Memorandum 74
Supplementary evidence from the Royal
Academy of Engineering
1. INTRODUCTION
The Royal Academy of Engineering has submitted
written memoranda to the Committee's Inquiry into Engineering
and was called to give oral evidence to the Committee on Wednesday
30 April (Lord Browne of Madingley, President) and Wednesday 7
May 2008 (Philip Greenish, Chief Executive). The Academy is now
pleased to offer this supplementary memorandum.
The Committee asked for information on the cost
of improving the teaching of engineering in universities. This
memorandum responds both to that question and on the issues of
the writing off of student debt and the engineering diploma.
2. THE COSTS
OF ENGINEERING
DEGREES
There is not yet a definitive answer to the
question posed by the committee. However, there is evidence of
under-funding of engineering degree courses as they currently
exist. There is also a move towards a different style of degree
teaching that improves the educational experience for the student,
its relevance to employers and the retention of graduating students
in engineering employment but at an increased cost. The best known
of these new approaches is CDIO (Conceive, Design, Implement,
and Operate).
2.1. UNDER-FUNDING
OF EXISTING
ENGINEERING DEGREES
Engineering degree courses cost more than many
other subjects because of the requirement for laboratory time
which requires laboratory facilities, laboratory staff and associated
consumables. Currently, HEFCE provides funding at a rate of £6,134
per engineering student. The view of Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) is that engineering degree courses have typically cost
significantly more to run and that this mismatch has been worse
since the early 2000's when HEFCE reduced the cost weight factor
of the basic Unit of Resource available for engineering students
from 2 to 1.7.
A recent study[265]
carried out by J M Consulting on behalf of the Engineering Technology
Board (ETB) and the Engineering Professors Council (EPC), examined
the costs incurred by engineering departments in four UK institutions.
By using TRAC (T)[266]
accounting methods for three of these institutions (the figures
were not available in a suitable form to perform the analysis
in one case), which exclude costs incurred to research and overseas
students, it was possible to show that teaching costs were between
15% and 41% higher than the income derived from HEFCE. Without
further data on the size of cohort for each course in each institution,
it is impossible to express this as a discrete sum of money. This
study was based on a limited data set, so it is unwise to use
it to draw robust assumptions on course costs or under-funding
levels overall.
The Academy is aware that HEFCE is currently
conducting a teaching funding method review, which will report
in September 2008. This is primarily a review of the method of
allocation of funding for teaching and learning, however the data
being gathered could enable a more definitive assessment of the
true cost of degree courses in different disciplines using the
methodology of the ETB and the EPC study discussed above. This
should provide the data required to assess the cost of teaching
engineering degrees as currently delivered.
2.2. FUNDING
OF IMPROVEMENTS
IN ENGINEERING
DEGREE-LEVEL
EDUCATION
The working group set up by the Academy to conduct
the Educating Engineers for the 21st Century[267]
study expressed the view that the cost weight factor of the basic
Unit of Resource should be raised from 1.7 to at least 2.5 in
order to fund the higher costs of creating and staffing industry
state of the art experience-led engineering courses-ie a level
of funding of £9,020 per student, or an uplift of £2,886
per student. This approach is akin to that followed in medicine
which attracts a cost weight factor of 4.
The Academy's experience in the London Engineering
Project (LEP) (where we have worked closely with the Mechanical
Engineering Department at UCL) suggests that two years of preparatory
work are required to introduce CDIO principles in a sustainable
fashion. During this time, regular teaching patterns must be maintained
and the additional planning and preparation work for CDIO presents
an additional burden on departmental resources.
Through the LEP, the Academy has made £184,000
available to UCL over two years to apply aspects of CDIO to their
mechanical engineering courses. Of that sum £132,000 has
been spent on bringing in additional senior academic staff resources
to undertake planning and development work.
It is important to note that at UCL only certain
aspects of the CDIO principles were put in place with this funding.
The key constraints on doing more are space and support facilities.
The CDIO method, with its team- and project-based approaches,
requires space and support facilities (workshop, technician, learning
technologist) which cost considerably more than the modest funding
applied at UCL. The University of Liverpool provides an example
of where capital funding of circa £30m on new facilities
has enabled much wider adoption of CDIO principles than was possible
at UCL through the action of the LEP.
The Academy was recently invited in The Race
to the Top[268],
Lord Sainsbury's review of Government's Science and Innovation
Policies, to review current approaches to engineering education
and to develop experience-led engineering degrees with a number
of leading institutions. The Academy is currently in discussion
with DIUS about funding this important work, which will lead to
a clearer understanding of mechanisms and costs.
3. WRITING OFF
STUDENT DEBT
The Committee asked the panel of witnesses on
7 May whether writing off student debt for engineering graduates
would be plausible way of encouraging more students to study engineering
subjects.
There are approximately 12,500 UK engineering
students graduating each year and student debt is currently thought
to average £25,000 per student. The total cost of writing
off this debt would therefore be in the region of £312,500,000.
The Academy is not convinced that writing off
student debt would be the most effective way to encourage more
students into engineering courses. Students appear to be becoming
acceptant of debt and the low interest rates and repayment schedules
for student debt mean that paying it off would not make a significant
difference to the day-to-day lives of graduates.
Other financial incentives that might be considered,
such as more targeted up-front bursaries for promising students
or those choosing particular branches of engineering. An example
of this is the Power Academy[269]
administered by the Institution of Engineering and Technology,
which offers a bursary of £2,200 for each year of study,
contribution towards university tuition fees, £220 for books
and software, mentors from industry partners and paid summer work
placements for qualifying students undertaking an Electrical,
Electronic or Power Engineering course at Cardiff, Imperial College
London, Strathclyde, Manchester, Southampton or Queens University,
Belfast.
4. THE ENGINEERING
DIPLOMA
There are significant skills shortages in engineering.
The Sectors Skills Council, SEMTA, reports that 18% of employers
in the engineering sector believe some of their employees have
skills gaps and of those, about 70% are technical skills gaps.
The recent CBI education and skills survey found that 59% of employers
reported difficulty in recruiting STEM-skilled employees (and
94% of employers in the energy and water sectors).
The Diplomas are particularly important to finding
solutions to the skills gaps in engineering. Engineering has not,
to date, been taught widely in schools and therefore is often
misunderstood by young people and those that influence them. The
arrival of the Diplomas, with their mix of classroom and work
based learning expose students to authentic engineering from the
age of 14 and therefore are well placed to draw more young people
into the profession.
It is encouraging to see more than 4,000 14-19
year olds enrolling for the Diploma in Engineering, which is rolled
out in September 2008, and a further 3,000 enrolling for the Diploma
in Construction and the Built Environment. More than 300 schools
and colleges are offering these qualifications. From September
2009, it is expected that these numbers will double.
The Royal Academy of Engineering has two roles
in the Diplomas. The Academy provides the chair of one of the
largest diploma partnerships delivering the Diploma in Engineering
and has been one of the key partners in developing the new Maths
for Engineering unit that has enabled many universities to accept
the Advanced Diploma as meeting their admission criteria for engineering
degree courses.
5. BACKGROUND-CDIO
CDIO is an innovative educational programme[270]
for producing the next generation of engineering leaders. It is
being adapted and adopted by a growing number of engineering educational
institutions around the world.
The concept is designed to bridge the gap between
the experiences of engineering undergraduates studying in the
academic environment of a university and the needs of industry
for graduate recruits with practical "hands-on" engineering
experience. Overall, it is seen as enhancing the student learning
experience and has been used to differentiate courses when marketing
to potential students.
The Academy is well acquainted with CDIO principals
through its London Engineering Project (LEP) where Cambridge-MIT
Institute (CMI) is a partner.
CDIO principles are not about course content
but course delivery style, method and organisation. CMI and others
key to developing CDIO have taken care to ensure that the resources
needed to deliver a course according to CDIO principals are easily
and freely available. Therefore, there is no formal entry cost
for an engineering Department wishing to apply CDIO principals.
June 2008
265 The Costs of Teaching Engineering Degrees, J M
Consulting, 2007 Back
266
TRAC costs are implemented by every higher education institution
in the UK. TRAC (T) reports just the costs of teaching within
this framework. Further details including methods and definitions
can be found at www.jcpsg.ac.uk/guidance/ Back
267
Educating Engineers for the 21st Century, Royal Academy of Engineering,
2007 (www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Educating_Engineers_21st_Century.pdf) Back
268
The Race to the Top, HM Treasury, Oct 2007 Back
269
http://www.theiet.org/about/scholarships-awards/power-academy/ Back
270
www.cdio.org Back
| 
