This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

EC event for our Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes

Former Community Member over 4 years ago

Engineering Council

We're running an event for our Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes (AHEP) consultation - would be great to see a wide range of engineering academics there to discuss all aspects of the next version of AHEP. 10.30am-3pm, Wednesday 24 July at Middlesex University (Hendon) Please email accreditation@engc.org.uk ASAP to register. De Montfort University, Cranfield University, Buckinghamshire New University, Brunel University London, Birmingham City University, Birkbeck, University of London, Aston University, University of Kent, University of Canterbury, Heriot-Watt University, Durham University

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

I have been drawing together my personal response to the Engineering Council consultation. I’m not an academic or currently involved in Academic Accreditation. I have in the past as an employer’s representative instigated and worked in close partnership with Further & Higher Education Institutions. That included the development of an award winning training programme, which was used a model leading to the creation of “Degree Apprenticeships” by the UK government.

I encouraged my academic partners to seek professional engineering institution accreditation and IEng was the best match. This seemed rational at the time, especially being a long-standing IEng myself, but it added little if any value and the institution was mainly interested in advising how to substitute theory for practice to create a “partially CEng accredited superior” version of the degree. Unsurprisingly once exposed to the PEI snobbery, my graduate engineers couldn't see much point in seeking IEng. All have become senior professionals and some are senior managers within a decade. At the time Engineering Council was espousing a policy that the two type of engineers were “different but equally valuable”, but a subsequent policy change adopted the policy that I have just described.

Later, when working for The IET, I also made a significant contribution to the Engineering Council “Gateways” work-based MSc programmes and supported those universities already offering a similar model. At the time when I became involved, this initiative was in danger of stalling because the PEIs couldn’t accredit using the Engineering Council model. We found a way to at least remove the “road block” and one of our best engineering universities even created an "IEng Bachelors version" supported by some leading employers. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if a flexibly delivered MSc was part of the in-career pathway for most engineers instead of cramming all their formal learning into their teens and early twenties? Isn’t it obvious that an experienced practitioner has much more to bring to a post-graduate degree in engineering than someone with no practical exposure? Unfortunately participation by “mature students” in higher education has been rapidly declining.

The following is my purely personal view and certainly not that of The IET. Those of a sensitive disposition may not wish to read further.

The wider credibility of Academic Accreditation is being undermined and as the consequences of these proposals pan out among engineers in the workplace over the next few years, it risks being undermined further. To any reasonable observer, such as parents, employers, HR professionals, managers and even working engineers, the system is grossly over-complicated, impenetrable and unreliable. Perhaps it makes some sense to some of the Academics who have to implement it? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Some of the harms being caused by this dysfunctional quagmire include;

•             Universities eschewing degrees designed to deliver a potentially productive engineer, rather than an engineering scientist prepared for further training, because the former is “inferior” and may hamper chartered recognition later, negatively affecting the university’s reputation or league table position.

•             Smaller employers who want an immediately modestly productive graduate engineer, getting a “theorist” instead.

•             Individuals and employers in the context of degree apprenticeships, investing circa £30000+ in good faith in a Bachelors Honours Degree, supervised by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, only to find that they have the “inferior” version. However, both individuals and employers, especially with a Degree Apprenticeship, might notice that “inferior degree equals superior performance”. Therefore they will just ignore the system of accreditation as many already do, but some element of ridicule is almost inevitable. If someone feels badly disadvantaged then they might even seek compensation.

The Draft Learning Outcomes, attempt to divide a couple of years of expensively acquired and appropriately validated academic study into 5 different categories 11,12,13,14 &15 in order of value. Bachelors Degrees are divided into; A5 A11 version “inferior and usually sub-standard”; A5 A12 version “inferior”; A6 A13 version “superior but sub-standard”; A7 version 14 “superior but only on top of an A13”; A7 version 15 “superior”. Versions 12 and 13 may be gained in four divisions 1st , 2.1, 2.2 and 3rd with little consistency between universities and well-documented grade inflation in progress. Versions 14&15 may also have up to three classification grades. The designation “inferior” (IEng) is based on a bias towards “applications” i.e. actual engineering practices, “superior” (CEng) requires a bias towards calculus based science.

Underlying justification is offered by

1.            Reference to the Sydney and Dublin Accords, which have gained minimal traction in a handful of countries and are virtually unknown in the UK beyond a handful of Administrators and Academics.

2.            A distinction applied to undergraduate students typically with no experience whatsoever and around the age of 21 between; A23.1 Well defined engineering problems involve several issues, but with few of these exerting conflicting constraints, and can be solved in standardised ways. A24 2. Broadly-defined engineering problems involve a variety of factors which may impose conflicting constraints, but can be solved by the application of well-proven analysis techniques. A25 3. Complex engineering problems have no obvious solution and may involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical issues and/or user needs.

Obviously to create these distinctions among those with little or no relevant experience, proxies have to be employed, such as assuming that the ability to solve a theoretical problem using maths in a classroom, extrapolates into how real complex engineering challenges are resolved by experienced engineers.

Actually I don’t think that accrediting MEng degrees aligned to the Washington Accord is much of a problem. They tend to set a higher entry tariff and obviously involve a higher cost both in fees and lost earnings opportunity. On that basis market forces will affect demand, including the actions of those employers who target such graduates seeking “the intellectual cream”. There are issues, especially for those students who have invested heavily but didn’t get picked by the blue chip company assessment centres or “poached” by financial services, but accreditation can’t change that. It is the rest that is a mess!

My constructive suggestion is.

A QAA regulated Honours Degree in Engineering or Technology is either suitable for engineers or it isn’t! The role of professional bodies should be influence practical relevance and employability, not to inflate more academic elements or create divisive silos. If some universities choose to stretch the most academically talented and prepare them for roles towards the most scientific end of the spectrum, then this is beyond the minimum threshold for accreditation, which is fine. If other universities take a more vocational approach, then that should also meet the threshold and be equally fine.

I’m aware of the different accreditation for Engineering Technology and Engineering Degrees in North America and some of the politics around it, but in a UK context we didn’t adopt the concept of a Chartered Engineering Technologist. We prefer to use the term “Chartered Engineer” to embrace all of those who reach a terminal threshold of professional practice in Engineering and Technology, benchmarked as being at post-graduate level.

I have proposed a system in which every registrant should first become an “Engineer” benchmarked at Bachelors Degree standard before progressing towards the terminal “Chartered Engineer” standard if they wish to. This is no threat to MEng graduates who should be well placed to make accelerated progress, but it drains the swamp of trying to differentiate between Bachelors graduates using the North American method based on “semesters of Calculus”. There is no good reason why bachelors graduates should not progress on the merits of their in-career performance, including additional academic involvement if practicable and “late developers”, of which there are many, can work towards the same standard.

I would urge of any gathering of senior academics is to rise above the swamp and to urge Engineering Council to do likewise. I won’t jump into it myself here, but what we have created is a game of Snakes and Ladders in which it isn’t clear whether IEng is a Snake or a Ladder. If you are lucky and play the game in few friendly environments, then it’s a Ladder or at least a neutral square, but in the academic and many other environments it is very clearly a snake.

Is it reasonable for a public body to encourage a system of career recognition to be based virtually on a roll of the dice as a teenager. In my opinion, no it isn’t - go away and think again please! If the politics are impossible then put it back to the people (all relevant stakeholders) not just a limited membership of people of a certain age and character.

PS Sorry about the formatting of the bullet points - it looks fine in the editing pane.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 4 years ago

I have been drawing together my personal response to the Engineering Council consultation. I’m not an academic or currently involved in Academic Accreditation. I have in the past as an employer’s representative instigated and worked in close partnership with Further & Higher Education Institutions. That included the development of an award winning training programme, which was used a model leading to the creation of “Degree Apprenticeships” by the UK government.

I encouraged my academic partners to seek professional engineering institution accreditation and IEng was the best match. This seemed rational at the time, especially being a long-standing IEng myself, but it added little if any value and the institution was mainly interested in advising how to substitute theory for practice to create a “partially CEng accredited superior” version of the degree. Unsurprisingly once exposed to the PEI snobbery, my graduate engineers couldn't see much point in seeking IEng. All have become senior professionals and some are senior managers within a decade. At the time Engineering Council was espousing a policy that the two type of engineers were “different but equally valuable”, but a subsequent policy change adopted the policy that I have just described.

Later, when working for The IET, I also made a significant contribution to the Engineering Council “Gateways” work-based MSc programmes and supported those universities already offering a similar model. At the time when I became involved, this initiative was in danger of stalling because the PEIs couldn’t accredit using the Engineering Council model. We found a way to at least remove the “road block” and one of our best engineering universities even created an "IEng Bachelors version" supported by some leading employers. Wouldn’t it be fantastic if a flexibly delivered MSc was part of the in-career pathway for most engineers instead of cramming all their formal learning into their teens and early twenties? Isn’t it obvious that an experienced practitioner has much more to bring to a post-graduate degree in engineering than someone with no practical exposure? Unfortunately participation by “mature students” in higher education has been rapidly declining.

The following is my purely personal view and certainly not that of The IET. Those of a sensitive disposition may not wish to read further.

The wider credibility of Academic Accreditation is being undermined and as the consequences of these proposals pan out among engineers in the workplace over the next few years, it risks being undermined further. To any reasonable observer, such as parents, employers, HR professionals, managers and even working engineers, the system is grossly over-complicated, impenetrable and unreliable. Perhaps it makes some sense to some of the Academics who have to implement it? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Some of the harms being caused by this dysfunctional quagmire include;

•             Universities eschewing degrees designed to deliver a potentially productive engineer, rather than an engineering scientist prepared for further training, because the former is “inferior” and may hamper chartered recognition later, negatively affecting the university’s reputation or league table position.

•             Smaller employers who want an immediately modestly productive graduate engineer, getting a “theorist” instead.

•             Individuals and employers in the context of degree apprenticeships, investing circa £30000+ in good faith in a Bachelors Honours Degree, supervised by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, only to find that they have the “inferior” version. However, both individuals and employers, especially with a Degree Apprenticeship, might notice that “inferior degree equals superior performance”. Therefore they will just ignore the system of accreditation as many already do, but some element of ridicule is almost inevitable. If someone feels badly disadvantaged then they might even seek compensation.

The Draft Learning Outcomes, attempt to divide a couple of years of expensively acquired and appropriately validated academic study into 5 different categories 11,12,13,14 &15 in order of value. Bachelors Degrees are divided into; A5 A11 version “inferior and usually sub-standard”; A5 A12 version “inferior”; A6 A13 version “superior but sub-standard”; A7 version 14 “superior but only on top of an A13”; A7 version 15 “superior”. Versions 12 and 13 may be gained in four divisions 1st , 2.1, 2.2 and 3rd with little consistency between universities and well-documented grade inflation in progress. Versions 14&15 may also have up to three classification grades. The designation “inferior” (IEng) is based on a bias towards “applications” i.e. actual engineering practices, “superior” (CEng) requires a bias towards calculus based science.

Underlying justification is offered by

1.            Reference to the Sydney and Dublin Accords, which have gained minimal traction in a handful of countries and are virtually unknown in the UK beyond a handful of Administrators and Academics.

2.            A distinction applied to undergraduate students typically with no experience whatsoever and around the age of 21 between; A23.1 Well defined engineering problems involve several issues, but with few of these exerting conflicting constraints, and can be solved in standardised ways. A24 2. Broadly-defined engineering problems involve a variety of factors which may impose conflicting constraints, but can be solved by the application of well-proven analysis techniques. A25 3. Complex engineering problems have no obvious solution and may involve wide-ranging or conflicting technical issues and/or user needs.

Obviously to create these distinctions among those with little or no relevant experience, proxies have to be employed, such as assuming that the ability to solve a theoretical problem using maths in a classroom, extrapolates into how real complex engineering challenges are resolved by experienced engineers.

Actually I don’t think that accrediting MEng degrees aligned to the Washington Accord is much of a problem. They tend to set a higher entry tariff and obviously involve a higher cost both in fees and lost earnings opportunity. On that basis market forces will affect demand, including the actions of those employers who target such graduates seeking “the intellectual cream”. There are issues, especially for those students who have invested heavily but didn’t get picked by the blue chip company assessment centres or “poached” by financial services, but accreditation can’t change that. It is the rest that is a mess!

My constructive suggestion is.

A QAA regulated Honours Degree in Engineering or Technology is either suitable for engineers or it isn’t! The role of professional bodies should be influence practical relevance and employability, not to inflate more academic elements or create divisive silos. If some universities choose to stretch the most academically talented and prepare them for roles towards the most scientific end of the spectrum, then this is beyond the minimum threshold for accreditation, which is fine. If other universities take a more vocational approach, then that should also meet the threshold and be equally fine.

I’m aware of the different accreditation for Engineering Technology and Engineering Degrees in North America and some of the politics around it, but in a UK context we didn’t adopt the concept of a Chartered Engineering Technologist. We prefer to use the term “Chartered Engineer” to embrace all of those who reach a terminal threshold of professional practice in Engineering and Technology, benchmarked as being at post-graduate level.

I have proposed a system in which every registrant should first become an “Engineer” benchmarked at Bachelors Degree standard before progressing towards the terminal “Chartered Engineer” standard if they wish to. This is no threat to MEng graduates who should be well placed to make accelerated progress, but it drains the swamp of trying to differentiate between Bachelors graduates using the North American method based on “semesters of Calculus”. There is no good reason why bachelors graduates should not progress on the merits of their in-career performance, including additional academic involvement if practicable and “late developers”, of which there are many, can work towards the same standard.

I would urge of any gathering of senior academics is to rise above the swamp and to urge Engineering Council to do likewise. I won’t jump into it myself here, but what we have created is a game of Snakes and Ladders in which it isn’t clear whether IEng is a Snake or a Ladder. If you are lucky and play the game in few friendly environments, then it’s a Ladder or at least a neutral square, but in the academic and many other environments it is very clearly a snake.

Is it reasonable for a public body to encourage a system of career recognition to be based virtually on a roll of the dice as a teenager. In my opinion, no it isn’t - go away and think again please! If the politics are impossible then put it back to the people (all relevant stakeholders) not just a limited membership of people of a certain age and character.

PS Sorry about the formatting of the bullet points - it looks fine in the editing pane.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

EC event for our Accreditation of Higher Education Programmes

Engineering Council

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Community Rules & Guidelines