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?

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 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

Around this time of year a number of employers begin to accept apprenticeship applications, hoping to select and make offers during the early part of the year for a start by September 2019. For example, I note that the BAE Systems application Window opened on 1^st Nov. Therefore, a crucial question arises for a young person with strong potential for an engineering career and those around them who care about their future. Which pathway to take, full-time study or an apprenticeship?

I recall a few years ago attending a careers fair in Manchester. I was approached by a young man who said “I’m interested in your training scheme” (ie an apprenticeship). His answer to the obvious question “why” was; “because I need a fall-back position if I don’t do very well in my exams”. Prior to developing the scheme from an HND outcome to Bachelors Degree, we also suffered when university fees were more modest, from young people accepting an offer of employment, only to spurn it when their exam results were “better than expected”. To place such a decision in context , this would at the time (circa 2003) have been a decision to lose (adjusted for inflation to today’s values) £60000 if employed after three years and £85000 over 4 years. The same decision today would involve a minimum of £70000 if gaining employment after 3 years and circa £100000 over 4, at the salary levels that we offered for trainees. The figures are approximate and don’t take any account of any employment that a “full-time” student might undertake. However, crucially they also do not include interest on any Student Loan, repayable on earnings over £18 000, which would include 95% of working degree qualified engineers and technicians. A case can be made for a “life-time earnings premium” that may bring a Return on Investment over the very long-term, but not a reliable or robust one relative to a Degree Apprenticeship.

Employers also have to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. In the case of an apprenticeship the aim ideally would be to achieve “break-even” quickly , where the trainee began to deliver productivity for the current cost of their employment and eventually paid back the sunk costs. In a scheme as a whole there is also a risk of drop out, or “wastage”, if some people don’t succeed. My aims for a degree apprenticeship were to break-even in four years, because competitors lurked to poach talent. Another employer may in different circumstances find less effective competition for talent and have very high retention rates. The alternative approach is to recruit a graduate trainee who will be older and expect a higher salary, but ideally will very quickly become productive. It will also be the intention of some employers to seek “the cream” of academic achievers within their age cohort, for future technical and or/strategic leadership. The upfront costs of this approach are in recruitment and potentially paying a premium relative to early productivity, with the risks being under-performance or disloyalty/poaching. The Apprenticeship Levy introduced by UK government has led to some such approaches also coming under the apprenticeship “brand”. This is a good (perhaps the best?) example.   https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/first-of-its-kind-masters-level-apprenticeship-set-to-boost-britain-s-engineering-skills

There is also cost-benefit analysis of public policy decisions, that I won’t pursue here, but factors might include productivity and the economic contribution of younger workers, relative to that of students, the balance between and benefits of full-time versus part-time programmes in colleges and universities etc. The expansion of Higher Education over the last 25+ years , has brought significant economic and social benefits. In some parts of the country replacing the role of declining industries as key engines of the local economy. Even if an apprenticeship is the most optimal model for most engineers and technicians, including those who aspire towards chartered recognition, there are too few high quality apprenticeships to go round and the only viable option for many is to enroll as a full-time student.

I would happily concede that for a fraction of the most academically talented, purity of scientific focus unpolluted by the practical demands and pressures of employment is probably for the best. However for most, something nearer to the apprenticeship model with a more vocational emphasis and stronger employer involvement would be better optimised and more cost-effective. Many university and college lecturers would also be delighted to work more closely with employers and apply engineering theory in a realistic context. Some are already doing so, but students may have little chance to apply theory in a practical context until they have forgotten it, without work practice.

I could have posted this in an HR orientated discussion, somewhere else or just sent it to The IET Policy Panel where I would expect it to find a good measure of sympathy. It is here because the leadership of our profession as a whole needs to step up and make clear that an apprenticeship is an equally valid pathway to Chartered Engineer, if it believes that proposition to be true.

Perhaps I missed it? Perhaps they don’t agree and that only those with the strongest teenage academic performance are considered suitable, with only a few from the “lower orders” allowed to “upgrade” by "trickle through"? Engineering Council mentions only Technician and IEng in the context of an Apprenticeship. This article is a fair attempt to summarise official guidance https://www.newcivilengineercareers.com/article/chartered-engineering-vs-incorporated-engineering/

Probably the only clear guidance is; “In order to access either of the professions, you will need certain qualifications. In order to achieve chartered engineer status, a MEng degree is the best option available to you” and perhaps “CEng is the higher qualification of the two”. Otherwise there is a dubious salary survey, out of date information about courses and exams, no mention of apprenticeships and a pile of meaningless waffle about “creativity and innovation” amongst other things. Perhaps part of a rejected script for “yes minister”?

It is to me, as plain as the proverbial Pikestaff, that despite a few platitudes and weasel words, the overriding priority of Engineering Council in its current form is to divide “the best and the rest” as early as possible. Currently, the main tool used is mathematical ability in the early teenage years and proficiency in calculus by the late teens. I accept that there is a need to optimise people for different roles, offer academically stretching opportunities for those with such talents and a more practical or vocational approach for those more suited to that direction. However, most engineering and technology takes place between the extremes of this spectrum and is carried out by people demonstrating “graduate level” attributes, who have undertaken at least 4 years of structured preparation.

For those who follow a Degree Apprenticeship, we currently intend to offer IEng, but we don’t intend for our “fast-track best” to pass through this gate. So the situation is in summary; an MEng student is one of “the best”, A BEng (more theoretical) might be one of “the best”, or one of “the rest”, A BEng (more applied and most likely in a Degree Apprenticeship), one of “the rest” and anything short of a degree definitely one of “the rest”. In any workplace where a mixture of these early career engineers work together, this system of “the best and the rest”, will quickly be shown up for the iniquitous muddle that it is.



To head off this potential looming “crisis of credibility” in the eyes of an upcoming generation, I have proposed that all of them should seek the same form of recognition having proven themselves in the workplace, I used the working title “Registered Engineer”, since the Uff report mentioned this but I’m open minded about any title. Much of our discussions in these forums has been about what basis we use to divide experienced professionals with 20+ years of experience into the “best and the rest”. If and when graduates of Degree Apprenticeships, move through into the workforce over the next few years this argument will move to twenty somethings.

https://www.ucem.ac.uk/study-with-ucem/becoming-an-apprentice/chartered-surveyor-degree-apprenticeship/

https://www.managers.org.uk/apprenticeships-and-epa/apprenticeships/level-6-chartered-manager-degree-apprenticeship

https://careers.icaew.com/find-your-route/icaew-apprenticeships

http://www.aston.ac.uk/news/releases/2017/june/uks-first-ever-degree-apprentices-are-graduating/

Some of you can probably google more quickly than I can so I won’t post any more links. However my search entry for “Chartered Engineer Apprenticeships” brought up the usual “helpful” Engineering Council guidance first and my question in these forums second. If a young person somehow develops an aspiration to become a Chartered Engineer and searches on-line, just like I did, they won’t find an apprenticeship option. If they persist, they might manage to decipher some technobabble infused with snobbery and rank obsession. Surveying or management seems a far better bet to me, unless you are particularly “geeky”?

Does anyone have direct recent experience of guiding a young person into an Engineering Degree Apprenticeship?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

Around this time of year a number of employers begin to accept apprenticeship applications, hoping to select and make offers during the early part of the year for a start by September 2019. For example, I note that the BAE Systems application Window opened on 1^st Nov. Therefore, a crucial question arises for a young person with strong potential for an engineering career and those around them who care about their future. Which pathway to take, full-time study or an apprenticeship?

I recall a few years ago attending a careers fair in Manchester. I was approached by a young man who said “I’m interested in your training scheme” (ie an apprenticeship). His answer to the obvious question “why” was; “because I need a fall-back position if I don’t do very well in my exams”. Prior to developing the scheme from an HND outcome to Bachelors Degree, we also suffered when university fees were more modest, from young people accepting an offer of employment, only to spurn it when their exam results were “better than expected”. To place such a decision in context , this would at the time (circa 2003) have been a decision to lose (adjusted for inflation to today’s values) £60000 if employed after three years and £85000 over 4 years. The same decision today would involve a minimum of £70000 if gaining employment after 3 years and circa £100000 over 4, at the salary levels that we offered for trainees. The figures are approximate and don’t take any account of any employment that a “full-time” student might undertake. However, crucially they also do not include interest on any Student Loan, repayable on earnings over £18 000, which would include 95% of working degree qualified engineers and technicians. A case can be made for a “life-time earnings premium” that may bring a Return on Investment over the very long-term, but not a reliable or robust one relative to a Degree Apprenticeship.

Employers also have to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. In the case of an apprenticeship the aim ideally would be to achieve “break-even” quickly , where the trainee began to deliver productivity for the current cost of their employment and eventually paid back the sunk costs. In a scheme as a whole there is also a risk of drop out, or “wastage”, if some people don’t succeed. My aims for a degree apprenticeship were to break-even in four years, because competitors lurked to poach talent. Another employer may in different circumstances find less effective competition for talent and have very high retention rates. The alternative approach is to recruit a graduate trainee who will be older and expect a higher salary, but ideally will very quickly become productive. It will also be the intention of some employers to seek “the cream” of academic achievers within their age cohort, for future technical and or/strategic leadership. The upfront costs of this approach are in recruitment and potentially paying a premium relative to early productivity, with the risks being under-performance or disloyalty/poaching. The Apprenticeship Levy introduced by UK government has led to some such approaches also coming under the apprenticeship “brand”. This is a good (perhaps the best?) example.   https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/first-of-its-kind-masters-level-apprenticeship-set-to-boost-britain-s-engineering-skills

There is also cost-benefit analysis of public policy decisions, that I won’t pursue here, but factors might include productivity and the economic contribution of younger workers, relative to that of students, the balance between and benefits of full-time versus part-time programmes in colleges and universities etc. The expansion of Higher Education over the last 25+ years , has brought significant economic and social benefits. In some parts of the country replacing the role of declining industries as key engines of the local economy. Even if an apprenticeship is the most optimal model for most engineers and technicians, including those who aspire towards chartered recognition, there are too few high quality apprenticeships to go round and the only viable option for many is to enroll as a full-time student.

I would happily concede that for a fraction of the most academically talented, purity of scientific focus unpolluted by the practical demands and pressures of employment is probably for the best. However for most, something nearer to the apprenticeship model with a more vocational emphasis and stronger employer involvement would be better optimised and more cost-effective. Many university and college lecturers would also be delighted to work more closely with employers and apply engineering theory in a realistic context. Some are already doing so, but students may have little chance to apply theory in a practical context until they have forgotten it, without work practice.

I could have posted this in an HR orientated discussion, somewhere else or just sent it to The IET Policy Panel where I would expect it to find a good measure of sympathy. It is here because the leadership of our profession as a whole needs to step up and make clear that an apprenticeship is an equally valid pathway to Chartered Engineer, if it believes that proposition to be true.

Perhaps I missed it? Perhaps they don’t agree and that only those with the strongest teenage academic performance are considered suitable, with only a few from the “lower orders” allowed to “upgrade” by "trickle through"? Engineering Council mentions only Technician and IEng in the context of an Apprenticeship. This article is a fair attempt to summarise official guidance https://www.newcivilengineercareers.com/article/chartered-engineering-vs-incorporated-engineering/

Probably the only clear guidance is; “In order to access either of the professions, you will need certain qualifications. In order to achieve chartered engineer status, a MEng degree is the best option available to you” and perhaps “CEng is the higher qualification of the two”. Otherwise there is a dubious salary survey, out of date information about courses and exams, no mention of apprenticeships and a pile of meaningless waffle about “creativity and innovation” amongst other things. Perhaps part of a rejected script for “yes minister”?

It is to me, as plain as the proverbial Pikestaff, that despite a few platitudes and weasel words, the overriding priority of Engineering Council in its current form is to divide “the best and the rest” as early as possible. Currently, the main tool used is mathematical ability in the early teenage years and proficiency in calculus by the late teens. I accept that there is a need to optimise people for different roles, offer academically stretching opportunities for those with such talents and a more practical or vocational approach for those more suited to that direction. However, most engineering and technology takes place between the extremes of this spectrum and is carried out by people demonstrating “graduate level” attributes, who have undertaken at least 4 years of structured preparation.

For those who follow a Degree Apprenticeship, we currently intend to offer IEng, but we don’t intend for our “fast-track best” to pass through this gate. So the situation is in summary; an MEng student is one of “the best”, A BEng (more theoretical) might be one of “the best”, or one of “the rest”, A BEng (more applied and most likely in a Degree Apprenticeship), one of “the rest” and anything short of a degree definitely one of “the rest”. In any workplace where a mixture of these early career engineers work together, this system of “the best and the rest”, will quickly be shown up for the iniquitous muddle that it is.



To head off this potential looming “crisis of credibility” in the eyes of an upcoming generation, I have proposed that all of them should seek the same form of recognition having proven themselves in the workplace, I used the working title “Registered Engineer”, since the Uff report mentioned this but I’m open minded about any title. Much of our discussions in these forums has been about what basis we use to divide experienced professionals with 20+ years of experience into the “best and the rest”. If and when graduates of Degree Apprenticeships, move through into the workforce over the next few years this argument will move to twenty somethings.

https://www.ucem.ac.uk/study-with-ucem/becoming-an-apprentice/chartered-surveyor-degree-apprenticeship/

https://www.managers.org.uk/apprenticeships-and-epa/apprenticeships/level-6-chartered-manager-degree-apprenticeship

https://careers.icaew.com/find-your-route/icaew-apprenticeships

http://www.aston.ac.uk/news/releases/2017/june/uks-first-ever-degree-apprentices-are-graduating/

Some of you can probably google more quickly than I can so I won’t post any more links. However my search entry for “Chartered Engineer Apprenticeships” brought up the usual “helpful” Engineering Council guidance first and my question in these forums second. If a young person somehow develops an aspiration to become a Chartered Engineer and searches on-line, just like I did, they won’t find an apprenticeship option. If they persist, they might manage to decipher some technobabble infused with snobbery and rank obsession. Surveying or management seems a far better bet to me, unless you are particularly “geeky”?

Does anyone have direct recent experience of guiding a young person into an Engineering Degree Apprenticeship?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

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

Community Rules & Guidelines