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 13 subscribers
  • Views 10211 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question 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               

 

 

 

  • 0
    Much still seems to be made of the academic threshold changes over the years. Is it still the case that 70% plus are non-graduate (CEng/ IEng) applicants? If so, should more be made of the non-graduate route?

    It seems to constitute the lions share of applicants in reality? Rather than the obsession with degrees?
  • 0
    Rhino60:

    [...]Is it still the case that 70% plus are non-graduate (CEng/ IEng) applicants? If so, should more be made of the non-graduate route?[...]


    While only ~30% have formally Accredited degrees, the vast majority do have some form of degree (don't know the exact numbers).

    The key value of an accredited degree to the IET is that it makes the 'Underpinning Knowledge and Understanding (UKU) ' element of registration become a simple tick-box of pre approval. A good regular degree is pretty easy to assess for the appropriate UKU. As your progress down the formal academic levels the style of learning changes so the demonstration of competent UKU gets harder because of that style change (especially if unappreciated). 


    It definitely can be done, see Paul Meenan's story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBzB646L6Xk


  • 0
    Much still seems to be made of the academic threshold changes over the years. Is it still the case that 70% plus are non-graduate (CEng/ IEng) applicants? If so, should more be made of the non-graduate route? It seems to constitute the lions share of applicants in reality? Rather than the obsession with degrees? 

    There are many reasons why I think it is important for “professional engineers” to be of “graduate standard” and for those considered to be the most capable to be of “post-graduate” standard. However, these are “benchmarks” which can be attained through different patterns of learning, in the workplace and under academic control.

    I contend that an ideal apprenticeship is the most effective blend, usually involving part-time academic study.

    The pathway of full-time undergraduate education followed by learning in employment, suits universities, traditional middle class social patterns and reduces an employer’s risk, by hiring “older”, “pre-selected” and partly trained employees as “junior graduate engineers”.  It also provides a stream of engineers for academia itself and perhaps some specialist R&D.     

    There is also a great need for “professional technicians” and highly-skilled practical trade-based practitioners. Some of these may also hold degrees, given how common a degree is now. There will also be overlap, with those deploying graduate attributes as engineers. No skilled person who practices ethically should be seen as “lower” or “inferior”, but simply as valuable for what they do. Some become business owners, managers, or Chartered Engineers.

    I don’t know what the current proportion of non-graduates is, but there has been a lot of “mopping up” in recent years of engineers now in mid-career who might have registered earlier. The IET’s policies on work-based learning will have contributed significantly to that.

    Thanks for your contribution Phil, seen just as I was finishing off. Your point is valid and I agree, hence my support for part-time academic study, although with a more vocational emphasis, than has typically been the case to date.

    The link with Chartered Engineer accreditation, has strongly emphasised “weeding out” on the basis of Mathematics and Science, to create an elite group. The effect has been that someone who hasn’t excelled in these subjects by the age of 13-15 was likely to be excluded. In that sense, I feel that the “obsession with degrees” charge is valid, in fact even an obsession with the minutiae of both content and segregation by academic means.     

  • 0
    Roy and Philip

    I get what you mean as a UK&U standard. As mentioned, I am in the Paul Meenan category, there are similarities in our backgrounds. I started in aviation maintenance but have ended up in a similar arena to him.

    I was advised (recently) whilst awaiting my CEng PRI, 'It is what you do, not what you know' regarding the PRI.

    That does rather reinforce my earlier point?


    Colin
  • 0
    I am delighted to read that Apprenticeships should be considered as a legitimate route to C Eng.

    When I left school and started an indentured apprenticeship in 1970 this was considered as the best way forward to learning about engineering in a structured way. Back then as apprentices we were split into two groups, mechanical and technical following courses as set by the then EITB.

    Degrees in education were not the norm either, and a very few, 1's and 2's of my fellow apprentices were offered the opportunity for a sponsored degree, post apprenticeship.

    Organisations like IET and IMechE were not really know to us then, how did engineers qualify for C Eng, and it must have been a very small band of people, somewhat elite.

    I was encouraged to join one of the institutions during my time with British Standards Institute during the 1980's, but by then the requirement had moved to be higher education, and in the workplace promotion was grade bound by education.

    I myself went back into education and attained an HNC in 1994, and once again looked at C Eng, but again the boundaries had moved.

    It would seem the mature route does not exist anymore?

    Was my apprenticeship in the eyes of the IET and IMechE now worthless?

    Had I known, could I have attained C Eng in 1975 with an indentured apprenticeship and EITB certificates?

    The introduction of I Eng, as some have observed is of course second class, and now I believe a masters is required for C Eng, which of course is based on younger persons coming out of education and the organisations are filtering to ensure not to many people attain C Eng.

    If you are good enough, you should be able to attain by what ever route, if it is what you want? I do!
  • 0
    Peter

    I agree. The issue that ECUK have is the wording around the CEng / IEng requirements. It appears as a last gasp mention 'if you do not hold the appropriate qualifications...'

    It is evident that a large number of people are missing the boat for registration because of this perception.

    As per my earlier point, if the emphasis is on what you do, not what you know then they really need to assert this route and advertise it properly.

    A straw poll at work suggests to me the vast majority assume it is not for non-graduates. This perception needs to be adjusted by ECUK in my opinion.
  • 0
    Peter,

    There are a great many excellent engineers, who might have attained Chartered Engineer on the basis of competent performance and learning in the workplace.  However, there wasn’t any satisfactory way to demonstrate this. A formal theory examination, either in an academic institution or organised by professional institutions was the only way. This included “Mature Candidate Schemes” which were only open to senior professionals aged over 35 and required a theoretical paper using Mathematics & Science.

     
    Was my apprenticeship in the eyes of the IET and IMechE now worthless?
    It was “beneath” the interests of IEE & IMechE. Not without value, but a Technician Qualification not a Chartered one. An HNC (plus endorsements), might have cut in in 1964.       

    Had I known, could I have attained C Eng in 1975 with an indentured apprenticeship and EITB certificates?  Sorry no chance! Eng Tech only, perhaps Tech Eng (now IEng) with a T5 or F.T.C.

    If you are good enough, you should be able to attain by whatever route, if it is what you want?
    Agreed, IET has created a potential pathway in recent years via career achievement, but it is very difficult to signpost, since you only know when you get there.  

    I don’t advocate restricting the numbers of CEng, but I also want to raise, or at least maintain, overall standards not lower them.  Therefore, CEng must represent a very highly developed professional. It is the “terminal standard” for engineers.  

    A main part of my argument, is that there should be clear unambiguous and equally valid pathways to Chartered Engineer via an Apprenticeship.  

    The “reference point” must be a four-year degree (MEng in UK), plus around 4 years of work-based development. So, for a younger new entrant of 18 years old that is circa 8 years.  It is also quite common for graduates of three-year BEng Degrees to achieve within a similar 8 years. There should be no reason why an apprenticeship with a part-time degree cannot achieve the same. However, to-date they are likely to find that, their degree is considered “too applications focussed” with “not enough calculus” and potentially advised to seek IEng instead on academic grounds.

    Given the great diversity of engineering and the potential pathways along which Engineers and Technicians develop, we cannot offer everyone a clear pathway, especially with a timescale. Some will develop at a different pace to others and not everyone will want, or be able to reach a demanding standard.   
     

  • 0

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines