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 5 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 179 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

Titles should be given to people with advanced craft skills, in the same way that an academic with a PhD is called "Doctor".

jcm
The levels of apprenticeships are "poorly understood" by the public, the think tank says - and introducing titles could be a way of showing people's achievements.


Sign of respect

Those who have vocational qualifications equivalent to a university degree could be known as "craftsman" or "craftswoman", the think tank says.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47710512


Parents
  • 0
    I have previously suggested that Technicians should have an advanced form of recognition such as “Master Technician”. We have historically positioned Technician as a form of “more learned craftsperson", although with a level 3 qualification the terms could be used interchangeably.  “Technician Engineer” (later IEng) offered an obvious pathway, before degrees became so readily available. However, we lost our way in this territory many years ago.


    The solution adopted by our (Chartered Engineer) leaders was to position IEng “one step below” and Eng Tech 2 steps “below”, such that a student with some work experience gets “Technician” and a graduate with some work experience gets IEng.  This is based on academic levels, so a higher degree graduate with some work experience gets CEng.  The underlying assumption is that professional competence consists of a prescribed education, followed by vaguely specified “experience”.  


    Discussing this issue some years ago with a Professor of my acquaintance; he stated “There is no reason why universities couldn’t award a Degree in Skills if they wanted to”.  Perhaps this would be a better solution?  


    A decisive shift in the balance between vocational and academic career development has occurred in The UK and to some extent many other developed countries over the last quarter century. As it has become increasing “normal” to expect a person of average academic ability to be a graduate, with other forms of development and recognition becoming seen as “inferior”.  Vocational qualifications even at higher (Bachelors and Masters) levels such as those given by City & Guilds or NVQs which were never accepted in academia, have become overshadowed or even extinguished.  The International Engineering Alliance (of Academics) presumes that someone’s career is defined in university before the age of 21.  


    I don’t think there is any way in which we could or should, undo “Academic Inflation”. It has become embedded into our culture. This commercial organisation is already well established in “Master Craftsman” territory  https://www.guildmc.com/ 


    I suggest therefore, that we build a strong alliance; including some of the best Technical Colleges, former Polytechnic (or 1960s) Universities and Employers. Revitalisation of Apprenticeships is a good start and might ultimately lead to greater parity of esteem between vocational and academic pathways.


    I would like The IET to seek a leading role in this , but we are hampered by other sister institutions and even a few of our own members, who are steeped in an “academic selection mindset” of “one-upmanship” and  have demonstrated bitter resentment towards any suggestion of parity of esteem. This was exemplified when “different but equally valuable” was ritually put to death by Engineering Council some years ago.  


    PS Perhaps “Sapper” would be better, because everyone from a Private Soldier to a Major General would affiliate to the term with pride. Other terms like Craft, Clerk, Yeoman, Petty etc are confined to non-commissioned (aka “enlisted”) personnel who don’t have any choice but to love it.     ?

    PPS Naval Gazing? The quality of The Navy's Vocational Training establishments in renowned ?
        

     


Reply
  • 0
    I have previously suggested that Technicians should have an advanced form of recognition such as “Master Technician”. We have historically positioned Technician as a form of “more learned craftsperson", although with a level 3 qualification the terms could be used interchangeably.  “Technician Engineer” (later IEng) offered an obvious pathway, before degrees became so readily available. However, we lost our way in this territory many years ago.


    The solution adopted by our (Chartered Engineer) leaders was to position IEng “one step below” and Eng Tech 2 steps “below”, such that a student with some work experience gets “Technician” and a graduate with some work experience gets IEng.  This is based on academic levels, so a higher degree graduate with some work experience gets CEng.  The underlying assumption is that professional competence consists of a prescribed education, followed by vaguely specified “experience”.  


    Discussing this issue some years ago with a Professor of my acquaintance; he stated “There is no reason why universities couldn’t award a Degree in Skills if they wanted to”.  Perhaps this would be a better solution?  


    A decisive shift in the balance between vocational and academic career development has occurred in The UK and to some extent many other developed countries over the last quarter century. As it has become increasing “normal” to expect a person of average academic ability to be a graduate, with other forms of development and recognition becoming seen as “inferior”.  Vocational qualifications even at higher (Bachelors and Masters) levels such as those given by City & Guilds or NVQs which were never accepted in academia, have become overshadowed or even extinguished.  The International Engineering Alliance (of Academics) presumes that someone’s career is defined in university before the age of 21.  


    I don’t think there is any way in which we could or should, undo “Academic Inflation”. It has become embedded into our culture. This commercial organisation is already well established in “Master Craftsman” territory  https://www.guildmc.com/ 


    I suggest therefore, that we build a strong alliance; including some of the best Technical Colleges, former Polytechnic (or 1960s) Universities and Employers. Revitalisation of Apprenticeships is a good start and might ultimately lead to greater parity of esteem between vocational and academic pathways.


    I would like The IET to seek a leading role in this , but we are hampered by other sister institutions and even a few of our own members, who are steeped in an “academic selection mindset” of “one-upmanship” and  have demonstrated bitter resentment towards any suggestion of parity of esteem. This was exemplified when “different but equally valuable” was ritually put to death by Engineering Council some years ago.  


    PS Perhaps “Sapper” would be better, because everyone from a Private Soldier to a Major General would affiliate to the term with pride. Other terms like Craft, Clerk, Yeoman, Petty etc are confined to non-commissioned (aka “enlisted”) personnel who don’t have any choice but to love it.     ?

    PPS Naval Gazing? The quality of The Navy's Vocational Training establishments in renowned ?
        

     


Children
No Data

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