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 11278 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               

 

 

 

  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    It appears that there is CEng -and CEng second rate,  IEng and IEng second rate.

    In my humble opinion once a person achieves registration it should be somewhat equal in standing.

    But registrants with via other routs are seemed to be the second rate. For example, they are currently excluded from international registers 

    The second rate also is not covered under international agreements be it Sydney, Dublin or Washington accords.

    And finally last but not least they will face disadvantage on a job market by employers be it nationally or internationally for one simple reason, not having a university degree.

    So I think the professional registration is a huge plus for the apprentice or hybrid level professional and it will provide a recognized professional title. But these individuals should work toward an accredited 

    BEng, BSc, MEng, in order to move from second rate group into the first-rate group.


    Many jobs postings in the UK will list something like this as a requirement: And the second rate group may have a disadvantage.

     

    REQUIREMENTS


    Essential Skills and Experience: 


    Degree qualified (minimum 2:1) with a relevant engineering degree. 


    Chartered Engineer, or actively working towards it 

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    - other listings have the following language:

    Skills/experience required:



    • An engineering qualification, to HND or Degree level



    -----------------------------------------------------

     


    Requirements:



    • A Degree in Civil or Structural Engineering

    • A Chartered member of the Institute of Structural Engineers and Civil Engineers.

    • Minimum of 5 years design experience on building structures projects in the UK




    ----------------------------------------------------

     

    Skills/experience required:



    • An engineering/science qualification, to HND or Degree level


    ----------------------------------

    Some Engineer jobs list specific experience with no specific education requirements.

    Requirements:

    You will bring to the role:



    • Excellent technical, analytical and problem solving skills.

    • Strong organisation, planning, and delivery skills.

    • Excellent written and verbal communication ability.





    ---------------------------

    Desirable Knowledge, Skills and Experience



    • Studying towards or achieved a numerate degree (minimum 2:1) or equivalent qualification
      • Preferably engineering, mathematics or the sciences


    • A practical mindedness and a passion for motorsport.

  • 0
    The latest developments

    https://www.engc.org.uk/news/news/degree-apprenticeships-update-from-the-office-for-students/


    The linked page for Apprentices states  "Many engineering apprenticeships now lead to professional registration as an Engineering Technician (EngTech), ICT Technician (ICTTech) or Incorporated Engineer (IEng). Achieving professionally registered status at the end of your apprenticeship is a great way to demonstrate what you have learnt.  It will also set you apart from others as you compete for jobs or promotion."


    Note; no mention of Chartered Engineer , although it does get a mention hidden away in a sub menu.


    This afternoon from 2pm The Engineering Professors Council is discussing 

     
    • Panel 1:  Accreditation – Supporting Change in Engineering Education?

    • Panel 2: Apprenticeships – Emerging From the Hype


    Later at 3.30pm

     
    • Panel 3: Sailing in the Winds of Change – How Engineering HE Should Respond to Government Policies


    I wonder whether they will adopt the policy set out by my proposition for this thread?  I also wonder what the title of panel A suggests? I assume that it is aimed at Politicians not Apprentices who have long suffered from negative prejudices and disadvantage in the world of professional engineering.  The grounds for this negative stereotyping have typically been academic, although it would be unfair to place the blame for this on Engineering Professors generally.  I hope that the overwhelming majority of them ensure that working with employers, Degree Apprenticeships become increasingly renowned as an excellent pathway for prospective Chartered Engineers over the next few years, not the “poor relation” of the past.  There is a perfectly valid role for academic excellence, research etc, which we should encourage and support, but not through snobbery and one upmanship which has no place in a system of professional recognition for the 21st Century. More scientifically/mathematically/theoretical Engineers are an essential part of the profession, but so are those of a more “applied” nature. In my eyes the “hype” has come from those trying to ration status for a “Technological Elite”, greatly restricting the majority of trained engineers of graduate calibre from progression to the "terminal" (Chartered) standard of their profession, on the basis of their A level scores!        
  • 0
    https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules/immigration-rules-appendix-k-shortage-occupation-list

    https://feweek.co.uk/2019/05/25/why-apprenticeships-are-more-than-a-path-to-social-inclusion-for-the-young/


  • 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.      


  • 0
    https://feweek.co.uk/2019/10/19/ministers-should-remove-the-high-vis-and-get-to-work-on-apprentice-stereotypes/


    Our research at The Apprentice Voice recently revealed that two-thirds (67.5 per cent) of apprentices still face stigmatisation or stereotyping, with 58 per cent saying the stigma came from colleagues and peers.
  • 0
    Roy,

    This is a pretty damning statistic. I don't understand how a company can support an apprentice scheme and then allow stigmatisation within their workplace, as seems to be indicated here.

    This may be something that will improve as the Apprenticeship model starts to bed down, but is obviously something that work needs to be done on to eliminate the problem.

    Alasdair
  • 0
    I don’t know how relevant the survey was to IET areas of interest or whether like many surveys it simply elicited the answer that it wanted.


    Many IET members would disagree with my proposition with respect to Chartered Engineer, even if they were enthusiastic supporters of apprenticeships in engineering and technology.  I would hope that any professional with an understanding of both pathways, would have a “balanced” view, that different blends of learning and experience are more or less optimised preparation for different types of roles.  My basic frame of reference is that Engineers operate somewhere on a continuum between practice (or know how) led and theory (or knowledge) led, with a normal distribution effect meaning most are towards the centre for most of their time. This wasn’t my idea, I’m just describing it, based on the assumption that they have developed to broadly “graduate standard”.  A standard which is often demonstrated by people after the ideal “window of opportunity” to have it recognised has passed and when they are able to realistically evaluate the benefits and return on investment of doing so in the light of huge price hikes in recent years.  https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/807/23247?post_id=112480#p112480  


    In my previous business, the Managing Director started as a “higher national type” Apprentice as had the company founders (for Boulton & Watt). It had a small proportion of Chartered Engineers, who were “practically orientated” types.  A different business model built on different traditions, might employ large numbers of university graduates, with obvious strong potential for CEng, if they find it sufficiently attractive.  From what I observe, it seems that when working together these engineers aren’t interested in snobbery and recognise like a rugby team (topical reference) that we don’t all need to be built exactly the same way.  Of course in a lot of spaces it isn’t immediately obvious who studied what and where years before, other than via some unreliable social class clue like accent of voice.


    Unfortunately, once we sow division, as the currently dominant story of our national life illustrates, this is rarely beneficial overall. Competition (including academic competition) can spur higher performance, but more often than not creates “win-lose” or “lose-lose” outcomes rather than “win-win” if it isn’t skillfully managed. Obviously engineering can’t buck the trends of wider society, which have included a tendency for full-time undergraduate students to believe the academic sales pitch “myth” that their learning is “superior”, or at least to assume that any other pattern of early career development is only for “thicker kids”.  “Myths” often have some truth within them and some among us need to be the brightest mathematical and scientific minds, who we should rightly admire for their talents.


    Having observed that we cannot change social mores, engineering can exercise moral leadership as an open and diverse profession.  That clearly hasn’t happened in the past in the PEI world, but we need to look forward, in doing so we need to take care that we don’t our replace our current “isms” (aka negative prejudices) with others. Productivity and value added to society are appropriate measures, not relative status, especially not a top-down driven version, which leads many to feel that our institutions are just not for them.      
             

  • 0
    Hi Roy,


    For completely separate reasons I was trying to find info on what blockages (perceived or real) there are to entry to engineering, and I came across this article:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education-and-careers/0/the-five-most-secure-careers-in-britain/ 

    Jolly nice that it promotes engineering as a secure career but once again propagating the myth that:

    It’s an occupation with barriers to entry as an engineering degree is very demanding and takes four years.




    Ok, this article is a few years old, but I'll bet this is still the story that's being told in schools - AND, coming back to your thread, that it's the impression being given by the PEIs. Which unfortunately I think is where this myth started, I don't see employers asking for four-year graduates*, that demand seems to be driven purely by the (mistaken) perception that it's a requirement for CEng.


    Right, that's got the adrenaline pumping to face the rest of the day ?


    Incidentally I struggled to find anything else on blockages to entry (not quite true, there was quite a bit on software engineering, but not on other fields) - any thoughts about potential sources of info appreciated. Just for personal interest to help with my many and various mentoring roles.


    Cheers,


    Andy


    * Not quite true - a three year taught degree that includes an additional year in industry is an excellent route to employment! But that's not what they meant here.  


  • 0
    P.S. Don't let this put off anyone who wants to do a four year degree - it might be the right thing for you! And there will be some roles it will open up (I should have said "all employers" or possibly even "most employers" above). As ever, the great thing about engineering is that there are so many routes in - there's something to suit everyone.
  • 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?
           

Community Rules & Guidelines