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

John, I thought you were “resting"? The on-line world can become a bit addictive and not just to a younger generation! I happened to be in the forums addressing a members complaint when your first post of today landed. The main subject of this discussion thread is preparing Engineers and Technicians described as “Education” in title, but within which I would include Training and Development.

When I strip away those aspects of your arguments and oservations that seek to pin the blame on guilty parties for past failings and even apparently corrupt practice, I have some sympathy for aspects of your argument. I haven’t honestly encountered in my involvement with the IET or Engineering Council any corruption. However, wherever people gather together there will be politics, it is as fundamental as gravity. Unfortunately when any form of political process creates winners and losers, criticism and antagonism is likely follow.

Most readers of this forum will probably have engaged in some form of negotiation skills training. I hope therefore that they are familiar with the concepts of “Win-Lose”, “Lose-Lose” and “Win-Win”.

Moshe’s contribution as so often is helpful, since he seeks to explain what we have, acknowledging its imperfections and is seeking to build on that legacy rather than destroy. That system has ultimately worked well for him and he is a successful professional built via Technician and IEng, taking the time to put something back. On the other hand you feel that it has ultimately hampered you and clearly you have found yourself on the “wrong side” of politics. We can’t turn the clock back to deal with your grievances which were not caused by the IET (or ITEME, IMechIE, IIE). However, I would agree with the proposition that most of those “mainstream” engineers who for various reasons did not become chartered, have found themselves marginalised or disadvantaged by the current system.

I have been critical of Engineering Council, not in a search for blame, but as the “parliament” it is where the buck stops. If we cannot establish a fresh consensus and build for the future, then current trends will reduce substantially the size of the registered profession in the next decade or so.

At present the system for professional recognition is built from the top-down, it explicitly sets out to establish an elite. The elite who govern the system then allow others to engage in subsidiary forms of recognition. This seems increasingly anachronistic to those who might think of themselves as professional engineers or technicians and who potentially might be willing to participate in a professional community.

The solution is to pause and to rebuild from the bottom-up in future.

The proposition of professional recognition has to be “Win-Win”. Simply in practice this means engaging with every new apprentice or student of technology in equally respectful terms and seeking to nurture their progress. Different patterns of education and training will offer differently optimised blends of skills and knowledge. We can codify thresholds for recognition as a competent practitioner, committed to professional ethics. We can offer enhanced recognition to those who demonstrate further professional growth and ongoing commitment. This is different from focussing on the most selective academic undergraduate programmes and offering them elite status, which is currently the foundation stone.

We should focus on professional performance and on the service of engineers or technicians to society. Because the second part of this is sociological, I have to focus on the UK , since different cultures will drive different assumptions elsewhere. A report on “social mobility” in the UK was published earlier this week. Engineering was one of the professions which was praised with a good proportion emerging from more modest social backgrounds. This included those identified as professional engineers by government statisticians, not just our “Technological Elite”. If we consider this social benefit, in addition to wealth creation and practical usefulness of engineered products to society, then we have much with which to enthuse our own practitioners.

Our UK thresholds for recognition of a Technician and an Engineer seem about right to me. People who haven’t demonstrated the necessary standards will continue to colloquially style themselves as “Engineers”. Only ill-informed members of the public could possibly be superficially confused by this. If we really do want statutory protection then convince politicians that a majority of us are behind such a step.

Returning to the main subject of this thread, plurality and “life-long learning”, would be key themes for me. Our mission to enthuse and inspire shouldn’t just be aimed at children , but at current early and mid-career practioners. Several posts came before I could find time to respond plus the time to draft this, but keep it up Scott! We need a fresh perspective through younger eyes and challenges to the “exam factory” mentality.

By coincidence, I bumped into someone yesterday who I managed when he was an apprentice 20 years ago. He was very enthusiastic about how the intense blend of practice and theory had set him up for a successful career. He hadn’t registered yet because he had received negative messages about “only” having an enhanced HNC (“acceptable” for CEng for my manager when I was an apprentice). Hopefully he will get the recognition that his career deserves (many years too late) soon.

What we need in my opinion is a culture change (i.e. attitudes and behaviours), because if we take our standards out of the sociological context then they are mostly reasonably Ok. Elitism doesn’t just create a short term “Win-Lose” in creates a long term “Lose- Lose”.

Change is never easy, but the old-ways can’t dominate for ever. How about designating “status” a swear word within our community. Would that be a quick win?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 7 years ago

John, I thought you were “resting"? The on-line world can become a bit addictive and not just to a younger generation! I happened to be in the forums addressing a members complaint when your first post of today landed. The main subject of this discussion thread is preparing Engineers and Technicians described as “Education” in title, but within which I would include Training and Development.

When I strip away those aspects of your arguments and oservations that seek to pin the blame on guilty parties for past failings and even apparently corrupt practice, I have some sympathy for aspects of your argument. I haven’t honestly encountered in my involvement with the IET or Engineering Council any corruption. However, wherever people gather together there will be politics, it is as fundamental as gravity. Unfortunately when any form of political process creates winners and losers, criticism and antagonism is likely follow.

Most readers of this forum will probably have engaged in some form of negotiation skills training. I hope therefore that they are familiar with the concepts of “Win-Lose”, “Lose-Lose” and “Win-Win”.

Moshe’s contribution as so often is helpful, since he seeks to explain what we have, acknowledging its imperfections and is seeking to build on that legacy rather than destroy. That system has ultimately worked well for him and he is a successful professional built via Technician and IEng, taking the time to put something back. On the other hand you feel that it has ultimately hampered you and clearly you have found yourself on the “wrong side” of politics. We can’t turn the clock back to deal with your grievances which were not caused by the IET (or ITEME, IMechIE, IIE). However, I would agree with the proposition that most of those “mainstream” engineers who for various reasons did not become chartered, have found themselves marginalised or disadvantaged by the current system.

I have been critical of Engineering Council, not in a search for blame, but as the “parliament” it is where the buck stops. If we cannot establish a fresh consensus and build for the future, then current trends will reduce substantially the size of the registered profession in the next decade or so.

At present the system for professional recognition is built from the top-down, it explicitly sets out to establish an elite. The elite who govern the system then allow others to engage in subsidiary forms of recognition. This seems increasingly anachronistic to those who might think of themselves as professional engineers or technicians and who potentially might be willing to participate in a professional community.

The solution is to pause and to rebuild from the bottom-up in future.

The proposition of professional recognition has to be “Win-Win”. Simply in practice this means engaging with every new apprentice or student of technology in equally respectful terms and seeking to nurture their progress. Different patterns of education and training will offer differently optimised blends of skills and knowledge. We can codify thresholds for recognition as a competent practitioner, committed to professional ethics. We can offer enhanced recognition to those who demonstrate further professional growth and ongoing commitment. This is different from focussing on the most selective academic undergraduate programmes and offering them elite status, which is currently the foundation stone.

We should focus on professional performance and on the service of engineers or technicians to society. Because the second part of this is sociological, I have to focus on the UK , since different cultures will drive different assumptions elsewhere. A report on “social mobility” in the UK was published earlier this week. Engineering was one of the professions which was praised with a good proportion emerging from more modest social backgrounds. This included those identified as professional engineers by government statisticians, not just our “Technological Elite”. If we consider this social benefit, in addition to wealth creation and practical usefulness of engineered products to society, then we have much with which to enthuse our own practitioners.

Our UK thresholds for recognition of a Technician and an Engineer seem about right to me. People who haven’t demonstrated the necessary standards will continue to colloquially style themselves as “Engineers”. Only ill-informed members of the public could possibly be superficially confused by this. If we really do want statutory protection then convince politicians that a majority of us are behind such a step.

Returning to the main subject of this thread, plurality and “life-long learning”, would be key themes for me. Our mission to enthuse and inspire shouldn’t just be aimed at children , but at current early and mid-career practioners. Several posts came before I could find time to respond plus the time to draft this, but keep it up Scott! We need a fresh perspective through younger eyes and challenges to the “exam factory” mentality.

By coincidence, I bumped into someone yesterday who I managed when he was an apprentice 20 years ago. He was very enthusiastic about how the intense blend of practice and theory had set him up for a successful career. He hadn’t registered yet because he had received negative messages about “only” having an enhanced HNC (“acceptable” for CEng for my manager when I was an apprentice). Hopefully he will get the recognition that his career deserves (many years too late) soon.

What we need in my opinion is a culture change (i.e. attitudes and behaviours), because if we take our standards out of the sociological context then they are mostly reasonably Ok. Elitism doesn’t just create a short term “Win-Lose” in creates a long term “Lose- Lose”.

Change is never easy, but the old-ways can’t dominate for ever. How about designating “status” a swear word within our community. Would that be a quick win?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

A new model of high-value engineering education

Community Rules & Guidelines