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 14 subscribers
  • Views 11441 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
    Thanks Andy for picking up on the press release and as a result I picked up the link to the earlier one https://www.gov.uk/government/news/education-secretary-outlines-plans-to-get-more-people-into-skilled-jobs


    I don’t for the purposes of this discussion wish to align with any political party or initiatives, but of course I’m broadly supportive of the direction of travel.  After all, if recent governments hadn’t picked up this agenda, then the arguments that I have put forward over many years would have remained marginalised within the world of professional engineering and probably dismissed as a “personal grudge”.    


    The Education Secretary contrasts the UK situation with Germany, but focusses on Skills and Productivity. Senior spokespeople for the “engineering profession” have made similar comparisons, but the emphasis was on the relative status of engineers. With the UK problem characterised as being about young people not choosing Maths and Physics as A level subjects. Similar messages from the leaders of our profession over time, invented “oily rag man” as a supposed model of the public’s perception of engineers and later added “hard hat man” as another “negative stereotype” (perhaps with female sensibilities in mind which I’m OK with) inevitably also used as a contrast with “academic elite” engineers.  We created a culture in which one of our own two types of professional engineers became characterised as an “inferior and limited plodder”, in contrast to the “highly educated” and therefore “creative and innovative” engineer of “elite” status.


    Whether using the word “elite” is just a marketing enticement, an attitude, or even an insulting epithet aimed at anyone with some power of influence (or even me    ?). The reality is that most PEIs and therefore Engineering Council have long treated those who fall into two of the three professional categories that we codify as convenient inferior pejoratives. An obvious symptom is our endless arguments about whether to try to revive the dying IEng brand or “knock it on the head”. I can only relate that, when I offered it to a substantial number of young degree qualified engineers for free (as an employer) they saw it as an inferior offering and didn’t choose to pursue it.  In addition, when I pressed for a PEI to accredit an excellent Honours Degree forming part of an apprenticeship, I didn’t realise that what it got was an inferior second class ticket for “the PEI express”.  


    There are no benefits to be had in raking over past failings, unless that is we cannot accept our failures. I’m not saying that there haven’t been some successes, or that we should engage in some sort of “Witch Hunt”. It is ridiculous to “point the finger” at Chartered Engineers generally for working hard to deservedly achieve a challenging terminal standard of professional recognition.  I drive what might be considered a “premium” car, simply because it offered the best package for my budget at the time. My argument here is simply that someone completing an apprenticeship should also be able to make such a choice if they have the “budget”, not be sent to the “tradespersons entrance”.


    To look forward, but I’m afraid on a controversial note. If Engineering Council cannot accept the principle of this thread, then it will become decisively no longer fit for purpose in my opinion. If as I hope, it recognises the need for change, then that becomes a difficult challenge, which only government support can help enable. Does anyone remember the Uff report advocating change from within?


    I have suggested that in terms of standards UK-SPEC “isn’t too far off”. I have also suggested that that the IEng category, for so long now mortally wounded and dying a lingering death in the marketplace (except for a few redoubts) is replaced with “professional registered engineer” a similar category which every prospective Chartered Engineer should be required to demonstrate , before working over a “supervised period” towards CEng.  This is in some respects a modest technical change, but difficult and symbolic changes in attitudes would be required and the hopeless mess that has become “partial CEng versus IEng” Bachelors Honours Degree accreditation would have to go. The angelic dancers fell off the head of that particular pin long ago in my opinion.


    If certain PEIs wish to continue policies which negatively discriminate against those from the apprenticeship pathway, either directly or indirectly, then that is their democratic right, but they should not be licensed to carry public benefit responsibilities. This is analogous to the Golf Club excluded from holding the Open Championship, because of gender discrimination.  


    It goes without saying that better engagement by currently under represented stakeholders (such as employers) in governance is essential , as is the creation of positive messages in respect of all registrants. Patronising messages  aren’t “positive”, they are “talking down”.  There are I’m afraid some who have been able to influence Engineering Council policy, lacking sufficient understanding of or respect for the capability of others, or are just simply seeking a “political stitch up” to place their “tribe” in control over others.  This infringes upon the rights of others to exercise their competence to the extent that it exists.  Registered Engineers and Technicians are all by definition expert in something. Some Eng Tech & IEng registrants are vastly experienced technical specialists and senior managers, although most of those who could have been eligible to register in these categories, haven’t bothered for the very reason that it only invites some “entitled type” to claim “superiority”.  If we want to discuss who is or isn’t a suitably qualified and experienced person for a particular task on the basis of evidence, then that is something else.  


    I agree with the minister’s frame of reference “As a nation I’m afraid we’ve been technical education snobs. We’ve revered the academic but treated vocational as second class - when we do it well, law, engineering, medicine - then we don’t even call it vocational”.


    We need to focus on skills and productivity.  I would also like to see those with skills in engineering and technology held in high esteem by society as I think that on the whole they already are.  If we focus on the positive collective contribution to society of all those who we seek to represent, then we don’t have to be so “needy” of individual “status”. By coincidence I’m a Chartered member (30+ years) of another profession that long seemed obsessed about its own “status”. As it got over that somewhat, it has become the profession that has probably enabled more women to reach “Director level” than any other, but through career progression, not academic pre-selection as teenagers.  



Reply
  • 0
    Thanks Andy for picking up on the press release and as a result I picked up the link to the earlier one https://www.gov.uk/government/news/education-secretary-outlines-plans-to-get-more-people-into-skilled-jobs


    I don’t for the purposes of this discussion wish to align with any political party or initiatives, but of course I’m broadly supportive of the direction of travel.  After all, if recent governments hadn’t picked up this agenda, then the arguments that I have put forward over many years would have remained marginalised within the world of professional engineering and probably dismissed as a “personal grudge”.    


    The Education Secretary contrasts the UK situation with Germany, but focusses on Skills and Productivity. Senior spokespeople for the “engineering profession” have made similar comparisons, but the emphasis was on the relative status of engineers. With the UK problem characterised as being about young people not choosing Maths and Physics as A level subjects. Similar messages from the leaders of our profession over time, invented “oily rag man” as a supposed model of the public’s perception of engineers and later added “hard hat man” as another “negative stereotype” (perhaps with female sensibilities in mind which I’m OK with) inevitably also used as a contrast with “academic elite” engineers.  We created a culture in which one of our own two types of professional engineers became characterised as an “inferior and limited plodder”, in contrast to the “highly educated” and therefore “creative and innovative” engineer of “elite” status.


    Whether using the word “elite” is just a marketing enticement, an attitude, or even an insulting epithet aimed at anyone with some power of influence (or even me    ?). The reality is that most PEIs and therefore Engineering Council have long treated those who fall into two of the three professional categories that we codify as convenient inferior pejoratives. An obvious symptom is our endless arguments about whether to try to revive the dying IEng brand or “knock it on the head”. I can only relate that, when I offered it to a substantial number of young degree qualified engineers for free (as an employer) they saw it as an inferior offering and didn’t choose to pursue it.  In addition, when I pressed for a PEI to accredit an excellent Honours Degree forming part of an apprenticeship, I didn’t realise that what it got was an inferior second class ticket for “the PEI express”.  


    There are no benefits to be had in raking over past failings, unless that is we cannot accept our failures. I’m not saying that there haven’t been some successes, or that we should engage in some sort of “Witch Hunt”. It is ridiculous to “point the finger” at Chartered Engineers generally for working hard to deservedly achieve a challenging terminal standard of professional recognition.  I drive what might be considered a “premium” car, simply because it offered the best package for my budget at the time. My argument here is simply that someone completing an apprenticeship should also be able to make such a choice if they have the “budget”, not be sent to the “tradespersons entrance”.


    To look forward, but I’m afraid on a controversial note. If Engineering Council cannot accept the principle of this thread, then it will become decisively no longer fit for purpose in my opinion. If as I hope, it recognises the need for change, then that becomes a difficult challenge, which only government support can help enable. Does anyone remember the Uff report advocating change from within?


    I have suggested that in terms of standards UK-SPEC “isn’t too far off”. I have also suggested that that the IEng category, for so long now mortally wounded and dying a lingering death in the marketplace (except for a few redoubts) is replaced with “professional registered engineer” a similar category which every prospective Chartered Engineer should be required to demonstrate , before working over a “supervised period” towards CEng.  This is in some respects a modest technical change, but difficult and symbolic changes in attitudes would be required and the hopeless mess that has become “partial CEng versus IEng” Bachelors Honours Degree accreditation would have to go. The angelic dancers fell off the head of that particular pin long ago in my opinion.


    If certain PEIs wish to continue policies which negatively discriminate against those from the apprenticeship pathway, either directly or indirectly, then that is their democratic right, but they should not be licensed to carry public benefit responsibilities. This is analogous to the Golf Club excluded from holding the Open Championship, because of gender discrimination.  


    It goes without saying that better engagement by currently under represented stakeholders (such as employers) in governance is essential , as is the creation of positive messages in respect of all registrants. Patronising messages  aren’t “positive”, they are “talking down”.  There are I’m afraid some who have been able to influence Engineering Council policy, lacking sufficient understanding of or respect for the capability of others, or are just simply seeking a “political stitch up” to place their “tribe” in control over others.  This infringes upon the rights of others to exercise their competence to the extent that it exists.  Registered Engineers and Technicians are all by definition expert in something. Some Eng Tech & IEng registrants are vastly experienced technical specialists and senior managers, although most of those who could have been eligible to register in these categories, haven’t bothered for the very reason that it only invites some “entitled type” to claim “superiority”.  If we want to discuss who is or isn’t a suitably qualified and experienced person for a particular task on the basis of evidence, then that is something else.  


    I agree with the minister’s frame of reference “As a nation I’m afraid we’ve been technical education snobs. We’ve revered the academic but treated vocational as second class - when we do it well, law, engineering, medicine - then we don’t even call it vocational”.


    We need to focus on skills and productivity.  I would also like to see those with skills in engineering and technology held in high esteem by society as I think that on the whole they already are.  If we focus on the positive collective contribution to society of all those who we seek to represent, then we don’t have to be so “needy” of individual “status”. By coincidence I’m a Chartered member (30+ years) of another profession that long seemed obsessed about its own “status”. As it got over that somewhat, it has become the profession that has probably enabled more women to reach “Director level” than any other, but through career progression, not academic pre-selection as teenagers.  



Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines