Survey highlights benefits of employing registered engineers

Registered engineers and technicians are outperforming their non-registered counterparts across a wide range of skills. This is one of the findings of a major ECUK survey into the continued relevance of UK-SPEC (UK Standard for Professional Engineering Competence), which has been used since 2003 to assess candidates for registration as Chartered Engineers, Incorporated Engineers and Engineering Technicians. Crucially, the survey clearly shows that the competences called for by the standard are still those wanted by employers; they also cover all their current skills requirements.

Called the UK-SPEC Baseline Project, the survey involved 20-minute telephone interviews with 830 organisations that employ engineers or technicians. A full range of industry sectors and organisational sizes were represented. The majority of those questioned were line managers – eg, managing directors, heads of engineering and technical directors/managers. Almost all of the rest were HR managers.

As well as being asked to evaluate the importance of various skill sets covered by UK-SPEC, those questioned had to rate their staff’s performance in each of them. Their answers indicate that registered engineers and technicians do better than non-registered personnel in most areas. For example, organisations employing some or all Chartered Engineers gave higher marks to their staff in almost every one of the 41 skills categories, including all of those regarded as most important. The difference in performance was particularly pronounced in several key areas, including general engineering knowledge and the ability to apply it, and evaluating/improving health and safety systems.

Significantly, those with registered engineers and technicians tended to be more demanding, in that they attached a higher importance rating to most skills. This suggests that the presence of registrants actually lifts employers’ standards and thus almost certainly makes them more efficient and competitive.

The distribution of registrants was much as expected, with consultancies being the group most likely to employ Chartered Engineers, while in the case of Engineering Technicians it is the public sector. Manufacturing had the fewest registrants – and also returned the lowest staff performance ratings. As anticipated, the proportion of registered staff increased with organisation size. What was surprising were the lower than expected numbers of potential IEng candidates indicated by the survey – ie, non-registrants doing IEng type work.

By identifying the most important skills in each industrial sector the survey has provided a possible basis for developing continuing professional development (CPD) programmes.

Further analysis of the survey data will be carried out before a full report is published. A seminar is planned for early autumn to discuss its findings and to determine the direction of further research.

Latest statistics give cause for hope

Two recent sets of statistics have provided encouraging news for the UK’s engineering profession. One shows that new registrations of engineers and technicians have continued to hold up. The other reveals a surge in applications to study maths, sciences and engineering at UK universities.

At the start of this year the number of Chartered Engineers (CEng) on the ECUK register had grown to 188,701, their ranks boosted by 5563 new registrants in 2006. This is the second highest annual intake in the last ten years, exceeded only by the 2005 figure of 5906. It was appreciably up on new CEng registrations in 2003
and 04.

Those registered as Incorporated Engineers and Engineering Technicians stood at 40,466 and 13,363 respectively. Though still relatively small, the EngTech section of the register is attracting significant numbers of new recruits and is expected to grow at an even faster rate in the next few years; 2524 individuals gained the award in 2005 and 2006.

Data from UCAS (Universities & Colleges Admissions Service) appears to indicate that the number of engineering graduates might soon be on the increase, enlarging the pool of potential registrants. In mid-January this year – the advisory closing date for most courses - applications for full-time undergraduate programmes at UK universities and colleges were up overall by 6.4% compared with 2006. To the surprise of many, most engineering degrees showed higher than average growth.

The two most popular engineering subjects – mechanical and civil – have seen applications up by 9.8% and 13% respectively. The figure for chemical and process engineering grew by an impressive 16.8%. Electrical and electronic engineering managed an increase of just 0.2%, though this comes after four years of successive decline. Applications for maths leapt 10%, physics 12.2% and chemistry 11.3%.

A full subject-by-subject breakdown of applications can be found at: www.ucas.com/new/press/table8_140207.doc

Title without entitlement

Among the many hundreds of e-petitions currently to be found on the 10 Downing Street web-site, there are two concerning the status of UK engineers. Both of these call for the epithet ‘engineer’ to become a title protected in law.

While it is true that such protection is afforded to titles like ‘ingenier’ that are used elsewhere in Europe, this is largely because they have a different, less general meaning than engineer. Hardly surprising then that in other English-speaking nations, like the USA and Australia, the situation is the same as in the UK. The word engineer has been in common use in this country for centuries and is widely understood to mean anyone whose work relates to engineering, particularly manufacture or maintenance. Consequently there is no prospect of the engineering profession gaining exclusive rights to the term and thus preventing others from using it.

Even if granting such rights were on the cards, it might be seen by many as undermining individual freedoms, the preservation of which is fundamental to common law in this country. Restricting access to professional practice could also be interpreted as anti-competitive.

Three titles that are of course protected – under ECUK’s Royal Charter – are those of Chartered Engineer, Incorporated Engineer and Engineering Technician. These can only be used by individuals who have satisfied all the requirements for professional registration. Any person falsely claiming to hold one of these awards is pursued through the civil courts.

Possibly one way of addressing the petitioners’ concerns would be to encourage more engineers to become professionally registered. In one of the petitions, the desire for legal status seems motivated by a belief that society lacks respect for engineers. If more qualified engineers and technicians were to gain the titles CEng, IEng and EngTech then the profession’s image would only be enhanced.

More on professional registration can be found at: www.engc.org.uk/registration

Call for action to protect MEng degrees

ECUK is pressing for greater government action to protect the status of UK integrated master’s degrees from threats posed by the ‘Bologna process’, under which forty-five European countries have agreed to align their higher education systems. It is especially concerned that MEng degrees will be placed at an unfair disadvantage by the mechanism proposed for comparing qualifications. Its concerns are spelt out in a recent submission to a House of Commons Select Committee enquiry into Bologna. This was prepared in consultation with the UK’s professional engineering institutions.

Launched in 1999, the Bologna process aims to create a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) with a common structure for HE systems. This is scheduled to happen by 2010. The intended results are that obstacles to student mobility across Europe will be removed and the worldwide appeal of European higher education will be enhanced.

While fully supporting these aspirations, ECUK believes they will come to nothing if the necessary framework for comparing the signatory nations’ degree awards is overly rigid. Worryingly the signs are that it will be. ECUK’s submission to the select committee identifies two problems with the European Higher Education Qualifications Framework (EHEQF), the name given to the proposed mechanism. First, it is based on a three-cycle model (bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate). Second – and potentially more serious – is the European Credit Transfer Scheme (ECTS) that it uses for assessing awards.

The integrated MEng degree – which is now the preferred option of a third of home students who study engineering and is the only award that by itself satisfies all the academic requirements for Chartered Engineer (CEng) registration – does not fit the three cycle model, under which it would need to be separated into bachelor’s and master’s components. This would effectively destroy its unique characteristics, as well as increasing university and student costs. A possible solution – though one that is not entirely satisfactory – would simply be to award both honours and master’s degrees at the end of the programme, though the latter would remain unchanged.

The ECTS is regarded as a more onerous problem. Under this ‘time-served’ system of assessment the 4yr MEng does not earn sufficient credits to be recognised as a full second-cycle qualification. In contrast, the 5yr MEng available in Scotland does accrue the necessary score, though its learning outcomes are identical to those of the 4yr programme that is offered in the rest of the UK. This is clearly illogical and highlights the flawed nature of the ECTS, the use of which tends to favour the 5yr programmes that are the norm elsewhere in Europe.

Advice has been issued* on how universities might accumulate more credits in the final year of an MEng – such as extending it to a full calendar year or running projects and work placements over the summer vacation, remedies that would of course require additional public funding. Moreover it would only be possible to earn enough extra credits to take the MEng into the lower end of the second cycle degree range, leaving it vulnerable to the accusation that it is an inferior product. (It is believed that MSc degrees, which usually last 12 months, would find themselves in a similar position.)

As ECUK’s report to the select committee makes clear, a true measure of the integrated MEng’s worth can only be achieved through reform of the ECTS. This needs to move away from its current emphasis on workloads and take far greater account of learning outcomes. As well as being the basis for accrediting UK engineering degrees, the latter provide the main reference point for comparing degrees under various other international agreements of which ECUK is a part, most notably the Washington Accord. Also, although the outcomes-based approach is far less common elsewhere in Europe, it is central to the recently initiated, EC-funded EUR-ACE project on accreditation of engineering degrees.

According to ECUK’s deputy director Richard Shearman: “The UK government, which has voiced strong support for the MEng and other master’s degrees, has a key role to play in helping universities and others to address the issues raised by the Bologna process. In particular, it must press for the changes to the ECTS proposed by ECUK and the engineering institutions. The Bologna Ministerial meeting in May, which the UK will be hosting, presents the perfect opportunity to do this.

“It is certainly in the UK’s interests for the MEng and other degrees to be ‘Bologna compliant’. However if the only way of achieving this is by lengthening programmes and notching up more credits under the current system of assessment, the price of compliance would be a high one. Government, universities and students would bear substantial additional costs, for no obvious educational advantage. Costlier and longer degree programmes could well deter those considering a career in engineering, which in turn could lead to skills shortages. Clearly this would be too high a price to pay.”

*Guidance on the issues confronting UK HEIs running integrated master’s degree programmes has been published by the Europe Unit of Universities UK: www.europeunit.ac.uk/bologna_process

Good news and bad on D&T

The current review of the secondary national curriculum – which is now entering its final phase - had originally proposed that Design and Technology should cease to be compulsory at key stage 3 (ages 11 – 14). The Engineering Education Alliance – of which ECUK is a member – and the Design and Technology Association, saw such a move as having damaging consequences for engineering, a view they expressed in an open letter to the DfES and QCA (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority). There is thus obvious relief that the idea has now been dropped.

Unfortunately, it is now proposed to limit the number of D&T study areas available at key stage 3. ECUK believes this may have very unwelcome consequences in that it could well reduce the future supply of engineers.

At present, D&T is studied by all 5 –14 year olds. It is also very popular at GCSE, while the numbers taking it at ‘A’ level have grown every single year over the last decade – something no other STEM subject has achieved. Importantly, D&T ‘A’ level is now accepted, with maths and a science, for entry onto most engineering degree programmes.

At key stage 3, D&T provides a broad and balanced foundation in applied design through project-led assignments involving electronics, mechanisms, pneumatics, structures, loads/forces, materials and processes. This is threatened by the curriculum review’s proposal that schools need only include three of the following four areas of study – viz, food, resistant materials, textiles and systems and control. Thus, were a school to opt, say, not to offer ‘systems and control’ the effect would be to deprive students of applied learning in electronics, mechanisms and pneumatics. It would then be highly unlikely that they would pursue these subjects at a later stage in their education.

ECUK does welcome much of what has come out of the secondary curriculum review – such as the focus on how young people learn, the scope offered for collaboration between learning areas and the move towards schools being given more flexibility with regard to delivery. However, for the study of D&T and the implications this has for UK industry, it will go down as a retrograde step unless all four of the areas mentioned are made permanent fixtures within the syllabus.

QCA is currently running a final national consultation on the review proposals, inviting all interested parties to make their views known (ideally by 16th April). You can have your say at: www.qca.org.uk/secondarycurriculumreview

EAB builds on early success

Formed just over a year ago, the Engineering Accreditation Board (EAB) has quickly proved its worth as a forum for building consensus and disseminating good practice among its member institutions. Indeed its very first meeting produced valuable guidance on the matter of compensation. Progress has subsequently been made in a number of other key areas, including the accreditation of MSc programmes. EAB has also forged ahead with its other main role of arranging joint accreditation visits, almost all of which have entailed the assessment of multiple degree programmes. For the universities involved, the savings in time and effort have been significant.

The practice of compensation – which permits marginal failure in a degree module if a candidate’s overall performance merits award of the qualification – was highlighted by the recent Washington Accord review of UK accreditation. That EAB was able to immediately formulate a clear set of principles regarding this issue was thus very welcome. It was agreed that no more than 20 out of 120 final year credits should normally be compensated - and that compensation of the project element is never permissible.

There has been agreement too over several of the issues surrounding MSc accreditation, for which there are no specific learning output statements. An EAB working group recommended that any standards be based on QAA descriptors and that universities also need to demonstrate how their MSc programmes provide underpinning knowledge and understanding as required under the UK-SPEC standard for CEng registration. Though ECUK’s Registration Standards Committee decided against developing a separate MSc standard, it sanctioned the introduction of guidance on the use of qualification descriptors and competence statements. It also concurred with the working group’s view that accreditation of MSc programmes is clearly preferable to approval.

Other positive outcomes have included clarification on postgraduate diplomas – which are not exemplifying qualifications and thus cannot be accredited – and EAB support for the backdating of accreditation (eg, to cover all students on a programme at the time of a visit). Good progress has also been made by the working group charged with developing a single set of documentation for use on EAB organised visits. The aim is to achieve a common approach to accreditation while accommodating the particular needs of individual member institutions.

In 2006 EAB arranged joint visits to seven universities, as a result of which almost 100 programmes were accredited – mostly BEng and MEng degrees. This year there have so far been three visits – including to Oxford and Cambridge – and another four are in the pipeline.

All 22 of the engineering institutions and societies that are licensed by ECUK to accredit academic programmes are members of EAB. ECUK provides its secretariat.

A full list of member institutions can be found at: www.engab.org.uk

Greater accord

At its inception in 1989, the Washington Accord involved six nations – all of them English-speaking. The UK – represented by ECUK – was one of these original signatories, who under the accord had agreed to recognise one another’s engineering education accreditation processes. Four more countries - including Japan - have subsequently become members and Russia, China, India and Sri-Lanka are all waiting in the wings. Not only is accord membership expanding, it is also becoming a culturally broader international mix.

Russia, India and Sri Lanka are scheduled to come on board this year. Initially they will be given provisional membership, which essentially means that their degree accreditation processes are capable of development to meet all Washington Accord requirements and that they already have some engineering degrees that would make the grade if assessed against the quality criteria demanded. ECUK is supporting the applications of all three nations.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed last month in London with the China Association for Science and Technology (CAST), ECUK has also committed to back Chinese efforts to become an accord signatory. However, membership for China is not an imminent prospect as the country is only in the very early stages of establishing an accreditation system. ECUK has been invited to assist them with this process.

The mutual recognition of accreditation processes agreed to by the Washington Accord’s signatories means, by extension, that they also recognise each other’s accredited degrees. As a consequence, the holders of such degrees are generally exempt from needing further academic qualifications to practise engineering in other accord countries. It is thus in the UK’s interests to support the accession of new members as this will help to open up further areas of the world to UK engineers and engineering companies.

The current members of the Washington Accord are: UK, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Hong Kong, South Africa, Japan and Singapore.

Embracing academics

ECUK has become increasingly concerned about the relatively low numbers of engineering teachers and researchers that are seeking registration as Chartered Engineers. It is thought that many are deterred from coming forward because they believe a lack of industrial experience will automatically count against them, which in reality it does not.

Everyone who now applies for CEng registration is assessed against UK-SPEC, which came into force in 2003. This latest standard – unlike the one it replaced - makes it clear that the type of work performed by many engineering academics does enable them to acquire the competences needed to become a Chartered Engineer. Importantly, it recognises that the leadership skills they are required to possess can be developed and demonstrated in the not-for-profit sectors, like higher education.

A new 4-page brochure from ECUK explains how engineering teachers and researchers stand to benefit from holding the CEng award and what they need to do to attain it. The competences and qualifications they will need are briefly outlined and a list given of the engineering institutions and societies that are licensed by ECUK to assess potential registrants.

Free copies of the brochure are available from: Ed Hallatt at: ehallatt@engc.org.uk

Become a Whitworth scholar

If you are a budding engineer with excellent academic and practical skills and have got what it takes to succeed in industry, then you could be in the running for a Whitworth Scholarship Award. Offered by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, the award comes in two varieties and is available for study or research in any of the main engineering disciplines.

One award is aimed at those who wish to embark on – or have already started – an engineering degree, and also at recent graduates who want to gain an MSc. Applicants must have worked in engineering for at least two years after leaving full-time education. The value of the award is £4000 pa (£2500 pa for part-time study) and the closing date for applications is 30th June.

Recent engineering graduates looking to pursue post-graduate research, leading to a PhD or EngD, can apply for the Whitworth Senior Scholarship Award worth up to £7000 pa. Again, candidates must have followed a vocational training route in engineering for a minimum of two years, before embarking on their first degree. Applications need to be in by 31st May.

Application forms and full details of eligibility can be obtained from: ASK House, IMechE Prizes and Awards, Northgate Avenue, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP32 6BB. Tel: 01284 717887. www.whitworthscholarships.org.uk

Privy counsel

Institutions needing Privy Council approval for charter and by-law changes can now call on the services of Alex Galloway, who recently retired as Clerk of the Privy Council after eight years in the post. The comprehensive service that he can offer includes the drafting of amendments and handling negotiations with the Privy Council Office. He works in partnership with Suzanne Phillips, an expert in professional ethics, conduct and disciplinary proceedings. Alex can be contacted at alex@phpb.co.uk and Suzanne at suzannep@phpb.co.uk

General Information

To subscribe:
Send an email with: subscribe register news in the subject box to register.news@engc.org.uk

To unsubscribe:
Send an email with: unsubscribe register news in the subject box to register.news@engc.org.uk

Institutions, and others with an interest, are welcome to copy and disseminate all or any part of Register News . Please acknowledge the Engineering Council UK as the source.