The vocational alternative: a definitive opportunity for universities?

The proposed Tech levels (2&3) Technician Standards designed with employers seem a potentially good marry with the learning element of the new Apprenticeships Standards, including presumably Degree Apprenticeships. However the current levels 4&5 HNC/Ds Higher Technician qualifications may also need to be modified to accommodate smooth access both from Tech levels and importantly subsequent direct transfer into the regular degree programmes that lead to membership of chartered/registered status of the Professional Societies. Also, the separate Applied General Qualifications level 3 might be better renamed as Technical A levels developed under the same remit as regular A levels, so that the Academic route has coherence, and additionally facilitate smooth transfer to either the Degree Apprenticeship or revised Higher Technician qualifications,

Once again we are seemingly prepossessed with the notion of a skills shortage. Once again we have at hand 'industry' (whatever that is) to guide us through the mysterious dichotomy of education and training. Once again there is talk of integrating 'apprenticeships with other forms of provision ... that are equivalent to university degrees'. To boot there is talk of easing the transfer across the dichotomy. How often do we have to read of the Universitys' failure in 'equipping' young people for work when in reality their brief was (still is??) to 'educate' young people in preparation for their employer's training programme?? after all isn't that what what a Graduate Training Scheme is?? Of course there are alternative routes through to being able to perform the role of a skilled professional. Taking a youngster from school and fully training that individual into the role of, say, Engineer is no different from taking a graduate from University and then giving them the opportunity of passing through a Graduate Training Scheme (not all of them do!!). From an engineering perspective they are equivalent in what they can DO ... but they are NOT equivalent as individuals; one has been educated AND trained and the other has been specifically trained. This is not to say that the apprentice does not have/ has not had an education, it simply means that they have not received a formal University education. An education rightly separated from this ridiculous pursuit of those generic skills which nobody seems able to define. The Polytechnics did much to build bridges across the binary divide but all their good work was scuppered by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which tickled the hubris of Directors & Principles when giving them the choice of remaining what they rightly were ... or becoming VCs ... ummmm that must have been a difficult choice. It's not surprising that Manchester Metropolitan are doing sound vocational type work ... that is their History; but I'm surprised that they are embracing 'degree apprenticeships' because such things are not real: you can have one or the other but not both. If what they mean by 'combining time at a university with in-work training and experience' is what used to be called a sandwich programme then fine, we can all understand that, otherwise a degree apprenticeship is just another form of hype that will disappear almost as quickly as the Shadow Chief Executive of the IFA!! The example of 'degree apprenticeships as an alternative pathway into the legal professions' is nonsense; the Law Society determine pathways in to the Legal Profession nobody else. Having a degree in Law does NOT advance you in to the profession. As far as the Law Society is concerned becoming a practitioner of Law requires at least 'three years to train if you are a law graduate, at least four years if you are a non-law graduate and at least six years if you are not a graduate'. Having employers (whatever that means) sitting "... at the heart of a dynamic skills system to ensure the day-to-day training and education that individuals receive genuinely meet the needs of industry” is just deeply worrying. They (whoever they are) are incapable of defining what a skill IS!! so I'm not sure how they can ensure anything. It would be much better if they stopped meddling in University curricula and better funded their own training programmes.