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 11423 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
    Interesting Andy and a generally good piece of journalism, based at least on some form of rational economic analysis, rather than “snobbery”. I note that IT and Electricians also get a mention so we are pretty well covered. The only element I found distasteful was “Thank high levels of immigration for this one”, I don’t know how if that is based in evidence or prejudice?


    In the context of an article like this , it isn’t realistic for the journalist to explore the variety of engineering career pathways and by 2015 models of apprenticeships at graduate and even post-graduate standard hadn’t clearly emerged. They have always existed, but avoided the “cloth-cap” perception of the apprenticeship brand which has tended to attract academic and social snobbery . Doctors are after all, trained on the job, but there is a barrier to entry, contested by academic means for admission to medical degree courses that precede practical training.  I agree that many in the Engineering Council family have “elitist” aspirations and have perpetuated a narrative, that to become a “proper” Engineer, one must gain entry to an MEng four year degree (longer in Scotland) by exceptional academic performance in Maths & Science at school.  


    I started this thread to challenge some of the existing assumptions and negative prejudice that such messages have sustained.  The article states  we should think about barriers to entry. Does the job require specialist knowledge or qualifications that prevent others from jumping in? Most true professions fall into this category.  The difficult question for us to resolve is; whether being an Engineering Technician or Incorporated Engineer is a “true profession”, or are these just subsidiary “part-qualified” versions of our “true professional” Chartered Engineer? The latter is our current policy.


    I think that the market has illustrated clearly to us, that in a voluntary system where people pay to engage, only the “first class tickets” have a sustainable market position. To be a “part-qualified” or “associate professional” has limited attractiveness for an experienced professional. There are some circumstances where professional recognition, over and above proven ability to of the job to an employer’s satisfaction may add some value, but if it invites the kind of snobbery that seems to have been visited on apprentices, the disadvantages probably outweigh the advantages.


    We should set high standards for Chartered Engineer and one way to potentially achieve that is by academic performance. Many excellent Engineers come through CEng accredited degree programmes, although it is far too easy to emphasise theory over practice, producing a “scientist capable of being moulded into an engineer” instead of someone capable of making a productive contribution.  The emphasis on “exam passing” also stifles creativity and the heavy emphasis on complex mathematics, as a “rite of passage”, may disenchant many from pursuing an engineering career.  


    We have allowed our system to “silo” people by their late teens and early twenties into “the best and the rest”.  “The rest” have included excellent graduates with a “more applied” orientation, being stigmatised by IEng, despite often being more productive, than their “more scientific” peers.  What we should be doing in my humble opinion, is ensuring that there is a clear supported pathway towards the terminal standard (CEng) for all of those able to illustrate post-graduate attributes and substantial responsible experience. I don’t have any problem with that being at least 8-10 years long for most people, post compulsory-education. Surely that is a “barrier to entry”?


    I’m generally very supportive of academia, but if we hand them control, they are only effectively able to exercise that control over people of student age (typically up to around 21-22 in the UK).  I would ask them to maximise the productivity of their programmes, since simply being prepared for subsequent practical training as an engineer, is a relatively poor return on investment and many smaller business don’t have the wherewithal to offer structured training. We need some fresh thinking. Some academics, many engineers and others with a valid perspective, clearly recognise the problem. We shouldn’t rush to change , throwing the “baby out with the bathwater”,  but where is the fresh vision? We commissioned the Uff report 3 years ago and it seems to have found its way to the usual dusty shelf?
           

Reply
  • 0
    Interesting Andy and a generally good piece of journalism, based at least on some form of rational economic analysis, rather than “snobbery”. I note that IT and Electricians also get a mention so we are pretty well covered. The only element I found distasteful was “Thank high levels of immigration for this one”, I don’t know how if that is based in evidence or prejudice?


    In the context of an article like this , it isn’t realistic for the journalist to explore the variety of engineering career pathways and by 2015 models of apprenticeships at graduate and even post-graduate standard hadn’t clearly emerged. They have always existed, but avoided the “cloth-cap” perception of the apprenticeship brand which has tended to attract academic and social snobbery . Doctors are after all, trained on the job, but there is a barrier to entry, contested by academic means for admission to medical degree courses that precede practical training.  I agree that many in the Engineering Council family have “elitist” aspirations and have perpetuated a narrative, that to become a “proper” Engineer, one must gain entry to an MEng four year degree (longer in Scotland) by exceptional academic performance in Maths & Science at school.  


    I started this thread to challenge some of the existing assumptions and negative prejudice that such messages have sustained.  The article states  we should think about barriers to entry. Does the job require specialist knowledge or qualifications that prevent others from jumping in? Most true professions fall into this category.  The difficult question for us to resolve is; whether being an Engineering Technician or Incorporated Engineer is a “true profession”, or are these just subsidiary “part-qualified” versions of our “true professional” Chartered Engineer? The latter is our current policy.


    I think that the market has illustrated clearly to us, that in a voluntary system where people pay to engage, only the “first class tickets” have a sustainable market position. To be a “part-qualified” or “associate professional” has limited attractiveness for an experienced professional. There are some circumstances where professional recognition, over and above proven ability to of the job to an employer’s satisfaction may add some value, but if it invites the kind of snobbery that seems to have been visited on apprentices, the disadvantages probably outweigh the advantages.


    We should set high standards for Chartered Engineer and one way to potentially achieve that is by academic performance. Many excellent Engineers come through CEng accredited degree programmes, although it is far too easy to emphasise theory over practice, producing a “scientist capable of being moulded into an engineer” instead of someone capable of making a productive contribution.  The emphasis on “exam passing” also stifles creativity and the heavy emphasis on complex mathematics, as a “rite of passage”, may disenchant many from pursuing an engineering career.  


    We have allowed our system to “silo” people by their late teens and early twenties into “the best and the rest”.  “The rest” have included excellent graduates with a “more applied” orientation, being stigmatised by IEng, despite often being more productive, than their “more scientific” peers.  What we should be doing in my humble opinion, is ensuring that there is a clear supported pathway towards the terminal standard (CEng) for all of those able to illustrate post-graduate attributes and substantial responsible experience. I don’t have any problem with that being at least 8-10 years long for most people, post compulsory-education. Surely that is a “barrier to entry”?


    I’m generally very supportive of academia, but if we hand them control, they are only effectively able to exercise that control over people of student age (typically up to around 21-22 in the UK).  I would ask them to maximise the productivity of their programmes, since simply being prepared for subsequent practical training as an engineer, is a relatively poor return on investment and many smaller business don’t have the wherewithal to offer structured training. We need some fresh thinking. Some academics, many engineers and others with a valid perspective, clearly recognise the problem. We shouldn’t rush to change , throwing the “baby out with the bathwater”,  but where is the fresh vision? We commissioned the Uff report 3 years ago and it seems to have found its way to the usual dusty shelf?
           

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines