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 33 replies
  • Subscribers 10 subscribers
  • Views 1098 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

A Levels and results - does anyone have an opinion relevant to The IET ?

Roy Bowdler
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.
  • 0
    The subject is topical , controversial and affects the majority of people, either directly as a teenager or parent or indirectly in various ways. I created the discussion thread in a personal capacity and I wasn’t aware of the press release, which makes an excellent point that I support.  I’m delighted to see the IET take this position, because many of the messages that have emanated from the “commanding heights” of the engineering profession over the years, have been academic in nature and conveyed the impression (as Simon suggested) that only the cream of mathematics and science A level students are suitable material to become “Engineers”(of the high status variety).  


    I see no useful purpose it “attacking” A levels, although I am troubled by the “exam factory” that education has become.  On the whole A levels seem to offer appropriate preparation in several ways for University study and if they are not doing so optimally, then there are feedback loops in education so that adjustments can be made.  There are other alternatives such as BTEC Nationals and much effort has been expended towards the proposed new “T levels”.       


    For the record, I left school at 16 and as an employed apprentice gained various qualifications, by block-release and day-release to college, in Electrical and Mechanical Engineering including ONC (now considered A level “equivalent”).  As was normal at that time, most of the first two years was spend either in college or at the company training centre.  I later became a trainer in that centre and then head of department in another one. In my last industry role, I developed and managed a training programme for engineers and surveyors. Most of them joined with A levels or beyond , but everyone did a National Certificate in Engineering in the first year, leading to a Bachelors Degree in either engineering or commercial over four years by block release.  I’m rather proud of that and it won awards, but I won’t bang on about it, suffice to say I’m on the “vocational side” rather than academic in this argument. I also regret pressing for IEng accreditation, which I hadn’t realised at the time was a stigma not a benefit to a graduate, but luckily no employees were harmed, because they understood attitudes on the ground better and politely declined the “opportunity” to register.     


    Two threads have emerged in the argument which beg the question; what is the purpose of A level examinations and grades?  The question can apply to any form of assessment and the answer, in text book terms at least, leads to two possibilities.

     
    • To confirm that a taught syllabus has been adequately absorbed and/or that intended attributes or abilities have developed. These should be described in a series of criteria. In a vocational context this is typically “pass or failure” to meet the minimum specified standard, which if there is a theory test or simulation might include a “pass mark”. The driving test is an obvious example, although there may be some leeway, flexibility or margin of error at the boundary. Grading can be introduced, by using different criteria to represent different grades, but you are either “fit to pilot” (i.e. competent) or not. Everyone who meets the standard is successful.      

    • To select or rank candidates, perhaps for their benefit, to optimise their future development pathway, but more typically to ration.  So if we consider the 11+ examination currently taken by 10 year olds for Grammar School admission. When this was introduced, it could be argued that this merely identified those best suited to a less academic pathway, although the pass mark had to be set to reflect the available places in Grammar Schools. The purpose now of this and other subsequent examinations including A levels has become competitive.  In these circumstances we get into a statistical bell curve or “normal” distribution, so the test is “norm referenced”.


    I should mention in passing psychometric tests of ability or aptitude. These are intended to give an “objective” norm referenced comparison of various attributes and are considered by many to more accurately differentiate than qualification grades, which might at least be a measure of conscientiousness, but can’t be compared reliably across different boards or universities. Allegations of gaming the system by choosing a “softer” board by schools and grade inflation at universities have been made.  My understanding is that American SAT Tests are designed to offer a more objective comparison between different candidates for university courses, especially important as generous bursary funding may come with admission.  


    Much of the hue and cry, is about the difficulty of selectors in distinguishing between the best candidates for the “most prestigious” university courses and/or admission to the most desirable professions.  Which is what tends to annoy me, because it has become a social obsession, forcing young people into a ruthless academic competition. Such an important one that families feel it necessary to invest huge sums of money (for the average person) to gain advantage in this competition and also hopefully buy social capital with “the right connections”.  I don’t object in principle to competition, because it can be a spur to higher performance, but “winners” also create “losers”. IHMO it is the duty of government to ensure that the system of education, identifies and nurtures each young person’s talents as these emerge.  The “exam factory” doesn’t seem to be doing this as well as it should, despite huge investment and political attention (often flavour of the month). We should also perhaps consider “late developers” of which there are many, who could benefit most from academic engagement with some experience already under their belt.  I was talking to my niece and her boyfriend yesterday, both aged 18 and with few ideas about their eventual career direction.  


    Having nailed my colours to the vocational mast, I fully accept that it is not the purpose of education to produce “factory fodder” or narrow work related skills not readily transferable or adaptable in a changing world.  Unfortunately, however, having handed the tiller to the educational establishment (which includes an engineering element) they steered the ship towards their comfort zone where (often narrow and dated) academic attributes are highly prized, mathematicians and scientists are “rigorous” and “applications” is stigmatised as “carrying an oily rag” (or IEng).  Ok I’m exaggerating for effect and most academics aren’t snobs , despite a culture that encourages such attitudes, most who teach just want to help their students succeed and would love the opportunity to work more closely with employers. I have posted this link before https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/21/university-engineering-departments-overalls-research


    To the extent that we control the next selection competition after university entry. Have our (“Engineering Council family”) actions contributed to some graduates of accredited engineering courses, being uncompetitive in the labour market and if so how?  It is multi-faceted,  so a strongly academic MEng graduate, might find themselves outcompeted for a place on a large company graduate training scheme, but then lacking the more practical skills that a smaller employer needs in a productive engineer.  A graduate with strong practical skills, perhaps with an IEng accredited degree may fall at the first screening, when an employer is looking for “intellectual horsepower” or chartership potential, a competition where they have at best an official handicap, but may be excluded. The message to academia has been that a “watered down” version of more academic programmes is acceptable for IEng, not an equally valid and challenging, but more practically orientated alternative. Imagine the brouhaha in certain circles if employers said that they found many IEng graduates “superior” (or at least more productive).  I won’t repeat here my submission to Engineering Council in response to the latest consultation, but the words “dysfunctional swamp”  were included to characterise our treatment of bachelors degrees.  


    The challenge as I see it is to ensure that some of those with exceptional mathematical and scientific aptitude are drawn into engineering and technology, with scope to grow. At the same time the profession needs many good Engineers with graduate attributes, who don’t need any more than a sound grasp of principles, but who can apply these in a productive way.  I believe that it is outdated for the profession to rely on A level results to divide Engineers into silos of the “best and the rest” and also to some extent into narrow disciplines.  The argument is more finely balanced for MEng programmes which should be the most academically challenging, but in the end they only optimise an engineer better for certain types of roles, which might arguably include some potential for accelerated progression to more a strategic level.


    The solution that I have proposed is for all engineers with graduate attributes to pass through the same threshold, relatively early in career if possible, but some will need longer. Progression to the terminal standard (CEng) should be built on that, via subsequent career achievement, not the silo that your A level results placed you into. Too radical it seems? Perhaps a threat to the academic hegemony?               

           

  • 0
    One further thing on the subject of IET and education.....

    Scholarships and Bursaries are available for anyone starting an engineering or technology degree/apprenticeship. If you, your children, relatives or friends are about to start an engineering or technology degree OR are already in any year of your/their course or apprenticeship and need financial support - the IET has scholarships and bursaries you/they can apply for!



    All information about the Diamond Jubilee Scholarships and the Engineering Horizons Bursary is available on the website: www.theiet.org/scholarships



    The deadline for applications is Thursday 12 September.  


  • 0

    Amber Thomas:




    Denis McMahon:

    I am tired of the arguments we often hear at this time of year, that standards are falling, hence more people are passing or the results are not worth as much as they used to. If would be good if we could have a look at some GCE papers of the 1960s for a side-by-side comparison with papers of these days.




    In a peer-reviewed article in the British Educational Research Journal, "mathematics experts judged A‐level scripts from the 1960s, 1990s and the 2010s.... the experts believed current A‐level mathematics standards to have declined since the 1960s, although there was no evidence that they believed standards have declined since the 1990s. " The original paper is here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/berj.3224 (and an overview is in this Daily Mail article https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458830/Pupils-B-grade-level-maths-today-scored-E-50-years-ago-study-shows-exams-got-easier.html)


     




     

    Thanks, Amber. It is good to learn that a comparison had been made - and from what I read on these links, to very exacting standards.


    Of course, society and education have changed. Calculators have replaced log tables; smart boards have replaced chalk boards; Wikipedia had replaced scouring through books in the library; library notes have replaced dictated notes. Teaching methods have improved and my perception is particularly so from the 1990s onwards (when I left the education profession, though I was promoting such changes before I left).   Students leaving school and university also enter more-complicated lives than previously, because of advances in technology. There is simply more to learn, and in less class-contact time. I think this is how we are progressing.
  • 0
    My attention was drawn today to these reports which may be of interest.

    https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/gls/Opportunity_for_HE_Sept2019.pdf

    https://www.pearson.com/content/dam/one-dot-com/one-dot-com/global/Files/news/gls/Pearson_Global_Learner_Survey_2019.pdf

  • 0

    Roy Bowdler:

    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. 




    As A levels are academic and engineering apprenticeships are largely practical I can't see how they could be considered equivalent.  I would consider it normal for a graduate engineer to design a control panel and a skilled electrician to build it, horses for courses, both contribute but in different ways.  Now, a skilled electrician who continues his studying to degree level becomes something very special.....

  • 0
    Foffer, thanks for chipping in


    I mostly agree that we are potentially “comparing chalk and cheese” , but a BTEC National (“ONC”) is a level 3 qualification and in the academic framework the same value as A levels  https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/list-of-qualification-levels.  Whether that actually tells us anything very useful is open to debate, but both are accepted for entry to engineering degree courses.  


    It was once possible to be purely “time-served”, but a formal apprenticeship now must contain a qualification. There have been unfortunate examples of both young people and government support funding being exploited, by  dubious organisations offering “apprenticeships”. Apprenticeship qualifications can even include a masters degree https://www.ucas.com/alternatives/apprenticeships/apprenticeships-england/what-apprenticeships-are-available/advanced-apprenticeships   https://www.ucas.com/alternatives/apprenticeships/apprenticeships-england/what-apprenticeships-are-available-england


    A complaint of many employers in IET surveys, is that graduates of many engineering degrees can’t actually do much useful and productive like “designing a control panel”, or any other task that might reasonably be expected following 3-4 years “training” in university. Those who have controlled and influenced the content, have emphasised the attributes of a theoretical scientist or academic researcher. In that mindset, an engineering degree is still “education”, to which vocational skills can be added in the workplace later. Degrees which emphasised “engineering applications” have been deemed to be “inferior”. What university would want to offer an “inferior” degree at current prices and in a world of league tables? This article refers https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2014/nov/21/university-engineering-departments-overalls-research although for the avoidance of doubt, I’m not a “guardian reader”, although I used to be sometimes, when I was an “Electrician” and before I acquired any degrees (I don’t deny reading the T&A and reactionary tabloids as well)


    I agree with the sentiment of the conclusion, but it certainly doesn’t apply to me since being a “master of science” also includes “social science” (like management).     ? 


    For what it’s worth, I have encountered quite a few  graduates who have “retrained” as electricians and plumbers. There are also plenty of practical background people who are equally well-educated to graduates, via the “school of life”. By definition every young person of at least average intellectual ability is becoming a university graduate  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49841620 . Actually, since a lot of “clever” people will still choose a more practical career and this doesn’t include “late developers”, of which there are many, there are plenty of people with less than average intelligence getting degrees.  I don’t find that objectionable, if it does them and/or society in general some good, but when I left school probably less than 5% of my peers went on to university, so times have changed.                    

  • 0
    Hi,


    I'd also just like to re-emphasise that all other professions expect (and one way or another provide!) a number of years of post-graduate training. We're a real oddity in expecting graduates to be employment-ready.


    The strangest aspect of this to me is architecture, or as it could be looked at "civil engineering design". How has the architecture profession got itself organised to provide structured post-grad training and development, when the design professions for all other engineering fields haven't???


    Thanks,


    Andy
  • 0
    Hi Andy,


    There is a solid tradition of graduate training schemes offered by larger employers, with Chartered Engineer recognition expected from around 4 years into career. Getting top A levels in Maths & Science is an essential gateway to this pathway.  Many who prove eventually to be excellent engineers, either don’t get on to this “fast-track” pathway by means of their teenage academic aptitude, of “fall-off” by not gaining a graduate training place, which get many more applicants than there are places. At this point, in the eyes of an employer who doesn’t offer graduate traineeships they are just a “junior” engineer, who needs to quickly become productive in order to “earn their keep”. A significant number of engineering graduates don’t go on to become engineers.


    My comment about “inferior degrees” reflects in part my own experience of evolving a degree apprenticeship (with academic partners) some 15 years ago (from an HND one). This produced excellent results with 100% employment and many participants are now in senior roles. I tried to “do the right thing” by encouraging accreditation by a PEI, but if you dare to include too much “engineering applications” instead of theory, or decide to recruit people who didn’t get stellar A level grades, then it’s the “inferior basket” for you. This has obviously incentivises universities to choose theory over practical applications and elitism over competence.  


    I won’t pursue this at length here, because it is wandering away from the topic of A levels. But Engineering Council’s actions have over many years sought to divide potential practitioners of engineering into “the best and the rest” using A level results as the primary filter.  This isn’t unique to engineering and entry to other professions and to “elite” universities is highly contested using the same mechanism.  On that basis A levels are an incredibly important subject for debate.  If they were just an examination, without this crucial role in determining so many people’s career direction and life chances , then I wouldn’t have much interest.  


    I certainly agree that engineering hasn’t been able to articulate a clear career path of “full respect” for most practitioners who come into it, either as graduates and especially through more practical pathways. Many of the latter have become hugely successful, in spite of not being coached to a peak of academic performance at the age of 18. Perhaps we are just too divided and as long as the various factions “in their castles” can feed themselves, there isn’t much incentive for change?    


  • 0

    Roy Bowdler:
    There is a solid tradition of graduate training schemes offered by larger employers, with Chartered Engineer recognition expected from around 4 years into career. Getting top A levels in Maths & Science is an essential gateway to this pathway.  Many who prove eventually to be excellent engineers, either don’t get on to this “fast-track” pathway by means of their teenage academic aptitude, of “fall-off” by not gaining a graduate training place, which get many more applicants than there are places. 

     




    And again this is an interesting comparison with other professions where there is no other route to the "brilliant A levels / brilliant degree"  pathway - to contradict myself I do actually like the fact that we have the multiple routes into engineering. As ever with many of these discussions, this would be a fascinating research topic for someone to see which approach actually works "best" - having first worked out what "best" means anyway. 


    We're both old enough to remember the "is a Polytechnic degree really equivalent to a University degree" debate, which was never really resolved - except by employers who were quite happy to recruit on a "horses for courses" basis!


    The people I feel sorry for in all this are the poor students - from the ages of 14-24 - who are given a whole range of contradictory advice as to the "right" qualifications for engineering. Not helped by academic institutions trying to sell courses, HR departments trying to recruit through "tick lists", and (to a lesser extent) employers who want to only recruit people who came up the same path that they did. It would be a really good issue for the PEIs to take a lead on because it needs independent oversight. BUT (my usual concern) they have to be sure they are accurately advising on pathways for the whole engineering industry, not just the small section that is "PEI friendly". And be prepared to swallow their pride and accept that professional registration is not an end in itself, it's more important to advise on pathways to a good career. (Whatever "good" means to the individual.)


    Thanks,


    Andy

  • 0
    About ten years ago I was lucky enough to be the mentor for a group of Grammar School girls coming up to taking their A levels, thinking of a career in Engineering.  This was an Engineering Education Scheme run by the Engineering Development Trust.  The aim was to give the students a taste of a real life industrial engineering issue, come up with a solution, present it, cost it, build a model and so on.  Finally the finished proposals were exhibited in an event at the Engineering dept of Kent University along with about ten other teams from schools all over Kent.  My role was to supply the real life issue, which existed within the production line of the factory where I was an Engineer.  During our weekly meetings my job was to answer questions and help them from going off in the wrong direction too far but not to directly give answers.


    I found that once we had established a way forward to a solution and there were physical issues to address they were pretty good at coming up with ideas and progressing.  It was the first step which involved abstract thoughts about the concept which gave great problems.  Some of the proposed solutions they came up with displayed a dramatic misunderstanding of what I thought were straightforward concepts!  I found it very important to spend a long time at this stage trying to get them to understand why each one wouldn't work.  I don't mean to put these girls down, its just a point I felt relevant to the discussions here.  I could see that they were all very capable achedemically but at their age I had already been an apprentice for a couple of years and I already changed the clutch on my first car single handed.  My achedemic qualifications came a little later.


    I remember carrying out an emergency repair to a ship-to-shore container crane spreader, with the Operations Manager looking at his watch hoping the ship wouldn't be held up.  I sent a graduate Engineer who was helping back to the workshop (which was half a mile away) for a split pin.  He came back with a pop rivet!  This was his first taste of hands-on maintenance so I mustn't be too hard on him and at this point in my career he probably knew a hell of a lot more than me about higher Engineering.


    If ever I talk to young people about qualifications I always say no matter what make sure you completely understand the concept of whatever you are learning, then hopefully logical thought will help lead you through to the answer of a question and this approach will obviously help all your life in the real world.


    I must stress that I consider myself a practical sort and achedemic qualifications did not come easy for me.

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