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.
I’m personally more than happy to cheer to the rafters any young person who has any combination of academic aptitude and application to succeed as a “scientist” or “mathematician”, that will include those deploying those talents in an engineering context. It is also argued by some that such subjects develop an analytical mindset, which is beneficial in engineering. However, I would also like to cheer to the rafters those who demonstrate a practical aptitude for engineering, many of who also go on to technical and strategic leadership roles in business.
If we think of a territory enclosed by the highly academic scientist at one end and the expert in practical techniques at the other, most engineers will fall somewhere in between. We attempt to categorise them based on different types of academic qualification, but inevitably undervalue practical or “vocational” expertise and give it little credit. We have three approaches to knowledge acquisition “theory first practice second” , “practice first theory second” and “theory and practice blended together”. I would contend that the latter option is the most optimal for most engineers, as opposed to scientists or craft based technicians.
Whilst I don’t wish to endorse any party political agenda or personality here, there does seem to have been a growing realisation in recent governments of the importance of “vocational” learning and apprenticeships. Effective action is not of course as easy as the realisation of a problem.
Roy, these sound an excellent idea to me, shame engineering isn't on the list. The downside I see is that successful implementation would rely on a few different bodies all working together
