In the news today. This is the pathway to becoming an Engineer for many and considered "equivalent" to having completed a skilled apprenticeship by the educational establishment.
The subject is topical , controversial and affects the majority of people, either directly as a teenager or parent or indirectly in various ways. I created the discussion thread in a personal capacity and I wasn’t aware of the press release, which makes an excellent point that I support. I’m delighted to see the IET take this position, because many of the messages that have emanated from the “commanding heights” of the engineering profession over the years, have been academic in nature and conveyed the impression (as Simon suggested) that only the cream of mathematics and science A level students are suitable material to become “Engineers”(of the high status variety).
I see no useful purpose it “attacking” A levels, although I am troubled by the “exam factory” that education has become. On the whole A levels seem to offer appropriate preparation in several ways for University study and if they are not doing so optimally, then there are feedback loops in education so that adjustments can be made. There are other alternatives such as BTEC Nationals and much effort has been expended towards the proposed new “T levels”.
For the record, I left school at 16 and as an employed apprentice gained various qualifications, by block-release and day-release to college, in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering including ONC (now considered A level “equivalent”). As was normal at that time, most of the first two years was spend either in college or at the company training centre. I later became a trainer in that centre and then head of department in another one. In my last industry role, I developed and managed a training programme for engineers and surveyors. Most of them joined with A levels or beyond , but everyone did a National Certificate in Engineering in the first year, leading to a Bachelors Degree in either engineering or commercial over four years by block release. I’m rather proud of that and it won awards, but I won’t bang on about it, suffice to say I’m on the “vocational side” rather than academic in this argument. I also regret pressing for IEng accreditation, which I hadn’t realised at the time was a stigma not a benefit to a graduate, but luckily no employees were harmed, because they understood attitudes on the ground better and politely declined the “opportunity” to register.
Two threads have emerged in the argument which beg the question; what is the purpose of A level examinations and grades? The question can apply to any form of assessment and the answer, in text book terms at least, leads to two possibilities.
To confirm that a taught syllabus has been adequately absorbed and/or that intended attributes or abilities have developed. These should be described in a series of criteria. In a vocational context this is typically “pass or failure” to meet the minimum specified standard, which if there is a theory test or simulation might include a “pass mark”. The driving test is an obvious example, although there may be some leeway, flexibility or margin of error at the boundary. Grading can be introduced, by using different criteria to represent different grades, but you are either “fit to pilot” (i.e. competent) or not. Everyone who meets the standard is successful.
To select or rank candidates, perhaps for their benefit, to optimise their future development pathway, but more typically to ration. So if we consider the 11+ examination currently taken by 10 year olds for Grammar School admission. When this was introduced, it could be argued that this merely identified those best suited to a less academic pathway, although the pass mark had to be set to reflect the available places in Grammar Schools. The purpose now of this and other subsequent examinations including A levels has become competitive. In these circumstances we get into a statistical bell curve or “normal” distribution, so the test is “norm referenced”.
I should mention in passing psychometric tests of ability or aptitude. These are intended to give an “objective” norm referenced comparison of various attributes and are considered by many to more accurately differentiate than qualification grades, which might at least be a measure of conscientiousness, but can’t be compared reliably across different boards or universities. Allegations of gaming the system by choosing a “softer” board by schools and grade inflation at universities have been made. My understanding is that American SAT Tests are designed to offer a more objective comparison between different candidates for university courses, especially important as generous bursary funding may come with admission.
Much of the hue and cry, is about the difficulty of selectors in distinguishing between the best candidates for the “most prestigious” university courses and/or admission to the most desirable professions. Which is what tends to annoy me, because it has become a social obsession, forcing young people into a ruthless academic competition. Such an important one that families feel it necessary to invest huge sums of money (for the average person) to gain advantage in this competition and also hopefully buy social capital with “the right connections”. I don’t object in principle to competition, because it can be a spur to higher performance, but “winners” also create “losers”. IHMO it is the duty of government to ensure that the system of education, identifies and nurtures each young person’s talents as these emerge. The “exam factory” doesn’t seem to be doing this as well as it should, despite huge investment and political attention (often flavour of the month). We should also perhaps consider “late developers” of which there are many, who could benefit most from academic engagement with some experience already under their belt. I was talking to my niece and her boyfriend yesterday, both aged 18 and with few ideas about their eventual career direction.
Having nailed my colours to the vocational mast, I fully accept that it is not the purpose of education to produce “factory fodder” or narrow work related skills not readily transferable or adaptable in a changing world. Unfortunately, however, having handed the tiller to the educational establishment (which includes an engineering element) they steered the ship towards their comfort zone where (often narrow and dated) academic attributes are highly prized, mathematicians and scientists are “rigorous” and “applications” is stigmatised as “carrying an oily rag” (or IEng). Ok I’m exaggerating for effect and most academics aren’t snobs , despite a culture that encourages such attitudes, most who teach just want to help their students succeed and would love the opportunity to work more closely with employers. I have posted this link before https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/21/university-engineering-departments-overalls-research
To the extent that we control the next selection competition after university entry. Have our (“Engineering Council family”) actions contributed to some graduates of accredited engineering courses, being uncompetitive in the labour market and if so how? It is multi-faceted, so a strongly academic MEng graduate, might find themselves outcompeted for a place on a large company graduate training scheme, but then lacking the more practical skills that a smaller employer needs in a productive engineer. A graduate with strong practical skills, perhaps with an IEng accredited degree may fall at the first screening, when an employer is looking for “intellectual horsepower” or chartership potential, a competition where they have at best an official handicap, but may be excluded. The message to academia has been that a “watered down” version of more academic programmes is acceptable for IEng, not an equally valid and challenging, but more practically orientated alternative. Imagine the brouhaha in certain circles if employers said that they found many IEng graduates “superior” (or at least more productive). I won’t repeat here my submission to Engineering Council in response to the latest consultation, but the words “dysfunctional swamp” were included to characterise our treatment of bachelors degrees.
The challenge as I see it is to ensure that some of those with exceptional mathematical and scientific aptitude are drawn into engineering and technology, with scope to grow. At the same time the profession needs many good Engineers with graduate attributes, who don’t need any more than a sound grasp of principles, but who can apply these in a productive way. I believe that it is outdated for the profession to rely on A level results to divide Engineers into silos of the “best and the rest” and also to some extent into narrow disciplines. The argument is more finely balanced for MEng programmes which should be the most academically challenging, but in the end they only optimise an engineer better for certain types of roles, which might arguably include some potential for accelerated progression to more a strategic level.
The solution that I have proposed is for all engineers with graduate attributes to pass through the same threshold, relatively early in career if possible, but some will need longer. Progression to the terminal standard (CEng) should be built on that, via subsequent career achievement, not the silo that your A level results placed you into. Too radical it seems? Perhaps a threat to the academic hegemony?
The subject is topical , controversial and affects the majority of people, either directly as a teenager or parent or indirectly in various ways. I created the discussion thread in a personal capacity and I wasn’t aware of the press release, which makes an excellent point that I support. I’m delighted to see the IET take this position, because many of the messages that have emanated from the “commanding heights” of the engineering profession over the years, have been academic in nature and conveyed the impression (as Simon suggested) that only the cream of mathematics and science A level students are suitable material to become “Engineers”(of the high status variety).
I see no useful purpose it “attacking” A levels, although I am troubled by the “exam factory” that education has become. On the whole A levels seem to offer appropriate preparation in several ways for University study and if they are not doing so optimally, then there are feedback loops in education so that adjustments can be made. There are other alternatives such as BTEC Nationals and much effort has been expended towards the proposed new “T levels”.
For the record, I left school at 16 and as an employed apprentice gained various qualifications, by block-release and day-release to college, in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering including ONC (now considered A level “equivalent”). As was normal at that time, most of the first two years was spend either in college or at the company training centre. I later became a trainer in that centre and then head of department in another one. In my last industry role, I developed and managed a training programme for engineers and surveyors. Most of them joined with A levels or beyond , but everyone did a National Certificate in Engineering in the first year, leading to a Bachelors Degree in either engineering or commercial over four years by block release. I’m rather proud of that and it won awards, but I won’t bang on about it, suffice to say I’m on the “vocational side” rather than academic in this argument. I also regret pressing for IEng accreditation, which I hadn’t realised at the time was a stigma not a benefit to a graduate, but luckily no employees were harmed, because they understood attitudes on the ground better and politely declined the “opportunity” to register.
Two threads have emerged in the argument which beg the question; what is the purpose of A level examinations and grades? The question can apply to any form of assessment and the answer, in text book terms at least, leads to two possibilities.
To confirm that a taught syllabus has been adequately absorbed and/or that intended attributes or abilities have developed. These should be described in a series of criteria. In a vocational context this is typically “pass or failure” to meet the minimum specified standard, which if there is a theory test or simulation might include a “pass mark”. The driving test is an obvious example, although there may be some leeway, flexibility or margin of error at the boundary. Grading can be introduced, by using different criteria to represent different grades, but you are either “fit to pilot” (i.e. competent) or not. Everyone who meets the standard is successful.
To select or rank candidates, perhaps for their benefit, to optimise their future development pathway, but more typically to ration. So if we consider the 11+ examination currently taken by 10 year olds for Grammar School admission. When this was introduced, it could be argued that this merely identified those best suited to a less academic pathway, although the pass mark had to be set to reflect the available places in Grammar Schools. The purpose now of this and other subsequent examinations including A levels has become competitive. In these circumstances we get into a statistical bell curve or “normal” distribution, so the test is “norm referenced”.
I should mention in passing psychometric tests of ability or aptitude. These are intended to give an “objective” norm referenced comparison of various attributes and are considered by many to more accurately differentiate than qualification grades, which might at least be a measure of conscientiousness, but can’t be compared reliably across different boards or universities. Allegations of gaming the system by choosing a “softer” board by schools and grade inflation at universities have been made. My understanding is that American SAT Tests are designed to offer a more objective comparison between different candidates for university courses, especially important as generous bursary funding may come with admission.
Much of the hue and cry, is about the difficulty of selectors in distinguishing between the best candidates for the “most prestigious” university courses and/or admission to the most desirable professions. Which is what tends to annoy me, because it has become a social obsession, forcing young people into a ruthless academic competition. Such an important one that families feel it necessary to invest huge sums of money (for the average person) to gain advantage in this competition and also hopefully buy social capital with “the right connections”. I don’t object in principle to competition, because it can be a spur to higher performance, but “winners” also create “losers”. IHMO it is the duty of government to ensure that the system of education, identifies and nurtures each young person’s talents as these emerge. The “exam factory” doesn’t seem to be doing this as well as it should, despite huge investment and political attention (often flavour of the month). We should also perhaps consider “late developers” of which there are many, who could benefit most from academic engagement with some experience already under their belt. I was talking to my niece and her boyfriend yesterday, both aged 18 and with few ideas about their eventual career direction.
Having nailed my colours to the vocational mast, I fully accept that it is not the purpose of education to produce “factory fodder” or narrow work related skills not readily transferable or adaptable in a changing world. Unfortunately, however, having handed the tiller to the educational establishment (which includes an engineering element) they steered the ship towards their comfort zone where (often narrow and dated) academic attributes are highly prized, mathematicians and scientists are “rigorous” and “applications” is stigmatised as “carrying an oily rag” (or IEng). Ok I’m exaggerating for effect and most academics aren’t snobs , despite a culture that encourages such attitudes, most who teach just want to help their students succeed and would love the opportunity to work more closely with employers. I have posted this link before https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/21/university-engineering-departments-overalls-research
To the extent that we control the next selection competition after university entry. Have our (“Engineering Council family”) actions contributed to some graduates of accredited engineering courses, being uncompetitive in the labour market and if so how? It is multi-faceted, so a strongly academic MEng graduate, might find themselves outcompeted for a place on a large company graduate training scheme, but then lacking the more practical skills that a smaller employer needs in a productive engineer. A graduate with strong practical skills, perhaps with an IEng accredited degree may fall at the first screening, when an employer is looking for “intellectual horsepower” or chartership potential, a competition where they have at best an official handicap, but may be excluded. The message to academia has been that a “watered down” version of more academic programmes is acceptable for IEng, not an equally valid and challenging, but more practically orientated alternative. Imagine the brouhaha in certain circles if employers said that they found many IEng graduates “superior” (or at least more productive). I won’t repeat here my submission to Engineering Council in response to the latest consultation, but the words “dysfunctional swamp” were included to characterise our treatment of bachelors degrees.
The challenge as I see it is to ensure that some of those with exceptional mathematical and scientific aptitude are drawn into engineering and technology, with scope to grow. At the same time the profession needs many good Engineers with graduate attributes, who don’t need any more than a sound grasp of principles, but who can apply these in a productive way. I believe that it is outdated for the profession to rely on A level results to divide Engineers into silos of the “best and the rest” and also to some extent into narrow disciplines. The argument is more finely balanced for MEng programmes which should be the most academically challenging, but in the end they only optimise an engineer better for certain types of roles, which might arguably include some potential for accelerated progression to more a strategic level.
The solution that I have proposed is for all engineers with graduate attributes to pass through the same threshold, relatively early in career if possible, but some will need longer. Progression to the terminal standard (CEng) should be built on that, via subsequent career achievement, not the silo that your A level results placed you into. Too radical it seems? Perhaps a threat to the academic hegemony?
