Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 158 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 5176 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Is an Apprenticeship an equally valid pathway to Chartered Engineer - a historical anachronism or the future?

Roy Bowdler
This is National Apprenticeship Week.  

 

An unintended and unfortunate consequence of UK government policies and wider economic changes in the 1980s and 1990s was a very substantial decline in apprenticeships which had served previous generations so well.  They didn’t die completely because employers (like the company that I was Training Manager of) understood their value, not just for skilled craft trades, but also as an alternative option to “Graduate Training Schemes” for Engineers and Managers, traditionally leading to HNC type qualifications, but from the mid-2000s increasingly degrees. Initiative was eventually picked up by Government, turning it into a “flagship” policy.  This has had an effect, but policy is not implementation and typically the brewery visit has not been well organised (with apologies to those unfamiliar with British vulgar slang). However, changes like this can take years if not decades to “bed in”, so I hope that we will keep trying.

 

Engineering Council has always been dominated by the academic perspective and relatively poorly connected with employers, therefore it has associated Apprenticeships with Technicians and not with Chartered Engineers, although it accepted that it was possible "exceptionally via bridges and ladders” for a Technician to develop into a Chartered Engineer. Incorporated (formerly Technician) Engineer was also drawn from the Apprenticeship tradition. However, once the qualification benchmark was adjusted to bachelors level, it was also intended to become the “mainstream” category for graduates, with CEng being “premium” or “elite”.  Unfortunately the Incorporated category has not been successful and its international equivalent “Technologist” defined as it is by degree content (i.e. less calculus than an “engineer”) also seems equally poorly regarded or even legally restricted in other countries.

 

Now we have Degree Apprentices coming through, the profession has responded by offering Incorporated Engineer recognition at an early career stage. This should in principal be a good thing and I have advocated it in the past. However, I am seriously concerned that this may also stigmatise them as a “second class” form of professional, as has been the tradition to date.

 

Over the last few years Engineering Council has adopted a policy encouraging younger engineers to consider the Incorporated Engineer category as a “stepping stone” to Chartered Engineer. Some professional institutions have promoted this often with a particular focus on those “without the right degree for CEng” with some success. However the approach “kicks the can down the road” to the question of how they should subsequently transfer to CEng.  There are potentially likely to be some frustrated, disillusioned and even angry engineers, if they find that “progression” is blocked and that they are stuck on a “stepping stone”.  We don’t need more unnecessary “enemies” amongst them, we have created enough already. 

 

A further problem is that those with accredited degrees do not expect to require a “stepping stone” and consider IEng to have no value for them or even perhaps at worst insulting. Many employers of Chartered Engineers and the professional institutions are steeped in the tradition of recruiting those with accredited degrees and developing them to Chartered Engineer in around 3-5 years. Other graduate recruiters may be less academically selective, but share similar traditions and expectations.

 

Is therefore a Degree Apprenticeship an equally valid pathway compared to a CEng accredited (BEng or MEng) full-time undergraduate degree course?  Is performance and current capability (aka “competence”) the appropriate frame of reference for comparison, or should those from each pathway be separated academically and considered to be different “types”, or on “fast” and slow tracks”?

 

As Degree Apprenticeships develop further, there will be those who gain CEng accredited degrees and have work experience via an “even faster track”. My concern is that those graduates from Degree Apprenticeships who are more competent and productive than their age group peers from full-time degree programmes, but disadvantaged in academic recognition terms, may find themselves in a seemingly unfair and anomalous situation.  

 

In addition, those employers who primarily “exploit existing technology” may continue to feel that the Engineering Council proposition is contrary to their interests and discourage engagement. Employers who invest in apprenticeships state that they experience greater loyalty from former apprentices, relative to graduate trainees and often a better return on investment.  Whereas the professional institution proposition emphasises different priorities, which may align quite well with Research & Development or Consultancy type business models, but not with Operations and Maintenance or Contracting. My experience as an employer trying to encourage professional engagement was that the Professional Institution concerned advised employees informally to “move on if you want to become Chartered”, because they valued Project Engineering less than Design Engineering. As for management, this was definitely “chartered engineering” if you held the right type of engineering degree and valued if it was “prestigious”. If you didn’t hold the right type of engineering degree and weren’t “highly prestigious” then it wasn't valued much.

 

If Degree Apprenticeships become more strongly established, do we want to accept them as an equally valid pathway to a range of excellent careers including Chartered Engineer, or do we wish to continue our long-standing policy of treating them as useful but second or third class pathways? Will weasel words of platitude be offered ,whilst existing attitudes and practice are allowed to prevail?    


If the answer is we that want to give apprentices equal value, then in the current climate of retribution, should those who have enthusiastically encouraged the stigma and snobbery against them consider falling on their swords? Enthusiasm for excellence in engineering, especially in stretching academic circumstances is a virtue not a crime and I strongly support it. Unfortunately however many around the Engineering Council family, perhaps motivated by a neediness for “status”, seem to have been mainly concerned with rationing access to the Chartered category by other “graduate level” practitioners, and disparaging those drawn from the apprenticeship tradition. 

 

Further Reading

 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-new-apprenticeship-programme-kicks-off-national-apprenticeship-week-2018

 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-will-end-outdated-snobbery-towards-apprenticeships

 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/further-education/12193128/Theres-been-an-apprenticeship-stigma-for-far-too-long.html

 
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/theres-still-a-stigma-around-apprenticeships-people-look-down-on-you-3622353-Oct2017/

 
https://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/14816-overcoming-the-apprenticeships-stigma-not-before-time

 
https://www.bcselectrics.co.uk/news/pushing-back-against-stigma-apprenticeships

 
‘Stigma against apprenticeships must end,’ says Network Rail boss. Mark Carne, Network’s Rail’s chief executive (Rail Technology News)

   
https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/national-apprenticeship-week-young-women-stem-apprenticeship-a3781606.html

 
http://www.aston.ac.uk/news/releases/2017/july/uks-first-degree-apprentices-graduate/

 
https://www.stem.org.uk/news-and-views/opinions/apprenticeships-better-skills-better-careers          

 
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/blog/Pages/Why-I-chose-the-degree-apprenticeship-route.aspx               

 

 

 

Parents
  • 0
    Wow! Roy, so much in there, I won't even attempt to delve into your very well thought through post in detail, but will rather say, taken all in all, I'd agree with your detailed analysis. There may possibly be some minor areas in which we'd have a slightly different take, though I may become wrong as I'd need to go through it once again, taking time to consider each point, and unfortunately, I'm afraid I just don't have the time to do that - maybe it's more appropriate for a discussion together if and when we ever meet! ;)
    I would like to just make a couple of comments and an anecdote it two, add is my wont, in support of certain specific points that I, too, feel strongly about:
    I'm with you completely about the need to recognise the importance of foot soldiers. As you say, I am in no way anti-academia, and like you recognise the high value offered, but frankly, I don't feel we need to do anything further to promote the abundant opportunities to excel and succeed in academia, whilst our high, goal focused society is in constant danger of ignoring the foot soldier and making them feel unappreciated. I'm going to move out of the IET or registration arena for this.
    I recently had cause to rock the boat in my workplace when it was decided to introduce an engineer of the month award. I received astounded reaction when I commented that I felt this demotivates more people than it motivates. As a generalisation, for those most likely to receive the award, no incentive or motivation is required for them to excel - the people most likely to be nominated and receive it are those who will strive to excel regardless of whether an award is on offer or not, whilst the many foot soldiers, in some, if not most cases, still excellent engineers, the fact that they know they are highly unlikely to receive the award is highly demotivating, yet they stride on, doing a sterling, if not dazzling job, day in, day out.
    When I mentioned this to my daughter, she likened it to a friend when she was at school who, year after year, at prize giving, received the "best effort" award alongside those who were getting best performance awards. She revealed to my daughter that each year, her stomach sank as she accepted it as the "never going to be the best" award.
    I think that's what particularly frustrates me with the low uptake of I.Eng - by rights, there should be far more I.Eng than C.Eng in a well balanced workforce. Unfortunately, it does appear to have become somewhat tainted by the prejudices and perceptions of both employers and those who, by rights, should be considering it. If you look at the correct administration of the registration process (and I will robustly defend that it is, generally speaking, correctly administered, with quality/consistency control measures to weed out "bad" decisions) there is definitely no barrier to many more in our profession attaining I.Eng, the barrier comes from the perception of its value by employers and potential candidates alike. Maybe it is time to change the title, and the one included in your final quote could be as good as any, but ultimately, a title is only a title. If that is what we need to change that perceptions then fine - I'll support it, but it won't change the underlying meaning of it or its true value (as opposed to the distorted perceived value).
    In summary, and to reiterate what I think you, and others, are saying, there are numerous levels and types of ability, we need a good healthy mix of those different levels and types for a balanced, effective working model, each deserves recognition for the value it offers, and there are multiple ways to attain every level and type of ability, all of which are (or should be) equally valid, or indeed, not even relevant to the outcome. But we live in a society increasingly eager to categorise, differentiate and downright marginalise at the slightest opportunity, for the least basis reasons imaginable.
    One final thought - what truly motivates HR "practitioners"? Would it be unfair to ask if it might be job preservation (their own that is) and protectionism? Gone are the days, it seems, when HR was a service department to ensure pay, rations and welfare were looked after. The tail most definitely seems to wag the dog all too often.
Reply
  • 0
    Wow! Roy, so much in there, I won't even attempt to delve into your very well thought through post in detail, but will rather say, taken all in all, I'd agree with your detailed analysis. There may possibly be some minor areas in which we'd have a slightly different take, though I may become wrong as I'd need to go through it once again, taking time to consider each point, and unfortunately, I'm afraid I just don't have the time to do that - maybe it's more appropriate for a discussion together if and when we ever meet! ;)
    I would like to just make a couple of comments and an anecdote it two, add is my wont, in support of certain specific points that I, too, feel strongly about:
    I'm with you completely about the need to recognise the importance of foot soldiers. As you say, I am in no way anti-academia, and like you recognise the high value offered, but frankly, I don't feel we need to do anything further to promote the abundant opportunities to excel and succeed in academia, whilst our high, goal focused society is in constant danger of ignoring the foot soldier and making them feel unappreciated. I'm going to move out of the IET or registration arena for this.
    I recently had cause to rock the boat in my workplace when it was decided to introduce an engineer of the month award. I received astounded reaction when I commented that I felt this demotivates more people than it motivates. As a generalisation, for those most likely to receive the award, no incentive or motivation is required for them to excel - the people most likely to be nominated and receive it are those who will strive to excel regardless of whether an award is on offer or not, whilst the many foot soldiers, in some, if not most cases, still excellent engineers, the fact that they know they are highly unlikely to receive the award is highly demotivating, yet they stride on, doing a sterling, if not dazzling job, day in, day out.
    When I mentioned this to my daughter, she likened it to a friend when she was at school who, year after year, at prize giving, received the "best effort" award alongside those who were getting best performance awards. She revealed to my daughter that each year, her stomach sank as she accepted it as the "never going to be the best" award.
    I think that's what particularly frustrates me with the low uptake of I.Eng - by rights, there should be far more I.Eng than C.Eng in a well balanced workforce. Unfortunately, it does appear to have become somewhat tainted by the prejudices and perceptions of both employers and those who, by rights, should be considering it. If you look at the correct administration of the registration process (and I will robustly defend that it is, generally speaking, correctly administered, with quality/consistency control measures to weed out "bad" decisions) there is definitely no barrier to many more in our profession attaining I.Eng, the barrier comes from the perception of its value by employers and potential candidates alike. Maybe it is time to change the title, and the one included in your final quote could be as good as any, but ultimately, a title is only a title. If that is what we need to change that perceptions then fine - I'll support it, but it won't change the underlying meaning of it or its true value (as opposed to the distorted perceived value).
    In summary, and to reiterate what I think you, and others, are saying, there are numerous levels and types of ability, we need a good healthy mix of those different levels and types for a balanced, effective working model, each deserves recognition for the value it offers, and there are multiple ways to attain every level and type of ability, all of which are (or should be) equally valid, or indeed, not even relevant to the outcome. But we live in a society increasingly eager to categorise, differentiate and downright marginalise at the slightest opportunity, for the least basis reasons imaginable.
    One final thought - what truly motivates HR "practitioners"? Would it be unfair to ask if it might be job preservation (their own that is) and protectionism? Gone are the days, it seems, when HR was a service department to ensure pay, rations and welfare were looked after. The tail most definitely seems to wag the dog all too often.
Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines