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

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

I hadn’t been aware of this event and associated press release, until a colleague mentioned it to me.

http://www.theiet.org/policy/media/press-releases/new-approaches-he.cfm

When reading Andy’s interesting and stimulating post, for some reason the “family answer” reminded me of one of the reasons why I didn’t aspire to university at the age of 15-16, although luckily got an apprenticeship instead, which had a similar effect.

Those of a certain age might remember the TV series “Ask The Family” (there are bits on YouTube for those who don’t). It seemed to the early teenage me, that these were the type of people who went to university; obedient, conformist, boring, bookworms and classical music lovers with parents who were solicitors or chartered accountants. At my school only a very small percentage of people “stayed-on” post 16 and the percentages who touched higher education and the criminal justice system were probably similar (although not mutually exclusive)?

On my first induction day at work, there were Ten Apprentices and one “Student Engineer” who was to going to attend a University Sandwich Course having had attained Two B grades at A Level. The rest thought that he must be “a right flipping swot”. I’d love to hear from you, if you read this.

Leaving British social history of the 1970s behind, I sympathise with the general thrust of both Andy and John’s arguments in the context of “education”, or perhaps to put it another way “preparation for a career journey”. Careers can be narrow and linear, or broad and multi-faceted. “Learning” can be something undertaken by children and younger adults and commonly described as “education”, or conducted over a lifetime in parallel with economically productive activity.

I won’t pursue detailed arguments here around the content or length of engineering “education”, but I’m pleased to note from the IET Press Release that attitudes are changing. Perhaps a highly academically selective and mathematically focussed pathway may not be so “essential” after all . I would observe, that in my experience this rigid dogma tends to deter and subsequently disillusion many who might otherwise find an engineering career interesting. Purely personally, I found the world of industry enjoyable with excellent training (including in a well-resourced training centre) and college based learning (to HNC) on the whole reasonably relevant. A diet of maths would have probably bored me into submission, even though I enjoyed it up to a point. I was also able to purchase my first home by the age of 21 and be in a management position at 27.

Based on personal experience, when in my 30s I first enrolled on an MSc (not in engineering), I found myself at a disadvantage relative to those with an undergraduate background in two main respects 1 “Scientific method”; i.e. how to research, assemble evidence , evaluate it and conclude; 2 “eloquence of expression” without lapsing into a more “industrial” vernacular. My involvement with others undertaking post-graduate programmes and those seeking CEng registration has reinforced these ideas. I don’t know how this relates to Alasdair’s experience? I was by then migrating away from engineering (I also did an MBA later) into a form of management, as many engineering careers do and as many CEng accredited undergraduate degrees anticipate by having a management element.

An effect of the approach adopted under the Engineering Council umbrella, has been to divide the practice of engineering at the earliest possible stage by academic means. However, this isn’t just an “engineering” issue it reflects the culture of most societies worldwide where education is a currency that provides access to opportunity. A recent example exploring this sociological aspect is here.   https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596945/The_class_pay_gap_and_intergenerational_worklessness.pdf

An academic division that particularly rankles with me, is that a perfectly good Bachelor of Engineering or BSc Degree (even with 1st Class Honours), typically associated with apprenticeships and/or designated as “IEng accredited” is given a lower value than other more academically selective full-time programmes and the graduates of such programmes are placed into the “second class” stream of engineers, irrespective of their work performance.

There has been some modest progress in more fairly evaluating the competence of mid-career engineers, but Engineering Council still seeks to perpetuate division based on teenage academic selection throughout an engineering career. A particular effort has even been made in recent years to renounce its earlier “different but equally valuable” proposition. This has continued to dissuade the great majority of competent and professionally inclined practitioners from engaging in the registered community, as well as insulting and disillusioning many of those who were engaged (e.g. experienced IEng).

It may be convenient to categorise and classify children and young adults by academic attainment. It may be equally convenient to carry this categorisation forward into professional careers. Although many hugely successful people have demonstrated how to defy educational disadvantage and stigma (I didn’t take the 11+ exam but many of my classmates did). We also have within engineering (as demonstrated by contributors to this forum) many examples of people who achieved professional excellence, in spite of not following a gilded academic pathway in their early life.

We shouldn’t forget that many of those who drove technical innovation in the post-war period had left full-time education at the age of 14 or 15. By 1972/3 when the school leaving age was raised to 16 and the average currently registered professional engineer in the UK, either stayed on for A levels or got an Apprenticeship, a HNC was typically the highest qualification held by many Chartered Engineers. Only in 1999 was the academic benchmark inflated to an MEng or Masters Degree.

Were these earlier generations of engineers less “knowledgeable”, “competent”, “innovative” or even “rounded”? No they weren’t, they built modern world!

For various political reasons, including international comparisons, the benchmark qualifications for recognition as a professional engineer were inflated. In addition, subtler forms of rationing operated offering academic advantage and promoting elitism.

We need to support and encourage a variety of different models of education and training, aimed primarily at preparing people for technical careers. This includes those that produce genuinely creative thinking and practical inventiveness, rather than claims of “being characterised by innovation, creativity and change”, based seemingly on proficiency in calculus.

Many existing programmes are excellent and optimised to stretch the most academically able teenagers or underpin leading research. However, excellence can also be equally demonstrated by an apprentice in manufacturing who may offer a different balance between practice and theory. For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I am not advocating mediocrity but plurality and I support enhanced recognition for enhanced career achievement and personal contribution. We should also to enthusiastically support post-graduate programmes often with flexible access and delivery, aimed at developing practising engineers and those migrating into the profession.

A professional engineering community has evolved with “all roof adornment and no foundations”, others have commonly described an “inverted pyramid”. However, the latter implies a traditional hierarchy with many at the bottom and few at the top. The foundations of a building, its walls and its roof, perform different but equally important functions. Pyramids were built because that was the only way people understood how create a large structure 4000 years ago. http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/goodbye-pyramid-hello-networked-organisation

As a profession we have focussed far too much on the search for “status” and attempting to perpetuate an “elite”, rather than ensuring that the mainstream of professional engineering practice is being nurtured and valued.

I hope that new models of undergraduate education and a resurgence of apprenticeships will produce a cohort of widely different, but equally valued Technicians and Engineers over the next ten years. The challenge for The IET and other leaders in the profession is to enable a transition of ownership for engineering “professionalism” to this newer generation, free from the baggage that hampers us now.

I’m delighted by the success of “9% is not enough” campaign addressing gender imbalance, although the figures for registered engineers are half that, being as low as 2% for IEng (supposedly the “mainstream” category!). We also need to focus on the iniquities that make it so much less likely that someone who achieves more modest grades in mathematics at the age of 16 will gain Chartered Engineer recognition and the associated privileges, like a voice in governing the profession, that such status affords. It seems that many former technical apprentices just become senior managers and directors instead, with those that remain primarily technical perhaps eventually gaining some recognition 25 or more years into career, if they chance across a friendly helper in the institution world.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

I hadn’t been aware of this event and associated press release, until a colleague mentioned it to me.

http://www.theiet.org/policy/media/press-releases/new-approaches-he.cfm

When reading Andy’s interesting and stimulating post, for some reason the “family answer” reminded me of one of the reasons why I didn’t aspire to university at the age of 15-16, although luckily got an apprenticeship instead, which had a similar effect.

Those of a certain age might remember the TV series “Ask The Family” (there are bits on YouTube for those who don’t). It seemed to the early teenage me, that these were the type of people who went to university; obedient, conformist, boring, bookworms and classical music lovers with parents who were solicitors or chartered accountants. At my school only a very small percentage of people “stayed-on” post 16 and the percentages who touched higher education and the criminal justice system were probably similar (although not mutually exclusive)?

On my first induction day at work, there were Ten Apprentices and one “Student Engineer” who was to going to attend a University Sandwich Course having had attained Two B grades at A Level. The rest thought that he must be “a right flipping swot”. I’d love to hear from you, if you read this.

Leaving British social history of the 1970s behind, I sympathise with the general thrust of both Andy and John’s arguments in the context of “education”, or perhaps to put it another way “preparation for a career journey”. Careers can be narrow and linear, or broad and multi-faceted. “Learning” can be something undertaken by children and younger adults and commonly described as “education”, or conducted over a lifetime in parallel with economically productive activity.

I won’t pursue detailed arguments here around the content or length of engineering “education”, but I’m pleased to note from the IET Press Release that attitudes are changing. Perhaps a highly academically selective and mathematically focussed pathway may not be so “essential” after all . I would observe, that in my experience this rigid dogma tends to deter and subsequently disillusion many who might otherwise find an engineering career interesting. Purely personally, I found the world of industry enjoyable with excellent training (including in a well-resourced training centre) and college based learning (to HNC) on the whole reasonably relevant. A diet of maths would have probably bored me into submission, even though I enjoyed it up to a point. I was also able to purchase my first home by the age of 21 and be in a management position at 27.

Based on personal experience, when in my 30s I first enrolled on an MSc (not in engineering), I found myself at a disadvantage relative to those with an undergraduate background in two main respects 1 “Scientific method”; i.e. how to research, assemble evidence , evaluate it and conclude; 2 “eloquence of expression” without lapsing into a more “industrial” vernacular. My involvement with others undertaking post-graduate programmes and those seeking CEng registration has reinforced these ideas. I don’t know how this relates to Alasdair’s experience? I was by then migrating away from engineering (I also did an MBA later) into a form of management, as many engineering careers do and as many CEng accredited undergraduate degrees anticipate by having a management element.

An effect of the approach adopted under the Engineering Council umbrella, has been to divide the practice of engineering at the earliest possible stage by academic means. However, this isn’t just an “engineering” issue it reflects the culture of most societies worldwide where education is a currency that provides access to opportunity. A recent example exploring this sociological aspect is here.   https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/596945/The_class_pay_gap_and_intergenerational_worklessness.pdf

An academic division that particularly rankles with me, is that a perfectly good Bachelor of Engineering or BSc Degree (even with 1st Class Honours), typically associated with apprenticeships and/or designated as “IEng accredited” is given a lower value than other more academically selective full-time programmes and the graduates of such programmes are placed into the “second class” stream of engineers, irrespective of their work performance.

There has been some modest progress in more fairly evaluating the competence of mid-career engineers, but Engineering Council still seeks to perpetuate division based on teenage academic selection throughout an engineering career. A particular effort has even been made in recent years to renounce its earlier “different but equally valuable” proposition. This has continued to dissuade the great majority of competent and professionally inclined practitioners from engaging in the registered community, as well as insulting and disillusioning many of those who were engaged (e.g. experienced IEng).

It may be convenient to categorise and classify children and young adults by academic attainment. It may be equally convenient to carry this categorisation forward into professional careers. Although many hugely successful people have demonstrated how to defy educational disadvantage and stigma (I didn’t take the 11+ exam but many of my classmates did). We also have within engineering (as demonstrated by contributors to this forum) many examples of people who achieved professional excellence, in spite of not following a gilded academic pathway in their early life.

We shouldn’t forget that many of those who drove technical innovation in the post-war period had left full-time education at the age of 14 or 15. By 1972/3 when the school leaving age was raised to 16 and the average currently registered professional engineer in the UK, either stayed on for A levels or got an Apprenticeship, a HNC was typically the highest qualification held by many Chartered Engineers. Only in 1999 was the academic benchmark inflated to an MEng or Masters Degree.

Were these earlier generations of engineers less “knowledgeable”, “competent”, “innovative” or even “rounded”? No they weren’t, they built modern world!

For various political reasons, including international comparisons, the benchmark qualifications for recognition as a professional engineer were inflated. In addition, subtler forms of rationing operated offering academic advantage and promoting elitism.

We need to support and encourage a variety of different models of education and training, aimed primarily at preparing people for technical careers. This includes those that produce genuinely creative thinking and practical inventiveness, rather than claims of “being characterised by innovation, creativity and change”, based seemingly on proficiency in calculus.

Many existing programmes are excellent and optimised to stretch the most academically able teenagers or underpin leading research. However, excellence can also be equally demonstrated by an apprentice in manufacturing who may offer a different balance between practice and theory. For the avoidance of any misunderstanding, I am not advocating mediocrity but plurality and I support enhanced recognition for enhanced career achievement and personal contribution. We should also to enthusiastically support post-graduate programmes often with flexible access and delivery, aimed at developing practising engineers and those migrating into the profession.

A professional engineering community has evolved with “all roof adornment and no foundations”, others have commonly described an “inverted pyramid”. However, the latter implies a traditional hierarchy with many at the bottom and few at the top. The foundations of a building, its walls and its roof, perform different but equally important functions. Pyramids were built because that was the only way people understood how create a large structure 4000 years ago. http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/goodbye-pyramid-hello-networked-organisation

As a profession we have focussed far too much on the search for “status” and attempting to perpetuate an “elite”, rather than ensuring that the mainstream of professional engineering practice is being nurtured and valued.

I hope that new models of undergraduate education and a resurgence of apprenticeships will produce a cohort of widely different, but equally valued Technicians and Engineers over the next ten years. The challenge for The IET and other leaders in the profession is to enable a transition of ownership for engineering “professionalism” to this newer generation, free from the baggage that hampers us now.

I’m delighted by the success of “9% is not enough” campaign addressing gender imbalance, although the figures for registered engineers are half that, being as low as 2% for IEng (supposedly the “mainstream” category!). We also need to focus on the iniquities that make it so much less likely that someone who achieves more modest grades in mathematics at the age of 16 will gain Chartered Engineer recognition and the associated privileges, like a voice in governing the profession, that such status affords. It seems that many former technical apprentices just become senior managers and directors instead, with those that remain primarily technical perhaps eventually gaining some recognition 25 or more years into career, if they chance across a friendly helper in the institution world.
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