Sir James Dyson: Technology education will be key to bridging our skills gap
A serious crisis is looming: Britain will be short of 1.8 million engineers by 2025. This is not going to be solved through apprenticeship schemes or the traditional approach that is focused on university education. Neither will the indiscriminate imposition of a tax on business, to fund specific apprenticeship schemes, solve the problem.
Apprenticeships have, wrongly, been seen as the main solution to the so-called skills shortage. While they are important for some businesses, they do not address the core problem. Nor, it seems, can traditional education adequately nurture the inventive minds that fast-paced engineering companies so desperately need.
For Dyson and most modern, high-tech businesses, the critical shortage is of highly skilled engineers, scientists, mathematicians and coders. We need the sharpest graduates, with an approach to problem-solving that allows them to conceive new technologies. These are the brains that will help us to generate the algorithms, software, hardware and intellectual property that we need to stand a chance at exporting. The success of Singapore shows the benefits of a focus on technology education, a high-value economy and exports. There, 40 per cent of graduates are engineers and it is a brilliant place to develop technology.
The Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology will provide two and a half times the learning time of a conventional university
Yet a consultation in the UK, by the science and technology select committee in 2016, listed potential solutions to plug our skills gap as “apprenticeships, vocational courses, mentoring, teacher placements in industry and establishing links between business and schools/colleges”. These are laudable in their own way, but are in danger of proving irrelevant. It is notable that there was not a university-level qualification in sight.
In short, if the education system is to meet the needs of technology companies such as Dyson, and allow the UK to stand a chance of fighting its way to the front of the world stage in this technology-dominated age, then our approach to education needs a shake-up.Thankfully, Jo Johnson grasped the scale of the problem and delivered the Higher Education and Research Bill during the last parliament.
This legislation recognises that it is companies that are investing in and shaping the future. It asserts that they are best placed to look forwards and help to provide young people with the level of education they need.In September we open the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology to our first cohort. We will provide a Russell Group-level degree alongside a real-world job — we will pay them a salary and charge no tuition fees.
It is a different approach, but represents a highly relevant alternative to a traditional education.The undergraduates will be “proper” Dyson engineers and scientists from day one. They will work with leading practitioners on real products, for real homes. They will do this alongside their studies. They will receive two and a half times the learning time of a conventional university. They will be at our university 47 weeks a year; double the 24 weeks at Oxford and Cambridge, for four years rather than three.
The legislation represents an opportunity to produce graduates aligned to our economic needs, by allowing them to learn from real practitioners. It is tremendously exciting: an enticing carrot, incentivising businesses to get on board and generate the high-technology undergraduates to fill the shortage we’re all bemoaning.
Unfortunately, we’re still being beaten with a big stick; the apprenticeship levy is set to be another tax on businesses. This blunt instrument is forcing businesses into a corner, demanding that all businesses pay a tax to fund the skills that only a few need.
Let me be clear. Apprenticeships have a valuable place in certain industries, but we need hardware and software engineers, and scientists, to develop technology. Degree-level education is the real battleground. We can have a transformational impact on our education system and our economy, at no cost to the state or the undergraduates, but policymakers need to give us the flexibility to achieve this.
Apprenticeships have, wrongly, been seen as the main solution to the so-called skills shortage. While they are important for some businesses, they do not address the core problem. Nor, it seems, can traditional education adequately nurture the inventive minds that fast-paced engineering companies so desperately need.
For Dyson and most modern, high-tech businesses, the critical shortage is of highly skilled engineers, scientists, mathematicians and coders. We need the sharpest graduates, with an approach to problem-solving that allows them to conceive new technologies. These are the brains that will help us to generate the algorithms, software, hardware and intellectual property that we need to stand a chance at exporting. The success of Singapore shows the benefits of a focus on technology education, a high-value economy and exports. There, 40 per cent of graduates are engineers and it is a brilliant place to develop technology.
The Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology will provide two and a half times the learning time of a conventional university
Yet a consultation in the UK, by the science and technology select committee in 2016, listed potential solutions to plug our skills gap as “apprenticeships, vocational courses, mentoring, teacher placements in industry and establishing links between business and schools/colleges”. These are laudable in their own way, but are in danger of proving irrelevant. It is notable that there was not a university-level qualification in sight.
In short, if the education system is to meet the needs of technology companies such as Dyson, and allow the UK to stand a chance of fighting its way to the front of the world stage in this technology-dominated age, then our approach to education needs a shake-up.Thankfully, Jo Johnson grasped the scale of the problem and delivered the Higher Education and Research Bill during the last parliament.
This legislation recognises that it is companies that are investing in and shaping the future. It asserts that they are best placed to look forwards and help to provide young people with the level of education they need.In September we open the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology to our first cohort. We will provide a Russell Group-level degree alongside a real-world job — we will pay them a salary and charge no tuition fees.
It is a different approach, but represents a highly relevant alternative to a traditional education.The undergraduates will be “proper” Dyson engineers and scientists from day one. They will work with leading practitioners on real products, for real homes. They will do this alongside their studies. They will receive two and a half times the learning time of a conventional university. They will be at our university 47 weeks a year; double the 24 weeks at Oxford and Cambridge, for four years rather than three.
The legislation represents an opportunity to produce graduates aligned to our economic needs, by allowing them to learn from real practitioners. It is tremendously exciting: an enticing carrot, incentivising businesses to get on board and generate the high-technology undergraduates to fill the shortage we’re all bemoaning.
Unfortunately, we’re still being beaten with a big stick; the apprenticeship levy is set to be another tax on businesses. This blunt instrument is forcing businesses into a corner, demanding that all businesses pay a tax to fund the skills that only a few need.
Let me be clear. Apprenticeships have a valuable place in certain industries, but we need hardware and software engineers, and scientists, to develop technology. Degree-level education is the real battleground. We can have a transformational impact on our education system and our economy, at no cost to the state or the undergraduates, but policymakers need to give us the flexibility to achieve this.
No comments:
Post a Comment