It was perhaps unfortunate that the previous thread you started in this topic was locked after it veered off-topic and some contributions overstepped the bounds of a reasonable discussion. I took your initial intent to be on of drawing attention to this new venture. I thought that there was a valuable constructive dialogue to be had about what the “New Model” was relative to the “Old” and have made contributions in other threads such as one recently about school in which I highlighted the issue of mathematics and some research about its relevance to experienced engineers. I also drew attention to another new undergraduate programme that was accelerated rather than slowed by leveraging the work-based learning of employed students. http://courses.wlv.ac.uk/course.asp?code=MA001U31UVD. I’m also reposting the link to the conference for the benefit of anyone who missed it before http://epc.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/New-Approaches-Conference-Proceedings-book-final.pdf .
To some extent the “traditional” academic model, involving selection by school examination results and 3-4 years as a full-time undergraduate isn’t ideally optimised. Perhaps the most fundamental question is; should this period be an extension of education in preparation for later “professional” work, or “working backwards” from the skills and attributes required in employment, a period of “professional learning and development”.
In the UK, the emphasis of universities has mostly been on education, conducted at relatively low intensity (short hours, long holidays) until recent years, at a modest cost to participants by public subsidy. Some 1960s universities (Aston and Loughborough come immediately to mind) focussed this model more on industry needs and “technology”. Polytechnics like Wolverhampton served local industries in particular, or in some cases were national centres of excellence, like London South Bank as a “National College” (for HVAC).
These 1960’s and post 1992 universities often retain a strong vocational focus and flexible delivery programmes including for those already in employment such as experienced mid-career professionals. However there has also been a drift towards the “traditional academic model”, understandably perhaps seeking higher places in various league tables and competitive advantage in the market for undergraduate and post-graduate students. Much good has actually been created by these successful “businesses”, including employment, local regeneration and a significant contribution to national GDP. I hope that NMiTE offers similar benefits to its home city and beyond.
An unfortunate side-effect of changes since the 1990s seems to have been that many employers of engineers and technicians developed rather unrealistic expectations of finding “job-ready” graduates. Those employers (such as major blue-chips) who have traditionally focussed on selecting the “highest potential” graduates just have more choice, inevitably leaving many good graduates disappointed or even disillusioned. Therefore there is quite a high “wastage rate”, or “inefficiency” in Return on Investment terms.
Briefly perusing the NMiTE proposition, I note many aspects that I would warm to and an enthusiasm to engage with employers. However, the employability of graduates would for me be the ultimate test of success. I didn’t pick up on an intent to partner with employers in the context of delivering an undergraduate apprenticeship, which I would consider to be closest to the ideal optimum with respect to vocational capability and economic “efficiency”. Nevertheless, if it provides a high quality accelerated preparation for its students to build engineering and technology careers, then clearly this is a desirable outcome. I can only admire those who have developed this new institution and I wish them success.
It was perhaps unfortunate that the previous thread you started in this topic was locked after it veered off-topic and some contributions overstepped the bounds of a reasonable discussion. I took your initial intent to be on of drawing attention to this new venture. I thought that there was a valuable constructive dialogue to be had about what the “New Model” was relative to the “Old” and have made contributions in other threads such as one recently about school in which I highlighted the issue of mathematics and some research about its relevance to experienced engineers. I also drew attention to another new undergraduate programme that was accelerated rather than slowed by leveraging the work-based learning of employed students. http://courses.wlv.ac.uk/course.asp?code=MA001U31UVD. I’m also reposting the link to the conference for the benefit of anyone who missed it before http://epc.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/New-Approaches-Conference-Proceedings-book-final.pdf .
To some extent the “traditional” academic model, involving selection by school examination results and 3-4 years as a full-time undergraduate isn’t ideally optimised. Perhaps the most fundamental question is; should this period be an extension of education in preparation for later “professional” work, or “working backwards” from the skills and attributes required in employment, a period of “professional learning and development”.
In the UK, the emphasis of universities has mostly been on education, conducted at relatively low intensity (short hours, long holidays) until recent years, at a modest cost to participants by public subsidy. Some 1960s universities (Aston and Loughborough come immediately to mind) focussed this model more on industry needs and “technology”. Polytechnics like Wolverhampton served local industries in particular, or in some cases were national centres of excellence, like London South Bank as a “National College” (for HVAC).
These 1960’s and post 1992 universities often retain a strong vocational focus and flexible delivery programmes including for those already in employment such as experienced mid-career professionals. However there has also been a drift towards the “traditional academic model”, understandably perhaps seeking higher places in various league tables and competitive advantage in the market for undergraduate and post-graduate students. Much good has actually been created by these successful “businesses”, including employment, local regeneration and a significant contribution to national GDP. I hope that NMiTE offers similar benefits to its home city and beyond.
An unfortunate side-effect of changes since the 1990s seems to have been that many employers of engineers and technicians developed rather unrealistic expectations of finding “job-ready” graduates. Those employers (such as major blue-chips) who have traditionally focussed on selecting the “highest potential” graduates just have more choice, inevitably leaving many good graduates disappointed or even disillusioned. Therefore there is quite a high “wastage rate”, or “inefficiency” in Return on Investment terms.
Briefly perusing the NMiTE proposition, I note many aspects that I would warm to and an enthusiasm to engage with employers. However, the employability of graduates would for me be the ultimate test of success. I didn’t pick up on an intent to partner with employers in the context of delivering an undergraduate apprenticeship, which I would consider to be closest to the ideal optimum with respect to vocational capability and economic “efficiency”. Nevertheless, if it provides a high quality accelerated preparation for its students to build engineering and technology careers, then clearly this is a desirable outcome. I can only admire those who have developed this new institution and I wish them success.
