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 has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can 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 7 years ago

I liked John’s post because he offers a vivid personal picture of Engineering Education Training and Development from 50 years ago. The RAE was at the time a world leading organisation and much of what he subsequently describes also relates to activities at the forefront of technology. Having been involved in establishing a professional body for Mechanical Technician Engineers is also something very worthy of respect. Although I can find some reason in his conclusions and opinions, “mud-slinging” and a “blame game” can’t take us forward. We could argue interminably about, why where we find ourselves now is sub-optimal. Perhaps the “jealous politicians” and “closed-shop, secret society hegemonists” could be named and shamed in some form of Witch Hunt? Collective future benefit zero, but some revenge for the aggrieved.

As I see it looking back for blame is simply a “cock-up versus conspiracy” debate, I prefer to take the view that decisions have been made for seemingly good reasons at the time. I disagree with some but it is easy to crticise with hindsight. Thanks to the contributions of our overseas members, it seems to me that this isn’t a uniquely UK issue.

I liked Peter’s post, because he, succinctly challenges the status quo. The suggestion seems to be that governance of the profession has not been fairly representative of the practice of engineering as a whole, does not want to, or is not able to affect any useful change. This is a fair challenge, with evidence to support it (such as “the IEng problem”) whether you agree or not.

Personally I’m sad that the divisions created by the profession, have produced something of a bitter legacy. I do not want the situation to exist in future where some well-trained and competent practitioners of good character, find themselves diminished or unwelcome as participants in a professional community. A challenge for the IET and like-minded organisations is how to make the “Learned Society model” which has many good features, relevant and attractive to all those who we seek to represent , a very broad group indeed. As I see it (certainly not as a sycophant) the IET has made good progress in being more inclusive, with two others of the big three, not so far off. This is probably a "half-full versus half-empty" argument, depending on where you stand, but objectively there are many positives and most members are satisfied.

This thread was created in response to academics seeing the need to offer a different approach to undergraduate engineering degree courses. There seems to have developed (not just in the UK) a disconnect between academic study and practice. Many assumptions such as the length of courses, have remained largely unchallenged for a long time. Quality assurance mechanisms such as accreditation have maintained reasonable consistency of content and minimum standards. Many excellent engineers have also been developed through such programmes. However, it seems that most of the graduates could not reasonably be seen as “work ready” and require a similar period of workplace preparation. I’m not saying that this is “wrong”. My argument is about optimisation, efficiency and especially the unfair treatment of those who have met a similar minimum standard of “learnedness”, sometimes in a more work relevant way or more quickly, through higher intensity.

Unfortunately attempts to codify, categorise and distinguish between, different types of professional contribution in Engineering and Technology, have chosen to use an academic “snapshot” at a very early stage of career. As is common in the hands of educationists, vocational attainment is undervalued relative to academic. This further introduces the sociological elements of access to academic opportunity and social class.

Peer Review using UK-SPEC as carried out by the IET, doesn’t present a rigid academic barrier, but it can be very difficult to apply fairly, especially when trying to distinguish between the two categories of Engineer where practice overlaps.However, some present this divide as a yawning chasm, valuing one side hugely disproportionately more than the other which magnifies the problem. The peer review principle is actually a very good one and a foundation stone of justice systems.

John stated Apprentices work and study full time, or full time and night school. We worked from 7.30 AM to 9.30 PM 3 days a week and two days full time, with 11 days annual leave. A full-time student (slight edit) will study 2 short semesters with very long holidays they have a lot of experience to catch upon.

To compete with this would seem like the famous Monty Python Sketch https://genius.com/Monty-python-four-yorkshiremen-live-lyrics and I couldn’t personally, since my apprenticeship was relatively "cushy" in comparison, although I had to work the time back, to continue study later. However, the programme that I described in my previous post, required a very high level of commitment, discipline and hard work. Some technical careers require much perspiration and relatively modest inspiration, in others the balance is reversed.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 7 years ago

I liked John’s post because he offers a vivid personal picture of Engineering Education Training and Development from 50 years ago. The RAE was at the time a world leading organisation and much of what he subsequently describes also relates to activities at the forefront of technology. Having been involved in establishing a professional body for Mechanical Technician Engineers is also something very worthy of respect. Although I can find some reason in his conclusions and opinions, “mud-slinging” and a “blame game” can’t take us forward. We could argue interminably about, why where we find ourselves now is sub-optimal. Perhaps the “jealous politicians” and “closed-shop, secret society hegemonists” could be named and shamed in some form of Witch Hunt? Collective future benefit zero, but some revenge for the aggrieved.

As I see it looking back for blame is simply a “cock-up versus conspiracy” debate, I prefer to take the view that decisions have been made for seemingly good reasons at the time. I disagree with some but it is easy to crticise with hindsight. Thanks to the contributions of our overseas members, it seems to me that this isn’t a uniquely UK issue.

I liked Peter’s post, because he, succinctly challenges the status quo. The suggestion seems to be that governance of the profession has not been fairly representative of the practice of engineering as a whole, does not want to, or is not able to affect any useful change. This is a fair challenge, with evidence to support it (such as “the IEng problem”) whether you agree or not.

Personally I’m sad that the divisions created by the profession, have produced something of a bitter legacy. I do not want the situation to exist in future where some well-trained and competent practitioners of good character, find themselves diminished or unwelcome as participants in a professional community. A challenge for the IET and like-minded organisations is how to make the “Learned Society model” which has many good features, relevant and attractive to all those who we seek to represent , a very broad group indeed. As I see it (certainly not as a sycophant) the IET has made good progress in being more inclusive, with two others of the big three, not so far off. This is probably a "half-full versus half-empty" argument, depending on where you stand, but objectively there are many positives and most members are satisfied.

This thread was created in response to academics seeing the need to offer a different approach to undergraduate engineering degree courses. There seems to have developed (not just in the UK) a disconnect between academic study and practice. Many assumptions such as the length of courses, have remained largely unchallenged for a long time. Quality assurance mechanisms such as accreditation have maintained reasonable consistency of content and minimum standards. Many excellent engineers have also been developed through such programmes. However, it seems that most of the graduates could not reasonably be seen as “work ready” and require a similar period of workplace preparation. I’m not saying that this is “wrong”. My argument is about optimisation, efficiency and especially the unfair treatment of those who have met a similar minimum standard of “learnedness”, sometimes in a more work relevant way or more quickly, through higher intensity.

Unfortunately attempts to codify, categorise and distinguish between, different types of professional contribution in Engineering and Technology, have chosen to use an academic “snapshot” at a very early stage of career. As is common in the hands of educationists, vocational attainment is undervalued relative to academic. This further introduces the sociological elements of access to academic opportunity and social class.

Peer Review using UK-SPEC as carried out by the IET, doesn’t present a rigid academic barrier, but it can be very difficult to apply fairly, especially when trying to distinguish between the two categories of Engineer where practice overlaps.However, some present this divide as a yawning chasm, valuing one side hugely disproportionately more than the other which magnifies the problem. The peer review principle is actually a very good one and a foundation stone of justice systems.

John stated Apprentices work and study full time, or full time and night school. We worked from 7.30 AM to 9.30 PM 3 days a week and two days full time, with 11 days annual leave. A full-time student (slight edit) will study 2 short semesters with very long holidays they have a lot of experience to catch upon.

To compete with this would seem like the famous Monty Python Sketch https://genius.com/Monty-python-four-yorkshiremen-live-lyrics and I couldn’t personally, since my apprenticeship was relatively "cushy" in comparison, although I had to work the time back, to continue study later. However, the programme that I described in my previous post, required a very high level of commitment, discipline and hard work. Some technical careers require much perspiration and relatively modest inspiration, in others the balance is reversed.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

A new model of high-value engineering education

Community Rules & Guidelines