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 5 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 5 years ago

Peter,
I focussed on Academic Accreditation having noted that the conference was coming up on Wednesday and copied my earlier post to the Engineering Council e-mail address that Moshe provided. I will post a summary of my comments in response to the overall consultation ASAP. I should clarify that I’m keen to support Academic Accreditation with PEIs and the IET in particular helping to enable constructive dialogue between its academic and industry partners. Unfortunately the need to divide engineering students into categories as part of their Bachelors Degree creates the “quagmire” that I described.

If universities, students, employers and prospective employers are clearly informed about the purpose and value of these different accreditations, then they can make informed, rational choices about where to invest, or target recruitment efforts. It would also help if any research evidence was published of predictive validity, i.e. any correlations between these divisions and subsequent performance as a professional engineer.

In the absence of objective research based evidence for division, there is a subjective or sociological one, such as the "expert opinion", but it seems that the range of influencers has been very narrow, usually drawn from an incumbent group sharing the same rites of passage, assumptions, myths and prejudices. Other perspectives and evidence that challenges these sometimes almost religious assumptions, mostly around advanced mathematics have been largely ignored.

You described this as a “stitch up”. I would simply observe that the profession has created a need to divide “the best from the rest” for the purposes of who should receive the honour of Chartership. At present we use two overlapping mechanisms to achieve this, Academic Selection as codified by Academic Accreditation divides teenagers and UK-SPEC which can be used “on top of" or “instead of” academic Accreditation, divides Experienced Engineers. A different blend of overlapping stakeholders effectively control each element, under the Engineering Council “flag”.

Twenty years ago, IEng degrees offered some distinctive territory for the (now defunct) “major” Institution of Incorporated Engineers to accredit. Had the UK adopted the concept of a Chartered Engineering Technologist then such degrees could have led to that pathway. The market could perhaps have been “educated” about how the “Technologist’s Degree” was more vocational in nature and the “Engineer’s” one more academic, with the depth of mathematical science being the key difference? It seems to me unlikely that the market would have become “educated”, because most UK employers of “engineers” just wouldn’t recognise the validity of this division much beyond the age at which it was created. It is a theoretical model creating a binary division within a wide continuum of Engineers, who illustrate many shades of grey. There are some career pathways in which a more “academic” pre-career preparation can be an advantage and others in which a more “vocational” approach is advantageous. However, in practice most people find a pathway that aligns with their personality and lifestyle preferences.

Many employers have as I did some years ago, been happy to include an IEng accredited Degree in Apprenticeship Programmes and Teenagers may be investing their money in such degrees without realising the longer-term negative consequences involved. These negative consequences only become tangible once the possibility of potentially becoming a Chartered Engineer arises. It is common across many professions for “Chartered status” to be awarded to those who have reached a terminal threshold and for suitably accredited graduate engineers to reach that threshold from approximately 4 years into career onwards. Whereas someone of similar age but with the IEng accredited degree, will discover that they are either completely excluded, or have been given a handicap by virtue of their “inferior” degree. Is it rational or “fair” for two engineers of similar age who are demonstrating a similar level of performance, to be divided on the basis of their fluency in mathematics from a number of years earlier? Since the consequences of the division are to place each engineer into either the “superior” or “inferior” basket, damage may be caused to their reputation and career prospects, or that of the system itself if the division is artificial or socially determined.

I should note that the system is already widely distrusted or at least regarded as an “academic exercise” of limited relevance.

I propose that to help restore that trust, Bachelors Honours degrees in Engineering should in future be accredited on the basis of producing a an employable Engineer on graduation as their primary aim. This does not obstruct someone pursuing further academic study, academic research of even an academic career. The “rite of passage” mentality that an engineer must survive a challenging ordeal of advanced mathematics even if they don’t it enjoy it should go. Although those who thrive on this diet should have the opportunity to do so. Equally those with a different balance of talents, such as engineering as practised should have their opportunity.

In the context of Degree Accreditation the only meaningful show in town in the UK is Chartered Engineer. Every Accredited Degree should lead there with clarity and without any negative or “sub-standard” connotations if the emphasis is more vocational. The existing MEng model offers a “premium” pathway , but all Engineers including all accredited graduates should first pass over the same competence based threshold in employment. If this "Engineer" threshold is afforded proper respect, then it might meet the longer term needs of many engineers, but assuming that someone aspires to Chartered Engineer, they should agree with their PEI an appropriate development plan. Since it is common for engineers to become managerial ,that would be a legitimate option within the plan.

Critics of what I’m proposing, suggest that such a proposal would “make everyone a Chartered Engineer” and that I’m “lowering the bar”. On the contrary I’m seeking to raise standards. There is very little scope for “lowering the bar” anyway without breaching Privy Council requirements. If something is provided for “public benefit” then it should be accessible to anyone meeting the standard, not rationed or obstructed by careful gatekeeping and cunningly placed tripping points. Chartered Engineer should represent what we claim it to be, which is someone of substantial proven performance with post-graduate (level 7) attributes, who is actively engaged with and therefore “under the supervision” of a professional body. I don’t advocate revoking any “honour” that someone has earned, but there should be a mechanism like voluntary review, to indicate “currency”.

There are some excellent people who have found IEng the most convenient way to express their professionalism, who deserve no less respect or opportunity to contribute on the basis of their individual talents than anyone else, but their only shared characteristic is “not CEng” for various different reasons. The era of IEng having a distinctively different identity has passed. The “Chartered Engineer’s Council” has control of the subsidiary forms of professional “qualifications”. Therefore it needs to decide if it wishes to attract more people to registration and if so how. The rationale for and benefits of being a subsidiary registrant aren’t clear. The numbers likely to be involved are highly dependent of the policy of a single multi-division public sector employer with close links to Engineering Council.

The IET offers a form of accreditation for Technician Training, but I haven’t addressed this here in the context of Academic Accreditation, since anything below Degree level is a very minor sideshow for those involved. City & Guilds is perhaps a more appropriate space?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 5 years ago

Peter,
I focussed on Academic Accreditation having noted that the conference was coming up on Wednesday and copied my earlier post to the Engineering Council e-mail address that Moshe provided. I will post a summary of my comments in response to the overall consultation ASAP. I should clarify that I’m keen to support Academic Accreditation with PEIs and the IET in particular helping to enable constructive dialogue between its academic and industry partners. Unfortunately the need to divide engineering students into categories as part of their Bachelors Degree creates the “quagmire” that I described.

If universities, students, employers and prospective employers are clearly informed about the purpose and value of these different accreditations, then they can make informed, rational choices about where to invest, or target recruitment efforts. It would also help if any research evidence was published of predictive validity, i.e. any correlations between these divisions and subsequent performance as a professional engineer.

In the absence of objective research based evidence for division, there is a subjective or sociological one, such as the "expert opinion", but it seems that the range of influencers has been very narrow, usually drawn from an incumbent group sharing the same rites of passage, assumptions, myths and prejudices. Other perspectives and evidence that challenges these sometimes almost religious assumptions, mostly around advanced mathematics have been largely ignored.

You described this as a “stitch up”. I would simply observe that the profession has created a need to divide “the best from the rest” for the purposes of who should receive the honour of Chartership. At present we use two overlapping mechanisms to achieve this, Academic Selection as codified by Academic Accreditation divides teenagers and UK-SPEC which can be used “on top of" or “instead of” academic Accreditation, divides Experienced Engineers. A different blend of overlapping stakeholders effectively control each element, under the Engineering Council “flag”.

Twenty years ago, IEng degrees offered some distinctive territory for the (now defunct) “major” Institution of Incorporated Engineers to accredit. Had the UK adopted the concept of a Chartered Engineering Technologist then such degrees could have led to that pathway. The market could perhaps have been “educated” about how the “Technologist’s Degree” was more vocational in nature and the “Engineer’s” one more academic, with the depth of mathematical science being the key difference? It seems to me unlikely that the market would have become “educated”, because most UK employers of “engineers” just wouldn’t recognise the validity of this division much beyond the age at which it was created. It is a theoretical model creating a binary division within a wide continuum of Engineers, who illustrate many shades of grey. There are some career pathways in which a more “academic” pre-career preparation can be an advantage and others in which a more “vocational” approach is advantageous. However, in practice most people find a pathway that aligns with their personality and lifestyle preferences.

Many employers have as I did some years ago, been happy to include an IEng accredited Degree in Apprenticeship Programmes and Teenagers may be investing their money in such degrees without realising the longer-term negative consequences involved. These negative consequences only become tangible once the possibility of potentially becoming a Chartered Engineer arises. It is common across many professions for “Chartered status” to be awarded to those who have reached a terminal threshold and for suitably accredited graduate engineers to reach that threshold from approximately 4 years into career onwards. Whereas someone of similar age but with the IEng accredited degree, will discover that they are either completely excluded, or have been given a handicap by virtue of their “inferior” degree. Is it rational or “fair” for two engineers of similar age who are demonstrating a similar level of performance, to be divided on the basis of their fluency in mathematics from a number of years earlier? Since the consequences of the division are to place each engineer into either the “superior” or “inferior” basket, damage may be caused to their reputation and career prospects, or that of the system itself if the division is artificial or socially determined.

I should note that the system is already widely distrusted or at least regarded as an “academic exercise” of limited relevance.

I propose that to help restore that trust, Bachelors Honours degrees in Engineering should in future be accredited on the basis of producing a an employable Engineer on graduation as their primary aim. This does not obstruct someone pursuing further academic study, academic research of even an academic career. The “rite of passage” mentality that an engineer must survive a challenging ordeal of advanced mathematics even if they don’t it enjoy it should go. Although those who thrive on this diet should have the opportunity to do so. Equally those with a different balance of talents, such as engineering as practised should have their opportunity.

In the context of Degree Accreditation the only meaningful show in town in the UK is Chartered Engineer. Every Accredited Degree should lead there with clarity and without any negative or “sub-standard” connotations if the emphasis is more vocational. The existing MEng model offers a “premium” pathway , but all Engineers including all accredited graduates should first pass over the same competence based threshold in employment. If this "Engineer" threshold is afforded proper respect, then it might meet the longer term needs of many engineers, but assuming that someone aspires to Chartered Engineer, they should agree with their PEI an appropriate development plan. Since it is common for engineers to become managerial ,that would be a legitimate option within the plan.

Critics of what I’m proposing, suggest that such a proposal would “make everyone a Chartered Engineer” and that I’m “lowering the bar”. On the contrary I’m seeking to raise standards. There is very little scope for “lowering the bar” anyway without breaching Privy Council requirements. If something is provided for “public benefit” then it should be accessible to anyone meeting the standard, not rationed or obstructed by careful gatekeeping and cunningly placed tripping points. Chartered Engineer should represent what we claim it to be, which is someone of substantial proven performance with post-graduate (level 7) attributes, who is actively engaged with and therefore “under the supervision” of a professional body. I don’t advocate revoking any “honour” that someone has earned, but there should be a mechanism like voluntary review, to indicate “currency”.

There are some excellent people who have found IEng the most convenient way to express their professionalism, who deserve no less respect or opportunity to contribute on the basis of their individual talents than anyone else, but their only shared characteristic is “not CEng” for various different reasons. The era of IEng having a distinctively different identity has passed. The “Chartered Engineer’s Council” has control of the subsidiary forms of professional “qualifications”. Therefore it needs to decide if it wishes to attract more people to registration and if so how. The rationale for and benefits of being a subsidiary registrant aren’t clear. The numbers likely to be involved are highly dependent of the policy of a single multi-division public sector employer with close links to Engineering Council.

The IET offers a form of accreditation for Technician Training, but I haven’t addressed this here in the context of Academic Accreditation, since anything below Degree level is a very minor sideshow for those involved. City & Guilds is perhaps a more appropriate space?
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