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?

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
“National Apprenticeship and Scottish Apprenticeship Week 2019” is being held from Monday 4^th March.

It seems at present that opinion remains divided within the profession, about whether an Apprenticeship might only exceptionally lead to Chartered Engineer, or is an equally valid pathway when compared to becoming a full-time academic student for up to 4 years, followed by a similar period of training and experience in the workplace. It also remains to be seen whether the “flagship” government policy of revitalising apprenticeships will sustain, or ultimately join a long list of initiatives that have proved to be little more than politicians tinkering, or at best offered limited long-term impact.

The Government policy isn’t just about Engineering and Technology, but Technician Apprenticeships in Engineering have traditionally been seen as a an exemplar. However, as Peter Miller has highlighted, apprenticeships have been considered “vocational” and therefore associated with “the labouring classes”. Whereas those from the “middle classes” were expected to attended university for “academic” preparation before seeking further training.

A significant proportion of older Chartered Engineers crossed this class divide via the Grammar School System which for a was ubiquitous in the post-war period, dividing children on the basis of examinations taken at the age of 10. Some others have found pathways after completing an apprenticeship, but the rules and practice of Engineering Council intentionally made this difficult for a long time. For example, a 10 year penalty was applied to anyone without an accredited degree, which were nearly all full-time study only. Many understandably hold to the tradition which bred them, in which a theoretical examination, usually involving difficult mathematics, is a rite of passage and proof of competence.

Incorporated (formerly Technician) Engineer usefully filled a gap, but has been in long-term decline. It has simply been unable to gain widely accepted value in the marketplace, being positioned at the top of the vocational (“inferior”) pathway and the bottom of the academic (“superior”) one. I have nothing further useful to add about this, that I haven’t already said, except to reiterate strongly my concern that linking new Degree Apprenticeships to the old IEng brand, merely risks perpetuating the same stigma and snobbery. Just doing more of the same, in the hope that attitudes will improve, merely abdicates leadership and condones such attitudes.

In the context of this discussion, I’m mainly addressing apprenticeships with a part-time degree embedded. Typically these will be of around 4 years duration, undertaken at the start of a career. There is also a recently developed “transition model” for more established practitioners and graduate trainee engineers. An Apprentice is paid a salary and should therefore reasonably expect to make an overall positive productive contribution during the training period, although some employers might be confident of payback over a longer period, if the person is loyal. https://www.thecea.org.uk/jcbs-holly-broadhurst-crowned-uks-top-higher-apprentice/   https://jcbacademy-sixthform.com/holly-broadhurst-jcb/

There are similar but often less intensive models considered “normal” in some other countries, where the university is in control and arranges work experience placements for its student, which may be unpaid internships or paid jobs. The disadvantage from an employer’s perspective is that they may have little influence over the person or study content, they just get what they are offered. The advantage is that you get given someone “on trial” who is hopefully past any teenage growing pains, for little or no up-front investment.

There is also a strong UK tradition of “graduate recruitment”, which is my comparator here. This retains a very valuable role, especially for those employers seeking “high potential”, but it also tended to replace those engineering apprenticeships embedding part-time higher qualifications (such as HNC) from the 1990s, for reasons unrelated to the relative quality of preparation. It is clearly an attractive proposition for an employer to hire a “job ready” graduate engineer, rather than bear the costs and risk of an Apprentice, especially the overhead cost of in-house training facilities. Had engineering graduates actually proved “job ready” then I wouldn’t be writing this, but that wasn’t realistic and wasn’t a “plan”, it was the unintended consequence of other government actions.

When it cost just a few thousand pounds to obtain an engineering degree, graduates who weren’t able to gain employment as trainee engineers, arguably still gained good value. Now loaded with perhaps £40000 of personal debt to the public purse, with no certainty of actually becoming trained to work as an engineer, this is unreasonable and untenable. So we have an older generation of graduates who gained significant advantages from the full-time academic path and who govern engineering, perpetuating serious financial disadvantage on the upcoming generation, who would often be far better served by a higher/degree apprenticeship if they can find one.

For National Apprenticeship Week, I thought that I should highlight some positive progress so far.

Employers have been found a place at the table to counterbalance the dominance of the academic perspective in a way that Engineering Council has never been able to. Organisations like the Engineering Professors Council in the UK and The International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) have held sway. I wish no disrespect towards these distinguished academics, but inevitably, the system has become skewed towards the perspective of activists among them and away from the needs of employers, or the economy more widely. Symptoms include; market distortions competitively advantaging some universities financially, disadvantageous treatment of technical colleges, skills shortages, basic skills deficiencies in graduate engineers, disengagement in the voluntary system of recognition, or internationally employer’s exemptions in countries where licensing is enforced.

The IET (and some sister PEIs) have been trusted to help enable a more balanced dialogue. Leading to Universities, especially 1960s Technical Universities and post-92 former Polytechnics in the UK, being encouraged to fulfil their “original mission” of meeting the needs for knowledgeable and skilled technical people as an extension of technical colleges, with a strong vocational element. The drift towards competing for academic prestige at the expense of vocational development cannot be blamed on engineering, but it also conveniently aligned with the priorities of those among us who have been far more concerned about relative status than skills and productive performance.

Some progress has been made in reducing the “apprenticeship stigma”, but there is still a difficult marketing problem. For example in my previous role, we adopted the title “Student Engineer” because teachers, parents and other influencers positioned an apprenticeship as being “only for the less academically able”. Technician Apprenticeships in Engineering have a strong reputation and we now also have graduate and post-graduate models ideal for Chartered Engineer preparation. But there are many Apprenticeships consisting only of basic workplace training or even workplace simulation, often with limited additional learning. I won’t discuss reality TV show titles here! Clearly a University Degree is widely understood and more highly esteemed in most cultures. Although we have adopted the term “Degree Apprenticeship” these two words represent historically different traditions. “Foundation Degrees” (introduced in the UK from 2001) helped my aims considerably at the time. I don’t have direct experience of how well “Associate’s Degrees” work in the countries where they are in use.

The small numbers of “degree apprentices” who followed this type of pathway before the UK Government adopted it as a mainstream policy, are already enjoying very successful careers at “chartered level”, albeit not necessarily following “the PEI/Engineering Council career prescription”. Numbers coming through degree apprenticeships are still relatively modest, but with some of the major employers onboard, the risks of being undervalued or subjected to snobbery are reduced. Such attitudes have of course never been a feature of most engineering and technology workplaces, but are endemic within some PEIs. This is a PEI Discussion forum.

If the apprentice model is able to re-establish itself as the mainstream pathway, this offers great opportunity for the IET, working with governments, our academic, corporate and enterprise partners, to really make a difference. It also challenges us to rethink our ideas around “status” in a way more aligned to 21^st century ideas of inclusivity and adding value to society.

A Caveat

I am aware of employer’s criticisms about the costs and benefits, especially red tape and dysfunctional bureaucracy, I’m sure there is some foundation in these, but I don’t have recent direct experience. I should also observe that almost every government initiative of this kind feeds first an infrastructure of Quangos. Who typically do something useful, but usually at “excessive cost” in some eyes. Unfortunately without proper control government funding of training has sometimes been an attractive target for fraud, as one of our sister institutions discovered recently to their cost.

For those with a more detailed interest apprenticeship frameworks are available here https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/ .

None of this is, or ever will be “perfect”, but at least it is a step forward. What I hope any sensible person will recognise is that there are a number of models of engineer preparation, each more or less optimal in economic and performance terms. We need more academically stretching programmes for those with a strong aptitude for mathematics and science , who may wish to pursue research orientated careers. However the problem that we have suffered from, is that those who are optimised towards “applications” or “more practical delivery”, even with graduate and post-graduate attributes, have been unreasonably diminished by our system. In a UK context most of these professional engineers and technicians are unconcerned, they just “keep calm and carry on”, valued by their employers but disinclined to join “elite engineers clubs”. This could be seen as a good or bad trend, depending on your perspective! If you think that it is a good thing then do a projection, based on the average age of a currently registered Chartered Engineer and ask yourself; who is going to pay the bills in another decade or two?

For now the apprenticeship standards at least represent a huge “opinion survey” of the employers of engineers and technicians. These employers didn’t have a negative agenda or “protest vote”, they just for the first time in a generation or three, found a meaningful vehicle to help express their needs. Is this expression any less valid than that of an Engineering Council Committee of CEng PEI nominees?

https://www.engc.org.uk/informationfor/students-apprentices-and-graduates/apprentices/ Actually tucked away in a sub-menu it does state “ some Higher Apprenticeships can also lead to IEng and CEng status. Your institution can advise on this.” A bit of wiggle room perhaps?

Those with an especially keen interest (like me) might find these of interest

https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Grants%20and%20prizes/Schemes%20for%20people%20in%20industry/Visiting%20Professors/Conference%202018/Alasdair-Coates-Presentation.pdf

https://www.raeng.org.uk/news/news-releases/2019/january/apprenticeship-levy-limitations-and-technical-teac

Some more examples of schemes

https://www.uk.leonardocompany.com/people-careers/apprenticeships/naw

https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/national-apprentice-week-2018

https://www.ntu.ac.uk/business-and-employers/develop-your-workforce/apprenticeships/national-apprenticeship-week-2019

https://www.wlv.ac.uk/apprenticeships/apprenticeship-courses-/

Perhaps by National Apprenticeship Week 2020 we will be in a different place? I hope so!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago
“National Apprenticeship and Scottish Apprenticeship Week 2019” is being held from Monday 4^th March.

It seems at present that opinion remains divided within the profession, about whether an Apprenticeship might only exceptionally lead to Chartered Engineer, or is an equally valid pathway when compared to becoming a full-time academic student for up to 4 years, followed by a similar period of training and experience in the workplace. It also remains to be seen whether the “flagship” government policy of revitalising apprenticeships will sustain, or ultimately join a long list of initiatives that have proved to be little more than politicians tinkering, or at best offered limited long-term impact.

The Government policy isn’t just about Engineering and Technology, but Technician Apprenticeships in Engineering have traditionally been seen as a an exemplar. However, as Peter Miller has highlighted, apprenticeships have been considered “vocational” and therefore associated with “the labouring classes”. Whereas those from the “middle classes” were expected to attended university for “academic” preparation before seeking further training.

A significant proportion of older Chartered Engineers crossed this class divide via the Grammar School System which for a was ubiquitous in the post-war period, dividing children on the basis of examinations taken at the age of 10. Some others have found pathways after completing an apprenticeship, but the rules and practice of Engineering Council intentionally made this difficult for a long time. For example, a 10 year penalty was applied to anyone without an accredited degree, which were nearly all full-time study only. Many understandably hold to the tradition which bred them, in which a theoretical examination, usually involving difficult mathematics, is a rite of passage and proof of competence.

Incorporated (formerly Technician) Engineer usefully filled a gap, but has been in long-term decline. It has simply been unable to gain widely accepted value in the marketplace, being positioned at the top of the vocational (“inferior”) pathway and the bottom of the academic (“superior”) one. I have nothing further useful to add about this, that I haven’t already said, except to reiterate strongly my concern that linking new Degree Apprenticeships to the old IEng brand, merely risks perpetuating the same stigma and snobbery. Just doing more of the same, in the hope that attitudes will improve, merely abdicates leadership and condones such attitudes.

In the context of this discussion, I’m mainly addressing apprenticeships with a part-time degree embedded. Typically these will be of around 4 years duration, undertaken at the start of a career. There is also a recently developed “transition model” for more established practitioners and graduate trainee engineers. An Apprentice is paid a salary and should therefore reasonably expect to make an overall positive productive contribution during the training period, although some employers might be confident of payback over a longer period, if the person is loyal. https://www.thecea.org.uk/jcbs-holly-broadhurst-crowned-uks-top-higher-apprentice/   https://jcbacademy-sixthform.com/holly-broadhurst-jcb/

There are similar but often less intensive models considered “normal” in some other countries, where the university is in control and arranges work experience placements for its student, which may be unpaid internships or paid jobs. The disadvantage from an employer’s perspective is that they may have little influence over the person or study content, they just get what they are offered. The advantage is that you get given someone “on trial” who is hopefully past any teenage growing pains, for little or no up-front investment.

There is also a strong UK tradition of “graduate recruitment”, which is my comparator here. This retains a very valuable role, especially for those employers seeking “high potential”, but it also tended to replace those engineering apprenticeships embedding part-time higher qualifications (such as HNC) from the 1990s, for reasons unrelated to the relative quality of preparation. It is clearly an attractive proposition for an employer to hire a “job ready” graduate engineer, rather than bear the costs and risk of an Apprentice, especially the overhead cost of in-house training facilities. Had engineering graduates actually proved “job ready” then I wouldn’t be writing this, but that wasn’t realistic and wasn’t a “plan”, it was the unintended consequence of other government actions.

When it cost just a few thousand pounds to obtain an engineering degree, graduates who weren’t able to gain employment as trainee engineers, arguably still gained good value. Now loaded with perhaps £40000 of personal debt to the public purse, with no certainty of actually becoming trained to work as an engineer, this is unreasonable and untenable. So we have an older generation of graduates who gained significant advantages from the full-time academic path and who govern engineering, perpetuating serious financial disadvantage on the upcoming generation, who would often be far better served by a higher/degree apprenticeship if they can find one.

For National Apprenticeship Week, I thought that I should highlight some positive progress so far.

Employers have been found a place at the table to counterbalance the dominance of the academic perspective in a way that Engineering Council has never been able to. Organisations like the Engineering Professors Council in the UK and The International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) have held sway. I wish no disrespect towards these distinguished academics, but inevitably, the system has become skewed towards the perspective of activists among them and away from the needs of employers, or the economy more widely. Symptoms include; market distortions competitively advantaging some universities financially, disadvantageous treatment of technical colleges, skills shortages, basic skills deficiencies in graduate engineers, disengagement in the voluntary system of recognition, or internationally employer’s exemptions in countries where licensing is enforced.

The IET (and some sister PEIs) have been trusted to help enable a more balanced dialogue. Leading to Universities, especially 1960s Technical Universities and post-92 former Polytechnics in the UK, being encouraged to fulfil their “original mission” of meeting the needs for knowledgeable and skilled technical people as an extension of technical colleges, with a strong vocational element. The drift towards competing for academic prestige at the expense of vocational development cannot be blamed on engineering, but it also conveniently aligned with the priorities of those among us who have been far more concerned about relative status than skills and productive performance.

Some progress has been made in reducing the “apprenticeship stigma”, but there is still a difficult marketing problem. For example in my previous role, we adopted the title “Student Engineer” because teachers, parents and other influencers positioned an apprenticeship as being “only for the less academically able”. Technician Apprenticeships in Engineering have a strong reputation and we now also have graduate and post-graduate models ideal for Chartered Engineer preparation. But there are many Apprenticeships consisting only of basic workplace training or even workplace simulation, often with limited additional learning. I won’t discuss reality TV show titles here! Clearly a University Degree is widely understood and more highly esteemed in most cultures. Although we have adopted the term “Degree Apprenticeship” these two words represent historically different traditions. “Foundation Degrees” (introduced in the UK from 2001) helped my aims considerably at the time. I don’t have direct experience of how well “Associate’s Degrees” work in the countries where they are in use.

The small numbers of “degree apprentices” who followed this type of pathway before the UK Government adopted it as a mainstream policy, are already enjoying very successful careers at “chartered level”, albeit not necessarily following “the PEI/Engineering Council career prescription”. Numbers coming through degree apprenticeships are still relatively modest, but with some of the major employers onboard, the risks of being undervalued or subjected to snobbery are reduced. Such attitudes have of course never been a feature of most engineering and technology workplaces, but are endemic within some PEIs. This is a PEI Discussion forum.

If the apprentice model is able to re-establish itself as the mainstream pathway, this offers great opportunity for the IET, working with governments, our academic, corporate and enterprise partners, to really make a difference. It also challenges us to rethink our ideas around “status” in a way more aligned to 21^st century ideas of inclusivity and adding value to society.

A Caveat

I am aware of employer’s criticisms about the costs and benefits, especially red tape and dysfunctional bureaucracy, I’m sure there is some foundation in these, but I don’t have recent direct experience. I should also observe that almost every government initiative of this kind feeds first an infrastructure of Quangos. Who typically do something useful, but usually at “excessive cost” in some eyes. Unfortunately without proper control government funding of training has sometimes been an attractive target for fraud, as one of our sister institutions discovered recently to their cost.

For those with a more detailed interest apprenticeship frameworks are available here https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/ .

None of this is, or ever will be “perfect”, but at least it is a step forward. What I hope any sensible person will recognise is that there are a number of models of engineer preparation, each more or less optimal in economic and performance terms. We need more academically stretching programmes for those with a strong aptitude for mathematics and science , who may wish to pursue research orientated careers. However the problem that we have suffered from, is that those who are optimised towards “applications” or “more practical delivery”, even with graduate and post-graduate attributes, have been unreasonably diminished by our system. In a UK context most of these professional engineers and technicians are unconcerned, they just “keep calm and carry on”, valued by their employers but disinclined to join “elite engineers clubs”. This could be seen as a good or bad trend, depending on your perspective! If you think that it is a good thing then do a projection, based on the average age of a currently registered Chartered Engineer and ask yourself; who is going to pay the bills in another decade or two?

For now the apprenticeship standards at least represent a huge “opinion survey” of the employers of engineers and technicians. These employers didn’t have a negative agenda or “protest vote”, they just for the first time in a generation or three, found a meaningful vehicle to help express their needs. Is this expression any less valid than that of an Engineering Council Committee of CEng PEI nominees?

https://www.engc.org.uk/informationfor/students-apprentices-and-graduates/apprentices/ Actually tucked away in a sub-menu it does state “ some Higher Apprenticeships can also lead to IEng and CEng status. Your institution can advise on this.” A bit of wiggle room perhaps?

Those with an especially keen interest (like me) might find these of interest

https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Grants%20and%20prizes/Schemes%20for%20people%20in%20industry/Visiting%20Professors/Conference%202018/Alasdair-Coates-Presentation.pdf

https://www.raeng.org.uk/news/news-releases/2019/january/apprenticeship-levy-limitations-and-technical-teac

Some more examples of schemes

https://www.uk.leonardocompany.com/people-careers/apprenticeships/naw

https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/national-apprentice-week-2018

https://www.ntu.ac.uk/business-and-employers/develop-your-workforce/apprenticeships/national-apprenticeship-week-2019

https://www.wlv.ac.uk/apprenticeships/apprenticeship-courses-/

Perhaps by National Apprenticeship Week 2020 we will be in a different place? I hope so!
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