Following on from the UK Engineering Report 2016 (and the discussion of same in this forum) and the adequacy or not of current efforts to educate and train, and to encourage the registration of our future engineers, I am intrigued about a “new model in technology and engineering” (NMiTE http://www.nmite.org.uk ). It is a new University that is to focus on the teaching of engineering. In a recent press release, it says: “At NMiTE we believe that engineering education can be different. We’re here to unlock the creativity and drive of Britain’s next generation – the Passioneers – the designers and builders, problem solvers and innovators who will shape our future. We’re establishing a new model of high-value engineering education: Creating a beacon institution to help address the engineering skills shortage that threatens to hobble the UK’s ability to compete globally. With a new approach to learning – based on real-world problem solving and the blending of high quality engineering, design, liberal arts and humanities with communication and employability skills targeted at the growth sectors of the future. Located on a new and different type of campus – designed for inspiration, collaboration and a deep connection to the global community. And reinforced by an innovation ecosystem of global corporations & SME entrepreneurs, coupled with global universities, not just to invest, but to contribute knowledge and expertise – with New Model students at its centre. We’re shaping an institution to create and deliver 21st century engineers – catalysts for innovation and change – a new model generation of emotionally intelligent entrepreneurs, innovators, employees and leaders for the future." Two things strike me as very different about this proposition: Its motto is “no lectures, no exams, no text books” (!). It plans to be very practically-based, largely conducted within real industry. Apparently, it will also have no departments, no faculties, no tenure, no Council. Instead, it’ll have “ teaching teams designed around the delivery of our unique engineering and Human Interaction curriculum ” (developed by an impressive, international, and overwhelmingly academic array of advisors and partners). It’s located in the city of Hereford (admittedly partly a personal one as a resident of Herefordshire for over 30 years). It is a city by virtue of its cathedral but it is one of the smaller cities in the UK with a population of just over 50k, and is in England's first or second most rural county (depending on how you rank it). Hereford’s engineering heritage is largely unremarkable as it is known more for its agricultural and food output (beef, potatoes, strawberries, apples, cider(!), beer, etc.) and of being home to the UK's elite special forces regiments. It has engineering history in munitions production from during WWII and it's current engineering association is with food production, double-glazing, Morgan chassis and JCB cab manufacture, insulation material forming, and that’s largely it. So, not the most obvious choice to base a new Advanced Engineering University then! The NMiTE project has been described (The Times 6 th Sep 2016) as “ at worst an intriguing experiment and at best an innovative template that traditional universities might learn from”. What do you think? As an aside, I have seen nothing of NMiTE in these forums or indeed on the IET website – yet, apparently (and quite rightly) the IET has been an advisor/contributor/supporter. As a footnote, I would very much like to reach out and connect with any IET members/fellows that are/have been involved in NMiTE with a view of my getting involved too.

This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

A new model of high-value engineering education

Following on from the UK Engineering Report 2016 (and the discussion of same in this forum) and the adequacy or not of current efforts to educate and train, and to encourage the registration of our future engineers, I am intrigued about a “new model in technology and engineering” (NMiTE http://www.nmite.org.uk). It is a new University that is to focus on the teaching of engineering.

In a recent press release, it says:

“At NMiTE we believe that engineering education can be different.
We’re here to unlock the creativity and drive of Britain’s next generation – the Passioneers – the designers and builders, problem solvers and innovators who will shape our future.

We’re establishing a new model of high-value engineering education:

Creating a beacon institution to help address the engineering skills shortage that threatens to hobble the UK’s ability to compete globally.

With a new approach to learning – based on real-world problem solving and the blending of high quality engineering, design, liberal arts and humanities with communication and employability skills targeted at the growth sectors of the future.

Located on a new and different type of campus – designed for inspiration, collaboration and a deep connection to the global community.

And reinforced by an innovation ecosystem of global corporations & SME entrepreneurs, coupled with global universities, not just to invest, but to contribute knowledge and expertise – with New Model students at its centre.

We’re shaping an institution to create and deliver 21st century engineers – catalysts for innovation and change – a new model generation of emotionally intelligent entrepreneurs, innovators, employees and leaders for the future."

Two things strike me as very different about this proposition:

Its motto is “no lectures, no exams, no text books” (!). It plans to be very practically-based, largely conducted within real industry.

Apparently, it will also have no departments, no faculties, no tenure, no Council. Instead, it’ll have “teaching teams designed around the delivery of our unique engineering and Human Interaction curriculum” (developed by an impressive, international, and overwhelmingly academic array of advisors and partners).

It’s located in the city of Hereford (admittedly partly a personal one as a resident of Herefordshire for over 30 years).

It is a city by virtue of its cathedral but it is one of the smaller cities in the UK with a population of just over 50k, and is in England's first or second most rural county (depending on how you rank it). Hereford’s engineering heritage is largely unremarkable as it is known more for its agricultural and food output (beef, potatoes, strawberries, apples, cider(!), beer, etc.) and of being home to the UK's elite special forces regiments. It has engineering history in munitions production from during WWII and it's current engineering association is with food production, double-glazing, Morgan chassis and JCB cab manufacture, insulation material forming, and that’s largely it. So, not the most obvious choice to base a new Advanced Engineering University then!

The NMiTE project has been described (The Times 6^th Sep 2016) as “at worst an intriguing experiment and at best an innovative template that traditional universities might learn from”.

What do you think?

As an aside, I have seen nothing of NMiTE in these forums or indeed on the IET website – yet, apparently (and quite rightly) the IET has been an advisor/contributor/supporter.

As a footnote, I would very much like to reach out and connect with any IET members/fellows that are/have been involved in NMiTE with a view of my getting involved too.

Parents

No Data

Reply

0 Former Community Member over 6 years ago in reply to Chris Pearson

Moshe,

If
only we had a UK system with correct QA and no PEER review and
Sponsorship references such as you describe in the
States.

The
problem is strictly UK. Your ideals will be blocked by the UK CEng
lobby.

The
problem I am revealing is the closed shop Peer Review and
membership sponsoring . This is subjective and controlled by a
Luddite contigent that refuses change inorder to maintain a
restrictive practice.

Your
arguments show ideals foreign to the grass roots UK CEng
system.

As
for elitist master – CEng, Roy has given some good
reasoning.

Of
course we need experts, you and I are experts, they should be
recognized and approved.

But
an expert in one domain is not an expert elsewhere. Everytime I
have changed my expertise in one domain to follow advancing
technology I have had to gain new expertise and learning. Much of
this is not available in University. For Special techniques and
DAD, I have worked with experts who evolved with the technologies
and formed university professors. I have had world experts work for
me free, just to be part of our development.

The
President of the Institute of Instrumentation came to help me in
the early mornings when we were developing Tritium
Technology.

CEng
as is the scientific PhD is a statement of expertise in one very
restricted discipline. It is not a key to open doors to all
domains.

CEng
should be a limited elite controlled recognised grade.

Engineers should be
recognized , they can add the prefix or suffix BA, BSc MIET, MA,
MEng MSc etc (MBA is management and not our domain).

Sorry
Roy, you should have been CEng years ago your, MA gave you other
recognition.

Moshe
I agree but the UK C Eng will not accept your
arguments.

“Now we have our
diplomas, we have to learn a discipline”
Professional =
Education + Training + Experience”

More than 2,000
professionals from academia, industry, and government carry out
every aspect of ABET accreditation.

They know their
profession’s dynamic and emerging workforce needs and review
academic programs to ensure they provide the technical and
professional skills graduates need to
succeed. Directly involves
faculty and staff in self-assessment and continuous quality
improvement processes.
ABET accreditation
criteria are developed by technical professionals, members of
35 member societies. Each society dedicates volunteers to perform
program reviews related to its professions. Coming
from academic, industrial and
governmental backgrounds,

-- I think
Universities in order to stay relevant and graduate Engineers
capable to enter the workforce with current update knowledge and
formation.
I agree with you that
the process needs to be dynamic to address current
and future developments.

You live in a more
democratic country. The UK is not democratic and is a Royalty. That
is why USA is a democracy.

Roy,

My opinion is that the
practice of professional engineering will be best served by
engaging of all those who have met a threshold standard of
professional capability and commit to professional standards. It
also seems reasonable that within the regulated community the term
“Engineer” should be allocated to those at degree level, in line
with other professions. The term “Technician” should be allocated
to professional practice that is distinctively valuable by its more
practical nature and which can be carried out successfully with
good technical understanding, but without necessarily deploying
graduate level knowledge attributes.

I therefore suggest that it
is time for some fresh strategic thinking, with the objectives of
greater engagement and overall collective quality, not elitism and
personal advantage. Contributions like those made at this
conference can only help and may stimulate progress, but without
strategic momentum and in the UK voluntary context at least, real
understanding of the market, it is only interesting talk, not
(overdue) progress.

Once
again you have put forward a good observation.

Moshe
is in the States, he is in another regime, even if he is UK
qualified and registered, his conditions are not ours, and his
observations are very much global. We have a strictly UK
problem.

I and
many others are in Europe, but we are controlled and restricted by
the UK PEIs and legislation even if we have no democratic rights.
No vote. We are ignored by our PEIs – The President of IET came to
France, he had neither the politeness or the inclination to meet
the MIET French Community.

Again
IET France has a joint Expat, UK PEI and other interested
Technology meetings now published under the IET French
community.

It is
a good example of cooperative communication, not possible today in
the UK.

You stated - Some will
want to adopt a highly mathematical/scientific approach built from
“principles up”, others from “practice down” to relevant
principles.

I have to admit that I
have not done much free lance mathematics for over 30 years. It is
basically forbidden when one uses codes; now codes are computerised
so you just fill in the boxes.

To use many codes, you
need to have at least a master in that
discipline.

In the days of
engineering R&D, engineers wrote programs in FORTRAN or alike,
most programs were time demanding and the results were doubtful or
dangerous. On the Fusion program engineers were banned from using
computers for this very same reason.

This math’s myth needs
to killed.

Yes our engineering
pioneers used maths and if time dependent, they used calculus. Even
Napoleon (a sort of engineer) said to one of his engineering
generals - Use calculus against the English.

No; maths is not an
engineering necessity, understanding it, using it in codes and
seeing how our codes were formed is necessary. Using mathematical
proven models is a necessity.

I have just completed
one of my most interesting assignments two years after I should
have retired. I created a team of physicists, mathematicians and
mentored a Master student who presented a world first in nuclear
engineering. We were a team, none of us could have worked alone. My
mathematician colleagues said that they had made the choice – maths
, just maths; my physicist colleagues said that well, they could do
the maths and some of the engineering, but could not do all at
once; they said physics – just physics. I understood the physics,
the maths and led the engineering. No way would I go back to doing
other specialists’ work. We gave all our efforts to our Master
Student for his passport to the future.

This said, you train,
learn and chose a path that later is difficult to
leave.

I would not trust an
engineer that was dabbling in mathematics.

I have taken over
engineering design offices where people were dabbling in other
domains, there was a total mess made of the engineering support
documents that had home grown maths equations, and corrupted IT
copies passed on from project to project. I cleaned out the whole
archive and called in experts to re-establish the companies guide
specifications and to make incorruptible IT mathematical
models.

Dabbling with geometry,
algebra, matricies, FEA, is one thing rewriting Montecarlo is
another.

At University, student
engineers spend a lot of time just doing maths is this because the
professors do not understand engineering?

My best professor at Uni
turned round one day, to say that he would have really enjoyed to
be in our seats, but he had to work for a living. He had never been
to university. He was a UK leading materials expert. Another asked
me what I did for a living and then jokingly said “ do you want to
swop jobs.

Roy you have a sensible
proposition

- the practice of
professional engineering will be best served by engaging of all
those who have met a threshold standard of professional capability
and commit to professional standards.

Once achieved register
them as Professional engineers. Then if they want to be expert
specialists, guide them to CEng but not for elite protectionist
status.

Blogging is a drug - I
do not want to get intoxicated.

For those that are
interested in Engineering & Technology, there are E&T blogs
with practical information on our kaleidoscope of technologies;
most have been visited by only a handful of MIETs. A bit like PhDs,
most are viewed , apart from the jury , on average three times in a
the authors life time.

John
Gowman

Garanti
sans virus. www.avg.com
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

A new model of high-value engineering education

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines