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 11812 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.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/engineering-skills-for-the-future

    However, despite the broad entry routes, for socio-economic participation the record on access for engineering higher education is not good compared to other subjects. In 2013, twice as many students (39%) from the most affluent socioeconomic group (POLAR 3 quintile 5) participated  in engineering degree programmes compared to lower socioeconomic groups (19%) (POLAR3 quintiles 1 and 2)112. Since 2012/13 engineering has also seen a very substantial 20% fall in part-time students. Traditionally, engineering has always had a smaller part-time intake than most other subject areas.  

    around 66% of engineering graduates enter full-time work compared with 58% for all higher education subjects. 56% of the engineering graduates entering full-time work, went into engineering occupations. This equates to 85% of the employed cohort taking on engineering jobs.


    “Traditionally” the majority of Engineers actually followed apprenticeships, involving a blend of work experience and formal learning.  This more recent “tradition” emerged out of  certain academics and bureaucrats gaining control over who should be called an “Engineer”. Having done so, they operated the usual academic competition for status and prestige, “weeding out” the majority of practitioners of Engineering and Technology and placing them into an “inferior” basket.  I am unaware of any evidence about why those from less advantaged social backgrounds, should have less latent potential or aptitude for technical work, but it seems that this evidence suggests it.


    I would actually consider myself a friend of universities and colleges, who worked very closely as an employer with academic partners and made significant levels of investment. In doing so I followed a well-established “tradition”, although by a fine margin, I could have followed the more popular recent trend of prioritising graduate recruitment. Some of the reasons are captured in the report and may come down to “perspiration versus inspiration” inherent in the business model being operated.


    With little or no employer involvement, the emphasis of Engineering programmes is always going to drift towards academic selectivity and theoretical science. More prestigious universities see their role as being to select, educate and research, not to train someone for a vocation. Accreditation by professional bodies has also tended to reinforce a more academic approach, treating anything “applied” as being “inferior”. Hence BEng (Hons) degrees of equivalent quality according to national standards, are regarded as “higher and lower” (CEng/IEng) by PEI accreditors. This encourages a preference for and the substitution of, theory over practice.


    Virtually 100% of those completing a suitable apprenticeship continue into employment as a Technician or Engineer. Where that apprenticeship blend includes a degree, they are usually able to perform immediately in a responsible engineer’s role, often well ahead of an age group peer graduating from a full-time programme.  This of course is only one factor and more academic attributes may offer advantages for certain types of career path. However, a few years later there will be no reliable basis, in most engineer’s roles to differentiate using current performance, categorising one an “Engineer” and the other a (lower) “Technologist”, unless the latter has been intentionally “nobbled”.


    The report concludes  

    Some engineering faculties and departments have developed innovative approaches, increasing design-based project work for students, improving industry collaboration and offering more work placements.


    So “innovation” is actually waking up to the fact that engineering is about practice not just theory. This is exactly what my company  and its academic partners were doing twenty years ago, which itself was built on a much longer apprenticeship tradition.  When with considerable efforts fifteen years ago we were able to offer a degree qualification that the programme deserved. I thought accreditation was a valuable addition, without realising that we got a “second class” ticket. Under PEI influence a “superior” more theoretical model, but practically less successful emerged. It is easy to be superior in theory! Apparently it is related to “innovation”!


    When we prioritise the productivity of Engineer’s training and subsequent performance, over our need to divide experienced competent practitioners of graduate calibre, into “the best and the rest” for status reasons, we may gain more relevance and value.  


    I welcome the report, which contains much that I would sympathise with, but is this still not a reasonably accurate reflection?
    https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/21/university-engineering-departments-overalls-research

        

Reply
  • 0
    https://www.raeng.org.uk/publications/reports/engineering-skills-for-the-future

    However, despite the broad entry routes, for socio-economic participation the record on access for engineering higher education is not good compared to other subjects. In 2013, twice as many students (39%) from the most affluent socioeconomic group (POLAR 3 quintile 5) participated  in engineering degree programmes compared to lower socioeconomic groups (19%) (POLAR3 quintiles 1 and 2)112. Since 2012/13 engineering has also seen a very substantial 20% fall in part-time students. Traditionally, engineering has always had a smaller part-time intake than most other subject areas.  

    around 66% of engineering graduates enter full-time work compared with 58% for all higher education subjects. 56% of the engineering graduates entering full-time work, went into engineering occupations. This equates to 85% of the employed cohort taking on engineering jobs.


    “Traditionally” the majority of Engineers actually followed apprenticeships, involving a blend of work experience and formal learning.  This more recent “tradition” emerged out of  certain academics and bureaucrats gaining control over who should be called an “Engineer”. Having done so, they operated the usual academic competition for status and prestige, “weeding out” the majority of practitioners of Engineering and Technology and placing them into an “inferior” basket.  I am unaware of any evidence about why those from less advantaged social backgrounds, should have less latent potential or aptitude for technical work, but it seems that this evidence suggests it.


    I would actually consider myself a friend of universities and colleges, who worked very closely as an employer with academic partners and made significant levels of investment. In doing so I followed a well-established “tradition”, although by a fine margin, I could have followed the more popular recent trend of prioritising graduate recruitment. Some of the reasons are captured in the report and may come down to “perspiration versus inspiration” inherent in the business model being operated.


    With little or no employer involvement, the emphasis of Engineering programmes is always going to drift towards academic selectivity and theoretical science. More prestigious universities see their role as being to select, educate and research, not to train someone for a vocation. Accreditation by professional bodies has also tended to reinforce a more academic approach, treating anything “applied” as being “inferior”. Hence BEng (Hons) degrees of equivalent quality according to national standards, are regarded as “higher and lower” (CEng/IEng) by PEI accreditors. This encourages a preference for and the substitution of, theory over practice.


    Virtually 100% of those completing a suitable apprenticeship continue into employment as a Technician or Engineer. Where that apprenticeship blend includes a degree, they are usually able to perform immediately in a responsible engineer’s role, often well ahead of an age group peer graduating from a full-time programme.  This of course is only one factor and more academic attributes may offer advantages for certain types of career path. However, a few years later there will be no reliable basis, in most engineer’s roles to differentiate using current performance, categorising one an “Engineer” and the other a (lower) “Technologist”, unless the latter has been intentionally “nobbled”.


    The report concludes  

    Some engineering faculties and departments have developed innovative approaches, increasing design-based project work for students, improving industry collaboration and offering more work placements.


    So “innovation” is actually waking up to the fact that engineering is about practice not just theory. This is exactly what my company  and its academic partners were doing twenty years ago, which itself was built on a much longer apprenticeship tradition.  When with considerable efforts fifteen years ago we were able to offer a degree qualification that the programme deserved. I thought accreditation was a valuable addition, without realising that we got a “second class” ticket. Under PEI influence a “superior” more theoretical model, but practically less successful emerged. It is easy to be superior in theory! Apparently it is related to “innovation”!


    When we prioritise the productivity of Engineer’s training and subsequent performance, over our need to divide experienced competent practitioners of graduate calibre, into “the best and the rest” for status reasons, we may gain more relevance and value.  


    I welcome the report, which contains much that I would sympathise with, but is this still not a reasonably accurate reflection?
    https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/21/university-engineering-departments-overalls-research

        

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines