Engineering fault in the system

Richard Barry argues for axing the 30 plus engineering faculties which last year accepted students with A-level points well below those of their humanities counterparts

It is that time of year again. As soon as universities have finalised their acceptances we can expect to hear the cry that, yet again, just about anyone can get a place to study engineering.

If last year is anything to go by, this will be spiced with the horror of students being accepted for engineering degree courses with merely two E-grade A levels.

The sub-text is that because anybody can get a place to study engineering, engineering is for the less able: bright kids do humanities.

Is that fair? Let us compare the university entry requirements for engineering (represented by mechanical, civil, electronic and/or general engineering courses) and humanities (represented by history and/or English).

The comparison uses the most common convention to measure A-level performance (grade A is ten points, B is eight points and so forth).

Looking at the overall average, the charge is true: entry to engineering does require markedly fewer A level points than entry to humanities.

But this overall average obscures important truths: only two universities demanded an average of 28 points, and both these were for engineering; no humanities faculties were so demanding.

That apart, among the most demanding 20 or so universities there was rather little difference between the entry requirements in engineering and for humanities.

Below the top 20, thing don't look so good: 37 institutions accepted students with fewer than ten points for engineering courses, whereas only two had such low requirements for humanities' students.

There is no doubt that engineering is let down by its undemanding tail. But few realise that this huge tail is being dragged behind such an elite head.

If the tail was lopped off (and we looked only at universities with average A-level scores in excess of ten points) the average scores for engineers and for humanities would be practically identical.

The evidence of the top 20 institutions shows clearly that engineering is not a subject for the less able. But the collapse after the top 20 suggests a significant oversupply of engineering places at British universities.

The Engineering Council reports that 87 institutions offer 1,065 engineering degree courses that are accredited: that is, provide a qualifying step towards chartered status.

We may conclude, therefore, that most of those institutions accepting candidates with fewer than ten A-level points must be offering accredited courses that can lead to chartering.

It is worthwhile to recall the Engineering Council's description of a chartered engineer: "chartered engineers are concerned with innovation, creativity and change, and with advanced technology involving high risk and capital.

The work is predominantly intellectual and varied, requiring original thought and judgment . . ."

This is very demanding. Yet one's sense of unease increases when one learns that very seldom is a course stripped of its accreditation.

Last year Michelin stripped 6 per cent of its coveted stars from restaurants: should we conclude that the French care more about restaurants than the British do about higher education standards?

What would happen if there were a cull of those engineering faculties which, on average, require of their accepted candidates fewer than ten A-level points?

Surely a cull would exacerbate the shortage of engineers in the UK? There is a shortage, isn't there? Yes and no: there is a serious shortage of Chateau Lafite 1982 at Pounds 3.99 a bottle, but you can get as many cases as you want at Pounds 220 a bottle.

It is the same with engineers; there is a serious shortage of high-quality engineers willing to work for Pounds 20,000 a year but headhunters offering Pounds 90,000 a year will get all they want.

The trouble is, no one knows if the universities in question produce the engineering equivalent of Chateau Lafite or supermarket plonk. Given the low entry requirement, many people conclude it must be the latter - but that is simply guessing.

We do know, however, that the UK suffers from a serious shortage of skilled engineering craftsmen. Indeed, the engineering industry has just instituted a major programme to attract more young people into modern apprenticeships.

To the extent that some university engineering students might otherwise have entered modern apprenticeships, the nation has, in effect, swapped skilled engineering craftsmen and women for graduate engineers of suspect quality.

Irrespective of one's view as to its desirability, the cull may happen anyway.

If and when the UK moves to a system of student-funded higher education, and it becomes quite normal for a student to graduate with a personal debt of Pounds 20,000 or more, the wisdom of incurring such a debt in exchange for three years at an institution with low entry requirements may look doubtful.

The key thing then, of course, will be to channel those candidates into undersubscribed modern apprenticeships from which they will eventually emerge as skilled engineering craftsmen - richer too, with savings rather than debt. Now that would be really useful.

Richard Barry is visiting research fellow at the school of engineering, University of Manchester.