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

Trying to reform the IET and the EC is like trying to turn lead into gold. The IET has a near monopoly as a society for engineers who hold accredited qualifications and there is nothing for engineers who do not hold accredited qualifications, factoring out anything run along Masonic lines.

I would agree that reforming the organisations that collectively represent the “engineering establishment” is difficult, even if we can actually agree that some reform is necessary, which isn’t a given. I would disagree that the IET has anything resembling “a monopoly”. It is certainly is a major influential organisation, established with an intent to be multi-disciplinary, inclusive and respectful of different types of professional practitioner, not just those with a specific domain focus who are registered as Chartered Engineers by Engineering Council. It is a potential force for good in my opinion, although we could debate the extent to which it has met its aspirations.

I created this thread specifically to challenge negative prejudices and inappropriate barriers faced by those aspiring to become professional engineers via an apprenticeship pathway. Since the UK Government set out revitalising apprenticeships as a cornerstone of its policy, including options at graduate and post-graduate level, negative prejudice or barriers towards the pathway cannot by definition be considered “in the public interest”. It certainly is “in the public interest” to set standards, encourage suitable learning and engage professional practitioners in professional development and ongoing supervision. Being a Chartered professional is a widely understood way of achieving senior professional recognition, used across a wide range of professions in the UK, with Government supervision and some financial support. However, relative to some other “Chartered Professions” Engineering & Technology is quite fragmented.

The regulator of professional standards is Engineering Council who decided to recognise three generic “models” of professional practitioner i.e. Technician, Incorporated (formerly Technician) Engineer, or “Technologist” and Chartered Engineer. As I see it (I’m open to other perspectives) the natural dominance of existing Chartered Engineers at Engineering Council was partly counterbalanced in its early days, by organisations that mainly represented non-chartered engineers, some of those from part of the IET lineage. For example, I understand that the late John Lyons (who I met a few times) was involved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lyons_(trade_unionist).

In the political climate of the 1980s Government insisted on clear separation of “Trades Union” and “Learned Society” activities. I should note that outside the “Engineering Council family”, there are Trades Unions, Trade Associations and other types of organisations available, many at significantly higher cost than IET membership, so there is choice, in the UK at least. Purely personally I have been a member of at least one work related collective organisation throughout my career and for most of that time three or more. During the early part of my career Trades Union membership was compulsory and as my career developed, it seemed to me a “no-brainer” to affiliate with professional institutions, directly relevant to your career, if you can reasonably afford to do so.

As we entered the 21^st Century, perhaps under the influence of IIE, one of the largest professional institutions (Chartered from 2001) , Engineering Council described each of its types of practitioner as being “different but equally valuable”. I would interpret this as meaning; that each is entitled to equal respect, but unfortunately this concept was resented, mocked, undermined, and eventually spun by some into “different but the same”. The replacement for “different but equally valuable” was, a “progressive philosophy”, which seems like a good idea , if everyone is progressing. However, in practice this became “gold, silver and bronze”, with only academically advantaged teenagers given spiked shoes and a head-start. Since its creation the IET has at least made significant efforts to fairly recognise actual performance by experienced engineers, with some success. Nevertheless it remains “normal” for Engineers to be categorised by academic performance pre-career and for many, even of graduate calibre to be disadvantaged as a result. International agreements like the Washington Accord are about Academic Qualifications not standards of workplace competence, although the two may correlate.

To help address the problem of “premature judgement” on academic evidence only, I have proposed that all engineers demonstrating graduate attributes should be recognised as “an Engineer”, before working towards Chartered over a “supervised” period if they wish to.

This thread is about recognising Engineers, not “different but equally valuable” Technicians, or technical practitioners who don’t meet our registration standards, but serve the needs of employers/customers well. At times it is difficult to create a valid distinction between a Technician and an Engineer, but it is arguably not as difficult as dividing engineers, especially those with graduate attributes. If those placed onto either side of the divide, found equal value as a result, then it wouldn’t be particularly important. In which case why bother? Instead this vague and overlapping boundary, has become characterised as a yawning chasm. Unfortunately, graduating Degree Apprentices and others gaining graduate attributes slightly later in career, are likely to be deposited on one side of this chasm and graduates from certain full-time degree course on the other.

I don’t like the term “rank and file” which implies a hierarchy or pyramid of rank and social status, which seems dated even in some parts of the military on which it is based. I have preferred to use the phrase “mainstream”, based on underlying assumptions of a continuum of practice, or perhaps a statistical distribution. An explanation by a US university and illustration created by ASME of technical graduate careers is shown here https://www.rit.edu/admissions/freshman/eng-vs-eng-tech . I have chosen this because it explains more clearly than anything else that I have found, some simplified rational basis for the divisions that we are creating between “engineers” , since it contains both academic and work performance dimensions. Assuming the ASME model to have at least some validity and for simplicity, then perhaps the “mainstream” is the darker area in the middle. Our existing cohort of Chartered Engineers arguably looks similar to this darker area (unless anyone know better?), but the standards have been so unclearly and inconsistently communicated and applied and conflated with status, that many different beliefs are reasonably held about who is supposed to be "the elite” and who “the rest”.

I don’t see any practical merits in forming another club or society, there are probably too many already, although any group of people can voluntarily affiliate and some good may come of it. The IET has the wherewithal to make a difference, but is in the difficult position of not wishing to alienate it largest category of members who are older Chartered Engineers. We shouldn’t unfairly negatively characterise this group as a whole as “protectionist” or “elitist”, but some instinctively are and such attitudes are very prevalent in some other institutions. Most of us probably forget our standard of work at the age of 25 by the time we are 65, so perceptions become inflated with rose-tinted hindsight and “rites of passage” assume an excessive and perhaps outdated significance. Other threads have discussed how many become registered as Chartered Engineers between the ages of 25-30. Perhaps we should assume that this is “normal” for engineers who have developed graduate attributes and help them to attain the milestone. Instead we divide dubiously and create unwarranted snobbery around this division, which tends to undermine our credibility in many eyes.

PS Moshe I don’t have any experience of the French VAE System, but as explained by Wikipedia, it seems compatible with the type of closer collaboration between more vocationally orientated academic institutions and employers that I would like to see and which a higher/degree apprenticeship usually needs?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 6 years ago

Trying to reform the IET and the EC is like trying to turn lead into gold. The IET has a near monopoly as a society for engineers who hold accredited qualifications and there is nothing for engineers who do not hold accredited qualifications, factoring out anything run along Masonic lines.

I would agree that reforming the organisations that collectively represent the “engineering establishment” is difficult, even if we can actually agree that some reform is necessary, which isn’t a given. I would disagree that the IET has anything resembling “a monopoly”. It is certainly is a major influential organisation, established with an intent to be multi-disciplinary, inclusive and respectful of different types of professional practitioner, not just those with a specific domain focus who are registered as Chartered Engineers by Engineering Council. It is a potential force for good in my opinion, although we could debate the extent to which it has met its aspirations.

I created this thread specifically to challenge negative prejudices and inappropriate barriers faced by those aspiring to become professional engineers via an apprenticeship pathway. Since the UK Government set out revitalising apprenticeships as a cornerstone of its policy, including options at graduate and post-graduate level, negative prejudice or barriers towards the pathway cannot by definition be considered “in the public interest”. It certainly is “in the public interest” to set standards, encourage suitable learning and engage professional practitioners in professional development and ongoing supervision. Being a Chartered professional is a widely understood way of achieving senior professional recognition, used across a wide range of professions in the UK, with Government supervision and some financial support. However, relative to some other “Chartered Professions” Engineering & Technology is quite fragmented.

The regulator of professional standards is Engineering Council who decided to recognise three generic “models” of professional practitioner i.e. Technician, Incorporated (formerly Technician) Engineer, or “Technologist” and Chartered Engineer. As I see it (I’m open to other perspectives) the natural dominance of existing Chartered Engineers at Engineering Council was partly counterbalanced in its early days, by organisations that mainly represented non-chartered engineers, some of those from part of the IET lineage. For example, I understand that the late John Lyons (who I met a few times) was involved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lyons_(trade_unionist).

In the political climate of the 1980s Government insisted on clear separation of “Trades Union” and “Learned Society” activities. I should note that outside the “Engineering Council family”, there are Trades Unions, Trade Associations and other types of organisations available, many at significantly higher cost than IET membership, so there is choice, in the UK at least. Purely personally I have been a member of at least one work related collective organisation throughout my career and for most of that time three or more. During the early part of my career Trades Union membership was compulsory and as my career developed, it seemed to me a “no-brainer” to affiliate with professional institutions, directly relevant to your career, if you can reasonably afford to do so.

As we entered the 21^st Century, perhaps under the influence of IIE, one of the largest professional institutions (Chartered from 2001) , Engineering Council described each of its types of practitioner as being “different but equally valuable”. I would interpret this as meaning; that each is entitled to equal respect, but unfortunately this concept was resented, mocked, undermined, and eventually spun by some into “different but the same”. The replacement for “different but equally valuable” was, a “progressive philosophy”, which seems like a good idea , if everyone is progressing. However, in practice this became “gold, silver and bronze”, with only academically advantaged teenagers given spiked shoes and a head-start. Since its creation the IET has at least made significant efforts to fairly recognise actual performance by experienced engineers, with some success. Nevertheless it remains “normal” for Engineers to be categorised by academic performance pre-career and for many, even of graduate calibre to be disadvantaged as a result. International agreements like the Washington Accord are about Academic Qualifications not standards of workplace competence, although the two may correlate.

To help address the problem of “premature judgement” on academic evidence only, I have proposed that all engineers demonstrating graduate attributes should be recognised as “an Engineer”, before working towards Chartered over a “supervised” period if they wish to.

This thread is about recognising Engineers, not “different but equally valuable” Technicians, or technical practitioners who don’t meet our registration standards, but serve the needs of employers/customers well. At times it is difficult to create a valid distinction between a Technician and an Engineer, but it is arguably not as difficult as dividing engineers, especially those with graduate attributes. If those placed onto either side of the divide, found equal value as a result, then it wouldn’t be particularly important. In which case why bother? Instead this vague and overlapping boundary, has become characterised as a yawning chasm. Unfortunately, graduating Degree Apprentices and others gaining graduate attributes slightly later in career, are likely to be deposited on one side of this chasm and graduates from certain full-time degree course on the other.

I don’t like the term “rank and file” which implies a hierarchy or pyramid of rank and social status, which seems dated even in some parts of the military on which it is based. I have preferred to use the phrase “mainstream”, based on underlying assumptions of a continuum of practice, or perhaps a statistical distribution. An explanation by a US university and illustration created by ASME of technical graduate careers is shown here https://www.rit.edu/admissions/freshman/eng-vs-eng-tech . I have chosen this because it explains more clearly than anything else that I have found, some simplified rational basis for the divisions that we are creating between “engineers” , since it contains both academic and work performance dimensions. Assuming the ASME model to have at least some validity and for simplicity, then perhaps the “mainstream” is the darker area in the middle. Our existing cohort of Chartered Engineers arguably looks similar to this darker area (unless anyone know better?), but the standards have been so unclearly and inconsistently communicated and applied and conflated with status, that many different beliefs are reasonably held about who is supposed to be "the elite” and who “the rest”.

I don’t see any practical merits in forming another club or society, there are probably too many already, although any group of people can voluntarily affiliate and some good may come of it. The IET has the wherewithal to make a difference, but is in the difficult position of not wishing to alienate it largest category of members who are older Chartered Engineers. We shouldn’t unfairly negatively characterise this group as a whole as “protectionist” or “elitist”, but some instinctively are and such attitudes are very prevalent in some other institutions. Most of us probably forget our standard of work at the age of 25 by the time we are 65, so perceptions become inflated with rose-tinted hindsight and “rites of passage” assume an excessive and perhaps outdated significance. Other threads have discussed how many become registered as Chartered Engineers between the ages of 25-30. Perhaps we should assume that this is “normal” for engineers who have developed graduate attributes and help them to attain the milestone. Instead we divide dubiously and create unwarranted snobbery around this division, which tends to undermine our credibility in many eyes.

PS Moshe I don’t have any experience of the French VAE System, but as explained by Wikipedia, it seems compatible with the type of closer collaboration between more vocationally orientated academic institutions and employers that I would like to see and which a higher/degree apprenticeship usually needs?
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