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:

  1. 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).


  1. 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 6th 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
  • John's posting is irrelevant to this thread (ok, I often post tangentally to threads but I'm not expecting the world to change because of it!) But one point I will pick up: I would not expect any professional engineer to give their opinon on a large scale critical engineering matter on these forums. That may seem a slightly odd statement, but it is important to remember that - as I tend to put it - these foums have the status of a pub conversation. Readers have no evidence of the professional status of any poster, so making any decision based solely on advice given here would be daft. To take a recent example, I took part in a discussion on a rail safety matter to add in a bit of perspective, but would not get into a debate as to a "right" or "wrong" approach - which would actully involve many weeks or months of investigation and possibly 100s of pages of reports.


    An effect of this is that we can chat all day about fusion (to take this example), but any engineers who actually know what they are talking about are unlikely to bother to get very heavily involved, like most engineering subjects there's a huge limit as to how much you can usefully say in a couple of hundred words. Of course, giving pointers to where to find specific information is great, and - to my mind - should be one of the key points of these forums. Although even then commercial considerations can make it difficult.


    There are many things I can (and do smiley) criticise the IET for. But ever since I became a member of the IEE, the most useful aspect for me - other than getting CEng - has been the conferences and seminars it organises. These are the places to discuss weighty matters, and they are used that way. I certainly agree that there are too many aspects of the world that the IET is trying to cover which are not effectively addressed by these, and that is a problem the IET needs to address. (It has been said in the past "we do what members ask us to do" which doesn't work, organisations grow by anticipating needs their "customers" didn't even know they had. But it seems the IET's approach now is rather more proactive which is good.)


    Key point: Simple explanations or justifications for just about anything - such as are found in newspaper headlines or forum postings - are both very appealing and almost always too simplistic to be of any use whatsoever. US Presidents may be able to make their decisions based on Twitter hearsay, but hopefuly engineers are a bit more professional than that wink


    Anyway not a discussion for this thread. Let's try to stick to education here.


    Cheers, Andy
Reply
  • John's posting is irrelevant to this thread (ok, I often post tangentally to threads but I'm not expecting the world to change because of it!) But one point I will pick up: I would not expect any professional engineer to give their opinon on a large scale critical engineering matter on these forums. That may seem a slightly odd statement, but it is important to remember that - as I tend to put it - these foums have the status of a pub conversation. Readers have no evidence of the professional status of any poster, so making any decision based solely on advice given here would be daft. To take a recent example, I took part in a discussion on a rail safety matter to add in a bit of perspective, but would not get into a debate as to a "right" or "wrong" approach - which would actully involve many weeks or months of investigation and possibly 100s of pages of reports.


    An effect of this is that we can chat all day about fusion (to take this example), but any engineers who actually know what they are talking about are unlikely to bother to get very heavily involved, like most engineering subjects there's a huge limit as to how much you can usefully say in a couple of hundred words. Of course, giving pointers to where to find specific information is great, and - to my mind - should be one of the key points of these forums. Although even then commercial considerations can make it difficult.


    There are many things I can (and do smiley) criticise the IET for. But ever since I became a member of the IEE, the most useful aspect for me - other than getting CEng - has been the conferences and seminars it organises. These are the places to discuss weighty matters, and they are used that way. I certainly agree that there are too many aspects of the world that the IET is trying to cover which are not effectively addressed by these, and that is a problem the IET needs to address. (It has been said in the past "we do what members ask us to do" which doesn't work, organisations grow by anticipating needs their "customers" didn't even know they had. But it seems the IET's approach now is rather more proactive which is good.)


    Key point: Simple explanations or justifications for just about anything - such as are found in newspaper headlines or forum postings - are both very appealing and almost always too simplistic to be of any use whatsoever. US Presidents may be able to make their decisions based on Twitter hearsay, but hopefuly engineers are a bit more professional than that wink


    Anyway not a discussion for this thread. Let's try to stick to education here.


    Cheers, Andy
Children
No Data