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 11808 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
    Roy, given the huge amount of collective evidences you've provided thus far, ?, I'm starting to draw a conclusion that it's really a matter of internal politics; of who is higher up the food chain, and deserving of the greater status (and therefore respect) and largest share of the salaries cake, and who isn't? I think that IEng members who most probably, have achieved management level jobs (and salaries) in their careers, feel they should also have chartered status and respect to go with their pay for total satisfaction - something even toothpaste companies can't provide in one product ?.


    There should be legislation to deal with issues of 'equal pay for work of equal value'; and where there are trade unions in the company the matter can be resolved pretty quickly. Unfortunately, there isn't a trade union around for IEng members to vent their grievences with being low balled on receiving IEng instead of CEng ;  so the only option is to, well sort of, put a long drawn out case, of why everyone from apprentice onwards, should have a pathway towards CEng.


    Personally for me, these days it's not about who's CEng - or just plain engineer - and who isn't; or who's done a degree (and understands calculus), and who hasn't. I'm more interested in who's discovered some fundamental law of nature as basic as a=b.c and given a new imputance to engineering and technology; something that would be enshrined in science and engineering textbooks taught to students around the world; or who's invented something that will be the start of another industrial revolution.


    I don't think society understands anything about our internal politics and the differences between CEng, IEng or just plain engineer, technologist, and technician? We should just be happy with what we've achieved and work towards getting the best pay deal and pensions as is possible.
  • 0
    The lack of status given to vocationally trained engineers is a Western problem.


    Tim Cook the Apple CEO explains the issues in this video (around from 4 minutes in).


    In it says:- 


    "There's a confusion about China. The popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor cost. I'm not sure what part of China they go to but the truth is China stopped being the low labor cost country many years ago. And that is not the reason to come to China from a supply point of view. The reason is because of the skill, and the quantity of skill in one location and the type of skill it is."


    And China has an abundance of skilled labor unseen elsewhere, says Cook:


    "The products we do require really advanced tooling, and the precision that you have to have, the tooling and working with the materials that we do are state of the art. And the tooling skill is very deep here. In the US you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China you could fill multiple football fields."


    Cook credits China's vast supply of highly skilled vocational talent:


    "The vocational expertise is very very deep here, and I give the education system a lot of credit for continuing to push on that even when others were de-emphasizing vocational. Now I think many countries in the world have woke up and said this is a key thing and we've got to correct that. China called that right from the beginning."

  • 0
    “National Apprenticeship and Scottish Apprenticeship Week 2019”  is being held from Monday 4th March. 


    It seems at present that opinion remains divided within the profession, about whether an Apprenticeship might only exceptionally lead to Chartered Engineer, or is an equally valid pathway when compared to becoming a full-time academic student for up to 4 years, followed by a similar period of training and experience in the workplace.  It also remains to be seen whether the “flagship” government policy of revitalising apprenticeships will sustain, or ultimately join a long list of initiatives that have proved to be little more than politicians tinkering, or at best offered limited long-term impact.  


    The Government policy isn’t just about Engineering and Technology, but Technician Apprenticeships in Engineering have traditionally been seen as a an exemplar. However, as Peter Miller has highlighted, apprenticeships have been considered “vocational” and therefore associated with “the labouring classes”. Whereas those from the “middle classes” were expected to attended university for “academic” preparation before seeking further training.


    A significant proportion of older Chartered Engineers crossed this class divide via the Grammar School System which for a was ubiquitous in the post-war period, dividing children on the basis of examinations taken at the age of 10. Some others have found pathways after completing an apprenticeship, but the rules and practice of Engineering Council intentionally made this difficult for a long time. For example, a 10 year penalty was applied to anyone without an accredited degree, which were nearly all full-time study only. Many understandably hold to the tradition which bred them, in which a theoretical examination, usually involving difficult mathematics, is a rite of passage and proof of competence.   


    Incorporated (formerly Technician) Engineer usefully filled a gap, but has been in long-term decline. It has simply been unable to gain widely accepted value in the marketplace, being positioned at the top of the vocational (“inferior”) pathway and the bottom of the academic (“superior”) one. I have nothing further useful to add about this, that I haven’t already said, except to reiterate strongly my concern that linking new Degree Apprenticeships to the old IEng brand, merely risks perpetuating the same stigma and snobbery. Just doing more of the same, in the hope that attitudes will improve, merely abdicates leadership and condones such attitudes.    


    In the context of this discussion, I’m mainly addressing apprenticeships with a part-time degree embedded. Typically these will be of around 4 years duration, undertaken at the start of a career. There is also a recently developed “transition model” for more established practitioners and graduate trainee engineers. An Apprentice is paid a salary and should therefore reasonably expect to make an overall positive productive contribution during the training period, although some employers might be confident of payback over a longer period, if the person is loyal. https://www.thecea.org.uk/jcbs-holly-broadhurst-crowned-uks-top-higher-apprentice/   https://jcbacademy-sixthform.com/holly-broadhurst-jcb/


    There are similar but often less intensive models considered “normal” in some other countries, where the university is in control and arranges work experience placements for its student, which may be unpaid internships or paid jobs. The disadvantage from an employer’s perspective is that they may have little influence over the person or study content, they just get what they are offered. The advantage is that you get given someone “on trial” who is hopefully past any teenage growing pains, for little or no up-front investment.


    There is also a strong UK tradition of “graduate recruitment”, which is my comparator here. This retains a very valuable role, especially for those employers seeking “high potential”, but it also tended to replace those engineering apprenticeships embedding part-time higher qualifications (such as HNC) from the 1990s, for reasons unrelated to the relative quality of preparation. It is clearly an attractive proposition for an employer to hire a “job ready” graduate engineer, rather than bear the costs and risk of an Apprentice, especially the overhead cost of in-house training facilities.  Had engineering graduates actually proved “job ready” then I wouldn’t be writing this, but that wasn’t realistic and wasn’t a “plan”, it was the unintended consequence of other government actions.  


    When it cost just a few thousand pounds to obtain an engineering degree, graduates who weren’t able to gain employment as trainee engineers, arguably still gained good value. Now loaded with perhaps £40000 of personal debt to the public purse, with no certainty of actually becoming trained to work as an engineer, this is unreasonable and untenable.  So we have an older generation of graduates who gained significant advantages from the full-time academic path and who govern engineering, perpetuating serious financial disadvantage on the upcoming generation, who would often be far better served by a higher/degree apprenticeship if they can find one.          


    For National Apprenticeship Week, I thought that I should highlight some positive progress so far.

     
    • Employers have been found a place at the table to counterbalance the dominance of the academic perspective in a way that Engineering Council has never been able to. Organisations like the Engineering Professors Council in the UK and The International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) have held sway. I wish no disrespect towards these distinguished academics, but inevitably, the system has become skewed towards the perspective of activists among them and away from the needs of employers, or the economy more widely. Symptoms include; market distortions competitively advantaging some universities financially, disadvantageous treatment of technical colleges, skills shortages, basic skills deficiencies in graduate engineers, disengagement in the voluntary system of recognition, or internationally employer’s exemptions in countries where licensing is enforced.           


     

    • The IET (and some sister PEIs) have been trusted to help enable a more balanced dialogue. Leading to Universities, especially 1960s Technical Universities and post-92 former Polytechnics in the UK, being encouraged to fulfil their “original mission” of meeting the needs for knowledgeable and skilled technical people as an extension of technical colleges, with a strong vocational element.  The drift towards competing for academic prestige at the expense of vocational development cannot be blamed on engineering, but it also conveniently aligned with the priorities of those among us who have been far more concerned about relative status than skills and productive performance.      


     

    • Some progress has been made in reducing the “apprenticeship stigma”, but there is still a difficult marketing problem. For example in my previous role, we adopted the title “Student Engineer” because teachers, parents and other influencers positioned an apprenticeship as being “only for the less academically able”.  Technician Apprenticeships in Engineering have a strong reputation and we now also have graduate and post-graduate models ideal for Chartered Engineer preparation. But there are many Apprenticeships consisting only of basic workplace training or even workplace simulation, often with limited additional learning. I won’t discuss reality TV show titles here!  Clearly a University Degree is widely understood and more highly esteemed in most cultures. Although we have adopted the term “Degree Apprenticeship” these two words represent historically different traditions. “Foundation Degrees” (introduced in the UK from 2001) helped my aims considerably at the time. I don’t have direct experience of how well “Associate’s Degrees” work in the countries where they are in use.  


     

    • The small numbers of “degree apprentices” who followed this type of pathway before the UK Government adopted it as a mainstream policy, are already enjoying very successful careers at “chartered level”, albeit not necessarily following “the PEI/Engineering Council career prescription”. Numbers coming through degree apprenticeships are still relatively modest, but with some of the major employers onboard, the risks of being undervalued or subjected to snobbery are reduced. Such attitudes have of course never been a feature of most engineering and technology workplaces, but are endemic within some PEIs. This is a PEI Discussion forum. 


     

    • If the apprentice model is able to re-establish itself as the mainstream pathway, this offers great opportunity for the IET, working with governments, our academic, corporate and enterprise partners, to really make a difference. It also challenges us to rethink our ideas around “status” in a way more aligned to 21st century ideas of inclusivity and adding value to society.                  


    A Caveat

     
    • I am aware of employer’s criticisms about the costs and benefits, especially red tape and dysfunctional bureaucracy, I’m sure there is some foundation in these, but I don’t have recent direct experience.  I should also observe that almost every government initiative of this kind feeds first an infrastructure of Quangos. Who typically do something useful, but usually at “excessive cost” in some eyes. Unfortunately without proper control government funding of training has sometimes been an attractive target for fraud, as one of our sister institutions discovered recently to their cost.   


    For those with a more detailed interest apprenticeship frameworks are available here https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org/apprenticeship-standards/ .


    None of this is, or ever will be “perfect”, but at least it is a step forward.  What I hope any sensible person will recognise is that there are a number of models of engineer preparation, each more or less optimal in economic and performance terms.  We need more academically stretching programmes for those with a strong aptitude for mathematics and science , who may wish to pursue research orientated careers. However the problem that we have suffered from, is that those who are optimised towards “applications” or “more practical delivery”, even with graduate and post-graduate attributes, have been unreasonably diminished by our system. In a UK context most of these professional engineers and technicians are unconcerned, they just “keep calm and carry on”, valued by their employers but disinclined to join “elite engineers clubs”.  This could be seen as a good or bad trend, depending on your perspective! If you think that it is a good thing then do a projection, based on the average age of a currently registered Chartered Engineer and ask yourself; who is going to pay the bills in another decade or two?


    For now the apprenticeship standards at least represent a huge “opinion survey” of the employers of engineers and technicians. These employers didn’t have a negative agenda or “protest vote”, they just for the first time in a generation or three, found a meaningful vehicle to help express their needs. Is this expression any less valid than that of an Engineering Council Committee of CEng PEI nominees?   

    https://www.engc.org.uk/informationfor/students-apprentices-and-graduates/apprentices/   Actually tucked away in a sub-menu it does state “ some Higher Apprenticeships can also lead to IEng and CEng status. Your institution can advise on this.”  A bit of wiggle room perhaps? 


    Those with an especially keen interest (like me) might find these of interest

    https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Grants%20and%20prizes/Schemes%20for%20people%20in%20industry/Visiting%20Professors/Conference%202018/Alasdair-Coates-Presentation.pdf  

    https://www.raeng.org.uk/news/news-releases/2019/january/apprenticeship-levy-limitations-and-technical-teac


    Some more examples of schemes

    https://www.uk.leonardocompany.com/people-careers/apprenticeships/naw

    https://www.baesystems.com/en/feature/national-apprentice-week-2018

    https://www.ntu.ac.uk/business-and-employers/develop-your-workforce/apprenticeships/national-apprenticeship-week-2019

    https://www.wlv.ac.uk/apprenticeships/apprenticeship-courses-/


    Perhaps by National Apprenticeship Week 2020 we will be in a different place? I hope so!


  • 0

    Roy Bowdler:
    The Government policy isn’t just about Engineering and Technology, but Technician Apprenticeships in Engineering have traditionally been seen as a an exemplar. However, as Peter Miller has highlighted, apprenticeships have been considered “vocational” and therefore associated with “the labouring classes”. Whereas those from the “middle classes” were expected to attended university for “academic” preparation before seeking further training.




    I'm not convinced that a clearly defined working class and a clearly defined middle class exists anymore in Britain except in the mind. What exists in reality are many shades of grey when it comes to wealth, power, and influence.

     




    When it cost just a few thousand pounds to obtain an engineering degree, graduates who weren’t able to gain employment as trainee engineers, arguably still gained good value. Now loaded with perhaps £40000 of personal debt to the public purse, with no certainty of actually becoming trained to work as an engineer, this is unreasonable and untenable.  So we have an older generation of graduates who gained significant advantages from the full-time academic path and who govern engineering, perpetuating serious financial disadvantage on the upcoming generation, who would often be far better served by a higher/degree apprenticeship if they can find one.      




    This is a valid point. Older engineers who attended university before tuition fees often fail to comprehend the financial impact of tuition fees on the younger generation.   


  • 0
    The overarching question is exactly what does an engineering degree signify? Is it just a piece of paper with a grade on it for the purpose of ticking a box or is there more to it than that? Does it provide anything that another course or self study cannot realistically provide?
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I think that what these discussions, and other discussions going back many decades, demonstrate is that CEng doesn't represent a single vocation such as; Doctor, Nurse, Pharmacist, Paramedic, Lawyer, Accountant, [Teacher|Lecturer] Fashion Designer, Police Officer, etc. Instead, CEng represents an engineering title that includes a collection of other job role(s) including that of; [Director|Head of Dept], Manager, [Company Accountant|Finance Director], Team Leader, Project Manager, Company Negotiator - merging companies, [Teacher|Lecturer|Professor], etc. None of these additional role(s) have anything to do with being an engineer.


    CEng members have designed the UKSpec in their own images, reflecting their various job roles and career advancements along the way; and not representing the types of roles many "real" engineers do on a daily basis. By real I mean those who are involved in; Design [Hardware|Software], Development, Manufacturing, Installation, Service, Monitoring and Analysing, Fault [Finding|Resolution], Report Writing, Training Staff. 


    The IET and EC are not here to represent the interests of the millions of UK engineers and the engineering industries, but rather to maintain an elitist ideology of CEngs; shere IEngs and EngTechs represent the 2nd and 3rd tiers of also ran members, who feel being excluded from any sense of having a recognisable vocation as engineers. Hence why the frustrations lasting over many decades. Something CEng members responsible for assessing for CEng registration being very quiet for a very long time.


    What is needed to bring this sense of vocation for all engineers - whether in the IET or not, is to take away the process of registration from the IET and the EC, and give it to an independent organisation; redesign the registration standards to include engineers from all walks of life and job roles; remove registration titles from retirees, including volunteers, and keep it real and relevant for employers.
  • 0
    I wondered whether Engineering Council would express support for National Apprenticeship Week. It seems that they did so in 2017, so to do so every year might seem superfluous.  https://www.engc.org.uk/news/news/engineering-council-supports-tenth-national-apprenticeship-week/

    It is understandable that as a regulatory body Engineering Council takes a conservative approach, especially given its de-facto role as "The Chartered Engineer's Council". I don’t doubt their sincerity in wishing to encourage Apprenticeships for Technicians and “Technician Engineers” (aka IEng or Technologist). However, having spent its lifetime focused primarily on academic qualifications and relative status, changing “traditional attitudes” is going to be difficult.

    By coincidence the results of consultation conducted last year are published here  https://www.engc.org.uk/standards-review-consultation/
     
    If the momentum behind apprenticeships continues to build, then it seems likely that for the foreseeable future we will see a mix of developing Engineers from the more “vocationally led with higher education included” approach and the “academic education with vocational training bolted on later” one.  It also seems likely that the balance between the two will shift as it already has. It is something of a "no-brainer" for a bright young person from an average social background, with a strong work ethic and clear sense of career direction, to seek a higher/degree apprenticeship.    

    As I see it, the duty of Engineering Council is to treat each type of preparation equally and follow the evidence of professional performance which typically begins to occur from the age of around 21-23 for an engineer. It also has an important duty to inform anyone aspiring to become a Technician or Engineer, or Engineer via a Technician, or something in between (such as a “Technologist”), or any other semantic form of technical professional we choose to adopt. A complication is that it does this through its “franchisees” (aka licensed bodies) who are extremely varied in nature, including a significant number who as a matter of policy and practice, haven’t welcomed those from the apprenticeship tradition for at least a couple of generations, if ever.  

    The creation of new nationally agreed apprenticeship models, including those with Graduate and Post Graduate outcomes, offers an good opportunity for Engineering Council to modernise by becoming more representative of the needs of employers and practitioners. This could benefit the majority of Further and Higher Education Institutions (Colleges and Universities), where vocational relevance and “student employability" should be more important than academic competition and preparing the next generation of academic researchers.

    The effect of accreditation policies over many years has been to value theoretical mathematics and science more highly than anything with practical connotations, so any university seeking to include more material relevant to work practice in their degree course, risks accusations of “dumbing down” and being deemed unsuitable for CEng accreditation.  The quote below is of US origin but is probably an accurate reflection of the consensus among Engineering Professors in The International Engineering Alliance, The UK and therefore Engineering Council as well.

    Engineering programs often focus on theory and conceptual design, while engineering technology programs usually focus on application and implementation. Engineering programs typically require additional, higher-level mathematics, including multiple semesters of calculus and calculus-based theoretical science courses, while engineering technology programs typically focus on algebra, trigonometry, applied calculus, and other courses that are more practical than theoretical in nature.

    Perhaps if it was actually the case that most practising Chartered Engineers were fluent in all this “calculus based science”, this distinction might have more credibility. Most aren’t and it isn’t even directly relevant to huge swathes of engineering and technology practice. It may be a useful mechanism for sorting “the brightest from the rest”, or offer optimal preparation for certain research and fundamental first principle design roles. 5% of engineers perhaps? However accredited degree provision is probably 95% “theoretical type” and 5% “practical type”, because practical work is stigmatised as “inferior”, just like apprenticeships have been. There are many excellent Bachelors and Masters programmes that mirror real world practice, but they are not aiming to create an “elite fraction” just to offer learning, many intentionally focus strongly on industry practice. Perhaps they should be the 95%? 

    I should address Mehmood’s and Arran’s points?
     
    • Are the politics of engineering governance broken?  Blame games and squabbling benefit no-one, but they are an inevitable consequence of the divisive system that we has evolved, for valuing some types of competent professionals much more highly than others.  I'm sorry to pick on Engineering Council , but the buck has to stop somewhere and it cannot be excused from at least condoning snobbery towards the apprenticeship pathway, if not enthusiastically promoting such attitudes.  Perhaps this year will at last become a turning point thanks to Government intervention to revitalise apprenticeships. 

    • This isn’t about the older IEng cohort, now very small in number. The IIE is long gone and with it any distinctive identity that grew organically from the “gap in the market” that its precursors occupied. They earned a place at the academic table, but weren’t very welcome there, except as a useful inferior pejorative. I tried to support the category, but got mugged a few times for wearing the scarf. Thankfully therefore, I can channel my annoyance into making an argument for raising standards in future instead of feeling obliged to defend the status quo.  Because if anyone thinks that I’m making an argument for lower standards, then they have fundamentally misunderstood the point.   

    • I cannot ignore the IEng brand because it has been associated with Degree Apprenticeships.  I can infer but am not close enough to know, that sacrificing the category would be difficult and seen as an admission of failure by Engineering Council.  There have been long debates in these forums about whether it should be “revitalised” or “abolished”.  Perhaps some feel that a return to a more distinctive vocational identity would be beneficial and reduce the current tendency for it to be positioned as “sub-standard” in the academic world.  I’m open to persuasion, but I think that in order to be called an “engineer” by the IET/Engineering Council, someone should have at least a Bachelors Degree or be demonstrating graduate attributes through some combination of formal and experiential learning.

    • It is morally indefensible to “handicap” those from the apprenticeship pathway who are of graduate standard.  If graduating Degree Apprentices are treated less favourably than other graduates and those who develop from technician to engineer in career face unnecessary barriers and tripping points in seeking recognition, then they will have every right to complain. The problem for us is that they may just regard the whole edifice as irrelevant and avoid it. An even bigger problem is that having gained more employer engagement, trust may be lost. As an employer’s representative who pioneered the current shift towards Degree Apprenticeships, I would say “regained”, because I lost trust some time ago. As an IET “insider” just now (but not a “representative”), I’m trying to address the problem constructively.   

    • We also need excellent professional technicians including the more traditional “craft” and increasingly more “hands off” roles created by technology. Their performance and the respect that we choose to offer them is important.  Should a Technician develop the different attributes that we expect of an Engineer, then they should transfer (or vice-versa) having become optimised for a different role, without the issues of social class and status being a relevant factor, like it was in the past.  We would do well to remember that many of those who established engineering as a profession were self-made and from practical backgrounds.  

    • To pick up Arron’s point about the changing landscape of social class and especially its relevance to careers in Engineering and Technology, I agree that the picture is complex and nuanced.  From a sociological perspective engineering has historically been one of the more “accessible” professions in part due to the apprenticeship tradition. However this declined significantly for those entering by the 1990s, while 40% of engineering undergraduates were from the three highest socio-economic classes in 2002/03, this had dropped to 38% by 2010/11  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/61090/IR_FairAccess_acc2.pdf                        

    If the figure was only for those programmes with the highest entry tariffs the percentage would be higher. There is a historic correlation between apprenticeship versus full-time academic preparation and social class, although there is a chicken and egg argument, since class is partly defined by job role.

    I am not suggesting that we become a social service, or pursue some left-leaning political agenda, although some have characterised our stance on inclusivity and diversity in such terms. Our duty is to set standards and ensure that these can be achieved through fair access. If the whole thing looks like “an establishment stitch-up” as many have suggested, then that duty may not be properly discharged. If Higher and Degree Apprenticeships gain further momentum, they will provide great opportunities for young people and The IET if we choose to grasp them. If we prefer to perpetuate petty divisions and academic snobbery, then this opportunity will be lost and our influence will deservedly decline.     

    As I was finishing this, I met an early career Electronics Engineer. The engineer was a native of a central European country, drawn from an average social background ,who had done extremely well on his MEng course at one of our higher ranked universities, then having picked up for training by one of our best known employers was now “knocking on the door” of CEng. Nothing in my argument seeks to harm this pathway or any other academically led one for that matter, if it achieves good results then on the contrary I would strongly support it.  

    However, I have to point out that the Degree Apprenticeship model can achieve similar results, more quickly and at lower cost. If a young person becomes economically productive more quickly it has benefits for them and for society. They won’t stop learning in their early twenties when academic institutions lose control over them.  We have become so concerned about that favourite academic game of “sort the best from the rest” that we have lost sight of our proper mission. That mission should be to nurture Technicians who are increasingly often educated at or about graduate level and Engineers who are demonstrating graduate and post graduate attributes with additional responsibility in their work.

    Obviously  the Engineering Council consultation , will have attracted responses mainly from existing activists rather than those who are disengaged, disinterested or distrustful. Inevitably some of this just goes round in circles, like mention of poor old “equal but different”, who was ritually put to death ten years ago by Engineering Council after being condemned as a foolish fraud claiming to be “different but the same”.  The grave was then danced on by point f on page 9.  I wish Engineering Council success , but fear that it will be held back by a “dog in the manger” old guard. Nevertheless, I have to give them a fair chance to regain my previously misplaced trust.

    Any chance of a greater plurality of perspective at Engineering Council such as some uncommitted employer representatives, or good professionals who haven’t chosen to register?  Why are existing activist CEng presumed to be all-knowing and “higher” than anyone else? “Group think” perhaps?  

    PS I only just read Mehmood’s post, which on the whole shares a similar critical perspective. His suggestion is a broadly to replace Engineering Council and remove or replace the contribution of Professional Institutions including the IET, others have come to a similar view.  Alternatives might include handing responsibilities over to Universities or perhaps The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education?  If there was a political will for anything of this nature, then it would seem unreasonable to single out Engineering from other professions, so there would need to be a wide ranging review. I think that reform could offer a better solution and that had the IET been able to pursue its founding principles more fully at Engineering Council, then more progress could have been made.  My view is that the government has intervened sufficiently for now by supporting Higher/Degree Apprenticeships. The whole point of me starting this thread was to seek a positive response.

    The IET needs to be crystal clear and unequivocal in its support for Apprenticeships, not just those explicitly aiming for Technician outcomes but also those with Degrees embedded in the context of Chartered Engineer (not just IEng). If Engineering Council is unable to adapt to this landscape, then progress will have passed it by and we need a new model.       

  • 0
    Coming to this discussion late however, my pennyworth is, rounding back to question posed, is yes, an apprenticeship is an equally valid pathway to C.Eng (disclosure: I am biased as that was my route) but I feel there is resistance to it even being that way or indeed the future.

    One of those obstacles is the subject of apprentices and the absence of a degree - it is a false prerequisite harboured by too many and it frustrates me greatly (disclosure: I don't have a degree - and in fact barely scraped together some GSEs that got me into day-release college for a Higher Cert in Prod and Mech Engineering during my 4.5-year indentured apprenticeship). My own path to the IET though late in life (c. 54) was smooth and hiccup free and remarkably so for registration as C.Eng six months later and onto Fellowship - but I know that is not the case for too many and it is difficult to fathom why or how to remove or circumnavigate the roadblocks.


    Roy - your posts and replies never cease to amaze me, they are deep and insightful and highlight someone with immense knowledge and understanding that I am pleased to be able to learn from - thank you!


    Mark
  • 0
    The Engineering Council have an update on degree apprenticeships on their website.

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


    The article gives an overview of the latest report by Office for Students on the progress around degree apprenticeships up to the 2017-18 academic year.

    https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/c791216f-a1f1-4196-83c4-1449dbd013f0/insight-2-degree-apprenticeships.pdf


    In terms of Engineering disciplines the total number is 890 and by subject the breakdown is:-

    Civil engineer 160



    Manufacturing engineer 105



    Product design and development engineer 100



    Embedded electronic systems design and development engineer   95



    Aerospace engineer 85



    Nuclear scientist and nuclear engineer 80



    Building services design engineer 65



    Electrical or electronic technical support engineer 25



    Control or technical support engineer 25



    Aerospace software development engineer 10



    Broadcast technology higher apprenticeship (BBC) 10



    Non-destructive testing engineer 5



    Postgraduate engineer 95



    Systems engineering 30


    These numbers indicate that degree apprenticeships are not going to be a major contribution to the supply of engineers in the UK.


  • 0
    Peter,


    Thanks for picking up on this and for your observations, which have proved well-founded before. Well-done also to Engineering Council on this occasion. However, the link page “Information for Apprentices” doesn’t obviously mention the possibility of becoming CEng via an Apprenticeship, it only mentions Technician and IEng, CEng is hidden away in a subpage, where it states “some Higher Apprenticeships can also lead to IEng and CEng status, your institution can advise on this”. I don’t think this is accidental, it seems intentionally cautious?


    My proposition for this thread, was the equal validity of an Apprenticeship in the context of preparation for CEng and was intentionally provocative. I don’t think anyone would disagree that apprenticeships are a good thing generally, but many of those with effective control over our profession, regard them as somewhere between inferior and unsuitable, relative to full-time study as preparation towards CEng.   


    I would qualify your conclusion,  These numbers indicate that degree apprenticeships are not going to be a major contribution to the supply of engineers in the UK, with “anytime soon”.  Some would also argue that Digital and Technology Solutions Professional the second largest with 1310 is “ours”.  The employment rate "in career" for a graduating Degree Apprentice is also virtually 100%, much higher than most full-time engineering and technology programme graduates.     


    We cannot predict whether this will evolve into the “mainstream pathway” into engineering, plateau quickly and then fade, or die under pressure over the Apprenticeship Levy.  Government intervened to revitalise apprenticeships and could intervene again, by for example reducing university tuition fees to earlier levels.  When as an employer I developed a precursor model, I budgeted for fees of £1000 PA and when they were suddenly raised to £3000 PA, I had a massive hole in my budget to explain to my Managing Director, luckily he was a former “higher apprentice” in the 1960s and stuck with it.   


    I’ll let people read the report, but in my opinion the initiative has at least re-balanced the system by empowering employers. We used to have in the UK a strong infrastructure of employer delivered vocational training, closely linked to Technical Colleges, Polytechnics and some Universities for more academically advanced needs. Now only elements of the Armed Forces and a few private sector employers maintain their own capability.  Perhaps unintentionally, policies and incentives have led us to a more “academic” approach, which has conveniently aligned with the priorities of those who have governed our profession. To the extent that we can do anything about it, we must ensure that going forward we focus primarily on what professional engineers can do, not how academically prestigious they are.  

Community Rules & Guidelines