A new model of high-value engineering education

I thought that this thread was a discussion about developing people entering engineering careers. This certainly includes learning lessons from the past, when the apprenticeship model and more “vocational” academic provision from Colleges/Polytechnics was the mainstay of a largely successful national effort to produce highly skilled engineering practitioners. It is legitimate to examine the reasons why this has seemed to falter, including perhaps the contribution of attempting to align with international practice, such as via the Washington Accord.  

 

To the extent that John’s comments are relevant to this subject, I can find some measure of agreement and have tried to engage with them in that spirit. My previous post was intentionally slightly “lighter”,  since most of my contributions have been intended to offer a coherent argument for change in future.  When I stated  “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.” The intention was to counsel against this type of contribution not to encourage it.

 

I’m disappointed that John’s contribution, clearly motivated by a personal grudge (legitimate or not) detracts from the subject of the thread. Barry’s comments illustrate what I’m sure many readers will feel.  I’m not qualified to comment on the legality of the comments, but would observe that the latest post feels like a “Kitchen Sink and all rant”. I can empathise with John’s feeling of injustice, but The IET wasn’t the cause and IET forums aren’t the avenue to seek redress.    

 

As I hope is obvious, a lot of thought went into many of my contributions to this thread, together with those of others including links to conference papers. I suspect that this might be deleted once the lawyers run the rule over John’s comments.  Free speech requires moderate conduct and although probably not John’s intention, his “shouting” may have the effect of suppressing it.  

I have contributed to these forums for a number of years on a voluntary basis and although I work for the IET I am not its “spokesperson”.  Initially I sought to counter inaccurate or misleading material, where I was possessed of additional information. I also tried to represent the perspective of those drawn from “IIE traditions”, support the reinvigoration of apprenticeships and academic programmes closely interwoven with work-practice. I feel that the argument is being won and the agenda has been moved, in part by government action. For Example Andy Palmer  CEO of Aston Martin supports my perspective here  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07x6jz2 .  Examples are also offered in the podcast from other fields like finance.

 

Peter Miller’s challenge is to move forward without the smell of an “establishment stitch up”. However, we can’t reasonably expect those leading our profession to engage in a bar room brawl (to borrow Andy Millar’s analogy). We can evolve a better and fairer system by rational discussion, if we include the perspective of all who should have a valid input. Barry’s contribution illustrates that reasonable argument is listened to. But to borrow Andy’s comparison again, if this is just a rough bar full of people looking for a “punch-up” then sensible people (which I hope includes me) will find another place. 


I don’t favour state intervention, but if it took government action to grow higher and degree apprenticeships back from a very low base, then it may take more to ensure equal access to professional recognition. If we believe that what we already have is fair, then the market is broken, because most developing engineers and technicians are not seeing a benefit. I often hear from Chartered Engineers who came up “the hard way” or “the long way”, but for every one of them there are probably two or three similar others who “lost the way”, despite often successful careers in engineering and related management. The ball is in our court to do something! Perhaps we need an outsider with a successful business background to help us? 

I thought that this thread was a discussion about developing people entering engineering careers. This certainly includes learning lessons from the past, when the apprenticeship model and more “vocational” academic provision from Colleges/Polytechnics was the mainstay of a largely successful national effort to produce highly skilled engineering practitioners. It is legitimate to examine the reasons why this has seemed to falter, including perhaps the contribution of attempting to align with international practice, such as via the Washington Accord.  

 

To the extent that John’s comments are relevant to this subject, I can find some measure of agreement and have tried to engage with them in that spirit. My previous post was intentionally slightly “lighter”,  since most of my contributions have been intended to offer a coherent argument for change in future.  When I stated  “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.” The intention was to counsel against this type of contribution not to encourage it.

 

I’m disappointed that John’s contribution, clearly motivated by a personal grudge (legitimate or not) detracts from the subject of the thread. Barry’s comments illustrate what I’m sure many readers will feel.  I’m not qualified to comment on the legality of the comments, but would observe that the latest post feels like a “Kitchen Sink and all rant”. I can empathise with John’s feeling of injustice, but The IET wasn’t the cause and IET forums aren’t the avenue to seek redress.    

 

As I hope is obvious, a lot of thought went into many of my contributions to this thread, together with those of others including links to conference papers. I suspect that this might be deleted once the lawyers run the rule over John’s comments.  Free speech requires moderate conduct and although probably not John’s intention, his “shouting” may have the effect of suppressing it.  

I have contributed to these forums for a number of years on a voluntary basis and although I work for the IET I am not its “spokesperson”.  Initially I sought to counter inaccurate or misleading material, where I was possessed of additional information. I also tried to represent the perspective of those drawn from “IIE traditions”, support the reinvigoration of apprenticeships and academic programmes closely interwoven with work-practice. I feel that the argument is being won and the agenda has been moved, in part by government action. For Example Andy Palmer  CEO of Aston Martin supports my perspective here  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07x6jz2 .  Examples are also offered in the podcast from other fields like finance.

 

Peter Miller’s challenge is to move forward without the smell of an “establishment stitch up”. However, we can’t reasonably expect those leading our profession to engage in a bar room brawl (to borrow Andy Millar’s analogy). We can evolve a better and fairer system by rational discussion, if we include the perspective of all who should have a valid input. Barry’s contribution illustrates that reasonable argument is listened to. But to borrow Andy’s comparison again, if this is just a rough bar full of people looking for a “punch-up” then sensible people (which I hope includes me) will find another place. 


I don’t favour state intervention, but if it took government action to grow higher and degree apprenticeships back from a very low base, then it may take more to ensure equal access to professional recognition. If we believe that what we already have is fair, then the market is broken, because most developing engineers and technicians are not seeing a benefit. I often hear from Chartered Engineers who came up “the hard way” or “the long way”, but for every one of them there are probably two or three similar others who “lost the way”, despite often successful careers in engineering and related management. The ball is in our court to do something! Perhaps we need an outsider with a successful business background to help us?