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 16 subscribers
  • Views 13481 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
    Arran & Mehmood, you both offer perfectly reasonable perspectives. As far as the history of Engineering Degrees is concerned, when the IEng category of registration became benchmarked at Bachelors level, the implicit assumption was the it would serve the “mainstream”, with MEng graduates and those going on to MSc, becoming the “elite” CEng. The term “rank and file” may have a similar meaning to “mainstream”, but because of its military connotations it also suggests a hierarchy of value or “status”. In our context, someone’s trajectory within that presumed hierarchy, has to date been set by their academic performance in STEM subjects pre-career. Academic performance may be a moderately accurate indication of the person’s aptitude or potential, it is used by academia for selection and by employers as a factor in selection.


    At a time when academic opportunities were far less readily available, it was convenient to assume that becoming degree qualified was a mark of enhanced potential, so graduates were “the best” and non-graduates “the rest”.  This was a far from perfect assumption to make, but in a more deferential age, generally accepted.  In practice many of our most able engineers now in late career, gained distinction in their workplaces rather than school or university, sometimes aided by “night school” or other forms of part-time academic learning during career.


    My proposition for this thread was intended to challenge what I consider to be some seriously flawed assumptions. Before posting I tested it on a few Chartered Engineers of my acquaintance who were all sceptical to a varying extent.


    An employer in the modern age recruits an Apprentice in anticipation of them becoming skilled and making a net contribution to the business.  In some roles this can be achieved with minimal further academic input, even if very considerable “know how” is gained through work based learning. This thread is about Chartered Engineering which requires some “academic type” attributes, which we have chosen to benchmark as being post-graduate in nature. There is nothing whatsoever in an apprenticeship containing a technical degree, that limits a person’s ability to develop the post-graduate attributes that we seek, or more importantly renders them “inferior” to a former full-time student. On the contrary the former Degree Apprentice is quite likely to demonstrate superior workplace performance in the short-term. Going forward, each pathway may have optimised different attributes and strong intellectual capabilities may help some to establish a career trajectory to towards strategic leadership, whatever the earlier pathway.


    The overriding concern of members of the Engineering Council family has been to ration access to the fraction over which they have some control and to promote that fraction as being “elite” or “superior”.  There is a symbiotic relationship between senior academics and the professional institutions for which Engineering Council forms a parliament.  The missing element has been employers in particular and perhaps also stakeholders with a socially inclusive mission to counterbalance elitist attitudes. Our obsession with division and rank, especially among those who have passed the threshold of professional recognition as an Engineer as currently defined by us (IEng), has greatly undermined our credibility.


    On that basis Mehmood’s conclusion is a reasonable one.  However if the “bubble” is all that we have, then to burst it cataclysmically leaves us with nothing. No-one here is a perfect actor, including employers. The government has given apprenticeships a much overdue boost, so let’s use that opportunity to re-balance and renew. If my proposition is unacceptable to those who control the profession, then I would respectfully request that some alternative leaders are found who can fully respect an apprenticeship as an equally valid pathway.       

Reply
  • 0
    Arran & Mehmood, you both offer perfectly reasonable perspectives. As far as the history of Engineering Degrees is concerned, when the IEng category of registration became benchmarked at Bachelors level, the implicit assumption was the it would serve the “mainstream”, with MEng graduates and those going on to MSc, becoming the “elite” CEng. The term “rank and file” may have a similar meaning to “mainstream”, but because of its military connotations it also suggests a hierarchy of value or “status”. In our context, someone’s trajectory within that presumed hierarchy, has to date been set by their academic performance in STEM subjects pre-career. Academic performance may be a moderately accurate indication of the person’s aptitude or potential, it is used by academia for selection and by employers as a factor in selection.


    At a time when academic opportunities were far less readily available, it was convenient to assume that becoming degree qualified was a mark of enhanced potential, so graduates were “the best” and non-graduates “the rest”.  This was a far from perfect assumption to make, but in a more deferential age, generally accepted.  In practice many of our most able engineers now in late career, gained distinction in their workplaces rather than school or university, sometimes aided by “night school” or other forms of part-time academic learning during career.


    My proposition for this thread was intended to challenge what I consider to be some seriously flawed assumptions. Before posting I tested it on a few Chartered Engineers of my acquaintance who were all sceptical to a varying extent.


    An employer in the modern age recruits an Apprentice in anticipation of them becoming skilled and making a net contribution to the business.  In some roles this can be achieved with minimal further academic input, even if very considerable “know how” is gained through work based learning. This thread is about Chartered Engineering which requires some “academic type” attributes, which we have chosen to benchmark as being post-graduate in nature. There is nothing whatsoever in an apprenticeship containing a technical degree, that limits a person’s ability to develop the post-graduate attributes that we seek, or more importantly renders them “inferior” to a former full-time student. On the contrary the former Degree Apprentice is quite likely to demonstrate superior workplace performance in the short-term. Going forward, each pathway may have optimised different attributes and strong intellectual capabilities may help some to establish a career trajectory to towards strategic leadership, whatever the earlier pathway.


    The overriding concern of members of the Engineering Council family has been to ration access to the fraction over which they have some control and to promote that fraction as being “elite” or “superior”.  There is a symbiotic relationship between senior academics and the professional institutions for which Engineering Council forms a parliament.  The missing element has been employers in particular and perhaps also stakeholders with a socially inclusive mission to counterbalance elitist attitudes. Our obsession with division and rank, especially among those who have passed the threshold of professional recognition as an Engineer as currently defined by us (IEng), has greatly undermined our credibility.


    On that basis Mehmood’s conclusion is a reasonable one.  However if the “bubble” is all that we have, then to burst it cataclysmically leaves us with nothing. No-one here is a perfect actor, including employers. The government has given apprenticeships a much overdue boost, so let’s use that opportunity to re-balance and renew. If my proposition is unacceptable to those who control the profession, then I would respectfully request that some alternative leaders are found who can fully respect an apprenticeship as an equally valid pathway.       

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines