Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 158 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 5186 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Is an Apprenticeship an equally valid pathway to Chartered Engineer - a historical anachronism or the future?

Roy Bowdler
This is National Apprenticeship Week.  

 

An unintended and unfortunate consequence of UK government policies and wider economic changes in the 1980s and 1990s was a very substantial decline in apprenticeships which had served previous generations so well.  They didn’t die completely because employers (like the company that I was Training Manager of) understood their value, not just for skilled craft trades, but also as an alternative option to “Graduate Training Schemes” for Engineers and Managers, traditionally leading to HNC type qualifications, but from the mid-2000s increasingly degrees. Initiative was eventually picked up by Government, turning it into a “flagship” policy.  This has had an effect, but policy is not implementation and typically the brewery visit has not been well organised (with apologies to those unfamiliar with British vulgar slang). However, changes like this can take years if not decades to “bed in”, so I hope that we will keep trying.

 

Engineering Council has always been dominated by the academic perspective and relatively poorly connected with employers, therefore it has associated Apprenticeships with Technicians and not with Chartered Engineers, although it accepted that it was possible "exceptionally via bridges and ladders” for a Technician to develop into a Chartered Engineer. Incorporated (formerly Technician) Engineer was also drawn from the Apprenticeship tradition. However, once the qualification benchmark was adjusted to bachelors level, it was also intended to become the “mainstream” category for graduates, with CEng being “premium” or “elite”.  Unfortunately the Incorporated category has not been successful and its international equivalent “Technologist” defined as it is by degree content (i.e. less calculus than an “engineer”) also seems equally poorly regarded or even legally restricted in other countries.

 

Now we have Degree Apprentices coming through, the profession has responded by offering Incorporated Engineer recognition at an early career stage. This should in principal be a good thing and I have advocated it in the past. However, I am seriously concerned that this may also stigmatise them as a “second class” form of professional, as has been the tradition to date.

 

Over the last few years Engineering Council has adopted a policy encouraging younger engineers to consider the Incorporated Engineer category as a “stepping stone” to Chartered Engineer. Some professional institutions have promoted this often with a particular focus on those “without the right degree for CEng” with some success. However the approach “kicks the can down the road” to the question of how they should subsequently transfer to CEng.  There are potentially likely to be some frustrated, disillusioned and even angry engineers, if they find that “progression” is blocked and that they are stuck on a “stepping stone”.  We don’t need more unnecessary “enemies” amongst them, we have created enough already. 

 

A further problem is that those with accredited degrees do not expect to require a “stepping stone” and consider IEng to have no value for them or even perhaps at worst insulting. Many employers of Chartered Engineers and the professional institutions are steeped in the tradition of recruiting those with accredited degrees and developing them to Chartered Engineer in around 3-5 years. Other graduate recruiters may be less academically selective, but share similar traditions and expectations.

 

Is therefore a Degree Apprenticeship an equally valid pathway compared to a CEng accredited (BEng or MEng) full-time undergraduate degree course?  Is performance and current capability (aka “competence”) the appropriate frame of reference for comparison, or should those from each pathway be separated academically and considered to be different “types”, or on “fast” and slow tracks”?

 

As Degree Apprenticeships develop further, there will be those who gain CEng accredited degrees and have work experience via an “even faster track”. My concern is that those graduates from Degree Apprenticeships who are more competent and productive than their age group peers from full-time degree programmes, but disadvantaged in academic recognition terms, may find themselves in a seemingly unfair and anomalous situation.  

 

In addition, those employers who primarily “exploit existing technology” may continue to feel that the Engineering Council proposition is contrary to their interests and discourage engagement. Employers who invest in apprenticeships state that they experience greater loyalty from former apprentices, relative to graduate trainees and often a better return on investment.  Whereas the professional institution proposition emphasises different priorities, which may align quite well with Research & Development or Consultancy type business models, but not with Operations and Maintenance or Contracting. My experience as an employer trying to encourage professional engagement was that the Professional Institution concerned advised employees informally to “move on if you want to become Chartered”, because they valued Project Engineering less than Design Engineering. As for management, this was definitely “chartered engineering” if you held the right type of engineering degree and valued if it was “prestigious”. If you didn’t hold the right type of engineering degree and weren’t “highly prestigious” then it wasn't valued much.

 

If Degree Apprenticeships become more strongly established, do we want to accept them as an equally valid pathway to a range of excellent careers including Chartered Engineer, or do we wish to continue our long-standing policy of treating them as useful but second or third class pathways? Will weasel words of platitude be offered ,whilst existing attitudes and practice are allowed to prevail?    


If the answer is we that want to give apprentices equal value, then in the current climate of retribution, should those who have enthusiastically encouraged the stigma and snobbery against them consider falling on their swords? Enthusiasm for excellence in engineering, especially in stretching academic circumstances is a virtue not a crime and I strongly support it. Unfortunately however many around the Engineering Council family, perhaps motivated by a neediness for “status”, seem to have been mainly concerned with rationing access to the Chartered category by other “graduate level” practitioners, and disparaging those drawn from the apprenticeship tradition. 

 

Further Reading

 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/a-new-apprenticeship-programme-kicks-off-national-apprenticeship-week-2018

 
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-will-end-outdated-snobbery-towards-apprenticeships

 
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/further-education/12193128/Theres-been-an-apprenticeship-stigma-for-far-too-long.html

 
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/theres-still-a-stigma-around-apprenticeships-people-look-down-on-you-3622353-Oct2017/

 
https://www.fenews.co.uk/featured-article/14816-overcoming-the-apprenticeships-stigma-not-before-time

 
https://www.bcselectrics.co.uk/news/pushing-back-against-stigma-apprenticeships

 
‘Stigma against apprenticeships must end,’ says Network Rail boss. Mark Carne, Network’s Rail’s chief executive (Rail Technology News)

   
https://www.standard.co.uk/tech/national-apprenticeship-week-young-women-stem-apprenticeship-a3781606.html

 
http://www.aston.ac.uk/news/releases/2017/july/uks-first-degree-apprentices-graduate/

 
https://www.stem.org.uk/news-and-views/opinions/apprenticeships-better-skills-better-careers          

 
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/blog/Pages/Why-I-chose-the-degree-apprenticeship-route.aspx               

 

 

 

  • 0
    I would also add that i’m Aware that not every engineer who gains IEng accreditation will want (or be able) to progress onto CEng as there is clear roles and competencies for both. An example of this is my current boss who has been IEng for the last 20+ years but has never had the need to look at CEng due to the roles / responsibilities he has had.


    i agree with one of the previous posts which mentions the fact that as an industry you would expect to have more IEng than CEng. I believe one issue is companies / organisations that promote CEng as the professional status everyone should be attaining and not promoting IEng (or EngTech).
  • 0
    Hi Roy (P),

    I totally I agree that when recruiting or assessing competence I would love to see IEng used. I think it has huge potential as a powerful tool. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of engineering employers disagree with us - I assume the attitude is "they've got some qualifications, they've got the right CV history, why do we need anything else?". And, I suspect, a feeling that they are better at assessing competence than the IET is. I think this is very shortsighted: a CV shows what work someone has done but not how well they have done it, certificates show they have been trained / educated but not that they can apply it, whereas the UKSpec process asesses whether they can effectively apply all of this in the full context of an engineering role. I don't think anyone has come up with a good solution to break through this lack of appreciation yet sad


    Hi Stewart,


    Just one thought, your plans sound very sensible, I'd heartily recommend a level 5 in management, however just to lob in that I am very glad that I did my level 7 qualifications in management (PostGrad Diploma followed by Masters) when I had several years experience. I might have gone a bit far in doing them 20 years and 30 years after my first degree, but it was certainly very noticeable that those students who went straight from engineering degree to the level 7 qualification really struggled - because so much of it is about dealing with and understanding people (who do not behave in any sense whatsoever like engineering systems!!!). A few years industry experience makes a huge difference in the way these qualifications are approached. But of course it depends very much on what other experience any one person brings to it.


    But the very best of luck whichever way you decide to go!


    Cheers,


    Andy
  • 0
    Andy - absolutely! And this also echoed in Stewart's last point - the repeated theme is the barrier presented by the short-sightedness of organisations/employers.
    We, as a profession, have a major task on our hands in trying to chip away at this barrier, working through the PEIs - and I still suspect what we really mean is through the IET, as I think many of us are agreeing, (possibly with a little bias, but I don't really feel so) that the IET is more progressive than some or possibly all of the other PEIs.
    Yes, I think, Andy, you're right that nobody has found a way to solve this yet, and maybe the past is a predictor of the future, but I feel that we have to decide that we're not prepared to allow it to be, I feel we have to persist and try to overthrow the barriers, tough as that may be. Let's face it, earlier in life, indeed only 20 years ago, I never dreamt that I would see, in my lifetime, the vast shift in inclusivity attitudes of every kind that has taken place and that has only happened because of the persistence of those who refused to accept the status quo. But then I've never been prepared to be defeatist (not suggesting you are either, Andy -you are absolutely right, there's no way we can surmount the huge barriers unless we acknowledge their presence and magnitude).
  • 0
    Around this time of year a number of employers begin to accept apprenticeship applications, hoping to select and make offers during the early part of the year for a start by September 2019. For example, I note that the BAE Systems application Window opened on 1st Nov.  Therefore, a crucial question arises for a young person with strong potential for an engineering career and those around them who care about their future. Which pathway to take, full-time study or an apprenticeship?


    I recall a few years ago attending a careers fair in Manchester. I was approached by a young man who said “I’m interested in your training scheme” (ie an apprenticeship). His answer to the obvious question “why” was; “because I need a fall-back position if I don’t do very well in my exams”.  Prior to developing the scheme from an HND outcome to Bachelors Degree, we also suffered when university fees were more modest, from young people accepting an offer of employment, only to spurn it when their exam results were “better than expected”.  To place such a decision in context , this would at the time (circa 2003) have been a decision to lose (adjusted for inflation to today’s values) £60000 if employed after three years and £85000 over 4 years. The same decision today would involve a minimum of  £70000 if gaining employment after 3 years and circa £100000 over 4, at the salary levels that we offered for trainees.  The figures are approximate and don’t take any account of any employment that a “full-time” student might undertake.  However, crucially they also do not include interest on any Student Loan, repayable on earnings over £18 000, which would include 95% of working degree qualified engineers and technicians.  A case can be made for a “life-time earnings premium” that may bring a Return on Investment over the very long-term, but not a reliable or robust one relative to a Degree Apprenticeship.


    Employers also have to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. In the case of an apprenticeship the aim ideally would be to achieve “break-even” quickly , where the trainee began to deliver productivity for the current cost of their employment and eventually paid back the sunk costs.  In a scheme as a whole there is also a risk of drop out, or “wastage”, if some people don’t succeed. My aims for a degree apprenticeship were to break-even in four years, because competitors lurked to poach talent. Another employer may in different circumstances find less effective competition for talent and have very high retention rates.  The alternative approach is to recruit a graduate trainee who will be older and expect a higher salary, but ideally will very quickly become productive. It will also be the intention of some employers to seek “the cream” of academic achievers  within their age cohort, for future technical and or/strategic leadership.  The upfront costs of this approach are in recruitment and potentially paying a premium relative to early productivity, with the risks being under-performance or disloyalty/poaching.  The Apprenticeship Levy introduced by UK government has led to some such approaches also coming under the apprenticeship “brand”. This is a good (perhaps the best?) example.   https://www.baesystems.com/en/article/first-of-its-kind-masters-level-apprenticeship-set-to-boost-britain-s-engineering-skills


    There is also cost-benefit analysis of public policy decisions, that I won’t pursue here, but factors might include productivity and the economic contribution of younger workers, relative to that of students, the balance between and benefits of full-time versus part-time programmes in colleges and universities etc.  The expansion of Higher Education over the last 25+ years , has brought significant economic and social benefits. In some parts of the country replacing the role of declining industries as key engines of the local economy.  Even if an apprenticeship is the most optimal model for most engineers and technicians, including those who aspire towards chartered recognition, there are too few high quality apprenticeships to go round and the only viable option for many is to enroll as a full-time student.


    I would happily concede that for a fraction of the most academically talented, purity of scientific focus unpolluted by the practical demands and pressures of employment is probably for the best. However for most, something nearer to the apprenticeship model with a more vocational emphasis and stronger employer involvement would be better optimised and more cost-effective.  Many university and college lecturers would also be delighted to work more closely with employers and apply engineering theory in a realistic context. Some are already doing so, but students may have little chance to apply theory in a practical context until they have forgotten it, without work practice.  


    I could have posted this in an HR orientated discussion, somewhere else or just sent it to The IET Policy Panel where I would expect it to find a good measure of sympathy.  It is here because the leadership of our profession as a whole needs to step up and make clear that an apprenticeship is an equally valid pathway to Chartered Engineer, if it believes that proposition to be true.


    Perhaps I missed it? Perhaps they don’t agree and that only those with the strongest teenage academic performance are considered suitable, with only  a few from the “lower orders” allowed to “upgrade” by "trickle through"? Engineering Council mentions only Technician and IEng in the context of an Apprenticeship. This article is a fair attempt to summarise official guidance  https://www.newcivilengineercareers.com/article/chartered-engineering-vs-incorporated-engineering/


    Probably the only clear guidance is; “In order to access either of the professions, you will need certain qualifications. In order to achieve chartered engineer status, a MEng degree is the best option available to you” and perhaps “CEng is the higher qualification of the two”. Otherwise there is a dubious salary survey, out of date information about courses and exams, no mention of apprenticeships and a pile of meaningless waffle about “creativity and innovation” amongst other things. Perhaps part of a rejected script for “yes minister”wink?  


    It is to me, as plain as the proverbial Pikestaff, that despite a few platitudes and weasel words, the overriding priority of Engineering Council in its current form is to divide “the best and the rest” as early as possible. Currently, the main tool used is mathematical ability in the early teenage years and proficiency in calculus by the late teens. I accept that there is a need to optimise people for different roles, offer academically stretching opportunities for those with such talents and a more practical or vocational approach for those more suited to that direction. However, most engineering and technology takes place between the extremes of this spectrum and is carried out by people demonstrating “graduate level” attributes, who have undertaken at least 4 years of structured preparation.


    For those who follow a Degree Apprenticeship, we currently intend to offer IEng, but we don’t intend for our “fast-track best” to pass through this gate. So the situation is in summary; an MEng student is one of “the best”, A BEng (more theoretical) might be one of “the best”, or one of “the rest”, A BEng (more applied and most likely in a Degree Apprenticeship), one of “the rest” and anything short of a degree definitely one of “the rest”.  In any workplace where a mixture of these early career engineers work together, this system of “the best and the rest”, will quickly be shown up for the iniquitous muddle that it is.        

                        

    To head off this potential looming “crisis of credibility” in the eyes of an upcoming generation, I have proposed that all of them should seek the same form of recognition having proven themselves in the workplace, I used the working title “Registered Engineer”, since the Uff report mentioned this but I’m open minded about any title.  Much of our discussions in these forums has been about what basis we use to divide experienced professionals with 20+ years of experience into the “best and the rest”.  If and when graduates of Degree Apprenticeships, move through into the workforce over the next few years this argument will move to twenty somethings.   

    https://www.ucem.ac.uk/study-with-ucem/becoming-an-apprentice/chartered-surveyor-degree-apprenticeship/

    https://www.managers.org.uk/apprenticeships-and-epa/apprenticeships/level-6-chartered-manager-degree-apprenticeship

    https://careers.icaew.com/find-your-route/icaew-apprenticeships

    http://www.aston.ac.uk/news/releases/2017/june/uks-first-ever-degree-apprentices-are-graduating/


    Some of you can probably google more quickly than I can so I won’t post any more links. However my search entry for “Chartered Engineer Apprenticeships” brought up the usual “helpful”laugh Engineering Council guidance first and my question in these forums second. If a young person somehow develops an aspiration to become a Chartered Engineer and searches on-line, just like I did, they won’t find an apprenticeship option. If they persist, they might manage to decipher some technobabble infused with snobbery and rank obsessionfrown. Surveying or management seems a far better bet to me, unless you are particularly “geeky”devil?


    Does anyone have direct recent experience of guiding a young person into an Engineering Degree Apprenticeship?  


  • 0
    Perhaps 2019 will be the year that we are able to refresh and refine our approach to recognising Engineers and Technicians, with the aim of adding more value to more people? I criticised “Engineering Council” in my previous posts simply because the buck has to stop somewhere. What we currently have represents the collective will and compromises between powerful stakeholders over many years. This evolved based on assumptions that; apprenticeships “were for trades and technicians” and that “a professional engineer was defined by their superior academic ability in complex mathematics and science”.    


    I came across this recent presentation by the Engineering Council CEO Alasdair Coates. It seems that he recognises and is seeking to address some of the issues that I raised  https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Grants%20and%20prizes/Schemes%20for%20people%20in%20industry/Visiting%20Professors/Conference%202018/Alasdair-Coates-Presentation.pdf . This is encouraging, but it is very difficult to create a will for change unless there is widespread discomfort with the status quo. Most of those with strong influence are in mid-to-late career and “sitting pretty” , so although concerns might be expressed, change could be seen as a potential threat rather than an opportunity.


    I hadn’t realised until very recently that at the end of 2006 there was not a single person aged under 30 in the IEng category; yes Zero. Therefore, if the primary purpose of registration is to offer a career milestone following initial “training”, then having no one aged under 30 must be a reasonable definition of “death” in this context. I enthusiastically joined attempts to revive IEng, including the brief Engineering Council “Proud to be IEng” marketing campaign, not at the time realising quite how dire the situation had been.


    The response that had emerged in 2008 was a “progressive philosophy”. This seems in principle good, after all most professional Engineers and Technicians are progressing, I hope! Unfortunately the approach was “top-down”, so instead of focussing on how to maximise the opportunities for professional growth within careers , the main priority became instead to purge the “different but equally valuable philosophy” previously espoused.  As I see it, if a body is responsible “for public benefit” operating a system which registers three categories of professional, then surely “equal respect” for each is the only position of moral legitimacy. Would a good parent always favour the most dominant sibling?  A “Chartered Engineers Council” could of course act differently.


    Without the principal of equal respect, what you get is what we have, a system of “the best and the rest”, with the primary focus being on filtering out. This filtering out occurs initially in the academic competition known as school, then through further expensive academic rites of passage. Additional barriers, diversions and tripping points are then in use, all intend to ensure the “elite status” of our chartered standard, currently achieved on average at the age of 37. Informally at least it seems that the 10 year penalty applied to former apprentices under the old “mature candidate scheme” is still in use, although many graduates just don’t see the point of registration until early middle age anyway.  This reflects the primary concern of many within the PEI world, which is the apportionment of relative status. This is often for sociological rather than technical reasons, although they cloak it as “maintaining standards”.  I was surprised to learn for example in the last week, that a sister PEI barred people from CEng on unjustified age grounds by its rules until very recently. Who knows what other forms of discrimination have been in use informally, if Engineering Council didn’t pick this illegal one up!


    So to summarise and over-simplify the last quarter century  as I see it from an “apprenticeship friendly” perspective.


    The failed attempt by SARTOR to make IEng “mainstream”, so that CEng could become “more elite”, unintentionally killed IEng in the marketplace. University graduates just simply wouldn’t accept it and “more practical” engineers couldn’t meet the “academic requirement”.  The adoption of a “progressive philosophy” circa ten years ago resurrected IEng, but only partly in its original form. It became a hybrid of; its original “More Practical Engineer”; The (Chartered that never was) “Technologist”, defined by the academic Sydney Accord as a type of (inferior but university educated) “Engineer” and anyone else deemed good but not quite ready for CEng, i.e. a “stepping stone” or “consolation prize”. In this new form, by 2016 the under 30 figures were 653 IEng (2231 CEng). Positive progress certainly, but not thriving and lacking clear distinctive purpose or momentum. 


    We currently have approximately 8000 Engineers aged under 50 who are Incorporated, from a total of approximately 220 000 registrants, so clearly a low proportion of its target market find it useful.  There is a “legacy” group of about 12000 aged between 50-65, largely keeping their heads down in the face of withering (friendly) fire, that has already wiped half of them out.  I am in this group, but stopped displaying the IEng post-nominal some years ago.


    We now expect upcoming Degree Apprentices to seek IEng, which is a reasonable and appropriate standard for a first “first career milestone”, so there is nothing wrong in that. However, it seems that we will also expect for the foreseeable future the majority of graduates from most full-time bachelors or extended bachelors programmes (e.g. MEng) to be seeking CEng as their “first career milestone” instead. We don’t have any reliable basis on which to differentiate between the performance of these two streams, at similar ages in early career, except for a consensus of academic opinion, which values certain attributes of some degree programmes more highly than others (mainly science and maths). These “more academic” attributes may add value in R&D type situations for example, but a “more applied” approach is at least equally if not more valuable in the majority of situations where engineers are employed. 


    For those unfamiliar with the basis for this academic division it is here. https://www.engc.org.uk/engcdocuments/internet/website/Accreditation%20of%20Higher%20Education%20Programmes%20third%20edition%20collated%20learning%20outcomes%20(1).pdf. I should note that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education treats the two types of Bachelors Degrees as being of equal value and the same fees are charged. Relevance to employment is not a factor since the assumption is, of the degree being delivered to a young person in preparation for employment, rather than as an employee seeking deeper understanding.  For example, an IEng student is expected to “be aware of business, customer and user needs” whereas a supposedly “more academic” student “understands and evaluates business, customer and user needs”. How ridiculous is this distinction, especially in the context of an employed apprentice. This theme continues with numerous other comparisons such as Ability to use and apply information from technical literature (IEng) v understanding of the use of technical literature and other information sources (CEng). knowledge of relevant legal and contractual issues (CEng only). What is entirely obvious to me, is that the creators of this document have simply “watered down” to create the IEng criteria.


    In the early noughties, I worked with academic partners to develop a degree programme for my apprentices. Accreditation by a PEI seemed like a good idea so I encouraged it and it was accredited for IEng. Being FIIE, I was pleased with this, especially since my business needed “doers not theorists”.  I would acknowledge that the maths and science theory wasn’t perhaps as deep as that contained in some CEng degrees, for good reasons, but the industrial relevance was far higher and using these AHEP criteria, easily beyond MEng in many dimensions.


    The following guidance is also offered by Engineering Council. 

    Can combined degrees (e.g. Engineering with French) be accredited and is a stipulated amount of engineering content required in these? Yes, they can be accredited. In discussion at the EAB, most institutions felt that generally around two thirds of the total programme would be required to deliver the required engineering outcomes. However, this is not a fixed requirement; whether a course holistically delivers the required learning outcomes is still the ultimate criterion in awarding accreditation.

    Can a degree be accredited for both IEng and CEng registration? Yes. The Engineering Council’s RSC agreed in 2009 that all Honours degrees accredited as partially meeting the academic requirements for Chartered Engineer registration meet the requirements for Incorporated Engineer registration and Sydney Accord recognition, and so should be accredited for both CEng and IEng.


    To summarise therefore, with tongue only very slightly in cheekwink. According to the academics; two thirds of a CEng accredited “full-time” course, is superior to a four year combined intensive programme of academic study, work-based learning and work responsibility, commonly known as a Degree Apprenticeship.  Welcome to the world of cuckoos and clouds!blush


    This report based on 2012 data https://www.raeng.org.uk/RAE/media/General/Pathways-to-success-in-engineering-degrees-in-careers-report.pdf , suggests that 32% of engineering graduates are MEng and that “MEng graduates are 5—10% more likely to be working, and 15—25% more likely to be working in a professional engineering job, compared to BEng graduates with the same degree classification. This concurs with other studies showing that employers, particularly larger ones, express a clear preference for graduates with either an MEng or a BEng plus MSc, regarding these qualifications as a fast route to chartered status (9).”  I couldn’t find “(9)”, but the report pre-dates government approved “Degree Apprenticeships” and the tripling of tuition fees.  I would accept that some larger employers target the highest academic achievers as part of graduate recruitment, often simply because they can and that some would also consider “a fast route to chartered status” to be a business benefit.  To challenge this, I would simply assert that virtually 100% of degree apprentices will be in a “professional engineering” job, unless a narrow definition of “professional”, excluding “IEng type work” is used. 


    To be polite, AHEP does not seem fit for purpose in the context of Degree Apprenticeships. Had I as an employer been aware that my thoroughly excellent, work-experienced and productive younger engineers, were being judged by this standard , then I wouldn’t have supported accreditation, because it unfairly insults and demeans them. With hindsight, I apologise to them for encouraging them towards IEng, which I thought at the time was valuable. Only later did I come to realise, as they had quickly done, that it was held to be an inferior pejorative in graduate company. I was also rather dismissive of those who feared the “stigma of getting a third” due to workplace pressures, surely “getting a degree at all is good” was my response. Once we got the programme bedded in, a high proportion got (uninflated) firsts.  Other employers may be coming later to this journey, so I hope that they can draw on my experience, since they may assume like I did that they are getting something of value in IEng degree accreditation. Don’t rely on AHEP, work closely with your chosen university to maximise value added. If more stretching maths & science content, or employee “prestige” is valuable to you, then avoid the “IEng type” of Bachelors Degree. They may be excellent, but no thanks to AHEP and it may come back to bite you later.


    A plausible outcome of our current direction of travel seems to me, that many former Degree Apprentices and employers who have CEng aspirations, will find as they so often do now, that they “don’t have the right degree”. They will have been unaware that their Engineering  Bachelors Degree was actually of the “inferior” IEng variety, “because it didn’t contain enough calculus based science”. This may come as an unpleasant surprise, especially  when it is obvious that they are illustrating a stronger level of performance as an engineer than someone who does have “the right degree”.  In the perfectly good engineering pathway developed for “my” degree apprenticeship, as employer influence waned and PEI influence grew, it became renamed “project management” and an “engineering” version was aligned with AHEP.  C’est la vie, we don’t want those type of engineers in our club anyway, do we?sad 


    As I see it, we can for academic or vocational purposes divide engineering into a myriad of different categories, which might have some usefulness.  However if we expect individuals and employers to affiliate with or respect these divisions, then they need to add value, including public benefit.


    If we are going to simplify, then; are not “Engineer” and “Technician” enough, without a third poorly supported and confusing category?


    Before you rush to disagree, I recommend reading this report which I recently came across. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/.../Credentialing-Dixon-FINAL-Web.pdf . I don’t recall having met the author or paying particular attention to his work, although having read his profile, his credentials to comment on our issues seem unimpeachable. He may even be a Chartered Engineer, since it is rare for anyone who isn’t to have any influence at Engineering Council?


    If you are short of time, jump to page 25. My observations are that; the “three ranks” were created by and for academics in engineering; the UK compromise with practising senior engineers, resulted in CEng becoming a combined group of “Professional Engineer (Theoretical)”  and “Professional Engineer (Applied)” as described. Therefore, the only viable space left for IEng is “back from whence it came” as a “Technician Engineer” or “top technician”. A type of person who should of course be fully respected as “different but equally valuable”, “the practical professional” etc. 


    We have learned over the last quarter century that given the opportunity at least half of our population can reach bachelors graduate standard, by their early twenties. We have also learned from within our own profession that many of us can reach at least this standard and higher, through ongoing experiential learning and a little help.  I suggest that those who are illustrating graduate attributes in the context of engineering and technology are “Engineers”. For some this will involve the use of calculus-based forms of scientific analysis, but for many it won’t. With additional growth of capability and responsibility a significant proportion will demonstrate applying “masters level” attributes in practice and may often hold an academic qualification to underpin this. They will therefore be demonstrating our terminal standard of Chartered Engineer.


    A Technician will demonstrate specialist vocational capability and personal responsibility with a minimum level 3 understanding. An advanced or senior technician will illustrate attributes close to or at graduate level, but may prefer to be a “top technician” with the respect that should rightfully enjoy, rather than an “engineer”? Some may of course wish to transition into engineer recognition, especially since our standards conflate management and technical ability?


    So following this logic, a system of recognition might look something like. Eng Tech & Tech Eng (or other title) , Engineer (registered or other title) and Chartered Engineer? Everyone should be progressing in some form and as a registrant under the sympathetic supervision of their professional body.  


    From a purely political perspective, we know where the age profile of currently registered CEng will take us (40%+ over 60). Numbers of new CEng are quite buoyant with IMechE leading the way, but IET also doing well.  We may also have some early indications of how many higher/degree apprentices will come through and if we take the trouble to ask, what their employer’s intentions are. Obviously, if our proposition subtracts rather than adds value to them, fingers will be burnt and our reputation toast, among these upcoming engineers and their employers.  The situation might take a few years to pan out, but it could be terminal for the current infrastructure, which I think has a lot of good in it, but seems only capable of serving an elite fraction well, leaving “the rest” either disinterested or diminished.


    Focus on the “premium market only” is probably a sustainable business model for some PEIs, but the question arises of “public benefit”. For those who crave more status, that is where it can be found in my opinion. Medical Doctors for example are held in high-esteem for the benefits that they bring, not for internecine squabbles over relative importance between them, or snobbery towards Nurses. Who in turn learned that suggestions of being “too posh to wash” diminished the enormous public affection in which they are held.  Perhaps our distain for “oily rags” has inadvertently fed an agenda of academic and social snobbery, that seems rather archaic and alien to the world of engineering as actually practised? We should emphasise and be proud of being a profession that is relatively open, inclusive and enabling of professional growth in many varied ways for people of different talents, to deliver public benefits.


    To re-emphasise the theme of this thread, if revitalised apprenticeships are to be a major part of the future landscape, then disparaging and negative attitudes towards this pathway within our professional community have to be eliminated.


    The IET has made some progress towards enabling fairer access to Chartered Engineer registration for those who demonstrate competence, which has certainly re-engaged with and benefitted some mid-career engineers. What we need to do now is focus on a younger age group.  I wish no harm whatsoever to pathways that serve high academic achievers best, potentially optimising them towards the “scientist end” of a continuum of Engineering practice. However, I do have a strong objection to those better suited to a more practical/vocational/applications focussed approach, being treated in a systematically inferior way. If we claim to serve Engineers & Technicians including their employers and those who educate and train them, we need to take the opportunity that degree apprenticeships present us with to re-focus.  I fear that tinkering with UK-SPEC , might be the limit of our ambitions? If so that would be both a mistake and a dereliction of duty in my humble opinion.         



  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    I think that if the apprenticeship leads to an accredited degree or recognized diploma and then the degree/diploma plus the experience and training used for the EngTech/IEng/CEng application. This type of approach will serve the graduate apprentice and now practicing engineer better by having what employers require nationally and worldwide.

    The engineer will be equal to the academic standard rout.


    Moshe Waserman BEET, MCGI, CEng MBCS, MIET

     

  • 0
    Sorry if this has been said before, but this is a topic about which I feel strongly. Generally, we should support anything that brings more and better-trained engineers into the economy. Specifically, all that matters for any individual candidate is that they can demonstrate that they are applying the right level of technical skills to their job. It doesn't matter what piece of paper apprentices get, it matters that they are equipped with the tools to do the job. It doesn't matter if apprenticeships, whether craft or student, lead to standard route qualifications: what matters is that we support them through their careers to develop the skill level we seek for IEng or CEng
  • 0
    In response to David Miller, whilst I agree, the majority of current apprentices will never go for IEng or CEng. The numbers are falling year on year.
  • 0

    Christopher Winder:

    the majority of current apprentices will never go for IEng or CEng.




    And whose fault is this? We need to be out there telling others the benefits of CEng/IEng. If nobody feels there is a benefit then of course the numbers will fall. If we value what we have we need to spread the gospel.

    Alasdair

  • 0
    It's more that the engineering council need to overhaul it whilst consulting with companies to ensure its valued. The current state, whether we see value or not, isn't valued enough by companies and/or it's not being looked at by recruiters. Of course you are also right in that also perception. Young Professionals don't see the value for the most part.

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines