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

Perhaps 2019 will be the year that we are able to refresh and refine our approach to recognising Engineers and Technicians, with the aim of adding more value to more people? I criticised “Engineering Council” in my previous posts simply because the buck has to stop somewhere. What we currently have represents the collective will and compromises between powerful stakeholders over many years. This evolved based on assumptions that; apprenticeships “were for trades and technicians” and that “a professional engineer was defined by their superior academic ability in complex mathematics and science”.

I came across this recent presentation by the Engineering Council CEO Alasdair Coates. It seems that he recognises and is seeking to address some of the issues that I raised https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Grants%20and%20prizes/Schemes%20for%20people%20in%20industry/Visiting%20Professors/Conference%202018/Alasdair-Coates-Presentation.pdf . This is encouraging, but it is very difficult to create a will for change unless there is widespread discomfort with the status quo. Most of those with strong influence are in mid-to-late career and “sitting pretty” , so although concerns might be expressed, change could be seen as a potential threat rather than an opportunity.

I hadn’t realised until very recently that at the end of 2006 there was not a single person aged under 30 in the IEng category; yes Zero. Therefore, if the primary purpose of registration is to offer a career milestone following initial “training”, then having no one aged under 30 must be a reasonable definition of “death” in this context. I enthusiastically joined attempts to revive IEng, including the brief Engineering Council “Proud to be IEng” marketing campaign, not at the time realising quite how dire the situation had been.

The response that had emerged in 2008 was a “progressive philosophy”. This seems in principle good, after all most professional Engineers and Technicians are progressing, I hope! Unfortunately the approach was “top-down”, so instead of focussing on how to maximise the opportunities for professional growth within careers , the main priority became instead to purge the “different but equally valuable philosophy” previously espoused. As I see it, if a body is responsible “for public benefit” operating a system which registers three categories of professional, then surely “equal respect” for each is the only position of moral legitimacy. Would a good parent always favour the most dominant sibling? A “Chartered Engineers Council” could of course act differently.

Without the principal of equal respect, what you get is what we have, a system of “the best and the rest”, with the primary focus being on filtering out. This filtering out occurs initially in the academic competition known as school, then through further expensive academic rites of passage. Additional barriers, diversions and tripping points are then in use, all intend to ensure the “elite status” of our chartered standard, currently achieved on average at the age of 37. Informally at least it seems that the 10 year penalty applied to former apprentices under the old “mature candidate scheme” is still in use, although many graduates just don’t see the point of registration until early middle age anyway. This reflects the primary concern of many within the PEI world, which is the apportionment of relative status. This is often for sociological rather than technical reasons, although they cloak it as “maintaining standards”. I was surprised to learn for example in the last week, that a sister PEI barred people from CEng on unjustified age grounds by its rules until very recently. Who knows what other forms of discrimination have been in use informally, if Engineering Council didn’t pick this illegal one up!

So to summarise and over-simplify the last quarter century as I see it from an “apprenticeship friendly” perspective.

The failed attempt by SARTOR to make IEng “mainstream”, so that CEng could become “more elite”, unintentionally killed IEng in the marketplace. University graduates just simply wouldn’t accept it and “more practical” engineers couldn’t meet the “academic requirement”. The adoption of a “progressive philosophy” circa ten years ago resurrected IEng, but only partly in its original form. It became a hybrid of; its original “More Practical Engineer”; The (Chartered that never was) “Technologist”, defined by the academic Sydney Accord as a type of (inferior but university educated) “Engineer” and anyone else deemed good but not quite ready for CEng, i.e. a “stepping stone” or “consolation prize”. In this new form, by 2016 the under 30 figures were 653 IEng (2231 CEng). Positive progress certainly, but not thriving and lacking clear distinctive purpose or momentum.

We currently have approximately 8000 Engineers aged under 50 who are Incorporated, from a total of approximately 220 000 registrants, so clearly a low proportion of its target market find it useful. There is a “legacy” group of about 12000 aged between 50-65, largely keeping their heads down in the face of withering (friendly) fire, that has already wiped half of them out. I am in this group, but stopped displaying the IEng post-nominal some years ago.

We now expect upcoming Degree Apprentices to seek IEng, which is a reasonable and appropriate standard for a first “first career milestone”, so there is nothing wrong in that. However, it seems that we will also expect for the foreseeable future the majority of graduates from most full-time bachelors or extended bachelors programmes (e.g. MEng) to be seeking CEng as their “first career milestone” instead. We don’t have any reliable basis on which to differentiate between the performance of these two streams, at similar ages in early career, except for a consensus of academic opinion, which values certain attributes of some degree programmes more highly than others (mainly science and maths). These “more academic” attributes may add value in R&D type situations for example, but a “more applied” approach is at least equally if not more valuable in the majority of situations where engineers are employed.

For those unfamiliar with the basis for this academic division it is here. https://www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/website/Accreditation%20of%20Higher%20Education%20Programmes%20third%20edition%20collated%20learning%20outcomes%20(1).pdf. I should note that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education treats the two types of Bachelors Degrees as being of equal value and the same fees are charged. Relevance to employment is not a factor since the assumption is, of the degree being delivered to a young person in preparation for employment, rather than as an employee seeking deeper understanding. For example, an IEng student is expected to “be aware of business, customer and user needs” whereas a supposedly “more academic” student “understands and evaluates business, customer and user needs”. How ridiculous is this distinction, especially in the context of an employed apprentice. This theme continues with numerous other comparisons such as Ability to use and apply information from technical literature (IEng) v understanding of the use of technical literature and other information sources (CEng). knowledge of relevant legal and contractual issues (CEng only). What is entirely obvious to me, is that the creators of this document have simply “watered down” to create the IEng criteria.

In the early noughties, I worked with academic partners to develop a degree programme for my apprentices. Accreditation by a PEI seemed like a good idea so I encouraged it and it was accredited for IEng. Being FIIE, I was pleased with this, especially since my business needed “doers not theorists”. I would acknowledge that the maths and science theory wasn’t perhaps as deep as that contained in some CEng degrees, for good reasons, but the industrial relevance was far higher and using these AHEP criteria, easily beyond MEng in many dimensions.

The following guidance is also offered by Engineering Council.

Can combined degrees (e.g. Engineering with French) be accredited and is a stipulated amount of engineering content required in these? Yes, they can be accredited. In discussion at the EAB, most institutions felt that generally around two thirds of the total programme would be required to deliver the required engineering outcomes. However, this is not a fixed requirement; whether a course holistically delivers the required learning outcomes is still the ultimate criterion in awarding accreditation.

Can a degree be accredited for both IEng and CEng registration? Yes. The Engineering Council’s RSC agreed in 2009 that all Honours degrees accredited as partially meeting the academic requirements for Chartered Engineer registration meet the requirements for Incorporated Engineer registration and Sydney Accord recognition, and so should be accredited for both CEng and IEng.

To summarise therefore, with tongue only very slightly in cheek. According to the academics; two thirds of a CEng accredited “full-time” course, is superior to a four year combined intensive programme of academic study, work-based learning and work responsibility, commonly known as a Degree Apprenticeship. Welcome to the world of cuckoos and clouds!

This report based on 2012 data https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Pathways-to-success-in-engineering-degrees-in-careers-report.pdf , suggests that 32% of engineering graduates are MEng and that “MEng graduates are 5—10% more likely to be working, and 15—25% more likely to be working in a professional engineering job, compared to BEng graduates with the same degree classification. This concurs with other studies showing that employers, particularly larger ones, express a clear preference for graduates with either an MEng or a BEng plus MSc, regarding these qualifications as a fast route to chartered status (9).” I couldn’t find “(9)”, but the report pre-dates government approved “Degree Apprenticeships” and the tripling of tuition fees. I would accept that some larger employers target the highest academic achievers as part of graduate recruitment, often simply because they can and that some would also consider “a fast route to chartered status” to be a business benefit. To challenge this, I would simply assert that virtually 100% of degree apprentices will be in a “professional engineering” job, unless a narrow definition of “professional”, excluding “IEng type work” is used.

To be polite, AHEP does not seem fit for purpose in the context of Degree Apprenticeships. Had I as an employer been aware that my thoroughly excellent, work-experienced and productive younger engineers, were being judged by this standard , then I wouldn’t have supported accreditation, because it unfairly insults and demeans them. With hindsight, I apologise to them for encouraging them towards IEng, which I thought at the time was valuable. Only later did I come to realise, as they had quickly done, that it was held to be an inferior pejorative in graduate company. I was also rather dismissive of those who feared the “stigma of getting a third” due to workplace pressures, surely “getting a degree at all is good” was my response. Once we got the programme bedded in, a high proportion got (uninflated) firsts. Other employers may be coming later to this journey, so I hope that they can draw on my experience, since they may assume like I did that they are getting something of value in IEng degree accreditation. Don’t rely on AHEP, work closely with your chosen university to maximise value added. If more stretching maths & science content, or employee “prestige” is valuable to you, then avoid the “IEng type” of Bachelors Degree. They may be excellent, but no thanks to AHEP and it may come back to bite you later.

A plausible outcome of our current direction of travel seems to me, that many former Degree Apprentices and employers who have CEng aspirations, will find as they so often do now, that they “don’t have the right degree”. They will have been unaware that their Engineering Bachelors Degree was actually of the “inferior” IEng variety, “because it didn’t contain enough calculus based science”. This may come as an unpleasant surprise, especially when it is obvious that they are illustrating a stronger level of performance as an engineer than someone who does have “the right degree”. In the perfectly good engineering pathway developed for “my” degree apprenticeship, as employer influence waned and PEI influence grew, it became renamed “project management” and an “engineering” version was aligned with AHEP. C’est la vie, we don’t want those type of engineers in our club anyway, do we?

As I see it, we can for academic or vocational purposes divide engineering into a myriad of different categories, which might have some usefulness. However if we expect individuals and employers to affiliate with or respect these divisions, then they need to add value, including public benefit.

If we are going to simplify, then; are not “Engineer” and “Technician” enough, without a third poorly supported and confusing category?

Before you rush to disagree, I recommend reading this report which I recently came across. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/.../Credentialing-Dixon-FINAL-Web.pdf . I don’t recall having met the author or paying particular attention to his work, although having read his profile, his credentials to comment on our issues seem unimpeachable. He may even be a Chartered Engineer, since it is rare for anyone who isn’t to have any influence at Engineering Council?

If you are short of time, jump to page 25. My observations are that; the “three ranks” were created by and for academics in engineering; the UK compromise with practising senior engineers, resulted in CEng becoming a combined group of “Professional Engineer (Theoretical)” and “Professional Engineer (Applied)” as described. Therefore, the only viable space left for IEng is “back from whence it came” as a “Technician Engineer” or “top technician”. A type of person who should of course be fully respected as “different but equally valuable”, “the practical professional” etc.

We have learned over the last quarter century that given the opportunity at least half of our population can reach bachelors graduate standard, by their early twenties. We have also learned from within our own profession that many of us can reach at least this standard and higher, through ongoing experiential learning and a little help. I suggest that those who are illustrating graduate attributes in the context of engineering and technology are “Engineers”. For some this will involve the use of calculus-based forms of scientific analysis, but for many it won’t. With additional growth of capability and responsibility a significant proportion will demonstrate applying “masters level” attributes in practice and may often hold an academic qualification to underpin this. They will therefore be demonstrating our terminal standard of Chartered Engineer.

A Technician will demonstrate specialist vocational capability and personal responsibility with a minimum level 3 understanding. An advanced or senior technician will illustrate attributes close to or at graduate level, but may prefer to be a “top technician” with the respect that should rightfully enjoy, rather than an “engineer”? Some may of course wish to transition into engineer recognition, especially since our standards conflate management and technical ability?

So following this logic, a system of recognition might look something like. Eng Tech & Tech Eng (or other title) , Engineer (registered or other title) and Chartered Engineer? Everyone should be progressing in some form and as a registrant under the sympathetic supervision of their professional body.

From a purely political perspective, we know where the age profile of currently registered CEng will take us (40%+ over 60). Numbers of new CEng are quite buoyant with IMechE leading the way, but IET also doing well. We may also have some early indications of how many higher/degree apprentices will come through and if we take the trouble to ask, what their employer’s intentions are. Obviously, if our proposition subtracts rather than adds value to them, fingers will be burnt and our reputation toast, among these upcoming engineers and their employers. The situation might take a few years to pan out, but it could be terminal for the current infrastructure, which I think has a lot of good in it, but seems only capable of serving an elite fraction well, leaving “the rest” either disinterested or diminished.

Focus on the “premium market only” is probably a sustainable business model for some PEIs, but the question arises of “public benefit”. For those who crave more status, that is where it can be found in my opinion. Medical Doctors for example are held in high-esteem for the benefits that they bring, not for internecine squabbles over relative importance between them, or snobbery towards Nurses. Who in turn learned that suggestions of being “too posh to wash” diminished the enormous public affection in which they are held. Perhaps our distain for “oily rags” has inadvertently fed an agenda of academic and social snobbery, that seems rather archaic and alien to the world of engineering as actually practised? We should emphasise and be proud of being a profession that is relatively open, inclusive and enabling of professional growth in many varied ways for people of different talents, to deliver public benefits.

To re-emphasise the theme of this thread, if revitalised apprenticeships are to be a major part of the future landscape, then disparaging and negative attitudes towards this pathway within our professional community have to be eliminated.

The IET has made some progress towards enabling fairer access to Chartered Engineer registration for those who demonstrate competence, which has certainly re-engaged with and benefitted some mid-career engineers. What we need to do now is focus on a younger age group. I wish no harm whatsoever to pathways that serve high academic achievers best, potentially optimising them towards the “scientist end” of a continuum of Engineering practice. However, I do have a strong objection to those better suited to a more practical/vocational/applications focussed approach, being treated in a systematically inferior way. If we claim to serve Engineers & Technicians including their employers and those who educate and train them, we need to take the opportunity that degree apprenticeships present us with to re-focus. I fear that tinkering with UK-SPEC , might be the limit of our ambitions? If so that would be both a mistake and a dereliction of duty in my humble opinion.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

Perhaps 2019 will be the year that we are able to refresh and refine our approach to recognising Engineers and Technicians, with the aim of adding more value to more people? I criticised “Engineering Council” in my previous posts simply because the buck has to stop somewhere. What we currently have represents the collective will and compromises between powerful stakeholders over many years. This evolved based on assumptions that; apprenticeships “were for trades and technicians” and that “a professional engineer was defined by their superior academic ability in complex mathematics and science”.

I came across this recent presentation by the Engineering Council CEO Alasdair Coates. It seems that he recognises and is seeking to address some of the issues that I raised https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Grants%20and%20prizes/Schemes%20for%20people%20in%20industry/Visiting%20Professors/Conference%202018/Alasdair-Coates-Presentation.pdf . This is encouraging, but it is very difficult to create a will for change unless there is widespread discomfort with the status quo. Most of those with strong influence are in mid-to-late career and “sitting pretty” , so although concerns might be expressed, change could be seen as a potential threat rather than an opportunity.

I hadn’t realised until very recently that at the end of 2006 there was not a single person aged under 30 in the IEng category; yes Zero. Therefore, if the primary purpose of registration is to offer a career milestone following initial “training”, then having no one aged under 30 must be a reasonable definition of “death” in this context. I enthusiastically joined attempts to revive IEng, including the brief Engineering Council “Proud to be IEng” marketing campaign, not at the time realising quite how dire the situation had been.

The response that had emerged in 2008 was a “progressive philosophy”. This seems in principle good, after all most professional Engineers and Technicians are progressing, I hope! Unfortunately the approach was “top-down”, so instead of focussing on how to maximise the opportunities for professional growth within careers , the main priority became instead to purge the “different but equally valuable philosophy” previously espoused. As I see it, if a body is responsible “for public benefit” operating a system which registers three categories of professional, then surely “equal respect” for each is the only position of moral legitimacy. Would a good parent always favour the most dominant sibling? A “Chartered Engineers Council” could of course act differently.

Without the principal of equal respect, what you get is what we have, a system of “the best and the rest”, with the primary focus being on filtering out. This filtering out occurs initially in the academic competition known as school, then through further expensive academic rites of passage. Additional barriers, diversions and tripping points are then in use, all intend to ensure the “elite status” of our chartered standard, currently achieved on average at the age of 37. Informally at least it seems that the 10 year penalty applied to former apprentices under the old “mature candidate scheme” is still in use, although many graduates just don’t see the point of registration until early middle age anyway. This reflects the primary concern of many within the PEI world, which is the apportionment of relative status. This is often for sociological rather than technical reasons, although they cloak it as “maintaining standards”. I was surprised to learn for example in the last week, that a sister PEI barred people from CEng on unjustified age grounds by its rules until very recently. Who knows what other forms of discrimination have been in use informally, if Engineering Council didn’t pick this illegal one up!

So to summarise and over-simplify the last quarter century as I see it from an “apprenticeship friendly” perspective.

The failed attempt by SARTOR to make IEng “mainstream”, so that CEng could become “more elite”, unintentionally killed IEng in the marketplace. University graduates just simply wouldn’t accept it and “more practical” engineers couldn’t meet the “academic requirement”. The adoption of a “progressive philosophy” circa ten years ago resurrected IEng, but only partly in its original form. It became a hybrid of; its original “More Practical Engineer”; The (Chartered that never was) “Technologist”, defined by the academic Sydney Accord as a type of (inferior but university educated) “Engineer” and anyone else deemed good but not quite ready for CEng, i.e. a “stepping stone” or “consolation prize”. In this new form, by 2016 the under 30 figures were 653 IEng (2231 CEng). Positive progress certainly, but not thriving and lacking clear distinctive purpose or momentum.

We currently have approximately 8000 Engineers aged under 50 who are Incorporated, from a total of approximately 220 000 registrants, so clearly a low proportion of its target market find it useful. There is a “legacy” group of about 12000 aged between 50-65, largely keeping their heads down in the face of withering (friendly) fire, that has already wiped half of them out. I am in this group, but stopped displaying the IEng post-nominal some years ago.

We now expect upcoming Degree Apprentices to seek IEng, which is a reasonable and appropriate standard for a first “first career milestone”, so there is nothing wrong in that. However, it seems that we will also expect for the foreseeable future the majority of graduates from most full-time bachelors or extended bachelors programmes (e.g. MEng) to be seeking CEng as their “first career milestone” instead. We don’t have any reliable basis on which to differentiate between the performance of these two streams, at similar ages in early career, except for a consensus of academic opinion, which values certain attributes of some degree programmes more highly than others (mainly science and maths). These “more academic” attributes may add value in R&D type situations for example, but a “more applied” approach is at least equally if not more valuable in the majority of situations where engineers are employed.

For those unfamiliar with the basis for this academic division it is here. https://www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/website/Accreditation%20of%20Higher%20Education%20Programmes%20third%20edition%20collated%20learning%20outcomes%20(1).pdf. I should note that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education treats the two types of Bachelors Degrees as being of equal value and the same fees are charged. Relevance to employment is not a factor since the assumption is, of the degree being delivered to a young person in preparation for employment, rather than as an employee seeking deeper understanding. For example, an IEng student is expected to “be aware of business, customer and user needs” whereas a supposedly “more academic” student “understands and evaluates business, customer and user needs”. How ridiculous is this distinction, especially in the context of an employed apprentice. This theme continues with numerous other comparisons such as Ability to use and apply information from technical literature (IEng) v understanding of the use of technical literature and other information sources (CEng). knowledge of relevant legal and contractual issues (CEng only). What is entirely obvious to me, is that the creators of this document have simply “watered down” to create the IEng criteria.

In the early noughties, I worked with academic partners to develop a degree programme for my apprentices. Accreditation by a PEI seemed like a good idea so I encouraged it and it was accredited for IEng. Being FIIE, I was pleased with this, especially since my business needed “doers not theorists”. I would acknowledge that the maths and science theory wasn’t perhaps as deep as that contained in some CEng degrees, for good reasons, but the industrial relevance was far higher and using these AHEP criteria, easily beyond MEng in many dimensions.

The following guidance is also offered by Engineering Council.

Can combined degrees (e.g. Engineering with French) be accredited and is a stipulated amount of engineering content required in these? Yes, they can be accredited. In discussion at the EAB, most institutions felt that generally around two thirds of the total programme would be required to deliver the required engineering outcomes. However, this is not a fixed requirement; whether a course holistically delivers the required learning outcomes is still the ultimate criterion in awarding accreditation.

Can a degree be accredited for both IEng and CEng registration? Yes. The Engineering Council’s RSC agreed in 2009 that all Honours degrees accredited as partially meeting the academic requirements for Chartered Engineer registration meet the requirements for Incorporated Engineer registration and Sydney Accord recognition, and so should be accredited for both CEng and IEng.

To summarise therefore, with tongue only very slightly in cheek. According to the academics; two thirds of a CEng accredited “full-time” course, is superior to a four year combined intensive programme of academic study, work-based learning and work responsibility, commonly known as a Degree Apprenticeship. Welcome to the world of cuckoos and clouds!

This report based on 2012 data https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Pathways-to-success-in-engineering-degrees-in-careers-report.pdf , suggests that 32% of engineering graduates are MEng and that “MEng graduates are 5—10% more likely to be working, and 15—25% more likely to be working in a professional engineering job, compared to BEng graduates with the same degree classification. This concurs with other studies showing that employers, particularly larger ones, express a clear preference for graduates with either an MEng or a BEng plus MSc, regarding these qualifications as a fast route to chartered status (9).” I couldn’t find “(9)”, but the report pre-dates government approved “Degree Apprenticeships” and the tripling of tuition fees. I would accept that some larger employers target the highest academic achievers as part of graduate recruitment, often simply because they can and that some would also consider “a fast route to chartered status” to be a business benefit. To challenge this, I would simply assert that virtually 100% of degree apprentices will be in a “professional engineering” job, unless a narrow definition of “professional”, excluding “IEng type work” is used.

To be polite, AHEP does not seem fit for purpose in the context of Degree Apprenticeships. Had I as an employer been aware that my thoroughly excellent, work-experienced and productive younger engineers, were being judged by this standard , then I wouldn’t have supported accreditation, because it unfairly insults and demeans them. With hindsight, I apologise to them for encouraging them towards IEng, which I thought at the time was valuable. Only later did I come to realise, as they had quickly done, that it was held to be an inferior pejorative in graduate company. I was also rather dismissive of those who feared the “stigma of getting a third” due to workplace pressures, surely “getting a degree at all is good” was my response. Once we got the programme bedded in, a high proportion got (uninflated) firsts. Other employers may be coming later to this journey, so I hope that they can draw on my experience, since they may assume like I did that they are getting something of value in IEng degree accreditation. Don’t rely on AHEP, work closely with your chosen university to maximise value added. If more stretching maths & science content, or employee “prestige” is valuable to you, then avoid the “IEng type” of Bachelors Degree. They may be excellent, but no thanks to AHEP and it may come back to bite you later.

A plausible outcome of our current direction of travel seems to me, that many former Degree Apprentices and employers who have CEng aspirations, will find as they so often do now, that they “don’t have the right degree”. They will have been unaware that their Engineering Bachelors Degree was actually of the “inferior” IEng variety, “because it didn’t contain enough calculus based science”. This may come as an unpleasant surprise, especially when it is obvious that they are illustrating a stronger level of performance as an engineer than someone who does have “the right degree”. In the perfectly good engineering pathway developed for “my” degree apprenticeship, as employer influence waned and PEI influence grew, it became renamed “project management” and an “engineering” version was aligned with AHEP. C’est la vie, we don’t want those type of engineers in our club anyway, do we?

As I see it, we can for academic or vocational purposes divide engineering into a myriad of different categories, which might have some usefulness. However if we expect individuals and employers to affiliate with or respect these divisions, then they need to add value, including public benefit.

If we are going to simplify, then; are not “Engineer” and “Technician” enough, without a third poorly supported and confusing category?

Before you rush to disagree, I recommend reading this report which I recently came across. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/.../Credentialing-Dixon-FINAL-Web.pdf . I don’t recall having met the author or paying particular attention to his work, although having read his profile, his credentials to comment on our issues seem unimpeachable. He may even be a Chartered Engineer, since it is rare for anyone who isn’t to have any influence at Engineering Council?

If you are short of time, jump to page 25. My observations are that; the “three ranks” were created by and for academics in engineering; the UK compromise with practising senior engineers, resulted in CEng becoming a combined group of “Professional Engineer (Theoretical)” and “Professional Engineer (Applied)” as described. Therefore, the only viable space left for IEng is “back from whence it came” as a “Technician Engineer” or “top technician”. A type of person who should of course be fully respected as “different but equally valuable”, “the practical professional” etc.

We have learned over the last quarter century that given the opportunity at least half of our population can reach bachelors graduate standard, by their early twenties. We have also learned from within our own profession that many of us can reach at least this standard and higher, through ongoing experiential learning and a little help. I suggest that those who are illustrating graduate attributes in the context of engineering and technology are “Engineers”. For some this will involve the use of calculus-based forms of scientific analysis, but for many it won’t. With additional growth of capability and responsibility a significant proportion will demonstrate applying “masters level” attributes in practice and may often hold an academic qualification to underpin this. They will therefore be demonstrating our terminal standard of Chartered Engineer.

A Technician will demonstrate specialist vocational capability and personal responsibility with a minimum level 3 understanding. An advanced or senior technician will illustrate attributes close to or at graduate level, but may prefer to be a “top technician” with the respect that should rightfully enjoy, rather than an “engineer”? Some may of course wish to transition into engineer recognition, especially since our standards conflate management and technical ability?

So following this logic, a system of recognition might look something like. Eng Tech & Tech Eng (or other title) , Engineer (registered or other title) and Chartered Engineer? Everyone should be progressing in some form and as a registrant under the sympathetic supervision of their professional body.

From a purely political perspective, we know where the age profile of currently registered CEng will take us (40%+ over 60). Numbers of new CEng are quite buoyant with IMechE leading the way, but IET also doing well. We may also have some early indications of how many higher/degree apprentices will come through and if we take the trouble to ask, what their employer’s intentions are. Obviously, if our proposition subtracts rather than adds value to them, fingers will be burnt and our reputation toast, among these upcoming engineers and their employers. The situation might take a few years to pan out, but it could be terminal for the current infrastructure, which I think has a lot of good in it, but seems only capable of serving an elite fraction well, leaving “the rest” either disinterested or diminished.

Focus on the “premium market only” is probably a sustainable business model for some PEIs, but the question arises of “public benefit”. For those who crave more status, that is where it can be found in my opinion. Medical Doctors for example are held in high-esteem for the benefits that they bring, not for internecine squabbles over relative importance between them, or snobbery towards Nurses. Who in turn learned that suggestions of being “too posh to wash” diminished the enormous public affection in which they are held. Perhaps our distain for “oily rags” has inadvertently fed an agenda of academic and social snobbery, that seems rather archaic and alien to the world of engineering as actually practised? We should emphasise and be proud of being a profession that is relatively open, inclusive and enabling of professional growth in many varied ways for people of different talents, to deliver public benefits.

To re-emphasise the theme of this thread, if revitalised apprenticeships are to be a major part of the future landscape, then disparaging and negative attitudes towards this pathway within our professional community have to be eliminated.

The IET has made some progress towards enabling fairer access to Chartered Engineer registration for those who demonstrate competence, which has certainly re-engaged with and benefitted some mid-career engineers. What we need to do now is focus on a younger age group. I wish no harm whatsoever to pathways that serve high academic achievers best, potentially optimising them towards the “scientist end” of a continuum of Engineering practice. However, I do have a strong objection to those better suited to a more practical/vocational/applications focussed approach, being treated in a systematically inferior way. If we claim to serve Engineers & Technicians including their employers and those who educate and train them, we need to take the opportunity that degree apprenticeships present us with to re-focus. I fear that tinkering with UK-SPEC , might be the limit of our ambitions? If so that would be both a mistake and a dereliction of duty in my humble opinion.
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