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 Andy Millar over 7 years ago

Hi Moshe,

I sort of agree, but - in the UK at least - this has been the situation for the last 40 years. I started my undergraduate apprenticeship in 1979, and it was very clear over the next few years that we were the last major cohort of apprentices to go through the system. Not that it died away completely of course, but was nothing like the same level as it had been (I wonder if there are any figires around?). Equally, although apprentices were indentured for the duration of their apprenticeship, in practice many did leave immediately afterwards (Marconi particularly experienced this). Practically it's not possible to bind people to employers post trainiing in liberal countries, but of course employers can make sure their employment opportunities are such that post-apprentices don't want to leave. Let's face it, changing jobs isn't much fun, so it should be easier to retain apprentices than to recruit new people. I think it's fairly common practice to contract staff to repay a percentage of training costs (i.e. university / college fees) on a sliding scale if they leave over a period of a few years after the course is completed - certainly my previoous employer did this, although I don't know if it was ever enforced.

Personally my experience is that good managers don't worry about this issue, they understand that if they can provide good post-apprenticeship roles then they'll retain their staff, and if they can't then it's perfectly reasonable that those staff should go elsewhere.

The loyalty thing is interesting, I first heard in the 1980's recruiters saying that they were worried about candidates who'd stayed with the same company for more than three years, and considered them unemployable. And this attitude has stayed ever since. Actual engineers and engineering managers often have a very different view. Ensuring staff can change role wihtin a company every three years (or something like that) is an excellent way of retaining staff, and making sure they keep open to new ideas. But it is worrying when recruiters - who often have very little understanding of what an engineering role actually requires (and that's being polite) - spread these stories.

So bottom line as you might have gathered is that I have little sympathy with employers who use the "they'll only leave" argument to not offer apprenticeships, but sadly that feeling of "we're not going to do it, we'll let someone else do it" is pernicious in the industry.

To put this into context, in 17 years as an engineering manager of a reasonable sized team, which included taking on apprentices (sadly nowhere near as many as I would have liked) and sponsoring staff through degrees, I had two (2) resignations - both for family reasons unconnected with work. If you want to keep staff, you can keep staff. (Mind you, it is very hard work, I went back to being an engineer last year as I was exhausted from managing people!)

Really good points, thanks again!

On the bright side, I'm writing this on my way home from the RIA (UK Rail Industry Association) conference. One of the discussion points was about apprenticeships into the rail industry, and I'm pleased to say it wasn't a question of "shall we do it", it was "we are going to do it, how can we attract the best candidates?" Unfortunately it was in a room - as one speaker pointed out - almost totally comprised of middle aged white men in grey suits with varying degrees of hair loss. Of which Mea very much Culpa!

Cheers, Andy
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Andy Millar over 7 years ago

Hi Moshe,

I sort of agree, but - in the UK at least - this has been the situation for the last 40 years. I started my undergraduate apprenticeship in 1979, and it was very clear over the next few years that we were the last major cohort of apprentices to go through the system. Not that it died away completely of course, but was nothing like the same level as it had been (I wonder if there are any figires around?). Equally, although apprentices were indentured for the duration of their apprenticeship, in practice many did leave immediately afterwards (Marconi particularly experienced this). Practically it's not possible to bind people to employers post trainiing in liberal countries, but of course employers can make sure their employment opportunities are such that post-apprentices don't want to leave. Let's face it, changing jobs isn't much fun, so it should be easier to retain apprentices than to recruit new people. I think it's fairly common practice to contract staff to repay a percentage of training costs (i.e. university / college fees) on a sliding scale if they leave over a period of a few years after the course is completed - certainly my previoous employer did this, although I don't know if it was ever enforced.

Personally my experience is that good managers don't worry about this issue, they understand that if they can provide good post-apprenticeship roles then they'll retain their staff, and if they can't then it's perfectly reasonable that those staff should go elsewhere.

The loyalty thing is interesting, I first heard in the 1980's recruiters saying that they were worried about candidates who'd stayed with the same company for more than three years, and considered them unemployable. And this attitude has stayed ever since. Actual engineers and engineering managers often have a very different view. Ensuring staff can change role wihtin a company every three years (or something like that) is an excellent way of retaining staff, and making sure they keep open to new ideas. But it is worrying when recruiters - who often have very little understanding of what an engineering role actually requires (and that's being polite) - spread these stories.

So bottom line as you might have gathered is that I have little sympathy with employers who use the "they'll only leave" argument to not offer apprenticeships, but sadly that feeling of "we're not going to do it, we'll let someone else do it" is pernicious in the industry.

To put this into context, in 17 years as an engineering manager of a reasonable sized team, which included taking on apprentices (sadly nowhere near as many as I would have liked) and sponsoring staff through degrees, I had two (2) resignations - both for family reasons unconnected with work. If you want to keep staff, you can keep staff. (Mind you, it is very hard work, I went back to being an engineer last year as I was exhausted from managing people!)

Really good points, thanks again!

On the bright side, I'm writing this on my way home from the RIA (UK Rail Industry Association) conference. One of the discussion points was about apprenticeships into the rail industry, and I'm pleased to say it wasn't a question of "shall we do it", it was "we are going to do it, how can we attract the best candidates?" Unfortunately it was in a room - as one speaker pointed out - almost totally comprised of middle aged white men in grey suits with varying degrees of hair loss. Of which Mea very much Culpa!

Cheers, Andy
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

A new model of high-value engineering education

Community Rules & Guidelines