Memorandum submitted by the Institution
of Civil Engineers (ICE)
INSTITUTION OF
CIVIL ENGINEERS
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is
a UK-based international organisation with over 75,000 members
ranging from professional civil engineers to students. It is an
educational and qualifying body and has charitable status under
UK law. Founded in 1818, ICE has become recognised worldwide for
its excellence as a centre of learning, as a qualifying body and
as a public voice for the profession.
ICE has close links with the HE sector, for
example through the Joint Board of Moderators' (JBM) accreditation—jointly
with three other professional bodies—of a wide range of
degree programmes, including four year MEng, three year BEng and
foundation years.
Under the UK Standard for Professional Competence
(UK-SPEC) (2004) published by the ECUK, the educational base for
registration as a Chartered Engineer (CEng) can be achieved by
successful completion of an integrated MEng degree.
INTRODUCTION
The ICE is concerned about the impact of Bologna
on the integrity and viability of the MEng beyond its role in
professional qualifications. The MEng is an integrated undergraduate
programme normally of four years duration (five in Scotland) with
a credit rating of 480 (UK CATS points)/240 (European ECTS credits).
This is higher than that for the UK bachelor degree (360/180).
The MEng also differs significantly from the UK bachelors degree
in depth of understanding, the learning outcomes and the amount
of M level work (as defined by the National Credit Framework).
The MEng is respected amongst employers.
The Bologna Accord model is for a first cycle/second
cycle system of 3+2 years with the first cycle attracting a minimum
of 180 European credits and the second cycle 90 European credits.
This makes a total of 270 ECTS (minimum). Thus, the four year
integrated undergraduate MEng programme sits uncomfortably between
the first and second cycles of degree as defined under the Bologna
Accord.
There are conflicting reports about whether
or not the four-year integrated MEng will be recognized as a second
cycle qualification under the Bologna Accord. This uncertainty
is not helpful and ICE believes that the Government has a key
role to play in ensuring that UK qualifications are recognized.
It is imperative that the UK has a robust, properly funded, recognizable
and defensible second cycle qualification in civil engineering
MOBILITY
We feel that there are huge advantages for the
UK in complying with the Bologna Accord especially in respect
of enabling student mobility and encouraging students from outside
the UK to study here. It would be to the detriment of the UK higher
education system if such students were discouraged from studying
here because of a fear that their MEng qualification would not
be recognised as a second cycle qualification once they returned
home. It is important that HEIs offering civil engineering programmes
have a defensible and recognisable second cycle qualification.
Failure to ensure this will damage the reputation of the UK amongst
the Bologna signatories (and future signatories), and will have
an adverse impact on the recognition of UK Graduates within Europe
(and the wider International area represented by the Bologna signatories),
as well as the attractiveness and ongoing viability of the UK
to attract students. It is crucial that graduates from the UK
system are internationally recognized.
THE MENG
AS A
SECOND CYCLE
QUALIFICATION
Based on the proposed first cycle/second cycle
3+2 years model, the ICE recently supported a recommendation from
the Joint Board of Moderators (the degree accrediting body for
civil engineering) to universities that for their MEng they increase
the number of ECTS (European) credits from 240 to 270. It was
felt by ICE that this was a responsible course of action by the
accrediting body in an attempt to safeguard the status of the
MEng and its future graduates. This was felt to be the minimum
step that could be taken. However, there is an increasingly despondent
view amongst academics whom we have consulted that the MEng is
not defensible under the Bologna Accord, notwithstanding an increase
in ECTS credits.
It is important that the UK continues to benefit
from having high quality provision of civil engineering HE, and
that such departments in the UK can operate on equal terms with
international counterparts. There is some support amongst academics
whom the ICE has consulted for utilising structured and assessed
work placements and vacation experience as credit-bearing course
components thereby increasing the number of MEng credits as described
above. This is not viewed as being too difficult to achieve (examples
of 2 x 10 week placements have been suggested). Some universities
are moving, or planning to move, in this direction. However, there
are severe resource implications and it is clear that not all
universities would be able to implement such changes without additional
funding from government. If a few elite universities—perhaps
those with a high dependence on overseas students—make such
changes, this could result in a two-tier system that we would
not wish to see.
Whilst it is often reported that there is a
relationship of 2 UK credits to 1 European credit, ICE is not
aware of definitive work in this area, nor of a definition of
a credit in terms of Output Standards. This would be an appropriate
topic for a Bologna Accord Study Group.
FUNDING ISSUES
As we understand that the UK Government is defending
the Integrated Masters as being second cycle compliant, ICE would
like an assurance that Government will underwrite the financial
support to UK students studying engineering to second cycle in
whatever form that might subsequently have to take.
The issues raised by the Bologna Accord requires
a re-thinking of the whole basis of HE funding at both bachelors
and masters level.
PROGRAMME LENGTH
We have assumed that the length of first and
second cycles (3+2) as defined in the Bologna Accord is non-negotiable.
If not, then we would urge the UK Government to pursue this with
the other signatories.
If the length of the UK MEng programme has to
move to become five years, ICE supports the view that the fifth
year could be spent in industry. This would deepen the link between
HE and industry. Issues of assessment of work-based learning,
quality assurance, equivalence and recognition/reward for industry
would have to be addressed.
PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATION—CHARTERED
STATUS
Although, the recognition of professional qualifications
is addressed under separate EU arrangements, there is a risk that
losing second cycle status for the MEng might adversely impact
the recognition of Chartered Engineer (CEng). When according professional
recognition to other EU nationals we use the education level to
determine whether the recognition should be accorded at Incorporated
Engineering (IEng) or CEng. Even though our professional qualifications
address experience and competence beyond academic qualification,
we would be concerned if other EU States were to use Bologna Accord
compliance, or lack of, for recognition purposes.
SUB-FIRST
CYCLE QUALIFICATIONS
The proposed three-phase structure of HE awards
(first cycle—Bachelors; second cycle—Masters; third
cycle—PhD) means that those exiting with, for example, a
Foundation degree are unlikely to find this internationally recognized.
LEVEL OF
AWARENESS AND
GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP
The level of awareness of the Bologna Accord
has been poor amongst HE but is now escalating. ICE is very concerned
about this and strongly urges some clear leadership at the centre.
It has not been clear who/which government department is taking
the lead beyond the first cycle ie first degree phase.
The Government's Science & innovation framework
2004-14 opens as follows: "The nations that can thrive in
a highly competitive global economy will be those that can compete
on high technology and intellectual strength—attracting
the highest-skilled people [...]" The framework's ambitions
for UK science and innovation include the following:
"World class research at the UK's strongest
centres of excellence."
"Sustainable and financially robust universities
and public laboratories across the UK."
All of this would indicate a need to ensure
that care and focus is directed to qualifications at second and
third cycle, and a clear recognition of the impact of failing
to do this. To date this has been lacking with the impression
given that focus has been on access to first cycle qualifications
at the expense of the others.
We recently learnt from the Europe Unit of UUK
that the impact of implementation in 2010 is immediate and therefore
those students who entered four-year MEng degree programmes in
2006 risk graduating with a degree that is not Bologna compliant.
Anecdotally we know that companies may operate a "play safe"
policy and prefer to employ those with internationally recognized
qualifications rather than UK MEng graduates. Non-UK graduates
who return to their own country on graduation may find themselves
disadvantaged.
THE AGENDA
FOR DISCUSSION
AT THE
2007 MEETING IN
LONDON
We do not believe that the focus should be on
defending the MEng. It is not clear to us how the Government can
continue to defend heavily the MEng whilst still ensuring that
the UK has an internationally recognized second cycle degree.
The Government should stress the UK's strong
position on second cycle degrees. We offer a range of diverse
provision at Masters level that is meeting the changing needs
of industry.
The UK has moved to an educationally strong
position where the focus is on learning outcomes rather than inputs
(such as credits). The Government should encourage the other signatories
to move to this position of focus on learning outcomes.
A Working Group should be proposed to look at
defining "credit" in terms of learning outcomes and
at the relationship between UK and European credits.
SUMMARY
The UK needs its graduates to be internationally
recognized.
Defending the current four-year MEng (without
modification) as second cycle is not tenable.
The Government is urged to underwrite the compliance
of the MEng with the second cycle qualification as defined by
the Bologna Accord.
There is an opportunity to strengthen the link
between HE and industry in order to deliver extra learning to
ensure that the MEng is recognized as equivalent to other non-UK
second cycle degrees.
There must be a clear single point of ownership
in government for the whole spectrum of Bologna Accord-related
issues to ensure directional leadership.
The Government should give an assurance that
an internationally recognized UK second cycle degree will be funded.
Universities, students (especially those graduating
in 2010), their parents, employers and accrediting bodies urgently
require clear confirmation from the Government about its aspirations
for the future development of the Bologna process and the UK's
place in it.
December 2006
| 
