The Royal Academy of Engineering recently published its report on employment outcomes for engineering graduates for the year 2013/14. The good news is that the employability credentials for engineering remain strong, with 81% of engineering graduates in 2013/14 managing to be in full-time work, further study or a combination of both 6 months after graduation. Of course, this is significantly better than the corresponding figure of 76% for all graduates. However, a closer look at the figures reveals that still, all is not well. The perennial issues pertaining to gender diversity, ageism, social and ethnic exclusion are still evident in the engineering employment figures, and it is these issues that I focus on in this article.

First, engineering is still the only discipline where male graduates outnumber female graduates in employment 6 months after graduation. The only consolation is that this gap appears to be closing. But this pales into insignificance when you realise that women make up just 12-15% of the cohort. This is an agonisingly small proportion given that women increasingly outnumber men in most subject areas. In fact, a woman stands a better chance of securing a job within 6 months of graduating in virtually any other subject area when compared to engineering.

Is it that engineering employers still shun female graduates, even now when we are in a supposedly more enlightened age? Or is it that somehow university lecturers are still in the business of killing off any female interest in engineering? Of course, there have been improvements on both issues compared to previous years, but it is quite clear that these improvements have not gone as far as we would wish. As the saying goes, the last mile is the hardest, and this appears to be the case here.

Again ageism still reigns supreme in engineering. Graduates over the age of 25 are more likely to be unemployed than their much younger colleagues. In fact, you can easily double your chances of being unemployed simply by turning 25 years or more. Added to this, you are significantly more likely to be unemployed 6 months after graduating if you opted to do your engineering degree at a post 1992 university instead of going to a traditional research intensive university. Is it that the teaching in post 1992s is particularly bad? Certainly not. In fact, these institutions are at the forefront of leading innovation in engineering education.

This apparent ageism can only mean one thing: If you are from a working class background and aspire to improve yourself by taking an engineering course at the local university down the road, then you may have to be prepared for the worst. Clearly, ageism and institutional exclusivity have implications for social mobility, and because of this, these two issues need to be addressed by all members of our engineering community.

We in the UK pride ourselves for our ethnic inclusivity. Indeed, we have made huge strides in addressing ethnic exclusion in various areas of our lives. Sadly, for engineering this is still work in progress. When it comes to graduate employability for non-white, or Black or minority ethnic (BME) graduates, engineering comes out at the bottom. For the year in question, 2013/14, only 46% black graduates were in employment 6 months after graduating, compared to 71% of white graduates. Also, whilst 60% of white graduates secured jobs in engineering, only 40% of BME graduates managed to do so.

Finally, whereas in all subject areas your chances of securing a job are diminished if you fail to get a 2.1 or better, this is acutely accentuated in engineering. Here academic snobbishness still reigns supreme, and it does so to such an extent that failing to get a 2.1 or better means that you double your chances of being without a job 6 months after graduation. This is unfortunate, since it is still a moot point within the engineering sector whether or not there is a correlation between a graduate’s degree classification and performance at work. Were this correlation to be established beyond any reasonable doubt, then our quest for more effective and authentic learning, teaching and assessment methods would be over.

So what can we say? Only that for everyone involved with engineering, our work is still cut out. We still have much to do before gender, age and ethnic inclusivity are achieved in engineering. And for those still unemployed 6 months after graduating, don’t give up. And for engineering employers, give our non-traditional graduates a chance. After all, diversity improves innovation, and who knows, your organisation’s future may depend on that one non-traditional graduate whose CV you have committed to the paper shredder.

How to cite the reviewed work:

Harris, J. 2015. Recognising Teachers in the Life Sciences. The Physiological Society. London. Available at: http://www.physoc.org/sites/default/files/page/Recognising%20Teachers%20FINAL.pdf [Accessed: 24 April 2016].

Introduction

Within the UK it has been the traditional norm that academics carry out research and teaching as part of their role. However, with the emergence of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 1986 and its subsequent evolution to the Research Excellence Framework (REF), discipline research is increasingly restricted to academics whose research meets the requirements of the REF/RAE. A direct consequence of this is that an ever-increasing number of academics are now employed solely to focus on teaching, and on education management. However, the literature on teaching-focussed academics in the UK is still limited, hence the growing interest in this publication from the Physiological Society.

Why This Booklet is an Important Contribution

The Physiological Society has made an attempt to further our understanding of teaching-focussed careers through the publication of this booklet entitled “Recognising Teachers in the Life Sciences.” This booklet features 32 academics in the biological and medical sciences who have been promoted at one or more stages in their career on the basis of their contributions to teaching and/or education management. These academics are drawn from three categories:

• Group 1: Academics whose first permanent appointment was focused on education
• Group 2: Academics whose career focus switched from discipline-based research or a clinical role to education
• Group 3: Academics who combine discipline-based research or a clinical role with significant educational activity

The Physiological Society hopes that by publishing this booklet, teaching-focussed academics will have role models to emulate, and universities will have practical examples to help them to develop teaching-oriented promotion criteria for their own academics.

The booklet also provides important advice to those of us seeking to gain recognition and promotion on the basis of teaching and education management. This is because promotion on the basis of teaching is a relatively recent phenomenon. Hence, few or no people on academic promotion committees have any personal experience of the teaching-focussed academic role.  Also, departmental senior academics tasked with appointing and overseeing teaching-focussed academics have little or no guidance on developing roles that have scope for academic progression. Consequently, academic departments often lack the necessary resources to provided adequate mentorship and leadership to teaching-focussed academics.

Areas for Further Research

For the reasons discussed above, the booklet is a very timely addition to the literature on teaching-focussed academics. However, an analysis of the 32 academic careers showcased in the booklet also raises some serious concerns with the teaching-focussed academic role. I will now turn my attention to these concerns.

1: Gender Bias: As Table 1 shows, the 32 academics featured in this booklet are roughly balanced in terms of gender, with 17 being male, and 15 female. In addition, two of the academic categories have significantly more males than females. These two groups comprise academics who switched to teaching-focussed roles from discipline-based research or a clinical role to education, and academics who have maintained these roles in addition to a focus on teaching. In contrast, Group 1 which comprises academics who were appointed directly into teaching-only roles, has only one male and 7 females. Whilst the sample size is too small for these differences to be statistically significant, it is pertinent to establish whether or not the teaching-only academic route, as typified by Group 1, is becoming an academic role to which women are shunted into.

Table 1: Gender Distribution

2: Parity of Esteem between the Teaching-only Role and the Research and Teaching Role: Table 2 gives the distribution of professors in each of the three groups. Only 25% of teaching-only academics, as indicated by Group 1, have attained professorships. This is in contrast to academics in Groups 2 and 3 where professors make up 64.7% and 71.4% of the groups respectively. Again, whilst the figures in this booklet are too small for these proportions to be statistically significant, one is left wondering if teaching –only academics, as indicated by Group 1, have significantly more difficult chances of securing professorships than academics in the other two groups. One might assume that perhaps this may be due to differences in lengths of services of the academics in the three groups. However, the average length of service for the three groups is 20.5, 26.0 and 25.14 for groups 1, 2 and 3 respectively. These lengths of service appear to be sufficiently close to each other to rule out disparities in length of service as a contributing factor.

In practice, research-focussed academics typically attain professorships within 10 to 15 years on average. Given the relatively high number of non-professors in all three groups, and the average length of services that in excess of 20 years, this may suggest that a focus on teaching is detrimental to academic progression in the current higher education environment.

Table 2: Distribution of Professors by Grouping

3. Impact of University Type on Progression of Teaching-focussed Academics: The 32 academics presented in this booklet comprise 23 academics from research intensive institutions and 9 academics from post 1992 non-research intensive institutions. Of the 9 academics from post 1992 institutions, 8 are full professors compared to only 10 of the 23 academics from research intensive institutions. Again, whilst these figures are not statistically significant, it strongly suggests that one is more likely to progress to full professorship in a non-research intensive university than in a research intensive university. Of course it may be argued that the academics covered in this booklet are based on opportunistic sampling and are not representative of all biosciences and medical academics within the UK. However, given the objectives of this booklet, it is reasonable to assume that the editors went out of their way to identify and include those academics with the strongest promotion records.

Table 3: Distribution of Professors and Other Academic Staff Categories by University Type

Concluding Remarks

The booklet is an important contribution to our understanding of teaching-only academic roles, and I would recommend it to all teaching-focussed academics, senior academics with management responsibilities, and academics serving on promotion committees. For the higher education researcher, the booklet also gives a snapshot of  some of the emergent mutations of the academic role, and also raises important questions regarding parity of esteem and sustainability of teaching-focussed roles vis a vis the established research and teaching role.

In a BBC article discussing the future of banking, Matthew Wall poses the question: “Is old tech putting banks under threat of extinction?”  Traditional banking systems typically run on mainframe computers. These computers are reliable and can handle huge volumes of transactions, but they are slow. The advent of mobile and online technology has changed the dynamics of banking. Clients now expect transactions to take place anytime, anywhere, and in real time. This calls for fast, agile and flexible computer processing. And the old mainframe technology cannot cope.

Banks have tried to solve this problem by building new layers of modern software technology around the legacy mainframe systems. But the results have been far from satisfactory. The old cannot work with the new, and the results are the computer glitches and inexplicable system breakdowns that are now routine in the banking industry. Naturally, non-traditional competitors have seen an opportunity to make a quick buck, and the large traditional banks are now facing stiff competition from start-ups who are now offering mobile and online banking services running on nimble technology which is free of the legacy mainframe systems.

The old banks are now feeling the heat from competition brought about by a new technological era. And some are likely to go down, to become extinct, like the old dinosaurs. And this has left me wondering about our current university system. So far we have managed to keep the competition at bay. We have managed to incorporate modern technologies into our systems, but in most cases, only as far as augmenting the same teacher-centred educational approach we so much love. Our degree programmes have remained largely the same, and changes have largely been cosmetic –   at most a few changes in teaching approaches in a few modules, but with the core remaining largely untouched. In the few cases where wholesale change has been proposed, this has been quickly snuffed out.

But how long will this status quo last, and if nimble, determined, well-funded, politically connected competitors appear on the horizon, will the old university system cope?  Like the traditional banks, we can choose to wait. After all, universities, like banks, are essentially conservative organisations. However, such a strategy may well spell the end of the university as we know it. An alternative is to do the unthinkable – anticipate the new requirements for university education in the modern day, and implement and take control of change. To my knowledge, only one university has been bold enough, or foolish enough, to anticipate change and take it by the horns, so to speak. This is the University of Melbourne, in Australia, with their now famous, or infamous curriculum, the Melbourne Model. The question I want to address is: If the unthinkable becomes the only alternative, what does it take? Richard James and Peter McPhee (2012) have shared their experiences in implementing a whole-institution curriculum change at the University of Melbourne, and in this blog I will share their insights with you.

In 2007 the University of Melbourne replaced all the 96 undergraduate programmes it had with a new structure comprising six generalist three year undergraduate degrees followed by professional graduate courses. These six undergraduate courses are arts, biomedicine, commerce, environment, music and science. The model was informed by the American undergraduate liberal education system, and by the European Bologna Process. The Melbourne Model seeks to produce graduates with both depth and breadth in knowledge. Breadth is achieved by ensuring that undergraduate students undertake at least 20-25% of their studies in an area outside their core discipline. Depth is achieved primarily through disciplinary specialisation at the graduate level.

Needless to say, this was a highly contentious change process that fundamentally changed the university’s education system, and substantially impacted the entire Australian public university system. Richard James and Peter McPhee suggest that the following actions by the university helped to ensure that the curriculum change process was a success:

1. The University of Melbourne implemented its curriculum change from a position of strength. It is a highly ranked prestigious university that is highly regarded in both research and teaching.
2. The process was led by a highly motivated and effective leadership team who advocated publicly and privately for the adoption of the new curriculum.
3. The university had substantial financial resources which it used to ensure that research activities would not be affected by the curriculum changes.
4. External stakeholders, including the government, government agencies, and professional associations were engaged throughout the whole process. For instance, government had to be persuaded to support the curriculum change with an appropriate student fee funding structure. Similarly, the university also worked closely with professional bodies in Engineering, Medicine, Dentistry, Law and Architecture to ensure that the new curriculum met with their professional requirements.
5. Within the university, efforts were made to ensure that the curriculum change process was underpinned by a shared ethos of educational values and beliefs. Time and resources were invested into building consensus on a shared set of educational beliefs across all disciplines.
6. The university also took into account the values and expectations of students and their families. This also included the views of international students, who made up 25% of the university student body, and who contributed significantly towards student fee income.
7. The university also considered the implications of the changes on the income flows and business models of the various schools and faculties and made appropriate compromises.
8. The university also paid attention to the external political implications of the curriculum changes at the university, and took appropriate mitigation steps when necessary.
9. Careful attention was paid to the logistics associated with the change. Staff, space and time issues were all carefully addressed to ensure that these would not negatively impact the curriculum change process.

Now the dust is settling down. The term “Melbourne Model” has found its way into the higher education lexicon, and the University of Melbourne brand now stands out very distinctly in the Australian higher education landscape and beyond. And this is all because a dedicated, far-sighted  and bold university leadership chose to throw caution to the wind and implement change according to its own belief systems without the constraints brought about by external pressure.

References

James, R., & McPhee, P. (2012). The whole-of-institution curriculum renewal undertaken by the University of Melbourne, 2005–201l. Strategic curriculum change: Global trends in universities, 145-159.

Wall, M. (2016, March 26). Is old tech putting banks under threat of extinction? BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35880429.

For the past 10 years the Institution of Engineering Education (IET) has been compiling and publishing an annual survey on the skills and demand for engineers by industries in the United Kingdom. This year’s survey makes particularly depressing reading for the Engineering Education sector, particularly those of us in higher education. According to the survey, the issues and concerns that have been raised by industry regarding the quality of engineering graduates have remained consistently the same over the entire decade. These issues include the lack of business acumen, and the lack of practical experience and leadership and management skills. In short, year in, year out, engineering graduates are demonstrating an appalling lack of the “soft” and “work ready” skills necessary for them to take on productive roles in industry.

Over 50% of the surveyed employers say that engineering recruits fall short of the expected standard. Two thirds say that this now constitutes a threat to the viability of their businesses.  More damning, however, employers think that that current engineering graduates lack the sense of autonomy and responsibility needed in business, something which is generally viewed as a basic outcome of a well-rounded university education.  In addition, two thirds of the surveyed employers also feel that the UK education system, as it is currently constituted, is not able to deliver the skills required for technological change. More ominously, industry strongly feels that most of our undergraduate engineering programmes are out of date, and a large chunk of our programmes seriously lack the required technical depth. By and large, industry feels that our programmes are failing to develop the practical skills they need. In short, ten years of surveys, and ten years of recommendations, and what do our undergraduate engineering programmes get: A huge indictment – Not Fit for Purpose.

Most of us in higher education may feel that this is industry doing what it is best known for – putting the blame for everything relating to education and training on higher education. On the side of industry, ominous dark whispers are now making the rounds: is university education necessary for the development of industry? Some are even thinking of going it alone, citing the likes of famous university dropouts like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs who went on to build  Microsoft and Apple respectively.

Of course, this is neatly forgetting that the outcomes of these two geniuses would have come to nothing without the culture of cooperation and cross-fertilisation that exists between universities and the technology industry in the United States. Which brings me to the point I want to make: What does the consistent failure of UK engineering higher education in the eyes of industry, and the attendant blame game actually mean? Simply this, there is a shocking lack of cooperation between higher education and industry when it comes to engineering education. Granted, there is some cooperation between a few academics and individuals in industry, but this is not a collaboration dictated by strategic concerns on the part of both universities and industry. It is opportunistic, and lacks the necessary policy and infrastructural support to make any lasting impact.  And the losers are the universities, industry itself, and the unfortunate undergraduate students, and, as a consequence, the entire UK economy.

Am I laying it a bit too thick? I don’t think so, and even the Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning (CAVTL)  has come to the same conclusion – it is time industry and the education and training providers  collaborated in delivering vocational education. The CAVTL was set up in 2012 with a remit to identify ways to improve vocational education and training in the UK. In its report, the CAVTL recommends that “vocational teaching must be characterised by a clear line of sight to work, and the VET system should operate as a two-way street (their emphasis).

By  “a clear line of sight to work”, the CAVTL means that learners must be able to see “why they are learning what they are learning, understand what the development of occupational expertise is all about, and experience the job in context” (CAVTL 2013, pp. 7). To achieve this there must be genuine collaboration between industry and training and education providers (CAVTL 2013, pp. 7).  And, according to the CAVTL report, this can only happen if employers stop being just customers of vocational teaching and training, but move up and become actively engaged at every level in the creation and delivery of vocational programmes.

So what can we learn from the ten years of surveys on the engineering skills and demand for engineers by UK industry. Simply this, it’s no longer time to play the blame game. Instead, it’s now time for engineering schools and industry to work collabatively in the development and delivery of up to date, high quality, excellent engineering undergraduate programmes. And who knows, Silicon Valley, Shanghai, the Ruhr Region, and Tokyo will soon be knocking on our doorsteps.

References

The Institution of Engineering Technology (IET). (2015). Skills and Demand in Industry – 2015 Survey. Retrieved from the IET Website: http://www.theiet.org/factfiles/education/skills2015-page.cfm

The Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning (CAVTL). (2013). It’s about work…Excellent adult vocational teaching and learning: the summary report of the Commission on Adult Vocational Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from Excellence Gateway Website: http://www.excellencegateway.org.uk/content/eg5937#sthash.r8GaHa9l.dpuf