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 11427 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
    I appreciate that I have begun talking to myself in this thread and it probably is a sign of madness ?. It seems that Engineering Council has accepted the proposition in principle.  https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-review-consultation/  deadline for responses 2nd Aug.  However some modest changes of rules doesn’t change a long-standing culture.  


    Much of Engineering Council’s mindset still appears to rest on dividing teenagers into “the best and the rest”, then ensuring that anyone placed into the “inferior basket”, doesn’t “sneak in the side door” anytime soon, without completing the prescribed “rite of passage” , designed to weed out academic scientist types from more practical (and hence inferior) types.  Things have evolved somewhat, so that a time penalty is no longer applied (age 35) before a member of “the rest” can apply to be “one of the best”, but you can be pretty confident of disadvantageous treatment or disdain, if not outright disqualification, for dodging the rite of passage in much of the Engineering Council family. Some might see this as “snobbery”, but as I see it, snobbery is the social status element which gets conflated, not what engineers actually do.


    Engineering Council aligns to The Washington Accord, an international academic consensus which creates “Engineers” and “Technologists”, defined by their academic preparation. This approach was considered in the UK circa twenty years ago, with the possibility of having “Chartered Engineer” and “Chartered Engineering Technologist”.  It was never pursued, so the terms are essentially just synonyms. Nevertheless, academic accreditors seek to perpetuate the division through accrediting Bachelors Degrees on the basis of being “more theoretical” and “more applied”.  Something which might be useful if each type of degree was “different but equally valuable”.  However, Engineering Council threw this idea out of the window a decade or so ago and in doing so seriously undermined the value of “Incorporated Engineer” degree accreditation.  


    Some “customers” ie students and employers, might find a “more applied” degree ideal for their needs, but they don’t want to discover that what they have is an “inferior product”, which unfortunately is how it is treated in Academic and Engineering Council terms.  In my response to the consultation, I have commented in the strongest possible terms.  Arguably a form of misselling is taking place and universities are being incentivised to substitute useful practical understanding which might increase student employability for theory.  Smaller companies especially, should reasonably expect some productive capability from a graduate engineer, not just a theorist.        


    Any profession has to have standards and means of demonstrating them. Some close access at entry by academic selection, although progression to “fully qualified” standard also requires a practical experience phase, so the “Apprentice” is typically in their twenties rather than a teenager.   The Apprenticeship funding system has now allowed something similar to happen but without the early “closing off” on academic grounds.

    https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/post-graduate-engineer/  Perhaps this should now become the ideal “rite of passage” into Chartered Engineering, instead of the cramming of more complex forms of maths and science as (typically) a 19 year old?   I have highlighted some key points below  

    Entry Requirements:
    Employers will set the recruitment and selection criteria for their own requirements. In order to optimise success candidates will typically have: Professionally recognised Bachelors Level Degree or equivalent such as BEng, BSc in a STEM subject. All employees must have at least English and Maths at Level 2 prior to the End Point Assessment.

    This Apprenticeship Standard aligns with the current edition of the UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC) at Chartered Engineer (CEng) level.


    I wouldn’t advocate closing access off from other pathways, because inevitably opportunities to undertake such an apprenticeship will be restricted. Some people are already complaining that “apprenticeship funding should only go to teenagers”, despite the money coming from an employer’s levy, so perhaps politicians will listen to them and slam this door shut.


    However the political landscape of Apprenticeships eventually plays out; has anyone noticed the change here once employers gained a voice and some measure of control, instead of the just the PEI nominees at Engineering Council? Most obviously, from just what I have posted, the teenage academic selection and dancing on the heads of pins about fluency in different forms of mathematics has disappeared.  Replaced by will typically have: Professionally recognised Bachelors Level Degree or equivalent such as BEng, BSc in a STEM subject. All employees must have at least English and Maths at Level 2 prior to the End Point Assessment.       


    Some engineers should always continue to be at the mathematical/scientific end of the spectrum, because that is what their employers (including academia) and society needs, but there is no “road block” to talent emerging from a variety of pathways, including more practical ones, on merit. Perhaps if Engineering Council had engaged with employers more effectively in the past we would have been here years ago?


    I used to manage a Degree Apprenticeship with both Trainee Quantity Surveyors and Engineers, so I noted with some satisfaction that The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors had “come off its high horse” and accepted an apprenticeship  https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/chartered-surveyor-degree/ .  I trust that Engineering Council has now done the same and I hope that we don’t have weasel words, obfuscations and obstructions to come?  For the record, my excellent engineers with 1st class honours, got the “second class inferior treatment”, but that was 10+ years ago and some are senior managers and directors now. So it was Engineering Council’s loss not theirs! There must be many thousands of senior professionals and executives ,who were similarly “lost” .  Many who migrated into other related domains post CEng are still considered “one of us”, but those who didn’t pass through that gate are one of “the rest”.  This still leaves a very strong smell of an alumni society, rather than a system of ongoing regulation for competent professionals.      


Reply
  • 0
    I appreciate that I have begun talking to myself in this thread and it probably is a sign of madness ?. It seems that Engineering Council has accepted the proposition in principle.  https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-review-consultation/  deadline for responses 2nd Aug.  However some modest changes of rules doesn’t change a long-standing culture.  


    Much of Engineering Council’s mindset still appears to rest on dividing teenagers into “the best and the rest”, then ensuring that anyone placed into the “inferior basket”, doesn’t “sneak in the side door” anytime soon, without completing the prescribed “rite of passage” , designed to weed out academic scientist types from more practical (and hence inferior) types.  Things have evolved somewhat, so that a time penalty is no longer applied (age 35) before a member of “the rest” can apply to be “one of the best”, but you can be pretty confident of disadvantageous treatment or disdain, if not outright disqualification, for dodging the rite of passage in much of the Engineering Council family. Some might see this as “snobbery”, but as I see it, snobbery is the social status element which gets conflated, not what engineers actually do.


    Engineering Council aligns to The Washington Accord, an international academic consensus which creates “Engineers” and “Technologists”, defined by their academic preparation. This approach was considered in the UK circa twenty years ago, with the possibility of having “Chartered Engineer” and “Chartered Engineering Technologist”.  It was never pursued, so the terms are essentially just synonyms. Nevertheless, academic accreditors seek to perpetuate the division through accrediting Bachelors Degrees on the basis of being “more theoretical” and “more applied”.  Something which might be useful if each type of degree was “different but equally valuable”.  However, Engineering Council threw this idea out of the window a decade or so ago and in doing so seriously undermined the value of “Incorporated Engineer” degree accreditation.  


    Some “customers” ie students and employers, might find a “more applied” degree ideal for their needs, but they don’t want to discover that what they have is an “inferior product”, which unfortunately is how it is treated in Academic and Engineering Council terms.  In my response to the consultation, I have commented in the strongest possible terms.  Arguably a form of misselling is taking place and universities are being incentivised to substitute useful practical understanding which might increase student employability for theory.  Smaller companies especially, should reasonably expect some productive capability from a graduate engineer, not just a theorist.        


    Any profession has to have standards and means of demonstrating them. Some close access at entry by academic selection, although progression to “fully qualified” standard also requires a practical experience phase, so the “Apprentice” is typically in their twenties rather than a teenager.   The Apprenticeship funding system has now allowed something similar to happen but without the early “closing off” on academic grounds.

    https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/post-graduate-engineer/  Perhaps this should now become the ideal “rite of passage” into Chartered Engineering, instead of the cramming of more complex forms of maths and science as (typically) a 19 year old?   I have highlighted some key points below  

    Entry Requirements:
    Employers will set the recruitment and selection criteria for their own requirements. In order to optimise success candidates will typically have: Professionally recognised Bachelors Level Degree or equivalent such as BEng, BSc in a STEM subject. All employees must have at least English and Maths at Level 2 prior to the End Point Assessment.

    This Apprenticeship Standard aligns with the current edition of the UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC) at Chartered Engineer (CEng) level.


    I wouldn’t advocate closing access off from other pathways, because inevitably opportunities to undertake such an apprenticeship will be restricted. Some people are already complaining that “apprenticeship funding should only go to teenagers”, despite the money coming from an employer’s levy, so perhaps politicians will listen to them and slam this door shut.


    However the political landscape of Apprenticeships eventually plays out; has anyone noticed the change here once employers gained a voice and some measure of control, instead of the just the PEI nominees at Engineering Council? Most obviously, from just what I have posted, the teenage academic selection and dancing on the heads of pins about fluency in different forms of mathematics has disappeared.  Replaced by will typically have: Professionally recognised Bachelors Level Degree or equivalent such as BEng, BSc in a STEM subject. All employees must have at least English and Maths at Level 2 prior to the End Point Assessment.       


    Some engineers should always continue to be at the mathematical/scientific end of the spectrum, because that is what their employers (including academia) and society needs, but there is no “road block” to talent emerging from a variety of pathways, including more practical ones, on merit. Perhaps if Engineering Council had engaged with employers more effectively in the past we would have been here years ago?


    I used to manage a Degree Apprenticeship with both Trainee Quantity Surveyors and Engineers, so I noted with some satisfaction that The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors had “come off its high horse” and accepted an apprenticeship  https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/chartered-surveyor-degree/ .  I trust that Engineering Council has now done the same and I hope that we don’t have weasel words, obfuscations and obstructions to come?  For the record, my excellent engineers with 1st class honours, got the “second class inferior treatment”, but that was 10+ years ago and some are senior managers and directors now. So it was Engineering Council’s loss not theirs! There must be many thousands of senior professionals and executives ,who were similarly “lost” .  Many who migrated into other related domains post CEng are still considered “one of us”, but those who didn’t pass through that gate are one of “the rest”.  This still leaves a very strong smell of an alumni society, rather than a system of ongoing regulation for competent professionals.      


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines