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
  • I wondered whether Engineering Council would express support for National Apprenticeship Week. It seems that they did so in 2017, so to do so every year might seem superfluous.  https://www.engc.org.uk/news/news/engineering-council-supports-tenth-national-apprenticeship-week/

    It is understandable that as a regulatory body Engineering Council takes a conservative approach, especially given its de-facto role as "The Chartered Engineer's Council". I don’t doubt their sincerity in wishing to encourage Apprenticeships for Technicians and “Technician Engineers” (aka IEng or Technologist). However, having spent its lifetime focused primarily on academic qualifications and relative status, changing “traditional attitudes” is going to be difficult.

    By coincidence the results of consultation conducted last year are published here  https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-review-consultation/
     
    If the momentum behind apprenticeships continues to build, then it seems likely that for the foreseeable future we will see a mix of developing Engineers from the more “vocationally led with higher education included” approach and the “academic education with vocational training bolted on later” one.  It also seems likely that the balance between the two will shift as it already has. It is something of a "no-brainer" for a bright young person from an average social background, with a strong work ethic and clear sense of career direction, to seek a higher/degree apprenticeship.    

    As I see it, the duty of Engineering Council is to treat each type of preparation equally and follow the evidence of professional performance which typically begins to occur from the age of around 21-23 for an engineer. It also has an important duty to inform anyone aspiring to become a Technician or Engineer, or Engineer via a Technician, or something in between (such as a “Technologist”), or any other semantic form of technical professional we choose to adopt. A complication is that it does this through its “franchisees” (aka licensed bodies) who are extremely varied in nature, including a significant number who as a matter of policy and practice, haven’t welcomed those from the apprenticeship tradition for at least a couple of generations, if ever.  

    The creation of new nationally agreed apprenticeship models, including those with Graduate and Post Graduate outcomes, offers an good opportunity for Engineering Council to modernise by becoming more representative of the needs of employers and practitioners. This could benefit the majority of Further and Higher Education Institutions (Colleges and Universities), where vocational relevance and “student employability" should be more important than academic competition and preparing the next generation of academic researchers.

    The effect of accreditation policies over many years has been to value theoretical mathematics and science more highly than anything with practical connotations, so any university seeking to include more material relevant to work practice in their degree course, risks accusations of “dumbing down” and being deemed unsuitable for CEng accreditation.  The quote below is of US origin but is probably an accurate reflection of the consensus among Engineering Professors in The International Engineering Alliance, The UK and therefore Engineering Council as well.

    Engineering programs often focus on theory and conceptual design, while engineering technology programs usually focus on application and implementation. Engineering programs typically require additional, higher-level mathematics, including multiple semesters of calculus and calculus-based theoretical science courses, while engineering technology programs typically focus on algebra, trigonometry, applied calculus, and other courses that are more practical than theoretical in nature.

    Perhaps if it was actually the case that most practising Chartered Engineers were fluent in all this “calculus based science”, this distinction might have more credibility. Most aren’t and it isn’t even directly relevant to huge swathes of engineering and technology practice. It may be a useful mechanism for sorting “the brightest from the rest”, or offer optimal preparation for certain research and fundamental first principle design roles. 5% of engineers perhaps? However accredited degree provision is probably 95% “theoretical type” and 5% “practical type”, because practical work is stigmatised as “inferior”, just like apprenticeships have been. There are many excellent Bachelors and Masters programmes that mirror real world practice, but they are not aiming to create an “elite fraction” just to offer learning, many intentionally focus strongly on industry practice. Perhaps they should be the 95%? 

    I should address Mehmood’s and Arran’s points?
     

    • Are the politics of engineering governance broken?  Blame games and squabbling benefit no-one, but they are an inevitable consequence of the divisive system that we has evolved, for valuing some types of competent professionals much more highly than others.  I'm sorry to pick on Engineering Council , but the buck has to stop somewhere and it cannot be excused from at least condoning snobbery towards the apprenticeship pathway, if not enthusiastically promoting such attitudes.  Perhaps this year will at last become a turning point thanks to Government intervention to revitalise apprenticeships. 

    • This isn’t about the older IEng cohort, now very small in number. The IIE is long gone and with it any distinctive identity that grew organically from the “gap in the market” that its precursors occupied. They earned a place at the academic table, but weren’t very welcome there, except as a useful inferior pejorative. I tried to support the category, but got mugged a few times for wearing the scarf. Thankfully therefore, I can channel my annoyance into making an argument for raising standards in future instead of feeling obliged to defend the status quo.  Because if anyone thinks that I’m making an argument for lower standards, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the point.   

    • I cannot ignore the IEng brand because it has been associated with Degree Apprenticeships.  I can infer but am not close enough to know, that sacrificing the category would be difficult and seen as an admission of failure by Engineering Council.  There have been long debates in these forums about whether it should be “revitalised” or “abolished”.  Perhaps some feel that a return to a more distinctive vocational identity would be beneficial and reduce the current tendency for it to be positioned as “sub-standard” in the academic world.  I’m open to persuasion, but I think that in order to be called an “engineer” by the IET/Engineering Council, someone should have at least a Bachelors Degree or be demonstrating graduate attributes through some combination of formal and experiential learning.

    • It is morally indefensible to “handicap” those from the apprenticeship pathway who are of graduate standard.  If graduating Degree Apprentices are treated less favourably than other graduates and those who develop from technician to engineer in career face unnecessary barriers and tripping points in seeking recognition, then they will have every right to complain. The problem for us is that they may just regard the whole edifice as irrelevant and avoid it. An even bigger problem is that having gained more employer engagement, trust may be lost. As an employer’s representative who pioneered the current shift towards Degree Apprenticeships, I would say “regained”, because I lost trust some time ago. As an IET “insider” just now (but not a “representative”), I’m trying to address the problem constructively.   

    • We also need excellent professional technicians including the more traditional “craft” and increasingly more “hands off” roles created by technology. Their performance and the respect that we choose to offer them is important.  Should a Technician develop the different attributes that we expect of an Engineer, then they should transfer (or vice-versa) having become optimised for a different role, without the issues of social class and status being a relevant factor, like it was in the past.  We would do well to remember that many of those who established engineering as a profession were self-made and from practical backgrounds.  

    • To pick up Arron’s point about the changing landscape of social class and especially its relevance to careers in Engineering and Technology, I agree that the picture is complex and nuanced.  From a sociological perspective engineering has historically been one of the more “accessible” professions in part due to the apprenticeship tradition. However this declined significantly for those entering by the 1990s, while 40% of engineering undergraduates were from the three highest socio-economic classes in 2002/03, this had dropped to 38% by 2010/11  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61090/IR_FairAccess_acc2.pdf                        

    If the figure was only for those programmes with the highest entry tariffs the percentage would be higher. There is a historic correlation between apprenticeship versus full-time academic preparation and social class, although there is a chicken and egg argument, since class is partly defined by job role.

    I am not suggesting that we become a social service, or pursue some left-leaning political agenda, although some have characterised our stance on inclusivity and diversity in such terms. Our duty is to set standards and ensure that these can be achieved through fair access. If the whole thing looks like “an establishment stitch-up” as many have suggested, then that duty may not be properly discharged. If Higher and Degree Apprenticeships gain further momentum, they will provide great opportunities for young people and The IET if we choose to grasp them. If we prefer to perpetuate petty divisions and academic snobbery, then this opportunity will be lost and our influence will deservedly decline.     

    As I was finishing this, I met an early career Electronics Engineer. The engineer was a native of a central European country, drawn from an average social background ,who had done extremely well on his MEng course at one of our higher ranked universities, then having picked up for training by one of our best known employers was now “knocking on the door” of CEng. Nothing in my argument seeks to harm this pathway or any other academically led one for that matter, if it achieves good results then on the contrary I would strongly support it.  

    However, I have to point out that the Degree Apprenticeship model can achieve similar results, more quickly and at lower cost. If a young person becomes economically productive more quickly it has benefits for them and for society. They won’t stop learning in their early twenties when academic institutions lose control over them.  We have become so concerned about that favourite academic game of “sort the best from the rest” that we have lost sight of our proper mission. That mission should be to nurture Technicians who are increasingly often educated at or about graduate level and Engineers who are demonstrating graduate and post graduate attributes with additional responsibility in their work.

    Obviously  the Engineering Council consultation , will have attracted responses mainly from existing activists rather than those who are disengaged, disinterested or distrustful. Inevitably some of this just goes round in circles, like mention of poor old “equal but different”, who was ritually put to death ten years ago by Engineering Council after being condemned as a foolish fraud claiming to be “different but the same”.  The grave was then danced on by point f on page 9.  I wish Engineering Council success , but fear that it will be held back by a “dog in the manger” old guard. Nevertheless, I have to give them a fair chance to regain my previously misplaced trust.

    Any chance of a greater plurality of perspective at Engineering Council such as some uncommitted employer representatives, or good professionals who haven’t chosen to register?  Why are existing activist CEng presumed to be all-knowing and “higher” than anyone else? “Group think” perhaps?  

    PS I only just read Mehmood’s post, which on the whole shares a similar critical perspective. His suggestion is a broadly to replace Engineering Council and remove or replace the contribution of Professional Institutions including the IET, others have come to a similar view.  Alternatives might include handing responsibilities over to Universities or perhaps The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education?  If there was a political will for anything of this nature, then it would seem unreasonable to single out Engineering from other professions, so there would need to be a wide ranging review. I think that reform could offer a better solution and that had the IET been able to pursue its founding principles more fully at Engineering Council, then more progress could have been made.  My view is that the government has intervened sufficiently for now by supporting Higher/Degree Apprenticeships. The whole point of me starting this thread was to seek a positive response.

    The IET needs to be crystal clear and unequivocal in its support for Apprenticeships, not just those explicitly aiming for Technician outcomes but also those with Degrees embedded in the context of Chartered Engineer (not just IEng). If Engineering Council is unable to adapt to this landscape, then progress will have passed it by and we need a new model.       


Reply
  • I wondered whether Engineering Council would express support for National Apprenticeship Week. It seems that they did so in 2017, so to do so every year might seem superfluous.  https://www.engc.org.uk/news/news/engineering-council-supports-tenth-national-apprenticeship-week/

    It is understandable that as a regulatory body Engineering Council takes a conservative approach, especially given its de-facto role as "The Chartered Engineer's Council". I don’t doubt their sincerity in wishing to encourage Apprenticeships for Technicians and “Technician Engineers” (aka IEng or Technologist). However, having spent its lifetime focused primarily on academic qualifications and relative status, changing “traditional attitudes” is going to be difficult.

    By coincidence the results of consultation conducted last year are published here  https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-review-consultation/
     
    If the momentum behind apprenticeships continues to build, then it seems likely that for the foreseeable future we will see a mix of developing Engineers from the more “vocationally led with higher education included” approach and the “academic education with vocational training bolted on later” one.  It also seems likely that the balance between the two will shift as it already has. It is something of a "no-brainer" for a bright young person from an average social background, with a strong work ethic and clear sense of career direction, to seek a higher/degree apprenticeship.    

    As I see it, the duty of Engineering Council is to treat each type of preparation equally and follow the evidence of professional performance which typically begins to occur from the age of around 21-23 for an engineer. It also has an important duty to inform anyone aspiring to become a Technician or Engineer, or Engineer via a Technician, or something in between (such as a “Technologist”), or any other semantic form of technical professional we choose to adopt. A complication is that it does this through its “franchisees” (aka licensed bodies) who are extremely varied in nature, including a significant number who as a matter of policy and practice, haven’t welcomed those from the apprenticeship tradition for at least a couple of generations, if ever.  

    The creation of new nationally agreed apprenticeship models, including those with Graduate and Post Graduate outcomes, offers an good opportunity for Engineering Council to modernise by becoming more representative of the needs of employers and practitioners. This could benefit the majority of Further and Higher Education Institutions (Colleges and Universities), where vocational relevance and “student employability" should be more important than academic competition and preparing the next generation of academic researchers.

    The effect of accreditation policies over many years has been to value theoretical mathematics and science more highly than anything with practical connotations, so any university seeking to include more material relevant to work practice in their degree course, risks accusations of “dumbing down” and being deemed unsuitable for CEng accreditation.  The quote below is of US origin but is probably an accurate reflection of the consensus among Engineering Professors in The International Engineering Alliance, The UK and therefore Engineering Council as well.

    Engineering programs often focus on theory and conceptual design, while engineering technology programs usually focus on application and implementation. Engineering programs typically require additional, higher-level mathematics, including multiple semesters of calculus and calculus-based theoretical science courses, while engineering technology programs typically focus on algebra, trigonometry, applied calculus, and other courses that are more practical than theoretical in nature.

    Perhaps if it was actually the case that most practising Chartered Engineers were fluent in all this “calculus based science”, this distinction might have more credibility. Most aren’t and it isn’t even directly relevant to huge swathes of engineering and technology practice. It may be a useful mechanism for sorting “the brightest from the rest”, or offer optimal preparation for certain research and fundamental first principle design roles. 5% of engineers perhaps? However accredited degree provision is probably 95% “theoretical type” and 5% “practical type”, because practical work is stigmatised as “inferior”, just like apprenticeships have been. There are many excellent Bachelors and Masters programmes that mirror real world practice, but they are not aiming to create an “elite fraction” just to offer learning, many intentionally focus strongly on industry practice. Perhaps they should be the 95%? 

    I should address Mehmood’s and Arran’s points?
     

    • Are the politics of engineering governance broken?  Blame games and squabbling benefit no-one, but they are an inevitable consequence of the divisive system that we has evolved, for valuing some types of competent professionals much more highly than others.  I'm sorry to pick on Engineering Council , but the buck has to stop somewhere and it cannot be excused from at least condoning snobbery towards the apprenticeship pathway, if not enthusiastically promoting such attitudes.  Perhaps this year will at last become a turning point thanks to Government intervention to revitalise apprenticeships. 

    • This isn’t about the older IEng cohort, now very small in number. The IIE is long gone and with it any distinctive identity that grew organically from the “gap in the market” that its precursors occupied. They earned a place at the academic table, but weren’t very welcome there, except as a useful inferior pejorative. I tried to support the category, but got mugged a few times for wearing the scarf. Thankfully therefore, I can channel my annoyance into making an argument for raising standards in future instead of feeling obliged to defend the status quo.  Because if anyone thinks that I’m making an argument for lower standards, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the point.   

    • I cannot ignore the IEng brand because it has been associated with Degree Apprenticeships.  I can infer but am not close enough to know, that sacrificing the category would be difficult and seen as an admission of failure by Engineering Council.  There have been long debates in these forums about whether it should be “revitalised” or “abolished”.  Perhaps some feel that a return to a more distinctive vocational identity would be beneficial and reduce the current tendency for it to be positioned as “sub-standard” in the academic world.  I’m open to persuasion, but I think that in order to be called an “engineer” by the IET/Engineering Council, someone should have at least a Bachelors Degree or be demonstrating graduate attributes through some combination of formal and experiential learning.

    • It is morally indefensible to “handicap” those from the apprenticeship pathway who are of graduate standard.  If graduating Degree Apprentices are treated less favourably than other graduates and those who develop from technician to engineer in career face unnecessary barriers and tripping points in seeking recognition, then they will have every right to complain. The problem for us is that they may just regard the whole edifice as irrelevant and avoid it. An even bigger problem is that having gained more employer engagement, trust may be lost. As an employer’s representative who pioneered the current shift towards Degree Apprenticeships, I would say “regained”, because I lost trust some time ago. As an IET “insider” just now (but not a “representative”), I’m trying to address the problem constructively.   

    • We also need excellent professional technicians including the more traditional “craft” and increasingly more “hands off” roles created by technology. Their performance and the respect that we choose to offer them is important.  Should a Technician develop the different attributes that we expect of an Engineer, then they should transfer (or vice-versa) having become optimised for a different role, without the issues of social class and status being a relevant factor, like it was in the past.  We would do well to remember that many of those who established engineering as a profession were self-made and from practical backgrounds.  

    • To pick up Arron’s point about the changing landscape of social class and especially its relevance to careers in Engineering and Technology, I agree that the picture is complex and nuanced.  From a sociological perspective engineering has historically been one of the more “accessible” professions in part due to the apprenticeship tradition. However this declined significantly for those entering by the 1990s, while 40% of engineering undergraduates were from the three highest socio-economic classes in 2002/03, this had dropped to 38% by 2010/11  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61090/IR_FairAccess_acc2.pdf                        

    If the figure was only for those programmes with the highest entry tariffs the percentage would be higher. There is a historic correlation between apprenticeship versus full-time academic preparation and social class, although there is a chicken and egg argument, since class is partly defined by job role.

    I am not suggesting that we become a social service, or pursue some left-leaning political agenda, although some have characterised our stance on inclusivity and diversity in such terms. Our duty is to set standards and ensure that these can be achieved through fair access. If the whole thing looks like “an establishment stitch-up” as many have suggested, then that duty may not be properly discharged. If Higher and Degree Apprenticeships gain further momentum, they will provide great opportunities for young people and The IET if we choose to grasp them. If we prefer to perpetuate petty divisions and academic snobbery, then this opportunity will be lost and our influence will deservedly decline.     

    As I was finishing this, I met an early career Electronics Engineer. The engineer was a native of a central European country, drawn from an average social background ,who had done extremely well on his MEng course at one of our higher ranked universities, then having picked up for training by one of our best known employers was now “knocking on the door” of CEng. Nothing in my argument seeks to harm this pathway or any other academically led one for that matter, if it achieves good results then on the contrary I would strongly support it.  

    However, I have to point out that the Degree Apprenticeship model can achieve similar results, more quickly and at lower cost. If a young person becomes economically productive more quickly it has benefits for them and for society. They won’t stop learning in their early twenties when academic institutions lose control over them.  We have become so concerned about that favourite academic game of “sort the best from the rest” that we have lost sight of our proper mission. That mission should be to nurture Technicians who are increasingly often educated at or about graduate level and Engineers who are demonstrating graduate and post graduate attributes with additional responsibility in their work.

    Obviously  the Engineering Council consultation , will have attracted responses mainly from existing activists rather than those who are disengaged, disinterested or distrustful. Inevitably some of this just goes round in circles, like mention of poor old “equal but different”, who was ritually put to death ten years ago by Engineering Council after being condemned as a foolish fraud claiming to be “different but the same”.  The grave was then danced on by point f on page 9.  I wish Engineering Council success , but fear that it will be held back by a “dog in the manger” old guard. Nevertheless, I have to give them a fair chance to regain my previously misplaced trust.

    Any chance of a greater plurality of perspective at Engineering Council such as some uncommitted employer representatives, or good professionals who haven’t chosen to register?  Why are existing activist CEng presumed to be all-knowing and “higher” than anyone else? “Group think” perhaps?  

    PS I only just read Mehmood’s post, which on the whole shares a similar critical perspective. His suggestion is a broadly to replace Engineering Council and remove or replace the contribution of Professional Institutions including the IET, others have come to a similar view.  Alternatives might include handing responsibilities over to Universities or perhaps The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education?  If there was a political will for anything of this nature, then it would seem unreasonable to single out Engineering from other professions, so there would need to be a wide ranging review. I think that reform could offer a better solution and that had the IET been able to pursue its founding principles more fully at Engineering Council, then more progress could have been made.  My view is that the government has intervened sufficiently for now by supporting Higher/Degree Apprenticeships. The whole point of me starting this thread was to seek a positive response.

    The IET needs to be crystal clear and unequivocal in its support for Apprenticeships, not just those explicitly aiming for Technician outcomes but also those with Degrees embedded in the context of Chartered Engineer (not just IEng). If Engineering Council is unable to adapt to this landscape, then progress will have passed it by and we need a new model.       


Children
No Data