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 14 subscribers
  • Views 11809 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

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
    We cannot change the past, all of my long-winded arguments are trying to make a case for some modest and sensible evolution based on the evidence before us. At the last opportunity to review our professional standards, there was “no appetite for change” at Engineering Council.  Without Government action seeking to revitalise apprenticeships and especially those with a degree included, there would probably once again have been the same calculation.


    I’m not speaking on behalf of the IET here, but I am seeking to advance the IET’s aspiration to be the professional home for Engineers and Technicians. Only a very small number of people carrying out engineering and technology in the UK have a compelling need to become a registered professional through affiliation to a professional body.  Therefore, we have to present them with an appealing set of benefits for doing so, ie a value proposition.


    There is a different but overlapping argument to be had about skills.  Some of the main issues in that argument could include; National industrial strategy, education and vocational training policy, including life-long learning , public safety, respect of the environment, productivity/wealth creation etc.  The IET enjoys some respect as a contributing stakeholder, because it isn’t a narrowly focussed elitist club. If it were, then its influence would be diminished.  Some members may feel that the primary benefit to them personally is enhanced recognition and status, but we exist for public benefit, as does the register and associated professional titles, intended in the words of Privy Council to “inform not aggrandise”.   


    I agree with David’s basic argument “It doesn't matter what piece of paper apprentices get, it matters that they are equipped with the tools to do the job” to some extent. After all, we are often reminded that that are skills shortages and that productivity in the UK is lower than is some comparable advanced countries. Many well-informed people have also bemoaned the imbalance between academic and vocational.  If anyone is as interested in these issues as I am, then you could do a lot worse than taking an interest in Ewart Keep’s work. https://www.centreforworkbasedlearning.co.uk/praxis-october/ . Perhaps a Great Aunt on my mother’s side will allow an application for a Scottish Passport?wink  

    I’m interpreting Christopher’s comment to be referring to the steady decline in numbers of registered engineers. The age profile of current registrants makes this inevitable, but numbers of new registrants have increased over recent years. CEng and Eng Tech numbers have been strong by historic standards, IEng is about half its 1980s peak.  However the challenge is important, because we shouldn’t be kidding ourselves that our current proposition is a great success. To be more successful we have to focus much more clearly on how we add value to those who are not already Chartered Engineers, or ideally placed to gain that recognition soon.  Irrespective of numbers we also have to maintain our professional integrity and standards. My argument is intending to raise standards. I place that in contrast to those who confuse professional standards with the height of any academic bar used to weed out “unsuitable types”.  These “unsuitables” are often well-trained, successful professionals who are perfectly suitable in the eyes of their employers. Obviously they don’t want to pay someone else to look down on them.surprise        


Reply
  • 0
    We cannot change the past, all of my long-winded arguments are trying to make a case for some modest and sensible evolution based on the evidence before us. At the last opportunity to review our professional standards, there was “no appetite for change” at Engineering Council.  Without Government action seeking to revitalise apprenticeships and especially those with a degree included, there would probably once again have been the same calculation.


    I’m not speaking on behalf of the IET here, but I am seeking to advance the IET’s aspiration to be the professional home for Engineers and Technicians. Only a very small number of people carrying out engineering and technology in the UK have a compelling need to become a registered professional through affiliation to a professional body.  Therefore, we have to present them with an appealing set of benefits for doing so, ie a value proposition.


    There is a different but overlapping argument to be had about skills.  Some of the main issues in that argument could include; National industrial strategy, education and vocational training policy, including life-long learning , public safety, respect of the environment, productivity/wealth creation etc.  The IET enjoys some respect as a contributing stakeholder, because it isn’t a narrowly focussed elitist club. If it were, then its influence would be diminished.  Some members may feel that the primary benefit to them personally is enhanced recognition and status, but we exist for public benefit, as does the register and associated professional titles, intended in the words of Privy Council to “inform not aggrandise”.   


    I agree with David’s basic argument “It doesn't matter what piece of paper apprentices get, it matters that they are equipped with the tools to do the job” to some extent. After all, we are often reminded that that are skills shortages and that productivity in the UK is lower than is some comparable advanced countries. Many well-informed people have also bemoaned the imbalance between academic and vocational.  If anyone is as interested in these issues as I am, then you could do a lot worse than taking an interest in Ewart Keep’s work. https://www.centreforworkbasedlearning.co.uk/praxis-october/ . Perhaps a Great Aunt on my mother’s side will allow an application for a Scottish Passport?wink  

    I’m interpreting Christopher’s comment to be referring to the steady decline in numbers of registered engineers. The age profile of current registrants makes this inevitable, but numbers of new registrants have increased over recent years. CEng and Eng Tech numbers have been strong by historic standards, IEng is about half its 1980s peak.  However the challenge is important, because we shouldn’t be kidding ourselves that our current proposition is a great success. To be more successful we have to focus much more clearly on how we add value to those who are not already Chartered Engineers, or ideally placed to gain that recognition soon.  Irrespective of numbers we also have to maintain our professional integrity and standards. My argument is intending to raise standards. I place that in contrast to those who confuse professional standards with the height of any academic bar used to weed out “unsuitable types”.  These “unsuitables” are often well-trained, successful professionals who are perfectly suitable in the eyes of their employers. Obviously they don’t want to pay someone else to look down on them.surprise        


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines