Moshe;

I assume you are not a practicing engineer, but a teaching academic.

You have to support your profession.

University degrees and universities are drifting away from their original function and engineering & technology is becoming too wide a subject and changing too rapidly that the old academic system is now out of touch with reality. It is necessary for learning basic intellectual skills that is all.

 

This is an extract from an article I am preparing g for IET and interested bodies.

 
“We are a remaining handful of engineers often gaining university learning after achieving our first major projects; we were ahead of taught nuclear engineering and universities.
That is why many of us seem to be simple IEng or not even registered PEs.

 
I mentor Master nuclear engineers; have advised heads of National Nuclear Engineering facilities worldwide and assisted many Nobel Laureates. On my last project, I had over 400 top nuclear physicists, nuclear engineers and mathematicians to count on in just my department. I was part of a much larger national team.”

 

All of our Master A&M post graduates said the same : “Now we have our diplomas, we have to learn a discipline”; most went to work in totally different domains, all had to do 6 months internship.

The OCDE has now made it clear that BAC + 5  (L + M) or 5 years taught university 240 UCTS are not sufficient for graduates to work proficiently on their entry into professional activities  and this applies to all domains. OCDE now recommends practical training after achieving a Master Degree.

Doctors, lawyers, journalists, etc all have to do many years of supervised practical training before being let loose on the public.

In the past, Apprenticed Engineers had practical training during their academic and practical apprenticeship.

We had long BScs (sandwich courses) where students undertook one year’s industrial practice.

The commoditisation of teaching and diplomas has ruined the Technology training and made graduates unemployable.

When I take on a new contract, I have until midday to integrate and after 3 months I am expected to be an expert. It works.


The world we live in is changing so rapidly that new solutions have to be found.

Education, qualification and registration have to be modernised, rationalised and just.

I do not see an engineer leaving university and being operational on day one, unless he is in a single domain. In the technical assistance I have worked in, we looked for Technologists with the latest master taught computing skills. If we changed the computing program, the project would simply change its computer operators. The Germans call these master students – computer operators,  not engineers. Like it or not that is neo liberalist life, as you know well, living in the States where most of these models came from. The EPR projects are typical of modern technology management, the specialist come and go, no one is a permanent staff member, not even the Director.


You are beating about the bush with the ECTS; ECTs are graded at each year level. A simple degree will have a no grade 3 ECTS, you need 60 pts at Grade 3 (+ 120 ECTS)  before you can start a masters course. This is all academic, a practicing engineer needs training, education, and certificates, they can be achieved in or out of university 5 for me university is only a small part of the system).

Perhaps in the States your system works, in the wide world change is happening.

The whole system, university exclusivity to training, L M D; PEIs, ECUK,  OCDE as it is today, needs to change.

Market forces will govern the future – in France the problem is being addressed. France has introduced apprenticeships for all, at any age, Professional Licence (professional university for advanced skills), validation of practical experience as a qualification. It is uniting its Grande Ecoles (Technolgy Master + Schools ). It registers all its trained engineers and has no PEIs or equivalent of EC UK.

Conclusion - change is needed, PEIs need to change and unite, ECUK needs to change.


Vive La Revolution!!!


You have to manage change or be defeated.

John Gowman

Moshe;

I assume you are not a practicing engineer, but a teaching academic.

You have to support your profession.

University degrees and universities are drifting away from their original function and engineering & technology is becoming too wide a subject and changing too rapidly that the old academic system is now out of touch with reality. It is necessary for learning basic intellectual skills that is all.

 

This is an extract from an article I am preparing g for IET and interested bodies.

 
“We are a remaining handful of engineers often gaining university learning after achieving our first major projects; we were ahead of taught nuclear engineering and universities.
That is why many of us seem to be simple IEng or not even registered PEs.

 
I mentor Master nuclear engineers; have advised heads of National Nuclear Engineering facilities worldwide and assisted many Nobel Laureates. On my last project, I had over 400 top nuclear physicists, nuclear engineers and mathematicians to count on in just my department. I was part of a much larger national team.”

 

All of our Master A&M post graduates said the same : “Now we have our diplomas, we have to learn a discipline”; most went to work in totally different domains, all had to do 6 months internship.

The OCDE has now made it clear that BAC + 5  (L + M) or 5 years taught university 240 UCTS are not sufficient for graduates to work proficiently on their entry into professional activities  and this applies to all domains. OCDE now recommends practical training after achieving a Master Degree.

Doctors, lawyers, journalists, etc all have to do many years of supervised practical training before being let loose on the public.

In the past, Apprenticed Engineers had practical training during their academic and practical apprenticeship.

We had long BScs (sandwich courses) where students undertook one year’s industrial practice.

The commoditisation of teaching and diplomas has ruined the Technology training and made graduates unemployable.

When I take on a new contract, I have until midday to integrate and after 3 months I am expected to be an expert. It works.


The world we live in is changing so rapidly that new solutions have to be found.

Education, qualification and registration have to be modernised, rationalised and just.

I do not see an engineer leaving university and being operational on day one, unless he is in a single domain. In the technical assistance I have worked in, we looked for Technologists with the latest master taught computing skills. If we changed the computing program, the project would simply change its computer operators. The Germans call these master students – computer operators,  not engineers. Like it or not that is neo liberalist life, as you know well, living in the States where most of these models came from. The EPR projects are typical of modern technology management, the specialist come and go, no one is a permanent staff member, not even the Director.


You are beating about the bush with the ECTS; ECTs are graded at each year level. A simple degree will have a no grade 3 ECTS, you need 60 pts at Grade 3 (+ 120 ECTS)  before you can start a masters course. This is all academic, a practicing engineer needs training, education, and certificates, they can be achieved in or out of university 5 for me university is only a small part of the system).

Perhaps in the States your system works, in the wide world change is happening.

The whole system, university exclusivity to training, L M D; PEIs, ECUK,  OCDE as it is today, needs to change.

Market forces will govern the future – in France the problem is being addressed. France has introduced apprenticeships for all, at any age, Professional Licence (professional university for advanced skills), validation of practical experience as a qualification. It is uniting its Grande Ecoles (Technolgy Master + Schools ). It registers all its trained engineers and has no PEIs or equivalent of EC UK.

Conclusion - change is needed, PEIs need to change and unite, ECUK needs to change.


Vive La Revolution!!!


You have to manage change or be defeated.

John Gowman

John,


I'm a practicing Engineer.

Currently, work for leading high-tech enterprise. My job title is Principal Engineer - Life Cycle Architecture and Engineering


In USA ABET like in EC in UK is responsible for accreditation of Engineering and Technology programs at Universities and Institutes.

The accreditation board members are Industry, IEEE, NSPE and other Institutions in the USA.

An Engineering programme in order to remain accredited has to follow the ABET requirements.
More than 2,000 professionals from academia, industry, and government carry out every aspect of ABET accreditation. They know their profession’s dynamic and emerging workforce needs and review academic programs to ensure they provide the technical and professional skills graduates need to succeed. Directly involves faculty and staff in self-assessment and continuous quality improvement processes.
ABET accreditation criteria are developed by technical professionals, members of  35 member societies. Each society dedicates volunteers to perform program reviews related to its professions. Coming from academic, industrial and governmental backgrounds,


So I'm not so sure that what you state is accurate, I think Universities in order to stay relevant and graduate Engineers capable to enter the workforce with current update knowledge and formation.

I agree with you that the process needs to be dynamic to address current and future developments. 

We had excellent posts about Specialist and Generalist and a mix in our IET forum.

“Now we have our diplomas, we have to learn a discipline”

 To a degree it's correct, I think this is why


Professional = Education + Training + Experience  

John,

 

Amongst the polemic are some good and reasonable points.  Thankfully Moshe doesn’t seem  at all offended, since his contributions seem to inform, enlighten and support the discussion with a useful perspective from across the pond.  

 

The conference proceedings that I posted, seem to suggest that academics recognise many of the issues you have highlighted. A number of them may also feel disadvantaged by the more managerial elements of UK-SPEC competences, or frustrated by traditional discipline “silos”. I’m sure that the overwhelming majority are seeking to give service by means of educating others and/or contributing to research. If there is an element of self-interest, then show me any individual or group that doesn’t demonstrate self-interest.  The contribution of engineers, pursuing academic careers is immense and must remain highly valued.

 

A relevant issue is that the culture of academia shows a strong instinct to categorise and rank, leaving some such as college lecturers for example, undervalued. Factors influencing this culture such as, the nature of competition for status or other rewards also spills over into areas where senior academics are influential. These include The Engineering Council Family, Engineering Professors Council and Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK. Other countries may different structures (e.g. ABET), government advisors or just close personal relationships (e.g. shared schooling)   

 

In my experience (aka research via ethnography) the culture of most modern employment environments is slightly different. Many engineers work in relatively flat, flexible and project based structures and if the more practical engineer is best optimised for the current priority, then they lead the way and many reach seniior leadership roles.  Obviously workplace cultures aren’t all homogenous, but most engineering working environments are relatively “classless” in recent times.  Even within the Armed Forces, technical specialist groups tend towards being less conscious of rank.

 

Circa 25 years ago I approached a Professional Engineering Institution on behalf of a leading employer, to explore accrediting a graduate training scheme. One of that employer’s key priorities was to create a “performance based culture” of equal respect, flexible and interdisciplinary working. It won’t surprise you that I reported back, that I felt that the institution was a poor cultural fit and we should be very cautious about how we engaged, if at all. It seems that over the last quarter century many others have come to a similar conclusion.  

 

I found the proceedings of the academic conference interesting and was delighted that the IET was co-sponsor. I haven’t decided whether the Engineering Professors Council is a “friend or foe” of my position and I’m guessing that it is probably mixed. I’m very supportive of provision for mid-career professionals such as work-based MSc and programmes linked to Degree Apprenticeships or otherwise employer engaged.  

 

I think that we agree that undergraduate engineering syllabuses, shouldn’t be too prescriptive or narrow , although they do need to cover the fundamentals of at least one recognised discipline in a rigorous manner. Some will want to adopt a highly mathematical/scientific approach built from “principles up”, others  from “practice down” to relevant principles. The former may be more “academic” and suited to the “brightest academic minds” in their age group, but most prospective engineers would find the latter more attractive and more appropriate to their needs.

 

It is easy to find evidence of the continuum (my link was ABET referenced) in real-world careers, so the reasons for a division into “first and second class” must be sociological driven rather than performance based.  An “elite” must by definition be small in number and difficult to access. We don’t need a “Technological Elite”, we need plenty more good enthusiastic and adaptable engineers who can work well with others and lead by influence. I agree that we need a change, but not a revolution unless those with the power to change are unwilling to evolve. “Engineer Education” is very much part of that mix, but someone entering now, isn’t going to be able to exert significant influence for another twenty years.  


I can only observe the situation of our friends and colleagues in North America, but it seems that similar issues are in play with respect to this distinction between Engineers and “Technologists”.  Some of our CEng members in North America with Engineering Technology Degrees offer a good examples of why the dichotomy is often a dubious one.   

Hi Roy,

Thanks for posting the link to the conference papers (I've only just picked that up) - I've got some long train journey's next week so I'll print this out for an interesting read!

Thanks, Andy

Dear John,


I read your posts.


Would it be more relevant if you apply for CEng thru Nuclear Institute with your past experience in Nuclear engineering instead of IEE/IET where more suitable for traditional electrical/electronic engineers?


Just my thought for sharing!