Right on all points Andy!

In case you're getting confused, this is my response to your third "bite" at replying Andy. I think what you say is exactly the right way to deal with children/youth. Employers though? A totally different kettle of fish!

That seems a very good point, well made, Memood.

Clearly in our small circle of enthusiastic contributors a good technical Apprenticeship is valued rather than stigmatised and is considered a viable pathway to CEng.  However, it is also clear that from a broader sociological perspective “a professional” is taken to mean of “graduate standard” and the UK designation “Chartered” in use by many different professions, adopts this this benchmark. Part of the problem is that for the overwhelming majority of people, education systems select and stream them onto various pathways ending at the age of approximately 18-23. It becomes of limited relevance to most of them thereafter.

 

Within a generation university attendance has increased hugely. We should remember that the generation of engineers who came through in the 1960s and arguably “built the modern world”, in the UK at least, mostly left full-time education by the age of 16 and followed apprenticeships. University participation was less than 10% until the late 1980s only passing 15% in the early 90s. There is no reliable evidence to my knowledge that the performance of the latest generations has “improved”. Although clearly there is a “standing on shoulders” effect.

 

The “employment problem” shared by employers and by engineering graduates is partly supply and demand, but also skills mismatch. https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/over-qualification-and-skills-mismatch-graduate-labour-market_tcm18-10231.pdf  (The report isn’t focussed on engineering as such).


Blue-chip employers who recruit graduates can be very choosy, often just seeking the “cream of potential”.  Some have also switched investment towards degree apprenticeships. Often hundreds of applicants are chasing a few  training positions, so many good engineering graduates are left disappointed and frustrated. Smaller employers with less wherewithal, naturally prefer someone “job ready” if possible, or they may be reluctant to train a graduate “only to lose them”. Having invested time money and personal commitment these graduates probably deserve even more of our support than an apprentice, who may suffer some snobbery but at least has a job and career. Just like I became an apprentice because I didn’t know anyone who had been to university, the reverse applies to many of today’s engineering students who might have considered an apprenticeship if they had the option.

 

On the employers side, I am critical of lazy (and in Andy’s example plain stupid) assumptions made by recruiters/HR professionals, sometimes encouraged by influential members of our own community. I’m also unsympathetic to many of those who bemoan a lack of suitable talent, without investing in training. However, on the whole employers will act rationally based on their interests, as likewise will Universities but with different priorities, driving a different business model.       

 

I’m happy to accept Roy Pemberton’s comparisons based on his experience, which is more relevant than mine to the CEng category.  Andy Millar similarly, to paraphrase (I hope fairly?) it is ultimately “performance that matters not how you get there”. I agree with much of this, but a significant reason for the discussion, is comparison and categorisation of different engineers. Much of what has occupied the IET Registration & Standards Community over recent years has been interpreting UK-SPEC in the context of experienced professionals (average age 35-50), which is when those who didn’t get on the “golden pathway” at an early stage, start to become interested, often becoming aware for the first time that CEng might be a possibility having previously believed that not having “the right degree” was a “show stopper”.              

 

As I see it the professional engineering community (including PEI’s, Engineering Council, Engineering UK, Royal Academy etc.) has a duty to encourage and to value (aka “nurture”) those who pursue careers in Engineering & Technology. The most relevant age range is around 13-23 when career pathways are being established. Therefore it is this age group that I want us to focus on. 


As a matter of wider social policy, I would see it as a huge waste of talent, energy and national productivity not to have people in their early twenties pursuing careers. In the UK we have benefited considerably from overseas engineering graduates, unable to find suitable employment in their home countries, with graduate unemployment being especially pernicious in some places.  This has perhaps helped to obscure the gap created by the decline in apprenticeships and underlying assumption that they would be “replaced” by full-time undergraduate degrees.

 

Where I consider the “leadership” of the profession to be culpable, is that it has seemed far too “comfortable” with anything  that might lead to “higher status for engineers” (like themselves) and largely disinterested in the “sharp end” of mainstream practice by most Engineers and Technicians (mere “foot soldiers”).

 

There has to be a clear positive proposition to those interested in engineering and technology. With clarity, support and guidance for those pursuing professional careers from an early stage. Instead what we have is a muddled, flawed and often negative proposition to many of them.  We raise the expectations of many undergraduate engineering students unrealistically, before inevitably disappointing quite a few. We insult the graduates of “IEng” or “Technologist” degrees as “second class”, even if the academic standard is the same, because in our eyes, mathematics is more valuable than “applications”(robots are also good at mathematics).  We subject Apprentices, Technicians or Incorporated Engineers (often drawn from the apprenticeship tradition) to snobbery and barriers, either explicit or implicit.

 

Turning this around isn’t a “five minute job” it’s a ten year one.  There has been some modest progress with IET at least trying, boosted perhaps by government apparently being committed to revitalising apprenticeships that include a higher education element.  I think that we need to build a fresh consensus, with a stronger perspective from employers and those universities drawn from the “polytechnic tradition” of building academic understanding around work practices.  For example I met an Apprentice last year following this innovative programme that I hope becomes successful.  http://courses.wlv.ac.uk/course.asp?code=MA001U31UVD  (we had another thread about this subject but it was locked following some disruptive contributions).  I have also enthusiastically supported this initiative  http://www.engineeringgateways.co.uk/  which hasn’t grown beyond a “niche”.  

 

My argument isn’t an “anti-academic” one. We are fortunate to possess some world-class research led universities and a substantial amounts of high quality academic provision in Engineering and Technology disciplines.  Unfortunately the competition for prestige that helps to drive academic excellence, has a potentially negative effect of the perfectly competent but less prestigious “mainstream” of practice. What we need is an attractive achievable terminal threshold for developing engineers to aim for.

 

This leads me to the perhaps unpopular conclusion that achieving the current UK-SPEC CEng standard is often more difficult to demonstrate than it needs to be. Some of a more academic persuasion want to exclude those without a “Washington Accord” degree, whilst some senior professionals want to interpret some of the competences in a more demanding or “difficult” way. Therefore, we have a confusing and inconsistent situation depending on how and where you touch the system. Mehmood suggests one type of inconsistency, but there are others including between PEI's towards similar individuals. For example there is recent evidence of the IET being found more "difficult" than another institution where direct comparison is possible.  “You’ll find out when you get there” isn’t very helpful to those classed as “individual route”. Albeit that the process of professional peer review is a good one.     

                               

On the basis that the idea of a distinctively different “Chartered Engineering Technologist” *, has never made any progress in the UK, I think that we should consider replacing it, with a category of "mainstream" Engineer, benchmarked at “graduate level” taking into account appropriate work-based learning. Anyone seeking further recognition should have to undertake a significant period of monitored professional development first. However, I would envisage if that progression was to Chartered Engineer, a far higher proportion of engineers would progress smoothly into it, than is currently the case, with a good apprenticeship offering no significant disadvantage.  Anything being rationed to only a small percentage of engineers should sit beyond Chartered, if such a category is deemed necessary at all.                 

 

* The original specification for UK-SPEC envisaged Chartered Engineering Technologist as a
new title for Incorporated Engineers. Ramsay Andrew : The History of The Incorporated Engineer: Engineering Council December 2011.     

 

Wow! Roy, so much in there, I won't even attempt to delve into your very well thought through post in detail, but will rather say, taken all in all, I'd agree with your detailed analysis. There may possibly be some minor areas in which we'd have a slightly different take, though I may become wrong as I'd need to go through it once again, taking time to consider each point, and unfortunately, I'm afraid I just don't have the time to do that - maybe it's more appropriate for a discussion together if and when we ever meet! ;)
I would like to just make a couple of comments and an anecdote it two, add is my wont, in support of certain specific points that I, too, feel strongly about:
I'm with you completely about the need to recognise the importance of foot soldiers. As you say, I am in no way anti-academia, and like you recognise the high value offered, but frankly, I don't feel we need to do anything further to promote the abundant opportunities to excel and succeed in academia, whilst our high, goal focused society is in constant danger of ignoring the foot soldier and making them feel unappreciated. I'm going to move out of the IET or registration arena for this.
I recently had cause to rock the boat in my workplace when it was decided to introduce an engineer of the month award. I received astounded reaction when I commented that I felt this demotivates more people than it motivates. As a generalisation, for those most likely to receive the award, no incentive or motivation is required for them to excel - the people most likely to be nominated and receive it are those who will strive to excel regardless of whether an award is on offer or not, whilst the many foot soldiers, in some, if not most cases, still excellent engineers, the fact that they know they are highly unlikely to receive the award is highly demotivating, yet they stride on, doing a sterling, if not dazzling job, day in, day out.
When I mentioned this to my daughter, she likened it to a friend when she was at school who, year after year, at prize giving, received the "best effort" award alongside those who were getting best performance awards. She revealed to my daughter that each year, her stomach sank as she accepted it as the "never going to be the best" award.
I think that's what particularly frustrates me with the low uptake of I.Eng - by rights, there should be far more I.Eng than C.Eng in a well balanced workforce. Unfortunately, it does appear to have become somewhat tainted by the prejudices and perceptions of both employers and those who, by rights, should be considering it. If you look at the correct administration of the registration process (and I will robustly defend that it is, generally speaking, correctly administered, with quality/consistency control measures to weed out "bad" decisions) there is definitely no barrier to many more in our profession attaining I.Eng, the barrier comes from the perception of its value by employers and potential candidates alike. Maybe it is time to change the title, and the one included in your final quote could be as good as any, but ultimately, a title is only a title. If that is what we need to change that perceptions then fine - I'll support it, but it won't change the underlying meaning of it or its true value (as opposed to the distorted perceived value).
In summary, and to reiterate what I think you, and others, are saying, there are numerous levels and types of ability, we need a good healthy mix of those different levels and types for a balanced, effective working model, each deserves recognition for the value it offers, and there are multiple ways to attain every level and type of ability, all of which are (or should be) equally valid, or indeed, not even relevant to the outcome. But we live in a society increasingly eager to categorise, differentiate and downright marginalise at the slightest opportunity, for the least basis reasons imaginable.
One final thought - what truly motivates HR "practitioners"? Would it be unfair to ask if it might be job preservation (their own that is) and protectionism? Gone are the days, it seems, when HR was a service department to ensure pay, rations and welfare were looked after. The tail most definitely seems to wag the dog all too often.

Very good points from you both, a few very quick thoughts:

1. CEng (or IEng or EngTech) is not an "award" or a "prize", it is a statement that the applicant has demonstrated competence in certain areas.

• We all have different competences, however hard I study or train I am never going to be a professional footballer (which I don't mind at all), an excellent project manager, a professional musician (which I would have liked!) - but I am pretty good at problem solving and taking balanced decisions even on incomplete information.

• Most people will cope with the fact that people have different certifications (or whatever we want to call it) - very few people would be daft enough to refuse to be awarded an HND on the grounds that it's not a degree. If IEng was useful I strongly believe that people would happily apply for it. 

• But it isn't so they don't.

• Personally I think the only real risk would be if assessors refused to give perfectly competent engineers CEng / IEng based on what they happen to have done or studied 10 years earlier.

• Again personally what I've seen of the IETs application of UKSpec for CEng (and IEng) seems about right to me, but if other institutes are offering "easier" routes that does need to be sorted one way or the other.

Better go!


Cheers,


Andy

Andy,
Yes, I agree on all points. I would particularly like to stress that my example of the award was not intended to suggest that C.Eng/I.Eng are awards or prizes, I agreed completely - they are exactly what they say, registration that a candidate demonstrates a range of defined competence/performance standards. I was only trying to illustrate an example from outside the registration process of the emphasis a good number of people place on celebrating excellence, and, laudable as that may seem on the surface, how damaging it can be to the motivation of good, solid achievers of good engineering activity, but which is not necessarily dazzling. It's tempting to repeat the epithet, when asked "how much is enough?" answer sufficient. More often than not it's what's most needed, and 100 people achieving sufficient, reliably and repeatedly can be worth far more than the occasional person delivering brilliance (which, like beauty, may well be in the eye of the beholder, anyway).
You may be right about I.Eng not delivering a benefit, but I'd still be interested in knowing why not, if we believe that C.Eng does. I for one, if selecting a team, would find it useful. Naturally, the alternative is to do my own detailed review, interview and other selection activity, but that could equally be argued for C.Eng. But I think that particular point has been debated endlessly on these forums, so it's largely a rhetorical question and isn't seeking an answer from you - unless you feel inclined to supply it.

Its is highly unlikely that apprenticeships will become a valid mainstream path to Chartered Engineer. The majority of the those who make decisions regarding the funding of apprenticeships and vocational educational would not dream of their children not going to university. The underfunding of FE colleges and the poor renumeration of lecturers in engineering is indicative of the level of importance attached to this issue.

There are some themes that I would want to pick up on , including Mehmood’s important point about consistency, Peter Miller’s fair one about FE and Roy Pemberton’s issues with HR when I have some more time.

 

Thanks also to Stewart for joining in , it is really useful for people to share their experience and current perspective on our profession, “how this looks to me” is great feedback. It looks slightly different to me, but I’m looking from a different place.

 

I’m delighted to see you progressing your qualifications, but please note that qualifications are only one element of the mix. The military are very structured in their approach compared to most civilian employers, so completing a particular course (in more recent times usually with a civilian qualification included), leads to the next leg of promotion, within the commissioned or non-commissioned “path”. Also Competence A1 is Technical so a MBA wouldn’t be a good way demonstrate it, although it might be the best qualification to help develop your career in a managerial direction if that’s what you want.

 

I was prompted to post something relevant to Apprenticeships by the receipt of a “promotional” article coming in by e-mail.  I’m not seeking to promote the business concerned, which people might better remember in its earlier incarnation of Saville & Holdsworth (SHL) “Occupational Phycologists”.  Some readers may have completed various aptitude or personality tests as part of recruitment or development or managed them like me.

 

To inject a note of interest, I regarded such tests as a more reliable discriminator in selection than academic examination results. Thresholds were established for different types of apprenticeship (e.g. Craft or “Student Engineer”), with “Red, Amber, Green” using today’s popular terminology. For those not familiar, the tests are “norm referenced” using statistical bell curves. In my last role, we took a decision (circa 1998) to abandon graduate recruitment as a “training pathway”, focussing our investment on our Student Engineer (Apprenticeship) programme instead. My previous company was moving the other way and we followed this assessment methodology for graduate recruitment as well.   

 
https://www.cebglobal.com/global-locations/ceb-united-kingdom/talent-management/big-data-context/recruiting/early-careers.html?elqTrackId=8a3c3518879d413cb49d10860cd0dbb6&elq=c0ef0f36946347a3ac856245cc28c73f&elqaid=10088&elqat=1&elqCampaignId=5414       

Thanks for the advice Roy.


At the moment my main aim is to complete my BEng(hons) and to apply what I have been learning and achive IEng. I will then be looking at the level 5 diploma offered by the IET/CMI in leadership and management.


i will then look at post graduate once I have decided what direction I want my career to go. (I’ve seen about 4 different Masters that look interesting)