing between an “Engineer” and “Technologist” on the basis of undergraduate education didn’t gain widespread acceptance. This idea became seen as something of an aberration from the late 20th Century when an academic hegemony existed in recognition and the neediness of the most educated engineers for social status was prioritised over performance.
Noting Moshe’s latest post it seems that Gen2 is already successful and I hope that it goes from strength to strength under City & Guilds ownership. This seems to be an excellent example of the type of model that I am advocating.
You highlighted in you previous post that some training programmes and associated qualifications were highly valued in certain areas of work despite barely being “on the radar” of professional institutions and regulators. In the latest one you state “any qualification achieved should be celebrated and positive” and with some caveats I agree. The caveats are around ethics, since there are unscrupulous providers, or those who use qualifications to misrepresent the extent of their competence.
In this broader context, our categorising and codifying (by voluntary or statutory means) has made gaining professional recognition difficult, negative or even impractical, for many who practice engineering to a recognised standard of competence.
Statutory systems, usually with the rules designed by politically influential engineers (such as leading academics for example), seek to limit who can “offer their services” as an “engineer”, for reasons such as public safety that legislators feel are justified. In the UK such interventions have been mainly aimed at those who interface with householders, who may be ill-informed customers. The UK voluntary system creates a market, but one that became dominated by the “premium” (or “elite status”) segment. Although two other recognition categories are codified, they have a disproportionately lower market value and those affiliated to the “premium” market describe them in inferior pejorative terms. The same trends seem to apply where the codification has gained statutory backing. Therefore certain qualifications have much greater value than others.
The value of a qualification may rationally reflect what is required to earn it, but its relative value in the market, or “market snapshot” as codified by legislation at a point in time, may be heavily distorted by sociological factors.
A common theme associated with those qualifications afforded the highest value, is that they stream those teenagers who are considered the most highly developed in mathematics relative to their peer age group. Those who do not meet this threshold are streamed along other pathways deemed of lower value, even if the actual qualification is substantially similar. This approach seems particularly pernicious towards those who are destined to become excellent engineers, but who are systematically disadvantaged thenceforth. In a UK context this would include many IEng registrants and potentially Degree Apprentices going forward. Internationally it seems to affect those deemed “Technologists”. Another common frame of reference seems to be the number of years spent in university , rather than the intensity, variety, or relevance of learning, or nature of relevant work-practice (if any).
Is seems that we have accepted the proposition that there is an extremely strong correlation between teenage proficiency in calculus and the performance of engineers in practice? Is this valid and in particular is it a valid discriminator between types of “engineer”? You stated “Places like California does not require a degree to take the PE exam” . Can anyone comment on the relevance of these examinations? The Engineering Council Examinations (for a time organised by City & Guilds) and now defunct, were intended as an “open-access” alternative theory test, but in practice this was considered a very difficult option without being “taught to the exam”.
It seems that perhaps the City & Guilds Senior Awards just gradually lost market share as degrees became more accessible. Although City & Guilds has long history of academic connections (Imperial College) it also seems that its market position had become seen primarily as a provider of “practical” and therefore “less prestigious” qualifications?
While scientific discoveries continued engineering remained practical into the early twentieth century before science-based-engineering became established. . As the science base of engineering developed a further division occurred in the second half of the twentieth century, the emergence of the engineering technologist, skilled at applying established technology as distinct from the science-based professional engineer. Thus, in the period covered by this history the roles of professional engineer, engineering technologist and engineering technician exist in many jurisdictions.
An alternative history, might go something like this;
Those with an academic science background have tried to appropriate without the consent of the legitimate holders (TWOC in British slang), the designation “Engineer”. In its place they have tried to substitute the term “Technologist” which to many speakers of the English language would be understood as a synonym for an engineer anyway and is therefore a meaningless distinction. They then influenced regulators to exclude Technologists (UK equivalent IEng), or to describe them in inferior pejorative terms. The great majority of more practical Engineers and their employers, have just ignored this as an irrelevance.
Had the proposition been rigidly applied in the UK, then the registration system might have collapsed to a fraction of its former size by now. Unfortunately the price of this pragmatism is the difficulty in differentiating between two different “types” of engineer who overlap in practice, by means other than their academic preparation. So we have ended up with confusion and an artificial hierarchy instead.
The model, of the City & Guilds Senior Awards, work-based learning degrees aimed at practicing professionals and the professional body peer review assessment conducted by the IET are all good in my opinion. There are similarities and overlaps but also important differences. However, it seems that each of these options has challenges and threats in the market.
Comments in this thread seem to suggest that the C&G Senior Awards may be in managed decline?
However there are some grounds for optimism, in the UK . The Apprenticeship model remained highly valued in some (but not all) UK industry sectors, as a pathway for engineers and senior managers, not just for craft trades and technicians. I need to declare an interest here, as a former Apprentice and Company Training Manager. But my UK-centric view is that the drift away from apprenticeships towards full-time engineering education hasn’t served us particularly well and it seems that recent governments have come to share my view. The UK government introduced an “Apprenticeship Levy” and increasing numbers of degree apprenticeships are now in progress.
For the benefit of anyone unfamiliar with apprenticeships. An engineering apprenticeship blends experience in the workplace, coaching, formal specialised training and learning, usually with an academic qualification studied part-time. Although the model long pre-dates academic study of engineering, there is also a tradition of higher level apprenticeships leading to professional engineering and related management careers. Universities (mainly as “Polytechnics” pre-1992) contributed with higher qualifications including degrees, but more “prestigious” universities have never been particularly interested in this pathway for cultural and other reasons.
If we accept the historical perspective of the International Engineering Alliance, in practice mainly expressed through the Washington Accord dealing with the undergraduate education of “Engineers” and through Sydney and Dublin accords “others” engaged in engineering. Perhaps a future history might say something like.
During the second quarter of the 21st Century employers of Egineers and Technicians gained a more effective voice in systems of recognition and regulation. It was recognised that demonstration of professional competence and commitment to professional ethics was common to all engineers of graduate standard worldwide, developed via many different pathways. The practice of rigidly defining and distinguishing between an “Engineer” and “Technologist” on the basis of undergraduate education didn’t gain widespread acceptance. This idea became seen as something of an aberration from the late 20th Century when an academic hegemony existed in recognition and the neediness of the most educated engineers for social status was prioritised over performance.
Noting Moshe’s latest post it seems that Gen2 is already successful and I hope that it goes from strength to strength under City & Guilds ownership. This seems to be an excellent example of the type of model that I am advocating.
