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

The academic conference referred to in my previous post has published its proceedings. This is a long document which would only appeal in full to those with a strong interest in the subject, although a speed read, gives a good feel for the direction of travel.

http://epc.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/New-Approaches-Conference-Proceedings-book-final.pdf

I’m pleased that many of the papers presented align quite well with my own thinking, albeit approached from a different direction with slightly different motives. My perspective could be characterised as primarily an “industrial” one , although I did instigate and subsequently worked closely with academic partners to develop a degree programme some years ago. That programme was characterised by integrating work-practice and was conducted on a part-time “block release” basis. Slightly earlier with a Higher Diploma outcome it was successful in the National Training Awards (https://doi.org/10.1108/ict.2005.03737aab.001 subscriber only) and subsequently influenced the “Degree Apprenticeship” model. However this wasn’t a new concept at all, it was “back to the future” and mirrored a highly successful model of Engineer Training that was prevalent in the UK during the post-war period. My company had in fact sponsored “National College” facilities before I was born, which became a “Polytechnic” and from 1992 “University”.

I noted in the paper by Janusz A. Koziński and Eddy F. Evans, Lassonde School of Engineering, Toronto, Canada a diagram on page 36 of the proceedings, this is a graphical representation of how the balance between theory and practice in “engineer education” had moved over time. The diagram below, not taken from the conference proceedings but also of North American origin illustrates a continuum in which a different emphasis in the balance of undergraduate courses (Engineering V Engineering Technology) prepares prospective professionals to be more or less optimised for different roles http://www.rit.edu/emcs/admissions/images/stories/assorted/engineering/eng-vs-engtech.gif

Although I haven’t seen any specific research studies seeking to correlate performance in the workplace with academic preparation (there may be some?). I think that most experienced people would find something like this continuum a credible hypothesis. It also seems reasonable that except perhaps at the extreme right of the continuum, the nature of work-experience will correlate at least equally, if not more closely with performance than initial education (aka preparation). Also towards the right stronger correlations would be found with post-graduate degree attributes.

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.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

The academic conference referred to in my previous post has published its proceedings. This is a long document which would only appeal in full to those with a strong interest in the subject, although a speed read, gives a good feel for the direction of travel.

http://epc.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/New-Approaches-Conference-Proceedings-book-final.pdf

I’m pleased that many of the papers presented align quite well with my own thinking, albeit approached from a different direction with slightly different motives. My perspective could be characterised as primarily an “industrial” one , although I did instigate and subsequently worked closely with academic partners to develop a degree programme some years ago. That programme was characterised by integrating work-practice and was conducted on a part-time “block release” basis. Slightly earlier with a Higher Diploma outcome it was successful in the National Training Awards (https://doi.org/10.1108/ict.2005.03737aab.001 subscriber only) and subsequently influenced the “Degree Apprenticeship” model. However this wasn’t a new concept at all, it was “back to the future” and mirrored a highly successful model of Engineer Training that was prevalent in the UK during the post-war period. My company had in fact sponsored “National College” facilities before I was born, which became a “Polytechnic” and from 1992 “University”.

I noted in the paper by Janusz A. Koziński and Eddy F. Evans, Lassonde School of Engineering, Toronto, Canada a diagram on page 36 of the proceedings, this is a graphical representation of how the balance between theory and practice in “engineer education” had moved over time. The diagram below, not taken from the conference proceedings but also of North American origin illustrates a continuum in which a different emphasis in the balance of undergraduate courses (Engineering V Engineering Technology) prepares prospective professionals to be more or less optimised for different roles http://www.rit.edu/emcs/admissions/images/stories/assorted/engineering/eng-vs-engtech.gif

Although I haven’t seen any specific research studies seeking to correlate performance in the workplace with academic preparation (there may be some?). I think that most experienced people would find something like this continuum a credible hypothesis. It also seems reasonable that except perhaps at the extreme right of the continuum, the nature of work-experience will correlate at least equally, if not more closely with performance than initial education (aka preparation). Also towards the right stronger correlations would be found with post-graduate degree attributes.

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.
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