In respect of option 2, I would still hesitate to recommend the Professional Recognition Awards except as a management qualification, in which case there are various options including http://www.theiet.org/membership/career/courses/professional/cmi-diploma/index.cfm?origin=cmi-diploma . Is there up to date evidence that the C&G Awards offer a distinctive advantage and will continue to do so in future. The comments here suggest that there are only one or two centres offering the qualifications?
I wasn’t aware that C&G had re-established something similar to the defunct Engineering Council Examinations as the “Engineering Graduate & Post Graduate Diploma (9210)”. I’m not sure why I wasn’t aware (I may have just forgotten), but it seems that IET,ICE & IMechE offered their support, so I don’t need to add to that. My concern is not about the content of the diplomas in principle, but availability and delivery. An internet search only came up with the C&G material for centres rather than any actual programmes for someone to enrol on? Does anyone have further information about providers? The proposition looks good, http://www.cityandguilds.com/international/engineering but what is the current delivery of qualifications at levels 5, 6 & 7?
Option 3 you link to Middlesex which seems over recent years to have drifted away from Engineering Council Accreditation except for those programmes recognised by the British Computer Society. I don’t personally regard this as a significantly negative factor, but it could potentially cause some graduates problems with professional registration in certain circumstances. As an example of work –based learning provision I have no problem. For example, I liked the look of this course and might have considered in my previous role enrolling some employees, although not with CEng in mind http://www.mdx.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/engineering-management.
I should declare an interest in the programmes for your option 5, because I was associated with this initiative from 2009 and still retain some residual involvement. However the numbers of participants in these work –based programmes (mostly MSc but also a BEng) are relatively small and some of the original participating universities have not found the programmes commercially viable. However, there are still a number of universities with successful work-based learning programmes that are valued and supported by employers. This isn’t the same market as teenage undergraduates paying their own fees (or borrowing the money from the government) in preparation for a career, which are the mainstay of most universities.
Once again I tend to agree with your general conclusion “The good news is there are many options to consider to fill that gap without breaking the bank”. However for the purposes of this discussion, I would observe that the “gap” for many mid-career engineers isn’t necessarily a gap in performance, it’s often just a gap in recognition. “Breaking the bank” is relative but there are some serious investments involved in gaining formal qualifications (academic or vocational). Many of the issues come down to a return on investment evaluation, by individual citizens, controllers of the public purse and employers of engineering practitioners. If we add the social and political dimension around recognition or regulation then this complicates the issue further. For example some seek to restrict access and create a “professional elite”, whilst others want to broaden access and engagement in “professionalism” by Engineers and Technicians. I don’t think we can resolve most of this anytime soon. But if we can help to better inform IET members and potential members then we are giving service.
To return to the thread topic, as I indicated in an earlier post I’m an enthusiast for the mission of C&G and might myself have become MCGI at one time. However, it seems that the growth in University participation has led to C&G becoming increasingly stereotyped as the provider of “lower-level” qualifications. Engineering regulatory bodies have been moving to inflate benchmark academic qualifications so the two have diverged. All of this is part of a broader sociological trends over recent decades described in these two CIPD reports. https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/skills/graduate-labour-market-report and file https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/trends/alternative-labour-market-pathways
The reports are long and like City & Guilds not specific to engineering, but they offer a counterweight to suggestions that what the practice of professional engineering needs is an increasingly “academic” approach. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for City & Guilds to play the vocational equivalent card more strongly?
In respect of option 2, I would still hesitate to recommend the Professional Recognition Awards except as a management qualification, in which case there are various options including http://www.theiet.org/membership/career/courses/professional/cmi-diploma/index.cfm?origin=cmi-diploma . Is there up to date evidence that the C&G Awards offer a distinctive advantage and will continue to do so in future. The comments here suggest that there are only one or two centres offering the qualifications?
I wasn’t aware that C&G had re-established something similar to the defunct Engineering Council Examinations as the “Engineering Graduate & Post Graduate Diploma (9210)”. I’m not sure why I wasn’t aware (I may have just forgotten), but it seems that IET,ICE & IMechE offered their support, so I don’t need to add to that. My concern is not about the content of the diplomas in principle, but availability and delivery. An internet search only came up with the C&G material for centres rather than any actual programmes for someone to enrol on? Does anyone have further information about providers? The proposition looks good, http://www.cityandguilds.com/international/engineering but what is the current delivery of qualifications at levels 5, 6 & 7?
Option 3 you link to Middlesex which seems over recent years to have drifted away from Engineering Council Accreditation except for those programmes recognised by the British Computer Society. I don’t personally regard this as a significantly negative factor, but it could potentially cause some graduates problems with professional registration in certain circumstances. As an example of work –based learning provision I have no problem. For example, I liked the look of this course and might have considered in my previous role enrolling some employees, although not with CEng in mind http://www.mdx.ac.uk/courses/undergraduate/engineering-management.
I should declare an interest in the programmes for your option 5, because I was associated with this initiative from 2009 and still retain some residual involvement. However the numbers of participants in these work –based programmes (mostly MSc but also a BEng) are relatively small and some of the original participating universities have not found the programmes commercially viable. However, there are still a number of universities with successful work-based learning programmes that are valued and supported by employers. This isn’t the same market as teenage undergraduates paying their own fees (or borrowing the money from the government) in preparation for a career, which are the mainstay of most universities.
Once again I tend to agree with your general conclusion “The good news is there are many options to consider to fill that gap without breaking the bank”. However for the purposes of this discussion, I would observe that the “gap” for many mid-career engineers isn’t necessarily a gap in performance, it’s often just a gap in recognition. “Breaking the bank” is relative but there are some serious investments involved in gaining formal qualifications (academic or vocational). Many of the issues come down to a return on investment evaluation, by individual citizens, controllers of the public purse and employers of engineering practitioners. If we add the social and political dimension around recognition or regulation then this complicates the issue further. For example some seek to restrict access and create a “professional elite”, whilst others want to broaden access and engagement in “professionalism” by Engineers and Technicians. I don’t think we can resolve most of this anytime soon. But if we can help to better inform IET members and potential members then we are giving service.
To return to the thread topic, as I indicated in an earlier post I’m an enthusiast for the mission of C&G and might myself have become MCGI at one time. However, it seems that the growth in University participation has led to C&G becoming increasingly stereotyped as the provider of “lower-level” qualifications. Engineering regulatory bodies have been moving to inflate benchmark academic qualifications so the two have diverged. All of this is part of a broader sociological trends over recent decades described in these two CIPD reports. https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/skills/graduate-labour-market-report and file https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/work/trends/alternative-labour-market-pathways
The reports are long and like City & Guilds not specific to engineering, but they offer a counterweight to suggestions that what the practice of professional engineering needs is an increasingly “academic” approach. Perhaps there is an opportunity here for City & Guilds to play the vocational equivalent card more strongly?
