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
    https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/building-services-engineering-site-management-degree/


    An example is always the easiest way to explain and this is the current iteration of the apprenticeship that was developed in the early noughties to Bachelors Degree level under my leadership, from its earlier HNC and HND iteration. That version had been recognised by the UK Government sponsored National Training Awards. It was a revitalisation of a model from the 1950s, when the company supported a "National College" which become a "Polytechnic" then a "University". The additional opportunity arose through the introduction of “Foundation Degrees” by the UK Government. A Foundation Degree (FDSc) was aligned to HND or two-thirds of an honours degree, but awarded by a university and required to have a linked “top up” to the full bachelors.  The hard detailed work was then done by my Community College partner with me in support, to modify the programme and get a suitable partner university on board. The first negotiation broke down, but eventually a year later than initially hoped, we launched our “new” Student Engineer and Commercial Student Training Programme. We did not use the title "Apprentice" because it deterred some, due to the stigma attached to apprenticeships that I have previously described.  "Commercial" in this context referred mainly to Quantity Surveyors, but could embrace Estimating and Procurement. Most Student Engineers gravitated towards project engineering and management, but the option of specialising in design was also available.


    The programme employed young people including directly from school typically at 18, but also some slightly older who hadn’t found an optimum path, transfers from a Craft Apprenticeship, with a Degree that hadn’t launched their career, or having already “topped out” in retail. In each of the four years of training, up to 12 weeks were spent in 4-6 week chunks attending college and subsequently university, living in company provided accommodation. Team projects based around real work scenarios were a major element of the learning, with outputs reviewed by company managers as well as gaining academic credit. The company also provided an additional specialist residential course in each year.  The least committed participant would therefore undertake a combination of structured experience and learning of at least 7000 hours, the most committed significantly more, including private study.  A  salary and all expenses were paid.  The first year qualification for everyone was a BTEC National in Building Services Engineering, with teams remaining mixed between engineering and commercial through the following three years to degree, but some divergence occurring to provided specialism, such as more legal and financial for commercial students.  


    The aims of the programme were aligned to the company’s needs, although obviously the integrated degree met the standards of a proud university and the UK QAA. Some graduates have ended up as specialist design engineers, some as project managers, some as quantity surveyors, with a small number at Director level within ten years.  The PEI that I involved offered IEng accreditation for the Engineer stream leading to Associate Membership. This was a poor proposition that few took up, even with some employer encouragement, quickly recognising it as a stigma, before I did, in the context of their situation as graduate engineers. I was at the time a little embarrassed that the scheme I had established to get them IEng failed to gain their enthusiasm, but with hindsight the symptoms that I didn't recognise from my IIE/IET perspective, became the full scale disease of regarding IEng as an inferior pejorative, including sadly by some within the IET.


    An interesting post-script to the story is that the more recent “Chartered Building Engineer” looks potentially well aligned to my Commercial Stream.  It seems also from a distance that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors who would have been snooty towards them, have a Degree Apprenticeship now as well.


    My proposition challenges the leadership of our profession to use the words "apprenticeship" and "chartered" in the same  breath without introducing caveats.  I can forgive some hesitancy because the new apprenticeship models haven't delivered yet except for a few early adopters.  Would this one perhaps offer an opportunity for enthusiastic endorsement?
    https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/postgraduate-engineer/




Reply
  • 0
    https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/building-services-engineering-site-management-degree/


    An example is always the easiest way to explain and this is the current iteration of the apprenticeship that was developed in the early noughties to Bachelors Degree level under my leadership, from its earlier HNC and HND iteration. That version had been recognised by the UK Government sponsored National Training Awards. It was a revitalisation of a model from the 1950s, when the company supported a "National College" which become a "Polytechnic" then a "University". The additional opportunity arose through the introduction of “Foundation Degrees” by the UK Government. A Foundation Degree (FDSc) was aligned to HND or two-thirds of an honours degree, but awarded by a university and required to have a linked “top up” to the full bachelors.  The hard detailed work was then done by my Community College partner with me in support, to modify the programme and get a suitable partner university on board. The first negotiation broke down, but eventually a year later than initially hoped, we launched our “new” Student Engineer and Commercial Student Training Programme. We did not use the title "Apprentice" because it deterred some, due to the stigma attached to apprenticeships that I have previously described.  "Commercial" in this context referred mainly to Quantity Surveyors, but could embrace Estimating and Procurement. Most Student Engineers gravitated towards project engineering and management, but the option of specialising in design was also available.


    The programme employed young people including directly from school typically at 18, but also some slightly older who hadn’t found an optimum path, transfers from a Craft Apprenticeship, with a Degree that hadn’t launched their career, or having already “topped out” in retail. In each of the four years of training, up to 12 weeks were spent in 4-6 week chunks attending college and subsequently university, living in company provided accommodation. Team projects based around real work scenarios were a major element of the learning, with outputs reviewed by company managers as well as gaining academic credit. The company also provided an additional specialist residential course in each year.  The least committed participant would therefore undertake a combination of structured experience and learning of at least 7000 hours, the most committed significantly more, including private study.  A  salary and all expenses were paid.  The first year qualification for everyone was a BTEC National in Building Services Engineering, with teams remaining mixed between engineering and commercial through the following three years to degree, but some divergence occurring to provided specialism, such as more legal and financial for commercial students.  


    The aims of the programme were aligned to the company’s needs, although obviously the integrated degree met the standards of a proud university and the UK QAA. Some graduates have ended up as specialist design engineers, some as project managers, some as quantity surveyors, with a small number at Director level within ten years.  The PEI that I involved offered IEng accreditation for the Engineer stream leading to Associate Membership. This was a poor proposition that few took up, even with some employer encouragement, quickly recognising it as a stigma, before I did, in the context of their situation as graduate engineers. I was at the time a little embarrassed that the scheme I had established to get them IEng failed to gain their enthusiasm, but with hindsight the symptoms that I didn't recognise from my IIE/IET perspective, became the full scale disease of regarding IEng as an inferior pejorative, including sadly by some within the IET.


    An interesting post-script to the story is that the more recent “Chartered Building Engineer” looks potentially well aligned to my Commercial Stream.  It seems also from a distance that the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors who would have been snooty towards them, have a Degree Apprenticeship now as well.


    My proposition challenges the leadership of our profession to use the words "apprenticeship" and "chartered" in the same  breath without introducing caveats.  I can forgive some hesitancy because the new apprenticeship models haven't delivered yet except for a few early adopters.  Would this one perhaps offer an opportunity for enthusiastic endorsement?
    https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/postgraduate-engineer/




Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines