Memorandum submitted by Engineering Council
UK (ECUK)
INTRODUCTION
1. Engineering Council UK (ECUK) welcomes
this inquiry by the Select Committee. The Bologna process and
its implications for UK higher education have received very little
external scrutiny in this country and ECUK hopes that the Committee's
Report will illuminate the issues and the policy decisions which
need to be taken in respect of them. This submission, which has
been drawn up in consultation with the professional engineering
institutions, concentrates on two issues in particular of those
which the Committee has included in its remit. These are the implications
of a three-phase structure of higher education awards for UK Masters
degrees, and in particular for integrated Masters degrees such
as the MEng degree, and the possible implementation of a European
Credit Transfer Scheme and the extent to which this recognises
learning outcomes rather than workload.
ENGINEERING COUNCIL
UK
2. Under its Royal Charter Engineering Council
UK sets the standard of education, professional development and
competence necessary for registration with it as a Chartered Engineer
(CEng), Incorporated Engineer (IEng) or Engineering Technician
(EngTech). The current standard, the United Kingdom Standard for
Professional Engineering Competence (UK-SPEC) was published in
December 2003. One part of it sets out the output standards which
university engineering degree programmes must meet if they are
to be accredited by one of the professional engineering institutions.
ECUK licenses the institutions to carry out the accreditation
of degree programmes, and to assess and register individuals under
UK-SPEC.
3. In addition, under its Charter ECUK acts
as the UK representative body in relation to the international
recognition of registrants and of qualifications in engineering
and related subjects. It is party to a number of international
agreements about the mutual recognition of academic qualifications
and professional status and plays an active role in international
bodies concerned with engineering education and professional competence,
both in Europe and in the wider world. It is a Designated Authority
under the EU General Systems Directives on professional qualifications.
4. Engineering Council UK therefore has
a vital interest in the nature of UK higher education in engineering
and in its international standing. Of its nearly 250,000 registrants,
around 20% are domiciled outside the UK. Many more will spend
periods of time working on contracts and projects in other countries.
It has been estimated that the total value of UK exports of engineering
services exceeds £4 billion annually. Engineering is a global
activity, and it is important that British engineers are able
to operate freely and have their academic and professional qualifications
recognised across the world. It is also important that the UK
can continue to benefit from having high quality provision of
higher education in engineering, and that engineering departments
in UK universities can operate on equal terms with their European
counterparts. One aspect of this will be their ability to participate
in collaborative activities with those counterparts and to enjoy
the benefits that these activities can bring. It is equally important
that UK universities can continue to attract overseas students.
This is especially the case for postgraduate courses, as European
universities are increasingly providing postgraduate programmes
taught in English.
5. In this context it should be noted that
the British tradition of professional engineering formation differs
from that in most other European countries. Here the standard
pathway to professional status is through programmes of higher
education, which in most of the UK are three (for an Incorporated
Engineer) or four (for a Chartered Engineer) years in length,
followed by a period of initial professional development (typically
four to five years) and culminating in a professional review which
ensures that the person can demonstrate the necessary competence
to be registered. The higher education component is usually taken
away from home and does of course require payment of fees, except
in Scotland. Elsewhere in Europe, qualification is by way of a
University Diploma, usually five years in length, with students
often remaining at home and not paying fees. There are also differences
in the number of years of pre-university education students will
have had, and in the nature of this education. The British system
has generally been found just as effective and British engineers
have operated on at least equal terms with their European counterparts.
THE THREE-CYCLE
QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK
6. Generally speaking the Bologna Declaration,
with its declared aim of promoting mobility, should offer advantages
to the UK as much as to the other signatories. However the aspirations
may not be fulfilled, and mobility may in fact be impeded, if
the implementation of Bologna results in an over-rigid framework
or mechanisms for comparing degree awards in different signatory
countries. We have particular concerns about this in relation
to the two main aspects of the European Higher Education Qualifications
Framework (EHEQF), namely the three cycle model and the use of
ECTS as a basis for comparison of awards.
7. A key feature of engineering higher education
in the UK for more than 20 years has been the integrated Masters
degree, the MEng. About one third of the total of 17,000 home
students entering engineering degree courses annually enter MEng
programmes. The MEng is a four year programme (five years in Scotland)
which integrates both Honours-level and Masters-level learning.
It provides a fast-track way to achieve the academic requirements
for registration as a Chartered Engineer (otherwise an Honours
degree followed by a separate Masters degree) and is designed
as a preparation for professional practice. It is different in
principle from an MSc in engineering which is generally designed
as a stand-alone programme, following an Honours degree, which
extends depth of study in a relatively closely defined discipline.
The MEng degree achieves its Masters degree character by taking
some of the areas of study found in an Honours degree in engineering
to a deeper level but equally through integrating all the different
aspects—mathematics, science, analysis, design, the economic,
social and business context, and engineering practice. This integration
is achieved in large measure through individual and group design
projects. Generally the Masters level content will be distributed
throughout the later stages of an integrated programme of study,
rather than simply in the final year. This requires the programme
to be designed as an integrated whole. UK-SPEC sets out clearly
the learning outcomes which MEng programmes must deliver if they
are to be professionally accredited, and these outcome statements
have also been adopted by the QAA as its Engineering subject benchmark.
8. When the QAA introduced Frameworks for
Higher Education Qualifications in 2001 great care was taken to
establish that MEng degrees could be placed within it at Masters
level. In discussion it was established that the twin aspects
described above—deeper study of some areas, together with
integration of the whole field of study—indeed enabled the
MEng to meet the Masters level descriptor. A key characteristic
of the MEng is that it is designed as an integrated whole and
that the Masters level nature of it is not established simply
through a bolt-on final year added to a three or four year Honours
degree. However, this does not accord with the three cycle system
adopted under Bologna, under which the MEng would need to be separated
into Bachelors and Masters degree components. This would require
universities to re-design their programmes, but would remove the
degree's essential programme characteristics. It would also create
funding difficulties for both universities and students, since
the Masters degree would be under a different funding regime,
whereas at present the whole MEng programme has the same financial
arrangements as an Honours degree. There are various procedural
alternatives, such as awarding both an Honours degree and a Masters
degree at the end of the programme, but these have an air of artificiality
about them. Nonetheless they may have to be explored if the degree
is to be maintained.
ECTS: TIME SERVED
VERSUS LEARNING
OUTCOMES
9. A much greater area of difficulty lies
in the adoption of ECTS as the basis for comparison between qualifications
and for helping them to be placed within EHEQF. If the general
working relationship of two UK CATS points = one ECTS credit is
accepted, then under the agreement reached at the ministerial
meeting at Bergen in 2005 an integrated Masters degree would have
to have 540-600 CATS points, of which a minimum of 120 would be
at second cycle level. The five year MEng programmes in Scottish
universities would indeed accumulate the required credits. However,
four-year MEng programmes in the rest of the UK will have fewer
CATS points (480) and therefore fewer ECTS credits (240), although
they will deliver the same learning outcomes as their Scottish
counterparts, as set out in UK-SPEC and the QAA's Engineering
Benchmark. This is highly illogical.
10. ECUK has worked with the QAA and the
Europe Unit of Universities UK to produce advice to universities
about how they might accumulate more credits within the final
year of an MEng programme by, for example running projects and
work placements over the summer vacation, or making the final
year a full calendar year rather than an academic year. Changes
of this nature might enhance the programmes and some universities
are considering making them, but they have obvious resource implications
and would require additional public funding. They would also be
likely to have a deleterious impact upon research activity at
a time when the Government is encouraging higher quality research.
They might also be seen by those who wish to call UK degrees into
question as an admission that these programmes were lacking in
content. On a strict reading of the ECTS rules they would only
accumulate a total of 15 extra ECTS credits, since the scheme
supposes that only 75 credits in all can be amassed during one
year, however intensive the learning and teaching may be. This
would still leave the MEng at the lower end of the credit ranges
agreed in Bergen, and open to suggestions that it was not a full
second cycle qualification. It should be noted that the same difficulty
affects MSc degrees which are usually twelve months in length;
although the Burgess report on the use of academic credit in higher
education in England, for example, suggests that these will have
180 credits or 90 ECTS, on a strict reading of the ECTS rules
these could only attract 75 ECTS.
11. What is required is a reform of ECTS
so that it reflects a more sophisticated relationship between
workload and learning outcomes, instead of concentrating on the
former. ECUK strongly supports the statement made by the Europe
Unit of Universities UK at Annex D of the Burgess Report, and
the critique of ECTS set out there. In engineering, the UK approach
is based very firmly on outcomes, and as noted above ECUK has
made clear statements about the expected outcomes from engineering
degrees, which have also been adopted by QAA. An outcomes-based
approach is much less common elsewhere in Europe, although the
EURACE project on accreditation of engineering degrees, a project
funded by the European Commission and in which ECUK has played
a prominent role, has included outcomes based on UK-SPEC within
the framework which has been developed. Moreover other international
agreements to which ECUK is party, such as the Washington Accord
which involves eight other mainly English-speaking countries,
have now developed an agreed framework of learning outcomes as
the main reference point for comparison of degrees.
12. Ownership of ECTS rests with the European
Commission, and it is extremely difficult to identify how amendments
to it may be effected. We understand the Commission may be undertaking
a review of the scheme, but it is not clear how this will be carried
out or what kind of consultation there will be. UK Ministers have
said on various occasions that they are committed to an approach
based on learning outcomes, and we hope that they will use all
their influence, as the hosts for the next Bologna Ministerial
meeting, to ensure that this is adopted. Unless this fundamental
change in approach is brought about, the MEng and other UK Masters
programmes will continue to be open to suggestions that they are
not full second cycle qualifications. This could have implications
for UK graduates who wish to undertake further study to doctoral
level, especially if they wish to do so in another European country.
It could also affect the international standing of the degrees
and the universities offering them, with possible consequences
for the standing of UK professional engineers. It is in the interests
of UK higher education for its degrees to be seen as "Bologna-compliant",
but achieving compliance simply through length of programmes,
or numbers of ECTS using the present system would be a high price
to pay. This would not just be a monetary price (although the
costs to government, HEIs and students would be considerable).
While offering no obvious educational advantages it would put
more obstacles in the way of those considering an engineering
career, lengthen the period before beginning professional practice,
and potentially act as a disincentive to taking up engineering
with consequent impact upon the UK's skills base.
13. Because of the role which the MEng has
as a preparation for professional practice, ECUK and the professional
engineering institutions are seen by many in universities as the
bodies which should make a decision about the future of the MEng.
We are currently considering the matter, but would prefer to await
the outcomes of the London ministerial meeting in May 2007 and
of the review of ECTS before making any firm recommendations to
universities. While we have welcomed Ministers' statements of
support for the MEng and other Masters degrees, as exemplified
by Lord Adonis' remarks in the House of Lords in July 2006, it
would be beneficial to have some clearer statements from the Government
about its aspirations for the future development of the Bologna
Process and the UK's place in it. While universities are autonomous
institutions which make their own decisions, the responsibility
cannot be entirely left to them or professional bodies. We hope
therefore that the Government will fully appreciate the issues
which the Bologna Process gives rise to and will accept that it
has a part to play in helping universities and others associated
with higher education to address them.
|
