A new model of high-value engineering education

Moshe & Andy,

 

You highlighted important issues of the return on investment of education and vocational training. Andy has given a good response which I don’t feel a need to add to. Inevitably much investment comes directly or indirectly from the public purse or taxation, including the special “Apprenticeship Levy” recently introduced in the UK. Industry Training Boards have a significant history and from 1950s-1980s many Apprenticeships were offered by the Nationalised Industries and Armed Forces. Most Apprenticeships in Engineering were of at least four-years duration from the age of 16, although the historic tradition going back to medieval times was for an Apprentice to be bound to their "Master" until majority (i.e. age 21).  There were different “streams” for “Craft” and “Technician/Engineer” including some graduate recruitment of Engineers (rather than just “management trainees”), with progression as talent emerged through transition into adulthood. Relatively few women were involved in what was culturally mainly a “Man’s World”.  

 

From the 1990s (in the UK) Engineering Apprenticeships declined and participation in Higher Education grew. A quarter of a century down the line, I think that we need to take stock of the positive and negative effects of this change on  those who practice Engineering and Technology. In this thread, how they are prepared by Education and Training, “learning” or whatever terminology we want to use. The context is a discussion between members of the IET the largest UK professional body, stated aims being to engage with and nurture “Engineers and Technicians” and to collaborate with others who share similar aims.  

 

These forums only rarely attract contributions from those in positions of power and influence or academics. The former no doubt wary of the “blame game” and emotive argument that may come their way. The latter perhaps finding better value for their ideas by expressing them elsewhere, such as the excellent conference papers.  Nevertheless contributions here do represent a substantial body of real world experience and personal interpretation thereof.

 

Sorry that I started this post with a backwards looking perspective, which regular contributors might find repetitive. My justification is to inform someone new to the discussion of some  context. Most of the bitterness and recrimination found in these forums comes from those who feel unfairly disadvantaged, by the influence of professional institutions , otherwise slighted, or in some cases mistreated in some aspect of their experience at work, in education or society more widely. However, many of those they blame also share similar feelings, such as for example the lack of status that they feel relative to some other professionals, perhaps medicine in particular. From their perspective the problem is those who haven’t gained the same level of “learnedness” diluting what status they have.

 

We can’t change the past but we can learn lessons and move forward.  We are rightly seeking to inspire young people to pursue engineering careers, but at the same time we deter many of those who have not been enthused of mathematics by their early teens. Some level of numerical fluency and basic scientific understanding are needed in most forms of engineering and technology careers, but we “weed out” by academic selection many who we could be encouraging. By the age of 18 those with aptitudes and motivational factors that are more practical in nature may already be either deterred, or potentially negatively affected by snobbery and relative disadvantage. There is a strong culture in education that positions early employment (such as an Apprenticeship) as a fall-back for the less able.


When I developed (with academic partners) a training programme of four-years to include a degree, it was in part to ensure that prospective recruits did not apply as a “fall-back position” , especially when university tuition fees were much lower (£1000 PA).  Selection was not intended to develop only a “high-flying elite” but a broad talent pool. Academic attainment was a factor in the mix, but psychometric tests (e.g. SHL) were also useful. The BSc(Hons) degree was eventually IEng accredited, but some of those who became technically specialised were easily a match for an MEng graduate several years into a career in that sector. Perhaps even more importantly, the mix produced mutually respectful team-workers with a strong work-ethic , not a misplaced sense of entitlement or elitism (Engineering Council’s number one CEng product benefit “The status of being part of a technological elite”).  Degree Apprentices coming through in the next few years from leading employers will be similar and will not (quite reasonably) accept “the status of being second-class professionals” relative to age group peers, especially contrary to the evidence of their performance.

 

On the return on investment point, in most sectors it is possible for an able motivated apprentice on a well-designed scheme to begin making a positive net contribution after a year and get close to cost neutral over 4-5 years, including any public subsidy (such as College/University). People do move on for opportunity and because of “poaching”, but loyalty is typically greater than from a former undergraduate. Clearly there can be no “one-size fits all” and the full-time degree + training + experience model is based on convenient cultural and administrative assumptions. We should compare return on investment and performance in career, instead of just “assume for convenience”.

 

It seems that the prevailing assumptions and the messages that we are giving to prospective and emerging engineers are stuck at the end of the last century. In some respects as a profession we might have been better stuck at the end of the previous one, at least for successful self-made engineers?  We have long-debated how to identify the division between the different types of engineering practitioners that we have codified, especially who should be a Chartered Engineer and who shouldn’t, with many who we presume to judge not being participants in that debate. We then try to explain that to those who might be interested, either by reference to qualifications, or types of practice. It seems we have had only limited success in capturing their enthusiasm or convincing them about the validity of the distinctions that we draw.

 

I support plurality, including matching those with strong academic talents and motivation to stretching academic opportunities. But perhaps we need to develop a new consensus based on performance thresholds, working from the bottom up with maximum engagement and fairness in mind.  We know the limited appeal of  two out of our three recognitions, as Prof Uff pointed out, he aslo noted the "strange" situation of many leaders being former Apprentices, whilst their successors faced snobbery.   


Perhaps if everyone has to demonstrate the same initial threshold of competence with further further performance built upon that, then the system will be seen to be fairer and more valid by most stakeholders? A good principle could be that any registrant is entitled to express a valid professional opinion? Sadly, Engineering Council’s policy suggests that only those of a “higher” nature can evaluate those who are “lower” and not vice-versa. This amply illustrates how status is supposed to trickle down, rather than be built from the bottom up . There was good reason for Engineering Council adopting the idea that each type of registerable contribution, was “different but equally valuable”.  Different patterns of Engineer and Technician education (and training) prepare people more or less optimally for different roles, often with a lot of overlap and flexibility.  We should of course have a robust terminal standard for experienced professionals. The current CEng standard is being achieved by quite a few 8-10 years into career with a degree. I’m not advocating anything less, unless you believe that an MEng after four years results in superior performance, relative to other engineering degrees and to those with strong work-based equivalent learning at eight years, in the “mainstream” of engineering practice. In which case please offer evidence of correlation?       

Moshe & Andy,

 

You highlighted important issues of the return on investment of education and vocational training. Andy has given a good response which I don’t feel a need to add to. Inevitably much investment comes directly or indirectly from the public purse or taxation, including the special “Apprenticeship Levy” recently introduced in the UK. Industry Training Boards have a significant history and from 1950s-1980s many Apprenticeships were offered by the Nationalised Industries and Armed Forces. Most Apprenticeships in Engineering were of at least four-years duration from the age of 16, although the historic tradition going back to medieval times was for an Apprentice to be bound to their "Master" until majority (i.e. age 21).  There were different “streams” for “Craft” and “Technician/Engineer” including some graduate recruitment of Engineers (rather than just “management trainees”), with progression as talent emerged through transition into adulthood. Relatively few women were involved in what was culturally mainly a “Man’s World”.  

 

From the 1990s (in the UK) Engineering Apprenticeships declined and participation in Higher Education grew. A quarter of a century down the line, I think that we need to take stock of the positive and negative effects of this change on  those who practice Engineering and Technology. In this thread, how they are prepared by Education and Training, “learning” or whatever terminology we want to use. The context is a discussion between members of the IET the largest UK professional body, stated aims being to engage with and nurture “Engineers and Technicians” and to collaborate with others who share similar aims.  

 

These forums only rarely attract contributions from those in positions of power and influence or academics. The former no doubt wary of the “blame game” and emotive argument that may come their way. The latter perhaps finding better value for their ideas by expressing them elsewhere, such as the excellent conference papers.  Nevertheless contributions here do represent a substantial body of real world experience and personal interpretation thereof.

 

Sorry that I started this post with a backwards looking perspective, which regular contributors might find repetitive. My justification is to inform someone new to the discussion of some  context. Most of the bitterness and recrimination found in these forums comes from those who feel unfairly disadvantaged, by the influence of professional institutions , otherwise slighted, or in some cases mistreated in some aspect of their experience at work, in education or society more widely. However, many of those they blame also share similar feelings, such as for example the lack of status that they feel relative to some other professionals, perhaps medicine in particular. From their perspective the problem is those who haven’t gained the same level of “learnedness” diluting what status they have.

 

We can’t change the past but we can learn lessons and move forward.  We are rightly seeking to inspire young people to pursue engineering careers, but at the same time we deter many of those who have not been enthused of mathematics by their early teens. Some level of numerical fluency and basic scientific understanding are needed in most forms of engineering and technology careers, but we “weed out” by academic selection many who we could be encouraging. By the age of 18 those with aptitudes and motivational factors that are more practical in nature may already be either deterred, or potentially negatively affected by snobbery and relative disadvantage. There is a strong culture in education that positions early employment (such as an Apprenticeship) as a fall-back for the less able.


When I developed (with academic partners) a training programme of four-years to include a degree, it was in part to ensure that prospective recruits did not apply as a “fall-back position” , especially when university tuition fees were much lower (£1000 PA).  Selection was not intended to develop only a “high-flying elite” but a broad talent pool. Academic attainment was a factor in the mix, but psychometric tests (e.g. SHL) were also useful. The BSc(Hons) degree was eventually IEng accredited, but some of those who became technically specialised were easily a match for an MEng graduate several years into a career in that sector. Perhaps even more importantly, the mix produced mutually respectful team-workers with a strong work-ethic , not a misplaced sense of entitlement or elitism (Engineering Council’s number one CEng product benefit “The status of being part of a technological elite”).  Degree Apprentices coming through in the next few years from leading employers will be similar and will not (quite reasonably) accept “the status of being second-class professionals” relative to age group peers, especially contrary to the evidence of their performance.

 

On the return on investment point, in most sectors it is possible for an able motivated apprentice on a well-designed scheme to begin making a positive net contribution after a year and get close to cost neutral over 4-5 years, including any public subsidy (such as College/University). People do move on for opportunity and because of “poaching”, but loyalty is typically greater than from a former undergraduate. Clearly there can be no “one-size fits all” and the full-time degree + training + experience model is based on convenient cultural and administrative assumptions. We should compare return on investment and performance in career, instead of just “assume for convenience”.

 

It seems that the prevailing assumptions and the messages that we are giving to prospective and emerging engineers are stuck at the end of the last century. In some respects as a profession we might have been better stuck at the end of the previous one, at least for successful self-made engineers?  We have long-debated how to identify the division between the different types of engineering practitioners that we have codified, especially who should be a Chartered Engineer and who shouldn’t, with many who we presume to judge not being participants in that debate. We then try to explain that to those who might be interested, either by reference to qualifications, or types of practice. It seems we have had only limited success in capturing their enthusiasm or convincing them about the validity of the distinctions that we draw.

 

I support plurality, including matching those with strong academic talents and motivation to stretching academic opportunities. But perhaps we need to develop a new consensus based on performance thresholds, working from the bottom up with maximum engagement and fairness in mind.  We know the limited appeal of  two out of our three recognitions, as Prof Uff pointed out, he aslo noted the "strange" situation of many leaders being former Apprentices, whilst their successors faced snobbery.   


Perhaps if everyone has to demonstrate the same initial threshold of competence with further further performance built upon that, then the system will be seen to be fairer and more valid by most stakeholders? A good principle could be that any registrant is entitled to express a valid professional opinion? Sadly, Engineering Council’s policy suggests that only those of a “higher” nature can evaluate those who are “lower” and not vice-versa. This amply illustrates how status is supposed to trickle down, rather than be built from the bottom up . There was good reason for Engineering Council adopting the idea that each type of registerable contribution, was “different but equally valuable”.  Different patterns of Engineer and Technician education (and training) prepare people more or less optimally for different roles, often with a lot of overlap and flexibility.  We should of course have a robust terminal standard for experienced professionals. The current CEng standard is being achieved by quite a few 8-10 years into career with a degree. I’m not advocating anything less, unless you believe that an MEng after four years results in superior performance, relative to other engineering degrees and to those with strong work-based equivalent learning at eight years, in the “mainstream” of engineering practice. In which case please offer evidence of correlation?