I enjoy reading research, especially on the matter of educating future engineers! I can't understand how the education system makes such a mess of engaging people with engineering (and other subjects). I strongly support the pathway you've taken to achieve a Masters level qualification (good work!); the apprenticeship model combined with part-time higher education is extremely valuable to the future of engineering. I know ‘engineers’ who took the traditional university route; they leave with minimal hands-on experience, and they aren't willing to get their hands dirty; instead, they want to design or manage. Due to the status that their degree holds, employers think them up to such responsibilities. I believe some can achieve the level of competence necessary at university; however, in my experience, not so. Someone who undertook a level three apprenticeship will work with people who build machinery - the technicians. Technicians are the ones who quite often understand how things work in a practical sense; they hold excellent knowledge and should be highly regarded by all. I ensure the degree apprentice I mentor spends a lot of his time with technicians; he can gain a lot of knowledge from them, which can be applied to his development. A non-apprentice trained degree individual can gain this knowledge too by following a similar path; however, in my experience, many hold themselves in too high regard to do “the dirty work”. I took the apprenticeship route and later studied at degree level; I cannot stress how vital the dirty work is to become a competent engineer (listen up, graduates).



To comment on your structure for titles, I think a good point is raised. As I've said, a university graduate is more of a theoretical engineer, which supports the need to identify their competence separately. If we were to protect titles and offer a more streamlined approach to professional registration, I believe that would be a good start! I know some incredibly talented technicians who don't necessarily have the qualifications up to level three, yet demonstrate great competence at their craft. Those technicians can register for EngTech, so I think that system works well. I believe professional registration is a great way protect titles; graduates would likely have difficulty demonstrating the competencies for IEng, so they will need to work on their skills to be able to call themselves an engineer. CEng is reserved for highly competent people and is an excellent symbol of trust. In short, I think the registration system is reasonably good, although it could be streamlined based on my experience. If we moved to protect titles, it would not only boost faith in our trade but encourage young people to want a highly regarded career. We protect Architects and insist they reach a level of competence before allowing the use of the title; why is the engineering sector treated so poorly in comparison.



I appreciate some people reading this have their opinions that contradict my own; I share my experience and belief on the subject and welcome constructive feedback.

I enjoy reading research, especially on the matter of educating future engineers! I can't understand how the education system makes such a mess of engaging people with engineering (and other subjects). I strongly support the pathway you've taken to achieve a Masters level qualification (good work!); the apprenticeship model combined with part-time higher education is extremely valuable to the future of engineering. I know ‘engineers’ who took the traditional university route; they leave with minimal hands-on experience, and they aren't willing to get their hands dirty; instead, they want to design or manage. Due to the status that their degree holds, employers think them up to such responsibilities. I believe some can achieve the level of competence necessary at university; however, in my experience, not so. Someone who undertook a level three apprenticeship will work with people who build machinery - the technicians. Technicians are the ones who quite often understand how things work in a practical sense; they hold excellent knowledge and should be highly regarded by all. I ensure the degree apprentice I mentor spends a lot of his time with technicians; he can gain a lot of knowledge from them, which can be applied to his development. A non-apprentice trained degree individual can gain this knowledge too by following a similar path; however, in my experience, many hold themselves in too high regard to do “the dirty work”. I took the apprenticeship route and later studied at degree level; I cannot stress how vital the dirty work is to become a competent engineer (listen up, graduates).



To comment on your structure for titles, I think a good point is raised. As I've said, a university graduate is more of a theoretical engineer, which supports the need to identify their competence separately. If we were to protect titles and offer a more streamlined approach to professional registration, I believe that would be a good start! I know some incredibly talented technicians who don't necessarily have the qualifications up to level three, yet demonstrate great competence at their craft. Those technicians can register for EngTech, so I think that system works well. I believe professional registration is a great way protect titles; graduates would likely have difficulty demonstrating the competencies for IEng, so they will need to work on their skills to be able to call themselves an engineer. CEng is reserved for highly competent people and is an excellent symbol of trust. In short, I think the registration system is reasonably good, although it could be streamlined based on my experience. If we moved to protect titles, it would not only boost faith in our trade but encourage young people to want a highly regarded career. We protect Architects and insist they reach a level of competence before allowing the use of the title; why is the engineering sector treated so poorly in comparison.



I appreciate some people reading this have their opinions that contradict my own; I share my experience and belief on the subject and welcome constructive feedback.