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
    I had the good fortune this morning, to discuss with one of our Chartered Engineers his career story.  His family background and education was typical of those just above disadvantaged, but he was able to secure an Electrician’s Apprenticeship. He then had to take out a bank loan to finance his “C” certificate and over the next few years while working in contracting as an estimator and then engineer, gained by part-time study HNC and eventually BEng (Hons). Fortunately, this was an accessible option by then (late 1990s) and still the key to IEE chartership, pre UK-SPEC. Unless you accepted the penalty of waiting until the age of 35 and hoping to be accepted for the Technical Report Route. He became CEng aged 29. Had he come ten years later, then more value might have been given to his work-based learning, but the benchmark had moved to “masters level” and he might easily have “tripped over” someone’s interpretation of “creativity and innovation”, as many have done since.  In my opinion he was an excellent “role-model” engineer, who has enjoyed a strong mostly self-employed career. He could if necessary flex across the whole spectrum of practice from practical to intellectual, within his domain.       


    During a similar time frame, I was managing a “Student Engineer Training Scheme”. A form of apprenticeship with a HNC qualification when I first became involved, but later a  Bachelors Degree in the same four-year timescale. It won awards and became a model for today’s Degree Apprenticeships. Obviously, for a scheme of this nature you are seeking to recruit those with stronger academic potential than for a Craft Apprenticeship, although some transfer took place as potential emerged, as it so often does beyond school age in the different environments that are the workplace and college.  The degree became “IEng accredited” at my request, but some of the higher performers would comfortably outperform most MEng graduates that I have encountered in that sector.  As a result they tended to find pathways towards senior management, ignoring registration, since the  relevant PEI put them in "the second class box", because of their degree and focus on delivery not just front-end design.  A few eventually found their way into spaces where CEng was valued and have achieved ten years behind many MEng graduates.


    In the first example someone literally “fought their way up”, in the second someone had to work very hard early (much harder than a typical undergraduate), but benefited from a paid, structured and supported pathway to becoming a professional engineer (or Technologist is it?). Not everyone was a high-flyer and IEng could have been a fair reflection of their capability, if it added any value to them. However, I can only recall one individual who felt that value, despite my encouragement, as the negative connotations became apparent to them.  Ultimately, perhaps fewer than 5% of my former Student Engineer apprentices sit on the Engineering Council register, despite having been enrolled as members of a PEI as part of their training.  Something has therefore been seriously deficient in our proposition to this type of person and/or their employers.


    I hope that our proposition isn’t going to continue to be seriously deficient in future. If we believe that an apprenticeship is an equally valid potential pathway to Chartered Engineer, then we need to make sure that “fair progression” occurs on the basis of performance, rather than have a series of minefields that someone who didn’t gain maximum teenage academic advantages has to battle through, or just by-passes on their journey to senior management. Unfortunately, many of those influential within the engineering establishment would see this proposition as a threat to the status of the profession, since apprentice implies a “cloth cap or oily rag type” and we don’t have apprentice doctors and lawyers -or do we?  Perhaps we would be better off taking pride in how an engineering career can be an engine of social mobility, rather than inevitably losing a competition for social status with professions that are effectively “closed shops”.


    By coincidence, some of these issues were explored this week in the Radio 4 programme Thinking Allowed https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000281t

Reply
  • 0
    I had the good fortune this morning, to discuss with one of our Chartered Engineers his career story.  His family background and education was typical of those just above disadvantaged, but he was able to secure an Electrician’s Apprenticeship. He then had to take out a bank loan to finance his “C” certificate and over the next few years while working in contracting as an estimator and then engineer, gained by part-time study HNC and eventually BEng (Hons). Fortunately, this was an accessible option by then (late 1990s) and still the key to IEE chartership, pre UK-SPEC. Unless you accepted the penalty of waiting until the age of 35 and hoping to be accepted for the Technical Report Route. He became CEng aged 29. Had he come ten years later, then more value might have been given to his work-based learning, but the benchmark had moved to “masters level” and he might easily have “tripped over” someone’s interpretation of “creativity and innovation”, as many have done since.  In my opinion he was an excellent “role-model” engineer, who has enjoyed a strong mostly self-employed career. He could if necessary flex across the whole spectrum of practice from practical to intellectual, within his domain.       


    During a similar time frame, I was managing a “Student Engineer Training Scheme”. A form of apprenticeship with a HNC qualification when I first became involved, but later a  Bachelors Degree in the same four-year timescale. It won awards and became a model for today’s Degree Apprenticeships. Obviously, for a scheme of this nature you are seeking to recruit those with stronger academic potential than for a Craft Apprenticeship, although some transfer took place as potential emerged, as it so often does beyond school age in the different environments that are the workplace and college.  The degree became “IEng accredited” at my request, but some of the higher performers would comfortably outperform most MEng graduates that I have encountered in that sector.  As a result they tended to find pathways towards senior management, ignoring registration, since the  relevant PEI put them in "the second class box", because of their degree and focus on delivery not just front-end design.  A few eventually found their way into spaces where CEng was valued and have achieved ten years behind many MEng graduates.


    In the first example someone literally “fought their way up”, in the second someone had to work very hard early (much harder than a typical undergraduate), but benefited from a paid, structured and supported pathway to becoming a professional engineer (or Technologist is it?). Not everyone was a high-flyer and IEng could have been a fair reflection of their capability, if it added any value to them. However, I can only recall one individual who felt that value, despite my encouragement, as the negative connotations became apparent to them.  Ultimately, perhaps fewer than 5% of my former Student Engineer apprentices sit on the Engineering Council register, despite having been enrolled as members of a PEI as part of their training.  Something has therefore been seriously deficient in our proposition to this type of person and/or their employers.


    I hope that our proposition isn’t going to continue to be seriously deficient in future. If we believe that an apprenticeship is an equally valid potential pathway to Chartered Engineer, then we need to make sure that “fair progression” occurs on the basis of performance, rather than have a series of minefields that someone who didn’t gain maximum teenage academic advantages has to battle through, or just by-passes on their journey to senior management. Unfortunately, many of those influential within the engineering establishment would see this proposition as a threat to the status of the profession, since apprentice implies a “cloth cap or oily rag type” and we don’t have apprentice doctors and lawyers -or do we?  Perhaps we would be better off taking pride in how an engineering career can be an engine of social mobility, rather than inevitably losing a competition for social status with professions that are effectively “closed shops”.


    By coincidence, some of these issues were explored this week in the Radio 4 programme Thinking Allowed https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000281t

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines