A new model of high-value engineering education

In the context of a historical review there seems a measure of consensus. I was also a beneficiary of a well-resourced apprenticeship from one of the largest players of the era, later delivering and managing such programmes. However unlike many others from this “Technician/IEng pathway”. I haven’t at any time in my career demonstrated all the attributes expected of a Chartered Engineer and I gradually diverged into related (and unrelated) management a few years after gaining IEng.


Opportunity presented to others in different ways, such as for example being prepared by a full-time university course before gaining relevant training and experience, that made CEng recognition a possibility before many also diverged into management.  There are others who passed CEI/Engineering Council/Institution Examinations, undertook work-based MSc programmes, or found a pathway to CEng in the last decade or so as more flexibility was applied using UK-SPEC.  All these various pathways (as Andy points out) should be equally worthy of respect. They lead to overlapping outcomes. 


I have been fortunate to meet very many engineers much more talented than myself, who I respect for their achievements. Unfortunately however, the divisions and categorisations that we have created in engineering, have led towards what often seems like petty one-upmanship and badge snobbery. Regulators legal or quasi-legal institutionalise this and just rigidly apply the rules they are given. Those who feel that the system has unfairly disadvantaged them naturally attack it. In practice Engineers on the whole, just get on with it and if what we do collectively benefits society, then respect will be earned.   

       

John seems to suggest that only specialised “consulting engineer" types should be CEng and not “managers”. This is a popular view amongst specialist engineers, since the conflation with management does cause confusion, as does the conflation with status. However, significant numbers of engineers aspire to and eventually become managers, with a broader generalist or strategic perspective. Should they be expelled or transferred to another category?

 

I picked on calculus in an earlier post because it is being used for selection and as a rite of passage. For example the US accreditation body ABET states.

 
“Engineering programs typically require additional, higher-level mathematics, including multiple semesters of calculus and calculus-based theoretical science courses, while engineering technology programs typically focus on algebra, trigonometry, applied calculus, and other courses that are more practical than theoretical in nature.”

 

Other countries aligned to the Washington Accord (including the UK) seem to be following a similar philosophy.  This creates a dichotomy between engineering practitioners, based on their aptitude and personal circumstances during their teenage years. It also sets in train an ongoing systematic disadvantage and negative bias against those deemed to have demonstrated “lower attainment” or crudely to be “less bright”.  At the age of selection (15-18) only a small minority will have gained any meaningful experience of engineering in practice, but those selected for and completing WA programmes will have been deemed to be winners of a selection competition.  This illustrates the well-recognised cultural bias that values “academic” attainments more highly than “vocational”.  Nearly all of the other effects and consequences that we have discussed at length in these forums are derived from this assumption and seem to me primarily sociological in nature.


If we consider practitioners who have gained a combination of around 6-8 years of learning, experience and independent practice then we might expect them to be on the threshold of demonstrating “registration”.  This has been a generally accepted rule of thumb timeline for many decades, across a range of professions. It is also necessary to set a generally recognised knowledge reference point and I see no viable alternative (for cultural reasons) to that being set at the level of a Bachelors Degree. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, regulator of university degrees in the UK does not recognise a difference in level between “Engineering” and “Engineering Technology” and many employers also find no useful difference. 

 

MEng degrees add a further year of study and are more WA aligned. However only a few employers, see this extra year and more academic early emphasis as a significant benefit. Many of those who do just use it as a recruitment filter, along with other techniques like psychometric tests and assessment centres.  Typically a high proportion move fairly quickly into management type roles.  I’m sorry that this link is to a commercial organisation but if you scroll down to the first graph “3. Levels of work and an array of growth curves” . This Career Path Appreciation methodology explains. When I googled it there was also an academic research study (J Kitching 2006).   http://bioss.com/gillian-stamp/the-individual-the-organisation-and-the-path-to-mutual-appreciation/  

 

Is anyone aware of any research studies , perhaps conducted along “double-blind” principles that have correlate the professional  performance of experienced practitioners against these different preparatory pathways, including the blend of concurrent formal learning and real world experience that is an higher/degree level apprenticeship?  The continuum that I posted earlier (http://www.rit.edu/emcs/admissions/images/stories/assorted/engineering/eng-vs-engtech.gif) seems a reasonable hypothesis to me.

 

All pathways will have a “drop-out rate” and arguably the higher it is, the more “elite” are the eventual successes. However should not the duty of any system of recognition provided for public benefit be to enable the “typical” not the “exceptional” to be appropriately recognised. Should not current performance also be the predominant factor? Public good is likely to be better served by more Engineers and Technicians (or “Technologists”) meeting appropriately challenging minimum standards and participating actively in a regulated community. Hopefully, most will continue to develop in ways appropriate to their circumstances and motivation, perhaps leading to an “advanced” form of recognition, which is where many in the Engineering Council family seek to position Chartered Engineer now.    

 

John, I liked your forward looking response to Alastair, but your historic grievance is not particularly relevant to the topic. It was other organisations that allegedly wronged you and in the case of professional registration the buck stops with Engineering Council. I am not commenting here on behalf of the IET, although I am very much involved. As I see it, we provide a service to all members under our license from Engineering Council. We would not tolerate “backdoors”, “black-balling” or any other unethical practices.  However, I can not deny that risks exist, that misconduct may never have occurred, or that what we have is working optimally to achieve its aims. In fact I’m trying here to improve it for the future, as I hope are you and other contributors.

 

I agree with Andy’s comment about “bar room opinions” , although such exchanges have a useful place , to shake up complacency and offer light relief. We also need in a UK context to keep very firmly in our minds that people volunteer to engage in professional recognition. Currently a huge number of them, don’t even want to walk into the bar, for many reasons, including because they don’t see anyone like them, think that it is too expensive, boring, full of snobs, self-important or self-serving people. The IET has actively sought to move away from this image and has become the most diverse member of the “Engineering Council Family”.  My challenge now would be can the “big three” (IET,ICE & IMechE), Universities, Colleges and Employers chart a more attractive, clearer and fairer path forward for Engineer and Technician recognition.  

 

A “red line” for me is the ending of systematic unfair disadvantage and even “stigma” (Mark Carne-CEO Network Rail)  towards those who travel the Apprenticeship pathway. Shame on those leaders and regulators of our profession who contributed to this stigma!

 

How many industry leaders cut investment in training, starved technical colleges and expected job-ready graduates from university?  How often have we been subjected to “leaders” of the profession bemoaning the lack of status of Engineering and denigrating those who weren’t members of their “technological elite”, for daring to call themselves “Engineers”?

 

Getting off the bar stool,  I had the opportunity recently to take “the long view” by meeting some grandchildren of one of our great early members, who developed from a 10 year old foundry boy, to membership of the big 3 UK learned societies and an international reputation. A contemporary of Edison who he was compared to in a European context. Both developed from humble beginnings via a combination of curiosity, collaboration, practical inventiveness and theoretical learning in increments when needed.  The lives of millions were improved by these engineers, their collaborators and by many other engineers of the era, who were held in great respect and admiration (i.e. Status).   

 

My proposal is that to emphasise the practical “applied” nature of engineering. We should normalise prospective engineers getting a strong grounding in relevant practice and basic (Technician type) principles, before preferably developing on to bachelors level, with a blend of mutually reinforcing learning and practice to degree level.  This fundamental training could be either employer or education led, but run as a partnership. Four years is a sensible period, with a Technician training stream offering a different (but equally valid) balance of knowledge and skills. such prgrammes don’t have to be “one size fits all” in emphasis. According to aptitude, opportunity and motivation, some may benefit form more academic “stretch” and progress post initial training on to higher degrees and other forms of lifelong learning.  

 

The current model of building theory before applying practice later, works well for university administrators and  fits certain cultural expectations, but it is less efficient both economically and as a learning methodology. It distorts equality of opportunity, disadvantages and excludes those of good potential, but with differently balanced aptitudes and patterns of growth.  It has also been allowed to create an advantage in professional recognition for some, that is not necessarily justified by their relative performance to others. I don’t seek to damage this pattern of preparation for those who want it, or to deny the obvious benefits of an educational experience, but it is hugely expensive,  not optimally efficient and not currently producing enough people well enough matched to the demand for skills. There is at least the positive side effect of opportunities for skilled migrants.  

 

From a social policy perspective perhaps, making a meaningful economic contribution earlier can mitigate the need to keep extending retirement benefit ages. My proposal is not clever or new, it is obvious. The beneficiaries of this approach are occupying senior professional and director level roles, having been economically productive from the age of 18 (or even 16). Most however have eschewed professional institutions, who sadly treated their pattern of development as second class!         

 

As is obvious this is a personal view, the IET has a campaign here  https://workexperience.theiet.org/our-manifesto/  which I’m not involved in, but support, albeit that I’m looking for something bigger and bolder at strategic level.  It took government action to revive degree apprenticeships on any scale. It may need more to ensure that the pathway is fairly valued.   

 

The fact that John has been allowed freedom of expression, except where it infringes on the rights and dignity of others, reflects well in my opinion on The IET, as does the tolerance of my “independent” position despite being a servant of the institution.  I think the intent of this thread was to look forward and there is a lot of thought in it, if you include some of the links such as the conference proceedings. I hope that people are not discouraged from reading it and forming their own opinion by John’s “campaign for personal vindication” which is a different issue.     

   

Brilliant post Roy as ever. Interesting that I've just been involved with a discussion on Graduate Apprenticeships on another thread, which does seem to be a valiant effort to address this - I just hope there are enough companies around to support these.


I wonder how much of a bias there really is (rather than perceived) against apprentice trained engineers? EXCEPT, and it's a really big except, by HR and recruitment 'gatekeepers'. Thinking about it, in the industries I've been in actually there have been as many apprentice trained senior (often very senior) engineering staff as school-to-university educated. Now, many of those have achieved degrees later in life, but there is a bit of motivational difference there. I'm sure it is true that an apprentice trained (or indeed degree educated!) engineer whose approach is "we'll do it this way because it's the way we've always done it before and it's the way I was taught" may struggle to rise to the top. But you don't need a degree to be aware that there may be a new and better - and still properly thought out - way of approaching an issue. But input from other industries on how general this acceptance of apprentice trained engineers is would be interesting - I do remember (I've probably mentioned this before) sitting on an industrial liaison panel where another industry representatives said his company only recruited PhD graduates. Jolly nice if that's what they want to do. But I'm relieved (since for some reason I do care about the future of engineering in the UK) that this is a minority view.


On the train this afternoon I finally got a chance to read the "New Approaches" conference proceedings Roy gave a path to a few posts back (I'm about half way through). Fascinating for two reasons. Firstly because a couple of the approaches I think are really very interesting: Vertically integrated projects: transforming higher education, Stephen Marshall and An engineering renaissance, Janusz A. Kozinski and Eddy F. Evans. Both were genuinely a breath of fresh air, and the latter in particular is a very thorough approach. But sadly, the second reason I found this so interesting was because throughout these studies it was emphasised that all the problems that existed with my engineering degree nearly 40 years ago are still there. I'm not going to write much more on this, because Kozinski and Evans for example have expressed the problems and potential solutions much better and much more authoritatively than I would. Except to say that it amuses me and frustrates me by turn how bad academia is in innovating in its organisations - but I have an impression that in STEM there is a new species of academics coming through who will be prepared to shake things up, I just hope they survive the frustration and bureaucracy to get to a position where they can!


P.S. What I find works well in the "bar room banter" / "evidence" balance is that when someone moves from having a chat to getting angry (or in my case a bit tetchy or slightly miffed) and demanding change, that's when shifting to needing real evidence becomes essential - and often in fact shows there wasn't really a problem there in the first place (or at least not what the person thought it was). As I've often found myself.


Cheers, Andy

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.





 

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

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

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?