Who needs to make the most effort to close the engineering skills gap in the UK?
On the back of this year’s Status of Engineering report, released by EngineeringUK last week, we asked our readers who had the biggest responsibility for addressing the skills gap. It’s a longstanding and multifaceted issue, and one that requires coordination from all sides, but we wanted people to make a call on who they felt should lead the skills charge and drive engineering forward in the UK.
Just under 40 per cent of respondents thought the buck should stop with engineering employers, with this option topping the poll. The next most popular response was secondary education (27 per cent), reflecting the widespread belief that a passion for engineering and other STEM subjects needs to be cultivated from a relatively early age. In contrast, just 9 per cent of readers felt that higher education had the most important role to play in plugging the skills gap.
Finally, just under a quarter (23 per cent) of you think government needs to be the primary actor. There is never any shortage of voices in government decrying the shortfall of engineers in the UK, yet it seems that little ever changes. It’s a problem we’ve been covering for many years, and one that we’ll no doubt return to in the future.
To improve engineering we need a good sound practical knowledge of manufacturing , a good example of a practical background would be a 5-6 year trade apprenticeship, during which time there would be day release for HNC /HND , and employers should encourage and remunerate further education to the highest level that a individual can achieve, some government incentive would be required to encourage companies to pursue this to the ultimate level, in terms of grants to employers. A professional engineers also needs to be registered with the C.Eng in the relevant discipline.
Modern engineers also need to have some cross functionality between Mechanical, Electrical, Manufacturing and Design, Industrial design with engineering courses are leaving graduates with very low practical abilities and is swamping the environment with Stylists , when the need for this type of Engineer is already swamped and many having to work in other disciplines that they find difficult, due to the lack of a practical background.
Like it was back in the day then? Not a complaint I totally agree.
The idea of engineers having cross functionality is great. I’m a graduate with two years experience and I feel like I’m already being pigeonholed into Highways. I’m trying to get into other sectors with other companies but it’s proving to be difficult, presumably because I just don’t have the “right” experience.
Dear Michael,
Delighted that you are enjoying our wonderful profession: I believe some economists say that whilst the 19th Century was that of Coal, the 20th was that of Oil, the 21st will be that of Water: so you appear to have made a good choice. n As far as getting ‘type-cast’ into a particular industry: can I suggest that you follow the advice of my first boss (1965/6) who insisted that whilst 90% of the week belonged of course to him…10% was for self-improvement. He encouraged all his young Engineers to spend half-a-day doing something NOT directly applicable to their day-to-day affairs. “go and see another division of the firm, visit a supplier, visit a competitor, go to a conference or an exhibition in an area definitely NOT in your industry.
I have to tell you that as a consultant (and you might be aware that my field is functional textiles) some of my most interesting (and profitable ) work has been for firms who are not in ‘my’ industry but needed a short ‘hit’ of help. I wish you and other young Engineers the very best. Do I wish I was starting again? Some of my ‘parts, bits and pieces’ are showing their age! -so probably not.
Go for it 120% whatever it is and only you know that.
Mike B
The UK produces almost half a million graduates per year. Most of them read “unemployment Studies” (media studies, psychology, social studies etc.). For some reason these look attractive to 15-18 year olds. These courses aren’t just a “soft option” for the students, they are also a “soft option” for the colleges.
It would be really easy for the Government swing the balance in favour of Science and Engineering, by reducing the number of places in “unemployment Studies” . “A” Level colleges measure themselves by the percentage of students that go on to University. So this strategy would reduce The “soft option” for the colleges and they would have to start motivating their students in useful subjects.
In an environment where anyone (quite literally) can set up a business and call themselves an engineer regardless of qualifications or indeed skills, public perception of engineering and hence the attraction of people into engineering as a career is always going to be on the back foot. Does Germany, where you cannot call yourself an engineer unless you meet certain requirements, have the same issue as we do in the UK ?
True … a Plumber is a skilled (& probably qualified) tradesman, but is not a engineer
You would hope so, but actually the UK allows anyone to call themselves a plumber whether they’ve had any training or not. Unfortunately, this country has not had the foresight to ‘protect’ professions in the way Germany or Australia have, and thus we are overloaded with yeehahs who make themselves out to be something they’re not.
I think, broadly speaking, that STEM should be given much greater emphasis in schools, with evidence that these can lead to something worthwhile. Telling someone engineering is great isn’t enough – pupils need to SEE what can be achieved, and to be inspired. This then has to be backed up by industry, and I think that ‘soft’ degrees should be scrapped. They are a total waste of time. Who is ever going to need an emergency sociologist??
In 2013 the IMech E hosted an expert meeting on this matter. See
https://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/reports/detail/closing-the-skills-gap
almost 4 years have elapsed. The policy needs to be implemented urgently. The engineering institutions must lead the way.
In order to attract young people into engineering the potential salaries would need to increase substantially. Engineering is not financially attractive and the perceived course complexities makes potential engineers think “why bother I can earn more doing less”
Average Engineer = £36k
Average Teacher = £40k
As the report identifies engineering salaries are actually reasonably good in comparison with most other professions. Grad starting salaries are on average £4k higher than average grad starting salaries, and mean salaries for mechanical engineers stand at around £45. Not sure teachers are a particularly good example of a profession that does less for more either.
Indeed. Talking to a senior engineer in a biggish plc on Monday, he made the same point. Engineering salaries are good and rising, as the lack of talent drives up wages. He agreed with me when I suggested that much the whining about salaries comes from engineers who aren’t good enough to command a decent salary.
His concern is that engineering degree courses are closing due to a lack of applicants. (He is also a visit prof and has been on EPSRC boards and other committees.) So the supply cannot keep up with demand.
With the current government determined to keep out foreign students, who might get engineering degrees and then jobs that would allow them to stay on, it looks like the industry is in for a bumpy ride. But Brexit is Brexit.
Interesting – my wife teaches in a secondary school .. and teaches IT (computer programming) – she has been teaching for 30+ years & she does not earn £40k yet!
Current job ad for a water meter fitter advertised at £50k/yr, NVQ in plumbing and two years experience required. ’nuff said.
Couple of thoughts:
1/ Government could use Company taxation to cause it to be more expensive for companies *not* to train staff vs trying to poach them from other companies / overseas
2/ The Government could cause STEM subjects to be less expensive to study at Uni vs “unemployment studies”
third suggestion – Government could use Company taxation to encourage companies to run accredited apprenticeships &/or provide bursaries for students at Uni to study STEM subjects
I am a Nigerian. Any where in the world where tertiary institutions are not in tune with the happenings in the real world,the skillsame gap widen. There has to be synergy between higher institutions,government and the private sector (companies) such that they relate with each other seamlessly. The present day youths are more attracted to social media,online betting,music and talent shows. So,there has to be a deliberate rethink of how education is delivered in tertiary institution hopefully through “Gamification” such that learning would be much fun than it presently is. I tried to organise an industrial games competition in my country and to get sponsorship was hell, was finally able to pull off something small. http://m.guardian.ng/business-services/fupre-prepares-students-for-industrial-sector-jobs/
But you find non educative and immoral competitions being sponsored with millions. I am working on the next edition of the competition and will not stop till I succeed.
Basically the employers. So far they consume only. There is no investment in current employees nor in future employees (pupils, children, students).
The government tells me: we will care about you as soon as the EU cares about our OAP.
Where does this leave me?
Luckily my passport is locked up at the home office now for almost a year waiting for that permanent residence card to be issued.
As long as there is a chance for that to happen, I’ll stay.
In the meantime my wife feeds and cleans OAPs…
I agree 100% with Robert Moore that is the only way forward. Engineering is a very hands on industry and people need to be trained so that they are both technical and practical.
Free movement of people within the EU is best for all of us. Europe as a whole has the skills, but the UK is becoming so much less attractive, even more so since the pound has slipped. The answer has to be with the government in the first case. They’ve done you no favours.
Potential engineering students are not stupid. If they saw they could earn more and enjoy a higher standard of living with an engineering qualification as opposed to other studied subjects, they would be attracted to the professions. Equally parents and teachers would encourage them in this direction if they could see that engineers had a more promising future. Why would anyone choose to study a “hard” subject when they can earn as much and have as rewarding a career while having an easier path through education.
Employers have the key and fundamental role. It is their systems and products that need to be trained for. Government and Schools/Colleges/Universities can only produce generic qualifications. Government can help enormously though by providing bursaries and grants to encourage students into disciplines that are in short supply and have an extrinsic value to the national product. Studying STEM should not be subject to student loans.
Has anyone heard of a ‘Skills Redeployment Framework’?
More students will be attracted to the engineering professions if they could see better than average salaries on offer. Salaries being offered now are about the same as we were getting 25 years ago. Personally, I have loved every minute being an engineer since I graduated, but I certainly wouldn’t chose engineering as a profession if I was going through university now. In the early ’90’s we were making 50K a year working in offshore or a famous tunneling project in Kent. 25 years later my house is now worth double what it was then, but salaries for engineers haven’t doubled. If you want more good people, pay them more money.
Nail on head – In total and complete agreement with this.
Provide a decent living and the correct and best personnel will be attracted.
My vote is that the Government has to take the biggest role. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they have to spend huge sums of money in promotion. What is needed is for politicians to educate themselves in the medium-long term planning needed to grow our Engineering & Manufacturing base in the UK, and then to repeatedly & consistently get the message through to the younger generations, that Engineering & Manufacturing seriously matter for the future wealth of this country. You only have to have worked through the Thatcher era years, to see the negative image impacts (& consequences) it had on the Engineering & Manufacturing sectors, which probably deterred a lot of people from entering these sectors. Contrast that with the financial services industry, and how all successive governments since the Thatcher era have cosied up to them, and it’s not difficult to understand how we got to where we are today. It’s a relatively short term planning exercise to relocate some offices from London to Paris, but takes much longer planning & far greater investment to build a new Steel works for example. So, unless the Government demonstrates that it has the vision, strategy & understanding of the long term planning to improve the situation, the efforts of employers and educational establishments, can potentially be seriously negated.
There are some pretty sweeping generalisations being made in some of comments and as usual some are quite wide of the mark. For instance ‘employers only consume’ is simply not true. Some do, but many (JLR/BAe/RR…) including the company that I work for put a lot into attracting, training and developing staff. For instance, we run two ‘Imagineering’ groups in partnership with local schools, sponsor staff through education, take interns, and invest a lot of time, effort and cash in training and developing all of our staff.
On the general subject of the skills shortage, the apprentice levy comes into effect in April and this will go some way towards re-starting an apprentice culture of the type that I benefited from (I was an indentured apprentice who ended up with a degree in mechanical engineering and I am now a Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers).
Another way that the Government could help to bring more students into engineering is to subsidise their tuition fees. For instance, instead of fees of £9250/year, why not set engineering fees at £3000? The quid pro quo could be that they have to be employed in engineering for a minimum of 5 years after graduation. This selective use of Government funding could also be used for other shortage professions (medicine?) as appropriate.
Engineering, medicine, science and maths are considered too difficult, school leavers tend to pick “easy” options. Not that we should make the above less difficult.
Unless the government shows significant interest (and shows it tangibly) that it is willing to support industry (and in particular manufacturing) in reversing the trend of decline, then I fear that young potential engineers will choose careers elsewhere. The need to show this interest has never been more important or relevant since the Brexit Vote. Adding value by manufacturing works for Germany and Japan both countries whose governments actively support and encourage long term investment ideologies. Can we not learn from them?
The crew change is eminent with the need for younger engineers to take on responsible roles from their experienced mentors. There is a dire need for the profession to be given the due recognition by employers through corporate registration with the professional engineering institutions. It means that those in these pool are expected to demonstrate a degree of competence that is over and above their peers. It is hoped with this clear distinction the profession will lend itself to closing the skills gaps.
I find that I cannot vote on this issue as there is no “All of the above” option! Surely, what is required here is a co-ordinated approach from all of these parties.
This is the umpteenth time this subject has been discussed in The Engineer!
Michael B asks whether Germany has the same issue on vocational training. Basically yes, because they cannot get enough school leavers to go into apprenticeship training – mainly to do with low birth rates and also low school grades. But industry literally hunts for apprentices to fill
the approx 30.000 vacancies left over each year. There is also the Dual apprentice system for the high flyers with A levels. These courses offer 6 weeks Uni and 4 weeks practical over 3-4 years . Companies wanting to train are checked by the local chambers of commerce regarding the qualifications of the employees who are going to be looking after and training people. Also they have to be able to support the apprentice with his Day Release homework – should he have questions. Most apprentices receive around 650 Euros a month increasing towards the end of the course.
By the way, the system in Austria and Switzerland is very similar.
Since higher education in Germany has always been free there is a tendency for school leavers to do the recently introduced ( short ) Batchelor courses which have replaced the standard 5 year ( Diplom / Masters ) courses of the past. However, a 3 year Batchelor course on engineering does not leave leave much scope for the practical side .
The options offer a specific group option. Why isn’t ‘all of the above’ a valid option? It does require collaboration and co-operation. The current situation suggests that meeting this challenge is beyond the reach of the listed groups?
As you go further up the income scale (40k +++) and in the last 10 years or so, there appears to be more examples of poor balance of 3 Types of skills developing: – those ‘advertised’; those ‘hired’ & those actually ‘available’. It would appear that too often those hired are more few and worse value ‘in the round’ than those actually available, more capable and cost effective. So, those skills advertised therefore seem to miss represent the requirements. Government Procurement should drive more intergenerational fairness within firms getting awarded tax payer backed contracts. There are ‘relatively obvious & easy ways’ government could positively influence hiring practises to be more ‘next generation’ without the ‘previous generation’ using their vote against them. Not enough older plumper Turkeys promoting Xmas…, yet! It would however create a more virtuous circle of improved performance, reward and attainment for future generations who will then feel more inclined to attempt looking after those lesser grabbers amongst the huge cohort of elderly baby boomers. Any rare Turkeys who can’t wait for Xmas, please shout louder for your replacement, as a highly skilled queue at the door won’t want the pips squeezed till there is nothing left to grow. One of the frameworks (that could displace more expensive underperforming ones) that would help this activity, would also help draw new investment in young enterprise start-ups that don’t already have or want access to the usual insecure, data harvesting, big wage inflating, recruitment black holes supported by big government/business that benefit mostly the already over privileged people/organisations. Pretty confident we won’t be able to reshape/improve, ‘for all’, the contours of UK/Global Politics here! Though might prefer to be proved wrong.
We are an engineering family. In my opinion it has to be a co-ordinated approach across all responsible areas.
Schools need to promote engineering role models and have more interesting engineering type activities as a matter of course rather than one off events.
The government need to make engineering a protected profession and do a lot more to promote the profile of British engineering.
Universities and employers need to aggressively target sexism in this industry if you are going to retain any female engineers- it is appalling.
Employers need to think about the lengths of their application process for students who are trying to do dissertations and the long hours that an engineering degree takes and for many these days fit in a part time job to fund their course. Many jobs have a four stage process taking about four days out, have long results time and students are having to apply for many jobs to secure anything when they are told they are a valuable commodity-its soul destroying and they go elsewhere.
Firms need to learn to pay an appropriate amount for engineering skills.
More universities need to offer a general degree which then goes on to specialise, as many A level students know they want to do engineering but are unsure as to the type as they have little experience of the range. For example you would not expect a doctor to specialise right at the beginning of their course. An engineer who has an understanding of all aspects, makes a much better team member as they can appreciate the problems presented in other area of a project.
1. The Government needs to change the grant system for all the STEM disciplines in exchange for a commitment to work in the UK post qualification for a minimum 3 year period. This would be a huge influence on relevant applications
2. Schools need to teach the skills that industry wants and to held accountable for failure
3. Engineering businesses need to plan for the future on both a short term and medium term basis. Not an area that gets pruned when times get tough. Invest in your people….. present and future.
4. Management need to take their head out the sand and recognise that this is a global challenge and not just a UK one. Do any of you have a recruitment plan for Article 50 and eventually BREXIT?
5. I will be amazed if the government will be ready for the visa challenge that is coming. Experts believe they will need an extra 30,000 bodies because they are highly unlikely to get the technology right. Any visa process takes time. The historical work permit scheme could easily take 12 weeks…… it does in Australia…. and that is on top of finding the people in the first place so you are likely to a minimum 6 month wait. As a business we have been collecting data from September 2016 on behalf of our clients so we can move quickly when changes come
This is written as the father of 2 daughters in their early 20’s who will have aggregate debts of £80,000 by July 2018 having been to university and no certainty of employment and there are many more out there. That is why so many are leaving the country as soon as they can. Who can blame them?
This crisis is very real. There will be solutions but they are likely to be painful.