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.
  • 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 smileyhttps://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.


     





     

  • Roy's post sums up the current situation accurately and I think most of us on this forum thread agree with him. However I think Roy ideas for change will not find a common view in the IET or the other PEI's or Engineering Council. In respect of the Uff report one industry comentator said:-

    quote
    With a certain weariness, Uff comments that his conclusions are not much different to those of other similar reviews conducted over the past 30 years. As for his findings, the engineering institutions have done very little to discuss them with the outside world. The report has been largely buried from view. The inference is that after a certain amount of ritualised self-flagellation – all carried out away from the public gaze – things will carry on much as before.

    unquote

    Sums it up really!
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Roy Andy Moshe -
    MIETs



    I do not think that we
    play in the same ball park, Moshe is in a Liberal country and Andy
    was an A level student apprentice; we have a UK PEI that has
    pursued globalism, commoditization by its CEng electrical hegemony,
    resulting in a CEng community hostile to the backbone
    PEs.



    We have a British home
    problem, and the ideals of Student Apprenticeships have been
    lost.



    Reading these blogs, I
    feel that I am from another era, when education was a question of
    class and university was a question of finances. However I have
    just added another world first to my CV in developing a new DAD
    procedure using a new branch of mathematics developed by our
    student and our in house mathematicians. I can give my advice on
    mathematics in engineering as I took a further degree in the
    faculty of mathematics, The fact that I had Oxford professors is
    not important. Maths is not my cup of tea, but I use it and
    understand it.



    Those that undertook
    manual work or craft apprenticeships were not lacking in
    intelligence, just lacking in chance, now we have a selective
    education system so the brightest have a good chance of gaining the
    education they want, if they work. Finances can now be found or
    borrowed. Those that are bright but not mathematically inclined can
    master trades – plumbers are paid more than engineers in
    France.

    This explains the
    attitude of members who have been to university as opposed to those
    that could not. There are still inequalities in the UK; the ECUK
    with PEIs could give a second chance to those that want to enter
    engineering following the UK Spec. They used to do this very well,
    now they are reverting to an elitist cartel. Note the ECUK only
    acts on the PEIs instructions, so do not blame ECUK, blame your PEI
    leaders.



    The result is restrictive practice in
    recruiting (CEng
    only)
    by positive
    discrimination
    in favor of university graduates, and
    denigrating apprentice trained engineers with the same
    diplomas.

    In the UK we still have
    this class struggle, as seen in this blog, those that have a BSc
    from full time university study, want to lock out what is termed
    the I Eng a
    professional engineer. They will dig they heels in, then use all
    the underhanded means to gain their goals, the result is that
    professional engineering suffers, IET becomes a CEng stronghold and
    the UK Technology businesses are becoming subservient to foreign
    technology companies. The days of British is best is long
    past.



    By recognizing
    professional engineers we can bring back quality, productivity, and
    lateral thinking in ingenious engineering. 

    The University system
    only covers a part of this technology experience acquisition. The
    UK 2016, the OCED and
    now EU national leaders
    are calling for sound technical
    education and practical training, it is not a faculty
    monopoly.



    Roy qoted:

    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”. 



    I came from the leading
    UK experimental school, at 15 I could make engineering drawings,
    define all the major steel making plants, and had learnt the
    rudiments of the major crafts. I was near bilingual and well
    educated. It was too good; the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians.

    I was indentured to the
    Minister of Aviation in person, my parents lost control of my
    rights, I was an O level student apprentice bound for HND and
    Master at Loughborough University, again the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians
    . This was not in medieval times.
     
    At 17 the laws changed, so did my
    apprenticeship.

    I was offered the long
    road and craft apprenticeship. Apprenticeships were for 5 years and
    two years journeyman was recommended. In France the Companion and
    his Journeying still exist. Mine was reduced to 4
    years.

    I was based at RAE Farnborough, I
    negotiated my new training in all the major laboratories workshops
    and wind tunnels, I worked on the UK leading technology projects,
    my apprentice masters were the world war II boffins, and leading UK
    technologists.



    Such excellence cannot be
    achieved now, but on these blogs and with Roy’s wise guidance, a
    path to the future education, training and recognition of
    Professional Engineers has been drawn. It needs to be implemented
    before the system will
    be destroyed by jealous politicians
    .



    When Andy undertook his A
    level apprenticeship, the craft apprentices were trained as
    craftsmen, not as future draughtsmen, technicians or
    engineers.



    Roy describes the old
    system well. 

    At RAE we were selected
    after a year of tests and interviews we were a representative cross
    section of British society, and regions, one of our comrades wore
    plus fours and drove a 3 wheel Morgan, another stated that he
    rarely saw his parents because he never knew which wing they slept
    in. I was a typical man from the war torn ruins of a UK industrial
    town – we were all British and engineers. 

    We had no girls, no
    immigrants and no commonwealth partners- BREXIT will change all
    that! – it won’t be
    destroyed by jealous politicians
    .

    Then a group of young
    women arrived from the Surry University electrical – electronic
    Faculty. A group of Ceylonese students joined our college, life was
    more colourful. Change was on route. 

    Eventually some years
    later the RAE was disbanded as was its apprenticeship; the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians.



    A new form of
    apprenticeship has to be redefined and refinanced, probably college
    managed, industrially trained and financed from profits; in France
    apprenticeships are off set against taxes.

    In my last post we had a
    girl apprentice who had a (HNC equivalent) in Biology, she was
    sitting 2 X 3 months a year in a technical university and 2 x 3
    months in our department, with real hands on
    tasks. 

    We had Grande Ecole
    mastère students and I had a US – Greek nuclear physics mastère
    student who left the Chicago slums to learn French and nuclear
    engineering. What a challenge for him he was only
    20. 



    France announced again
    today that apprenticeships will be the key to its technology future
    and defined its apprentice sponsoring from tax relief.



    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 BSc student will study 2
    short semesters with very long holidays
    they have a lot of
    experience to catch upon.



    There is no point in
    trying to convince those that refuse change. For those that want to
    engineer a new future for our potential professional engineers; now
    is the time for action.

    I have no priorities on
    how it is achieved, as long as baseline professional engineers are
    educated, trained and recognized and that selective registration
    via prejudiced subjective interviews is abolished. For elitism, as
    is the English fetish ;   they can add on their diplomas to
    the MIET PE base line engineering title at BSc or equivalent (
    Moshe's validation of aquis)



    In the beginning at
    ITEME we had no
    interviews we were accepted on our credentials and
    certificates.

    We are not a trades union
    or the Free Masons which were PEIs once. We should be an open
    Professional Engineering Institute for UK Professional Engineers (
    and foreign associates) of all genders, disciplines and levels –
    with no Peer Reviews.



    Its up to the working
    engineers to define the future, we did our bit from ITEME to IIE to
    IET.

     

    John Gowman, MIET BA (Fac
    of Maths) -IEng retired

    (A British Ingénieur
    Chercher in a French national laboratory – on stand
    by)



    Post script
    :

    On training, I took many
    courses on PLC programming, small companies sent their directors as
    they were afraid that their newly trained staff would leave the
    company.


    ·        
    If their staff left the
    company, they would employ newly trained staff from another
    company.


    ·        
    My company changed its IT 3D
    system and fired all its 3D designers rather than train them
    (training in 3D is long, it took me 3 months to learn AutoCAD;
    complexe IT systems can take a full master to learn). We changed
    the IT system again for a new contract and went
    bankrupt.



    If
    every company trains staff, staff become mobile and the company
    gains new experience; where’s the problem?





    Garanti sans virus. www.avg.com

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Roy Andy Moshe -
    MIETs



    I do not think that we
    play in the same ball park, Moshe is in a Liberal country and Andy
    was an A level student apprentice; we have a UK PEI that has
    pursued globalism, commoditization by its CEng electrical hegemony,
    resulting in a CEng community hostile to the backbone
    PEs.



    We have a British home
    problem, and the ideals of Student Apprenticeships have been
    lost.



    Reading these blogs, I
    feel that I am from another era, when education was a question of
    class and university was a question of finances. However I have
    just added another world first to my CV in developing a new DAD
    procedure using a new branch of mathematics developed by our
    student and our in house mathematicians. I can give my advice on
    mathematics in engineering as I took a further degree in the
    faculty of mathematics, The fact that I had Oxford professors is
    not important. Maths is not my cup of tea, but I use it and
    understand it.



    Those that undertook
    manual work or craft apprenticeships were not lacking in
    intelligence, just lacking in chance, now we have a selective
    education system so the brightest have a good chance of gaining the
    education they want, if they work. Finances can now be found or
    borrowed. Those that are bright but not mathematically inclined can
    master trades – plumbers are paid more than engineers in
    France.

    This explains the
    attitude of members who have been to university as opposed to those
    that could not. There are still inequalities in the UK; the ECUK
    with PEIs could give a second chance to those that want to enter
    engineering following the UK Spec. They used to do this very well,
    now they are reverting to an elitist cartel. Note the ECUK only
    acts on the PEIs instructions, so do not blame ECUK, blame your PEI
    leaders.



    The result is restrictive practice in
    recruiting (CEng
    only)
    by positive
    discrimination
    in favor of university graduates, and
    denigrating apprentice trained engineers with the same
    diplomas.

    In the UK we still have
    this class struggle, as seen in this blog, those that have a BSc
    from full time university study, want to lock out what is termed
    the I Eng a
    professional engineer. They will dig they heels in, then use all
    the underhanded means to gain their goals, the result is that
    professional engineering suffers, IET becomes a CEng stronghold and
    the UK Technology businesses are becoming subservient to foreign
    technology companies. The days of British is best is long
    past.



    By recognizing
    professional engineers we can bring back quality, productivity, and
    lateral thinking in ingenious engineering. 

    The University system
    only covers a part of this technology experience acquisition. The
    UK 2016, the OCED and
    now EU national leaders
    are calling for sound technical
    education and practical training, it is not a faculty
    monopoly.



    Roy qoted:

    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”. 



    I came from the leading
    UK experimental school, at 15 I could make engineering drawings,
    define all the major steel making plants, and had learnt the
    rudiments of the major crafts. I was near bilingual and well
    educated. It was too good; the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians.

    I was indentured to the
    Minister of Aviation in person, my parents lost control of my
    rights, I was an O level student apprentice bound for HND and
    Master at Loughborough University, again the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians
    . This was not in medieval times.
     
    At 17 the laws changed, so did my
    apprenticeship.

    I was offered the long
    road and craft apprenticeship. Apprenticeships were for 5 years and
    two years journeyman was recommended. In France the Companion and
    his Journeying still exist. Mine was reduced to 4
    years.

    I was based at RAE Farnborough, I
    negotiated my new training in all the major laboratories workshops
    and wind tunnels, I worked on the UK leading technology projects,
    my apprentice masters were the world war II boffins, and leading UK
    technologists.



    Such excellence cannot be
    achieved now, but on these blogs and with Roy’s wise guidance, a
    path to the future education, training and recognition of
    Professional Engineers has been drawn. It needs to be implemented
    before the system will
    be destroyed by jealous politicians
    .



    When Andy undertook his A
    level apprenticeship, the craft apprentices were trained as
    craftsmen, not as future draughtsmen, technicians or
    engineers.



    Roy describes the old
    system well. 

    At RAE we were selected
    after a year of tests and interviews we were a representative cross
    section of British society, and regions, one of our comrades wore
    plus fours and drove a 3 wheel Morgan, another stated that he
    rarely saw his parents because he never knew which wing they slept
    in. I was a typical man from the war torn ruins of a UK industrial
    town – we were all British and engineers. 

    We had no girls, no
    immigrants and no commonwealth partners- BREXIT will change all
    that! – it won’t be
    destroyed by jealous politicians
    .

    Then a group of young
    women arrived from the Surry University electrical – electronic
    Faculty. A group of Ceylonese students joined our college, life was
    more colourful. Change was on route. 

    Eventually some years
    later the RAE was disbanded as was its apprenticeship; the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians.



    A new form of
    apprenticeship has to be redefined and refinanced, probably college
    managed, industrially trained and financed from profits; in France
    apprenticeships are off set against taxes.

    In my last post we had a
    girl apprentice who had a (HNC equivalent) in Biology, she was
    sitting 2 X 3 months a year in a technical university and 2 x 3
    months in our department, with real hands on
    tasks. 

    We had Grande Ecole
    mastère students and I had a US – Greek nuclear physics mastère
    student who left the Chicago slums to learn French and nuclear
    engineering. What a challenge for him he was only
    20. 



    France announced again
    today that apprenticeships will be the key to its technology future
    and defined its apprentice sponsoring from tax relief.



    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 BSc student will study 2
    short semesters with very long holidays
    they have a lot of
    experience to catch upon.



    There is no point in
    trying to convince those that refuse change. For those that want to
    engineer a new future for our potential professional engineers; now
    is the time for action.

    I have no priorities on
    how it is achieved, as long as baseline professional engineers are
    educated, trained and recognized and that selective registration
    via prejudiced subjective interviews is abolished. For elitism, as
    is the English fetish ;   they can add on their diplomas to
    the MIET PE base line engineering title at BSc or equivalent (
    Moshe's validation of aquis)



    In the beginning at
    ITEME we had no
    interviews we were accepted on our credentials and
    certificates.

    We are not a trades union
    or the Free Masons which were PEIs once. We should be an open
    Professional Engineering Institute for UK Professional Engineers (
    and foreign associates) of all genders, disciplines and levels –
    with no Peer Reviews.



    Its up to the working
    engineers to define the future, we did our bit from ITEME to IIE to
    IET.

     

    John Gowman, MIET BA (Fac
    of Maths) -IEng retired

    (A British Ingénieur
    Chercher in a French national laboratory – on stand
    by)



    Post script
    :

    On training, I took many
    courses on PLC programming, small companies sent their directors as
    they were afraid that their newly trained staff would leave the
    company.


    ·        
    If their staff left the
    company, they would employ newly trained staff from another
    company.


    ·        
    My company changed its IT 3D
    system and fired all its 3D designers rather than train them
    (training in 3D is long, it took me 3 months to learn AutoCAD;
    complexe IT systems can take a full master to learn). We changed
    the IT system again for a new contract and went
    bankrupt.



    If
    every company trains staff, staff become mobile and the company
    gains new experience; where’s the problem?





    Garanti sans virus. www.avg.com

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Roy Andy Moshe -
    MIETs



    I do not think that we
    play in the same ball park, Moshe is in a Liberal country and Andy
    was an A level student apprentice; we have a UK PEI that has
    pursued globalism, commoditization by its CEng electrical hegemony,
    resulting in a CEng community hostile to the backbone
    PEs.



    We have a British home
    problem, and the ideals of Student Apprenticeships have been
    lost.



    Reading these blogs, I
    feel that I am from another era, when education was a question of
    class and university was a question of finances. However I have
    just added another world first to my CV in developing a new DAD
    procedure using a new branch of mathematics developed by our
    student and our in house mathematicians. I can give my advice on
    mathematics in engineering as I took a further degree in the
    faculty of mathematics, The fact that I had Oxford professors is
    not important. Maths is not my cup of tea, but I use it and
    understand it.



    Those that undertook
    manual work or craft apprenticeships were not lacking in
    intelligence, just lacking in chance, now we have a selective
    education system so the brightest have a good chance of gaining the
    education they want, if they work. Finances can now be found or
    borrowed. Those that are bright but not mathematically inclined can
    master trades – plumbers are paid more than engineers in
    France.

    This explains the
    attitude of members who have been to university as opposed to those
    that could not. There are still inequalities in the UK; the ECUK
    with PEIs could give a second chance to those that want to enter
    engineering following the UK Spec. They used to do this very well,
    now they are reverting to an elitist cartel. Note the ECUK only
    acts on the PEIs instructions, so do not blame ECUK, blame your PEI
    leaders.



    The result is restrictive practice in
    recruiting (CEng
    only)
    by positive
    discrimination
    in favor of university graduates, and
    denigrating apprentice trained engineers with the same
    diplomas.

    In the UK we still have
    this class struggle, as seen in this blog, those that have a BSc
    from full time university study, want to lock out what is termed
    the I Eng a
    professional engineer. They will dig they heels in, then use all
    the underhanded means to gain their goals, the result is that
    professional engineering suffers, IET becomes a CEng stronghold and
    the UK Technology businesses are becoming subservient to foreign
    technology companies. The days of British is best is long
    past.



    By recognizing
    professional engineers we can bring back quality, productivity, and
    lateral thinking in ingenious engineering. 

    The University system
    only covers a part of this technology experience acquisition. The
    UK 2016, the OCED and
    now EU national leaders
    are calling for sound technical
    education and practical training, it is not a faculty
    monopoly.



    Roy qoted:

    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”. 



    I came from the leading
    UK experimental school, at 15 I could make engineering drawings,
    define all the major steel making plants, and had learnt the
    rudiments of the major crafts. I was near bilingual and well
    educated. It was too good; the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians.

    I was indentured to the
    Minister of Aviation in person, my parents lost control of my
    rights, I was an O level student apprentice bound for HND and
    Master at Loughborough University, again the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians
    . This was not in medieval times.
     
    At 17 the laws changed, so did my
    apprenticeship.

    I was offered the long
    road and craft apprenticeship. Apprenticeships were for 5 years and
    two years journeyman was recommended. In France the Companion and
    his Journeying still exist. Mine was reduced to 4
    years.

    I was based at RAE Farnborough, I
    negotiated my new training in all the major laboratories workshops
    and wind tunnels, I worked on the UK leading technology projects,
    my apprentice masters were the world war II boffins, and leading UK
    technologists.



    Such excellence cannot be
    achieved now, but on these blogs and with Roy’s wise guidance, a
    path to the future education, training and recognition of
    Professional Engineers has been drawn. It needs to be implemented
    before the system will
    be destroyed by jealous politicians
    .



    When Andy undertook his A
    level apprenticeship, the craft apprentices were trained as
    craftsmen, not as future draughtsmen, technicians or
    engineers.



    Roy describes the old
    system well. 

    At RAE we were selected
    after a year of tests and interviews we were a representative cross
    section of British society, and regions, one of our comrades wore
    plus fours and drove a 3 wheel Morgan, another stated that he
    rarely saw his parents because he never knew which wing they slept
    in. I was a typical man from the war torn ruins of a UK industrial
    town – we were all British and engineers. 

    We had no girls, no
    immigrants and no commonwealth partners- BREXIT will change all
    that! – it won’t be
    destroyed by jealous politicians
    .

    Then a group of young
    women arrived from the Surry University electrical – electronic
    Faculty. A group of Ceylonese students joined our college, life was
    more colourful. Change was on route. 

    Eventually some years
    later the RAE was disbanded as was its apprenticeship; the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians.



    A new form of
    apprenticeship has to be redefined and refinanced, probably college
    managed, industrially trained and financed from profits; in France
    apprenticeships are off set against taxes.

    In my last post we had a
    girl apprentice who had a (HNC equivalent) in Biology, she was
    sitting 2 X 3 months a year in a technical university and 2 x 3
    months in our department, with real hands on
    tasks. 

    We had Grande Ecole
    mastère students and I had a US – Greek nuclear physics mastère
    student who left the Chicago slums to learn French and nuclear
    engineering. What a challenge for him he was only
    20. 



    France announced again
    today that apprenticeships will be the key to its technology future
    and defined its apprentice sponsoring from tax relief.



    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 BSc student will study 2
    short semesters with very long holidays
    they have a lot of
    experience to catch upon.



    There is no point in
    trying to convince those that refuse change. For those that want to
    engineer a new future for our potential professional engineers; now
    is the time for action.

    I have no priorities on
    how it is achieved, as long as baseline professional engineers are
    educated, trained and recognized and that selective registration
    via prejudiced subjective interviews is abolished. For elitism, as
    is the English fetish ;   they can add on their diplomas to
    the MIET PE base line engineering title at BSc or equivalent (
    Moshe's validation of aquis)



    In the beginning at
    ITEME we had no
    interviews we were accepted on our credentials and
    certificates.

    We are not a trades union
    or the Free Masons which were PEIs once. We should be an open
    Professional Engineering Institute for UK Professional Engineers (
    and foreign associates) of all genders, disciplines and levels –
    with no Peer Reviews.



    Its up to the working
    engineers to define the future, we did our bit from ITEME to IIE to
    IET.

     

    John Gowman, MIET BA (Fac
    of Maths) -IEng retired

    (A British Ingénieur
    Chercher in a French national laboratory – on stand
    by)



    Post script
    :

    On training, I took many
    courses on PLC programming, small companies sent their directors as
    they were afraid that their newly trained staff would leave the
    company.


    ·        
    If their staff left the
    company, they would employ newly trained staff from another
    company.


    ·        
    My company changed its IT 3D
    system and fired all its 3D designers rather than train them
    (training in 3D is long, it took me 3 months to learn AutoCAD;
    complexe IT systems can take a full master to learn). We changed
    the IT system again for a new contract and went
    bankrupt.



    If
    every company trains staff, staff become mobile and the company
    gains new experience; where’s the problem?





    Garanti sans virus. www.avg.com

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member in reply to Chris Pearson

    Roy Andy Moshe -
    MIETs



    I do not think that we
    play in the same ball park, Moshe is in a Liberal country and Andy
    was an A level student apprentice; we have a UK PEI that has
    pursued globalism, commoditization by its CEng electrical hegemony,
    resulting in a CEng community hostile to the backbone
    PEs.



    We have a British home
    problem, and the ideals of Student Apprenticeships have been
    lost.



    Reading these blogs, I
    feel that I am from another era, when education was a question of
    class and university was a question of finances. However I have
    just added another world first to my CV in developing a new DAD
    procedure using a new branch of mathematics developed by our
    student and our in house mathematicians. I can give my advice on
    mathematics in engineering as I took a further degree in the
    faculty of mathematics, The fact that I had Oxford professors is
    not important. Maths is not my cup of tea, but I use it and
    understand it.



    Those that undertook
    manual work or craft apprenticeships were not lacking in
    intelligence, just lacking in chance, now we have a selective
    education system so the brightest have a good chance of gaining the
    education they want, if they work. Finances can now be found or
    borrowed. Those that are bright but not mathematically inclined can
    master trades – plumbers are paid more than engineers in
    France.

    This explains the
    attitude of members who have been to university as opposed to those
    that could not. There are still inequalities in the UK; the ECUK
    with PEIs could give a second chance to those that want to enter
    engineering following the UK Spec. They used to do this very well,
    now they are reverting to an elitist cartel. Note the ECUK only
    acts on the PEIs instructions, so do not blame ECUK, blame your PEI
    leaders.



    The result is restrictive practice in
    recruiting (CEng
    only)
    by positive
    discrimination
    in favor of university graduates, and
    denigrating apprentice trained engineers with the same
    diplomas.

    In the UK we still have
    this class struggle, as seen in this blog, those that have a BSc
    from full time university study, want to lock out what is termed
    the I Eng a
    professional engineer. They will dig they heels in, then use all
    the underhanded means to gain their goals, the result is that
    professional engineering suffers, IET becomes a CEng stronghold and
    the UK Technology businesses are becoming subservient to foreign
    technology companies. The days of British is best is long
    past.



    By recognizing
    professional engineers we can bring back quality, productivity, and
    lateral thinking in ingenious engineering. 

    The University system
    only covers a part of this technology experience acquisition. The
    UK 2016, the OCED and
    now EU national leaders
    are calling for sound technical
    education and practical training, it is not a faculty
    monopoly.



    Roy qoted:

    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”. 



    I came from the leading
    UK experimental school, at 15 I could make engineering drawings,
    define all the major steel making plants, and had learnt the
    rudiments of the major crafts. I was near bilingual and well
    educated. It was too good; the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians.

    I was indentured to the
    Minister of Aviation in person, my parents lost control of my
    rights, I was an O level student apprentice bound for HND and
    Master at Loughborough University, again the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians
    . This was not in medieval times.
     
    At 17 the laws changed, so did my
    apprenticeship.

    I was offered the long
    road and craft apprenticeship. Apprenticeships were for 5 years and
    two years journeyman was recommended. In France the Companion and
    his Journeying still exist. Mine was reduced to 4
    years.

    I was based at RAE Farnborough, I
    negotiated my new training in all the major laboratories workshops
    and wind tunnels, I worked on the UK leading technology projects,
    my apprentice masters were the world war II boffins, and leading UK
    technologists.



    Such excellence cannot be
    achieved now, but on these blogs and with Roy’s wise guidance, a
    path to the future education, training and recognition of
    Professional Engineers has been drawn. It needs to be implemented
    before the system will
    be destroyed by jealous politicians
    .



    When Andy undertook his A
    level apprenticeship, the craft apprentices were trained as
    craftsmen, not as future draughtsmen, technicians or
    engineers.



    Roy describes the old
    system well. 

    At RAE we were selected
    after a year of tests and interviews we were a representative cross
    section of British society, and regions, one of our comrades wore
    plus fours and drove a 3 wheel Morgan, another stated that he
    rarely saw his parents because he never knew which wing they slept
    in. I was a typical man from the war torn ruins of a UK industrial
    town – we were all British and engineers. 

    We had no girls, no
    immigrants and no commonwealth partners- BREXIT will change all
    that! – it won’t be
    destroyed by jealous politicians
    .

    Then a group of young
    women arrived from the Surry University electrical – electronic
    Faculty. A group of Ceylonese students joined our college, life was
    more colourful. Change was on route. 

    Eventually some years
    later the RAE was disbanded as was its apprenticeship; the system was destroyed by
    jealous politicians.



    A new form of
    apprenticeship has to be redefined and refinanced, probably college
    managed, industrially trained and financed from profits; in France
    apprenticeships are off set against taxes.

    In my last post we had a
    girl apprentice who had a (HNC equivalent) in Biology, she was
    sitting 2 X 3 months a year in a technical university and 2 x 3
    months in our department, with real hands on
    tasks. 

    We had Grande Ecole
    mastère students and I had a US – Greek nuclear physics mastère
    student who left the Chicago slums to learn French and nuclear
    engineering. What a challenge for him he was only
    20. 



    France announced again
    today that apprenticeships will be the key to its technology future
    and defined its apprentice sponsoring from tax relief.



    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 BSc student will study 2
    short semesters with very long holidays
    they have a lot of
    experience to catch upon.



    There is no point in
    trying to convince those that refuse change. For those that want to
    engineer a new future for our potential professional engineers; now
    is the time for action.

    I have no priorities on
    how it is achieved, as long as baseline professional engineers are
    educated, trained and recognized and that selective registration
    via prejudiced subjective interviews is abolished. For elitism, as
    is the English fetish ;   they can add on their diplomas to
    the MIET PE base line engineering title at BSc or equivalent (
    Moshe's validation of aquis)



    In the beginning at
    ITEME we had no
    interviews we were accepted on our credentials and
    certificates.

    We are not a trades union
    or the Free Masons which were PEIs once. We should be an open
    Professional Engineering Institute for UK Professional Engineers (
    and foreign associates) of all genders, disciplines and levels –
    with no Peer Reviews.



    Its up to the working
    engineers to define the future, we did our bit from ITEME to IIE to
    IET.

     

    John Gowman, MIET BA (Fac
    of Maths) -IEng retired

    (A British Ingénieur
    Chercher in a French national laboratory – on stand
    by)



    Post script
    :

    On training, I took many
    courses on PLC programming, small companies sent their directors as
    they were afraid that their newly trained staff would leave the
    company.


    ·        
    If their staff left the
    company, they would employ newly trained staff from another
    company.


    ·        
    My company changed its IT 3D
    system and fired all its 3D designers rather than train them
    (training in 3D is long, it took me 3 months to learn AutoCAD;
    complexe IT systems can take a full master to learn). We changed
    the IT system again for a new contract and went
    bankrupt.



    If
    every company trains staff, staff become mobile and the company
    gains new experience; where’s the problem?





    Garanti sans virus. www.avg.com

  • 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?       

  • P.S. Apologies for typos in the above - dodgy internet connection on train made correcting it impractical!
  • Hi Moshe,

    I sort of agree, but - in the UK at least - this has been the situation for the last 40 years. I started my undergraduate apprenticeship in 1979, and it was very clear over the next few years that we were the last major cohort of apprentices to go through the system. Not that it died away completely of course, but was nothing like the same level as it had been (I wonder if there are any figires around?). Equally, although apprentices were indentured for the duration of their apprenticeship, in practice many did leave immediately afterwards (Marconi particularly experienced this). Practically it's not possible to bind people to employers post trainiing in liberal countries, but of course employers can make sure their employment opportunities are such that post-apprentices don't want to leave. Let's face it, changing jobs isn't much fun, so it should be easier to retain apprentices than to recruit new people. I think it's fairly common practice to contract staff to repay a percentage of training costs (i.e. university / college  fees) on a sliding scale if they leave over a period of a  few years after the course is completed - certainly my previoous employer did this, although I don't know if it was ever enforced.

    Personally my experience is that good managers don't worry about this issue, they understand that if they can provide good post-apprenticeship roles then they'll retain their staff, and if they can't then it's perfectly reasonable that those staff should go elsewhere.

    The loyalty thing is interesting, I first heard in the 1980's recruiters saying that they were worried about candidates who'd stayed with the same company for more than three years, and considered them unemployable. And this attitude has stayed ever since. Actual engineers and engineering managers often have a very different view. Ensuring staff can change role wihtin a company every three years (or something like that) is an excellent way of retaining staff, and making sure they keep open to new ideas. But it is worrying when recruiters - who often have very little understanding of what an engineering role actually requires (and that's being polite) - spread these stories.

    So bottom line as you might have gathered is that I have little sympathy with employers who use the "they'll only leave" argument to not offer apprenticeships, but sadly that feeling of "we're not going to do it, we'll let someone else do it" is pernicious in the industry.

    To put this into context, in 17 years as an engineering manager of a reasonable sized team, which included taking on apprentices (sadly nowhere near as many as I would have liked) and sponsoring staff through degrees, I had two (2) resignations - both for family reasons unconnected with work. If you want to keep staff, you can keep staff. (Mind you, it is very hard work, I went back to being an engineer last year as I was exhausted from managing people!)

    Really good points, thanks again!

    On the bright side, I'm writing this on my way home from the RIA (UK Rail Industry Association) conference. One of the discussion points was about apprenticeships into the rail industry, and I'm pleased to say it wasn't a question of "shall we do it", it was "we are going to do it, how can we attract the best candidates?" Unfortunately it was in a room - as one speaker pointed out - almost totally comprised of middle aged white men in grey suits with varying degrees of hair loss. Of which Mea very much Culpa!

    Cheers, Andy
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    In my opinion one reason companies today don't invest in apprenticeship is employee turnaround, what used to be loyalty, a person was working a significant part of their career at the same company is barely exists today. The challenge is to make it work for both the Employer and the Employee.

    In our times it appears that it's much harder to retain good employees. Nor companies willing to invest in the employees like they used to in the past

    Be it constant change that requires reskilling or competition and globalization with workforce availability internationally it's clear to me that a lot has changed.

    What is stopping someone who completed apprenticeship from leaving the company? How will the company get a return on the investment?

    If an Engineer becomes more valuable, will the compensation come with it? A promotion or another way of recognition? 

    Will the economic pressures to be a better provider "seduce" the Engineer to go to work somewhere else?

    Today employers want someone who is already educated and has sufficient experience to hit the ground running.

    From what I see Employers are willing to participate partially and partner on a high level with education providers and other institutions in preparing the suitable workforce.

    I heard different views, some prefer importing Engineers or outsourcing work instead of building the local educated base of Engineers.

    How can Apprenticeship be made attractive to the potential employers? Engineering degree type of apprenticeship is a long-term investment.