A widespread lack of awareness over engineering apprenticeships is hampering UK industry’s ability to attract and foster the next generation of engineering talent, according to Engineering UK’s annual report: Engineering UK 2018: State of Engineering
Published ahead of Apprenticeship Week (5 – 9th March) the report claims that annual demand for people with “core engineering” skills stands at 124,000 a year, with an additional 79,000 workers needed each year in “related” roles – those that use engineering knowledge with other skills. Given the current supply of talent coming through the education pipeline, the annual shortfall is claimed to be up to 56,000.
Despite efforts to encourage uptake of apprenticeship the report points to low levels of awareness, with 58 per cent of 11 to 14-year-olds surveyed in Engineering UK’s 2017 Brand Monitor, saying they know very little about apprenticeships and the different types of apprenticeships available. Understanding is similarly low among parents with only 46 per cent saying they know what apprentices do and 55 per cent having some knowledge of the different types of apprenticeships available.
What’s more, while apprenticeships have recently grown in popularity (2015 to 2016 saw a year-on-year increase in apprenticeship starts of 7.4 per cent) early data for 2017 indicates numbers are dropping. This decline has coincided with the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, suggesting it is yet to have the desired effect.
Commenting on the research, EngineeringUK’s chief executive Mark Titterington said: “Together with government, we…need to ensure that apprenticeships that are offered are of a consistent high quality and that they are open and attractive to a diverse range of young people, particularly girls.
“The focus on what can make apprenticeships work, including looking at the impact of the levy, quality of current provision, and perceptions of young people, will be one of the topics that will be part of our new, extended research agenda”.
Who amongst our profession can have any concerns (other than the obvious) about the flagging of this issue. I do recall the HoD at the School of Textiles at Leeds Uni, Professor Carl Lawrence had as his credo the concept of us educating our students , not just in textile technology but ‘to think as textile folk’. Can we not apply the same thinking to the manner in which we encourage youngsters to ‘think about Engineering and as Engineers. That we are all excellent examples of Engineering, are dressed and covered in other examples, travel between home, school, office, sports events, entertainment and so on in additional examples: and of course should recognise that each and all of these are themselves excellent examples of Engineering in action! Perhaps it is the very equations and mathematics which causes the barrier: break that -is such really necessary before Uni?- and who knows what might be possible?
It would be better if (school) students were able to appreciate that the mathematics were there (and developed mainly by scientists) to help them; the sooner the better, in fact, so that they might appreciate why engineers need to understand (and use) partial fractions and algebra – and even calculus – so that they can put them in context with the practical side. Too often students do not appreciate what computer models and simulations are doing (and why) and it is all to easy to have CAD (Computer Aided Disasters).
I believe that (school) teaching the maths together with the physics (eg vectors and ballistics) makes things easier for the students and, of course resonance and calculus (rather than obscure and unsatisfactory descriptive approach)
One thing I have personally promoted fro many years, is the teaching of Analogies in Engineering. Many professional engineers that i have met along my almost 40 years of working in the Offshore Platforms engineering, is that they lack a proper and full understanding of the numerous analogies that exist among the many fields of knowledge. Many Mechanical, Chemical and even Civil engineers have a very limited understanding of electrical circuits or waves, for example. But on my university level courses, I teach and insist in teaching the importance of correlating the same principles that tie numerous fields, like the many mechanical, acoustical, thermal analogies to the basic Ohm’s Law, Kirchoff Laws, etc. A simple hydraulic lesson based on an elevated water tank and its piping serves well the purpose of understanding electical DC circuits, and similarly, resonance, mechanical impedance and other concepts are better explained when the student (or even the professional) has a proper grasp of those basic analogies. Without a firm physical meaningand understanding, many young engineers are unable to distinguish anything that their computer software presents them as “the truth” against reality.
I like the commonality you describe
Why particularly girls?
Because girls are hugely under-represented on engineering courses.
Can we PLEASE stop calling them engineers. They are NOT engineers they are technicians. We need legal recognition of the term engineer in the Uk like they do in Germany. I’m sick of hearing people calling themselves engineers and devaluing the status the likes of myself have gained
Where I some what agree with your comment. I also disagree, chartered status is paying alot of money to the people who are meant to offer some form of protection. I know a few people who simply don’t pay in anymore as it offers no benefits. On the other hand one may argue yes why you have a degree if you are not time served are you an engineer? Engineering means a lot to different people to. Me it’s a mindset and a passion that I have not just in work but out of it also. A methodical and logical approach be it to a low calc or the hands on rebuild of a induction motor.
I agree with Joe B; the term Engineer should be recognised as a high level accolade as with other professions both here in the UK, and in Europe. A title of ‘Motor Vehicle Engineer’ for a person who does little more that plug in a computer to diagnose faults with a car is wrong in my mind, as Joe says, this person is a Technician. I am also continually surprised by the claims of ‘shortage of skilled engineering people’ yet I cannot even get an interview – is it the fact I’m over 60 I wonder??
Very true.
And very sad… and very stupid. I’m 63 years old, 40 of them working in Engineering for petroleum installations, both offshore and on land, and I feel strong enough to continue working because I honestly feel that now I’m in my best time, with more solid and varied knowledge, and sufficient criteria to immediately identify a wrong or not-best design as soon as I see it, and start to propose upgrades in a matter of seconds (or a few minutes). But present day companies simply do not care about real experience and solid engineering knowledge, so nobody would hire us, and our capabilities will be under-utilized. And sadly enough, today companies believe engineers must be over specialized, which is the main reason there are so many failed designs today. I once met a professional simultaneous translator who fluently spoke about 8 languages. I asked him: What is the secret for learning so many languages? He smiled and told me: “After the first three or four, it is like coasting downhill”. I was perplexed, so I asked him to please explain. He said that when he had a good grasp of the first 3 or 4 languages, the common elements and structures of them made it much more easy to learn the next one. After many years of practicing engineering, I found that the same applies to engineering: after you have analized hundreds and hundreds of engineering drawings from many disciplines, and performed many thousands of calculations, the science behind all those engineering fields starts to merge together, and learning more engineering areas becomes MUCH easier!. Too painful to retire when one starts to have a complete understanding of the physical universe (engineering). Amclaussen.
I believe that many of the engineers I have met took apprenticeships as a more practical (AND an alternative route into engineering); most took degree or degree equivalent qualifications. Whether this alternative route exists in sufficient scale is, now, somewhat suspect but the main obstacle for it is that when students come from school they have little appreciation of the skills and understanding and versatility that engineers should possess; this does not mean being able to run a machine (which is possibly all many employers want – as job advertisements often ask for a long laundry list of specific skills and experience) but to be able to think with appreciation & understanding of the basic scientific laws.
Perhaps OFSTED could do something useful to make engineering science accessible and more relevant – and, it is hoped , that more girls would so (as in other countries) see this as desirable and interesting subject.
Industry has been complaining for years about the same problem, but yet fails to address the real problem, wages. Wages on skilled technical jobs have continued to decrease, it was only this weekend that there was an advert for a job exactly like I was doing 11 years ago but with the wage offered was 25% lower than 11 years ago. If they continue to pay peanuts they won’t get the skilled people. The old saying pay peanut and you get monkeys is still true today.
But just think of the HR professionals who have created the advert, reviewed the applications, seeking in particular to weed? out any and all who fail to pass the mostly quite un-necessary paper qualifications which they have added to the ‘check-list’ done preliminary interviews, made their choices and been told by more of the shams(accountants, managers) that ‘these are only technicians, see what you can screw them down to….@ I believe you get my drift.
Mind you, if the necessary qualifications for being appointed as a member of the Cabinet (or a Board) is primarily related to your family name, connections or experience(s) at being deceitful… lazy, incompetent…why should we complain?
Thank you Julian and Alfredo: I do believe we are all on the same side of the equation!
As small children we surely all learned our native tongue simply to communicate: there were immediate and practical advantages (getting fed! -what we needed, wanted) to putting the language to use. Mathematics is surely simply another language. It has conventions, grammar, styles, different areas of particular interest. [I separate arithmetic from mathematics] And how do the vast majority of children have to learn these: not as anything that might be useful but as a series of academic activities: with certainly at the start no practical usage whatsoever. I was forced to learn Latin in somewhat the same manner! By individuals and in a climate where my teachers seemed primarily intent on demonstrating how clever they were and how stupid I was! No wonder they are turned off Engineering -the practical applications of mathematics? Having a future king and his possible successor also tell what duffers they were at arithmetic, let alone mathematics is not of much help either.
I agree with Joe B, they are technicians and not engineers. Engineers are designers, fixers and maintenance are technicians.