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
    Andy,  I don’t think that we “disagree” as such. But if we take the UK-SPEC generic description of an CEng, then we can interpret it as being demonstrated by someone who has successfully fulfilled the roles that you describe as examples (or exemplars). In practice there is a very great deal of scope for differences in interpretation by different observers of different roles (i.e. performance evidence). To deal with these differences, instutions "contextualise" UK-SPEC and the “peer review” part of assessment (in the IET at least) convenes a small “parliament” of experts to discuss, reach consensus and make a decision, subject to validation by an interview.


    Arguably, the only thing that UK-SPEC offers about how someone should be developed, is to describe some ideal exemplifying qualifications. However, these few paragraphs open a Pandora’s Box of issues that have been the main basis for professional registration almost for its whole history. Most professional institutions will only consider someone for Chartered Engineer registration if they have first completed an academic programme that they prescribe (aka accredit), or perhaps exceptionally something close. To date, this has excluded degrees associated with an Apprenticeship or likely to be undertaken part-time during career.


    MEng Degrees for example were developed to serve the most academic 18 year olds and the predecessor of UK-SPEC, SARTOR was clear in its intent to position CEng as an “academic elite”. (I wasn’t actively involved, if anyone who was wishes to “correct” me). There were some hopes for IEng to potentially “mop up the rest”, perhaps under the banner of “Technologist” as described by The International Engineering Alliance, but this ignored the overwhelming majority of practising Chartered Engineers and the tradition of graduate recruitment with CEng in mind, which is common in many sectors of employment where technology is mostly mature, infrastructure for example.  


    I won’t pursue that history, because it doesn’t really matter, except to say that little has really changed for many professional engineering institutions over recent decades. The territory that they exercise control over hasn’t changed much and neither has their interpretation of who they want as “their” Chartered Engineers. Although nominally UK-SPEC is being used, in practice the underlying assumptions are still; Accredited Degree + 2 years training + at least 2 years responsible experience = CEng.


    Apprenticeships were never on their agenda and are presumed to only be for (inferior) Technicians (including IEng). A major one who I have dealt with, wouldn’t welcome former apprentices, or even experienced MSc graduates, it’s “their way or the highway”. Some other majors who either didn’t want to, or couldn’t afford to be so “picky”, became more pragmatic about “partially accredited” degrees and “further learning requirements”.  Having been involved during this period with the IET’s efforts, I would defend them as solid work by very able people to fairly and rigorously re-focus on competence , rather than “weaken” academic requirements. However, critics especially those who do not accept the validity of any judgement conducted outside academia, may disagree.    


    To avoid a long “ramble”, we concur that “more practical” initial development, may not develop as optimally ideal Chartered Engineer attributes when compared to a “more academic” approach. However, this is far from a simple binary argument.  Apprenticeships with higher level qualifications, now also including Degrees achieved concurrently with work experience, arguably provide the most optimal blend for all but the most Academic/R&D roles.  I fully accept that a typical practical apprenticeship leading to a skilled trade, isn’t the most optimum pathway towards Chartered Engineer and that in all probability many of those following this pathway will have no reason to develop the more "intellectual" attributes of research, analysis and persuasion that we expect of a CEng. Some always have and always will.  


    For the avoidance of doubt by any reader, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that a Chartered Engineer should demonstrate “Masters level attributes” and strongly supported work-based MSc programmes developed by various universities for mid-career professionals as one way of potentially achieving that. This doesn’t mean that someone who is already, clearly competent should have to “jump over unnecessary hoops”. It very definitely also doesn’t mean that someone from a good quality apprenticeship, should be stigmatised and disadvantaged, with no objective justification in performance. It is for that reason that I call upon those who cannot accept the principal of “equal status for equal performance” to either move aside, or to be excluded from decisions being taken for “public benefit”.  


    PS Mehmood If it seems inconsistent and dysfunctional to you, then you have the right to say so. I'm not going to disagree, but I'm arguing here for the purposes of improving the system.


    Fellowship is a different issue, based on different requirements and was explicitly decoupled from registration a long time ago. Honourary Fellowship is something slighly different as well, just like Universites chosing to recognise outstanding individuals with honorary degrees.     



Reply
  • 0
    Andy,  I don’t think that we “disagree” as such. But if we take the UK-SPEC generic description of an CEng, then we can interpret it as being demonstrated by someone who has successfully fulfilled the roles that you describe as examples (or exemplars). In practice there is a very great deal of scope for differences in interpretation by different observers of different roles (i.e. performance evidence). To deal with these differences, instutions "contextualise" UK-SPEC and the “peer review” part of assessment (in the IET at least) convenes a small “parliament” of experts to discuss, reach consensus and make a decision, subject to validation by an interview.


    Arguably, the only thing that UK-SPEC offers about how someone should be developed, is to describe some ideal exemplifying qualifications. However, these few paragraphs open a Pandora’s Box of issues that have been the main basis for professional registration almost for its whole history. Most professional institutions will only consider someone for Chartered Engineer registration if they have first completed an academic programme that they prescribe (aka accredit), or perhaps exceptionally something close. To date, this has excluded degrees associated with an Apprenticeship or likely to be undertaken part-time during career.


    MEng Degrees for example were developed to serve the most academic 18 year olds and the predecessor of UK-SPEC, SARTOR was clear in its intent to position CEng as an “academic elite”. (I wasn’t actively involved, if anyone who was wishes to “correct” me). There were some hopes for IEng to potentially “mop up the rest”, perhaps under the banner of “Technologist” as described by The International Engineering Alliance, but this ignored the overwhelming majority of practising Chartered Engineers and the tradition of graduate recruitment with CEng in mind, which is common in many sectors of employment where technology is mostly mature, infrastructure for example.  


    I won’t pursue that history, because it doesn’t really matter, except to say that little has really changed for many professional engineering institutions over recent decades. The territory that they exercise control over hasn’t changed much and neither has their interpretation of who they want as “their” Chartered Engineers. Although nominally UK-SPEC is being used, in practice the underlying assumptions are still; Accredited Degree + 2 years training + at least 2 years responsible experience = CEng.


    Apprenticeships were never on their agenda and are presumed to only be for (inferior) Technicians (including IEng). A major one who I have dealt with, wouldn’t welcome former apprentices, or even experienced MSc graduates, it’s “their way or the highway”. Some other majors who either didn’t want to, or couldn’t afford to be so “picky”, became more pragmatic about “partially accredited” degrees and “further learning requirements”.  Having been involved during this period with the IET’s efforts, I would defend them as solid work by very able people to fairly and rigorously re-focus on competence , rather than “weaken” academic requirements. However, critics especially those who do not accept the validity of any judgement conducted outside academia, may disagree.    


    To avoid a long “ramble”, we concur that “more practical” initial development, may not develop as optimally ideal Chartered Engineer attributes when compared to a “more academic” approach. However, this is far from a simple binary argument.  Apprenticeships with higher level qualifications, now also including Degrees achieved concurrently with work experience, arguably provide the most optimal blend for all but the most Academic/R&D roles.  I fully accept that a typical practical apprenticeship leading to a skilled trade, isn’t the most optimum pathway towards Chartered Engineer and that in all probability many of those following this pathway will have no reason to develop the more "intellectual" attributes of research, analysis and persuasion that we expect of a CEng. Some always have and always will.  


    For the avoidance of doubt by any reader, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that a Chartered Engineer should demonstrate “Masters level attributes” and strongly supported work-based MSc programmes developed by various universities for mid-career professionals as one way of potentially achieving that. This doesn’t mean that someone who is already, clearly competent should have to “jump over unnecessary hoops”. It very definitely also doesn’t mean that someone from a good quality apprenticeship, should be stigmatised and disadvantaged, with no objective justification in performance. It is for that reason that I call upon those who cannot accept the principal of “equal status for equal performance” to either move aside, or to be excluded from decisions being taken for “public benefit”.  


    PS Mehmood If it seems inconsistent and dysfunctional to you, then you have the right to say so. I'm not going to disagree, but I'm arguing here for the purposes of improving the system.


    Fellowship is a different issue, based on different requirements and was explicitly decoupled from registration a long time ago. Honourary Fellowship is something slighly different as well, just like Universites chosing to recognise outstanding individuals with honorary degrees.     



Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines