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.
There is a solid tradition of graduate training schemes offered by larger employers, with Chartered Engineer recognition expected from around 4 years into career. Getting top A levels in Maths & Science is an essential gateway to this pathway. Many who prove eventually to be excellent engineers, either don’t get on to this “fast-track” pathway by means of their teenage academic aptitude, of “fall-off” by not gaining a graduate training place, which get many more applicants than there are places. At this point, in the eyes of an employer who doesn’t offer graduate traineeships they are just a “junior” engineer, who needs to quickly become productive in order to “earn their keep”. A significant number of engineering graduates don’t go on to become engineers.
My comment about “inferior degrees” reflects in part my own experience of evolving a degree apprenticeship (with academic partners) some 15 years ago (from an HND one). This produced excellent results with 100% employment and many participants are now in senior roles. I tried to “do the right thing” by encouraging accreditation by a PEI, but if you dare to include too much “engineering applications” instead of theory, or decide to recruit people who didn’t get stellar A level grades, then it’s the “inferior basket” for you. This has obviously incentivises universities to choose theory over practical applications and elitism over competence.
I won’t pursue this at length here, because it is wandering away from the topic of A levels. But Engineering Council’s actions have over many years sought to divide potential practitioners of engineering into “the best and the rest” using A level results as the primary filter. This isn’t unique to engineering and entry to other professions and to “elite” universities is highly contested using the same mechanism. On that basis A levels are an incredibly important subject for debate. If they were just an examination, without this crucial role in determining so many people’s career direction and life chances , then I wouldn’t have much interest.
I certainly agree that engineering hasn’t been able to articulate a clear career path of “full respect” for most practitioners who come into it, either as graduates and especially through more practical pathways. Many of the latter have become hugely successful, in spite of not being coached to a peak of academic performance at the age of 18. Perhaps we are just too divided and as long as the various factions “in their castles” can feed themselves, there isn’t much incentive for change?
There is a solid tradition of graduate training schemes offered by larger employers, with Chartered Engineer recognition expected from around 4 years into career. Getting top A levels in Maths & Science is an essential gateway to this pathway. Many who prove eventually to be excellent engineers, either don’t get on to this “fast-track” pathway by means of their teenage academic aptitude, of “fall-off” by not gaining a graduate training place, which get many more applicants than there are places. At this point, in the eyes of an employer who doesn’t offer graduate traineeships they are just a “junior” engineer, who needs to quickly become productive in order to “earn their keep”. A significant number of engineering graduates don’t go on to become engineers.
My comment about “inferior degrees” reflects in part my own experience of evolving a degree apprenticeship (with academic partners) some 15 years ago (from an HND one). This produced excellent results with 100% employment and many participants are now in senior roles. I tried to “do the right thing” by encouraging accreditation by a PEI, but if you dare to include too much “engineering applications” instead of theory, or decide to recruit people who didn’t get stellar A level grades, then it’s the “inferior basket” for you. This has obviously incentivises universities to choose theory over practical applications and elitism over competence.
I won’t pursue this at length here, because it is wandering away from the topic of A levels. But Engineering Council’s actions have over many years sought to divide potential practitioners of engineering into “the best and the rest” using A level results as the primary filter. This isn’t unique to engineering and entry to other professions and to “elite” universities is highly contested using the same mechanism. On that basis A levels are an incredibly important subject for debate. If they were just an examination, without this crucial role in determining so many people’s career direction and life chances , then I wouldn’t have much interest.
I certainly agree that engineering hasn’t been able to articulate a clear career path of “full respect” for most practitioners who come into it, either as graduates and especially through more practical pathways. Many of the latter have become hugely successful, in spite of not being coached to a peak of academic performance at the age of 18. Perhaps we are just too divided and as long as the various factions “in their castles” can feed themselves, there isn’t much incentive for change?
