An underrated skill for life

For National Apprenticeship Week 2023, the theme is “skills for life”. This encompasses the apprentice’s individual, corporate and economic impact thanks to the knowledge and skills they have acquired as part of their apprenticeship.

I would like to add that one underrated skill for any apprentice is critical thinking. This is learned both in the workplace and as part of the university side of their apprenticeship, which should also be celebrated. A great apprentice should be skilled in both the classroom and the boardroom.

Critical thinking is needed for an apprentice: as they are new to an organisation, they are able to lend their insights from perspectives different to those of their experienced colleagues. This would lead to economic and societal benefit when applied in practice.

However, critical thinking extends beyond organisational impact. It is needed even before the apprentice has their first day - the best candidates should be keen to analyse their potential time as an apprentice, and want to join with the goal of improving the apprenticeship experience for everyone. Conversely, the best organisations should be receptive to any ideas.

My hope here is to reflect on the nature of apprenticeship, examining current and hypothetical definitions, with the hope of inspiring positive change. This article focuses on cooperative apprenticeships, mostly degree apprenticeships, delivered by both an employer and a university. None of the original work has been peer-reviewed at this moment in time, and most of it is derived from my own personal experience.

With this in mind, it is perhaps most critical to ask the question: what is an apprenticeship?

What is an apprenticeship?

By asking this question, I hope to encourage other apprentices into discussion. As apprenticeships combine the best of academia and industry, so too do I hope that any discussions are academic in their depth and applied across the industry.

Personally, I believe that an apprenticeship is the progression from a lack of experience to a state of academic and professional proficiency. This approach is company- and university- agnostic, and serves to include those who require multiple schemes to reach their goals.

However, this is one facet of apprenticeship. It can be argued that apprenticeships distinguish themselves from other post-18 options by combining both employment and education. This intersection, and the state of maintaining this fine balance, is what defines an apprenticeship.

From the perspective of apprenticeship delivery, progress is not solely determined by the apprentice. Apprentices are indentured to an employer, ideally for the duration of their scheme. The employer has a duty to train, retain and provide work for their apprentices, in exchange for completed project work and new operational insight. Additionally, there is a qualifier - they are the body in charge of ensuring apprenticeship quality.

The role of the qualifier

When considering the type of apprenticeships, Davy and Frankenburg (2018) make the distinction between independent and cooperative apprenticeships.

Independent apprenticeships are typified by the relationship between the apprentice and employer. The apprentice only interacts with the employer, who in turn provides the apprentice with training, retention, and work through which to apply the training. For example, the more traditional master-and-apprentice dynamic would be classified as an independent apprenticeship for this reason. The apprentice does not interact with a university or other higher-education provider in this instance.

I would argue, however, that a qualifier is still at play in an independent apprenticeship. To realise this, you must ask: how do you ensure the excellent quality of an apprentice? The qualifier ensures the quality of the apprentice by interacting with the employer. This may manifest as various parties, from City of London guilds to industry-specific certifications. There is an indirect interaction between apprentice and qualifier, as the qualifier ensures that the employer is able to train the apprentice to the appropriate standard.

In contrast, a cooperative apprenticeship is delivered by both the employer and the qualifier. There is a two way interaction between apprentice and qualifier, as well as with apprentice and employer. Concretely, standards such as the Tech Industry Gold degree apprenticeship would be considered cooperative.

From this model, it is apparent that both employer and qualifier support the apprentice, albeit for different reasons. The apprentice then meets their obligations to the employer and to the qualifier, one of which is the successful completion of their degree to the best of their ability.?

The employer and qualifier also work together to ensure that the apprentice is being supported, and keep each other updated in the process. However, their relationship is currently unbalanced from the beginning. As this imbalance is foundational, it does lead to the question: who chooses the apprentice?

Who chooses the apprentice?

Something which sets independent and cooperative apprenticeships apart is the fact that the apprentice only interacts through the qualifier indirectly. When a candidate is taken onto an independent apprenticeship, such as in a craft-based profession, the employer is the sole party responsible for hiring the apprentice.

However, this is currently also true of cooperative apprenticeships. Employers take on apprentices by assessing candidates themselves through interviews and group activities designed to demonstrate their fit into the company. Enrolment at university (the means by which the apprentice is qualified) is then completed by the employer on behalf of the apprentice, with the term commencing several months after the apprentice has started working for the employer.

I would argue that this system is flawed, given that the university has no say during any part of the process. The students are presented to them as a matter of course. Whilst employers are able to find good candidates for their apprenticeships, they have a different set of needs to a university. As no part from a university is granted, there is no room for their needs to currently be considered.

In my personal experience, many apprentices are totally invested in their employers at the expense of their qualifiers. I have known degree apprentices who have admitted dispensing with UCAS statements completely, and have stated that they never had an interest in going to university at all.?

From my perspective, I would argue that this is a result of the employer being the sole arbiter of who will become an apprentice. This can be explained by the fact that there exists a need to impress the employer at the interview; that there is a focus on employment at open days; and that a candidate’s desire to simply get their foot into the door of a company or industry is sufficient.

If a truly cooperative apprenticeship is sought, then I would argue that the qualifier also needs to have a say in who the apprentices will be. Whilst they should not try to think like an employer, the qualifier should look at candidates through the lens of their own needs. This would help everyone from the following perspectives:

• Apprentice: they would need to impress two parties during their assessment, rather than just one. If one becomes an apprentice from this, there is more prestige as it demonstrates a wider breadth of talent
• Employer: they can acquire a combination of outstanding practitioner and outstanding thinker in one candidate.
• Qualifier: they gain a say in whom they teach, and are able to pick people who actually want to go to university whilst also making a greater difference in the short term.

Of course, one common criticism is that this approach could go to the other extreme. That is, apprenticeship places can be filled by bright scholars with no practical skills. To this, one may respond by considering: what is the focus of an apprenticeship?

What is the focus of an apprenticeship?

Considering a degree apprenticeship, employment at an organisation is balanced with the degree education. Whilst it would not appear to be the case on paper, I would make the argument that it is. During apprentice attraction, the time given for university is normally around 1 day a week, or an average thereof when considering block weeks, per academic term. However, this only accounts for the contact time wherein the apprentice interacts with the qualifier directly. As with full-time degrees, the bulk of time in a degree in an apprenticeship is self-study. When accounting for this, the time spent on university work is equivalent to a full-time working week.

Personally, I would say that a cooperative apprentice should not lean towards employment or education, but should uphold both to their highest standards. Practically, this should include seeking apprentices who want the opportunity to go to university as part of a degree apprenticeship. Additionally, the university component should also be stressed rather than downplayed, as this would attract those who want to earn whilst they learn.

Future hopes

My hope is to inspire a dialogue on the theoretical side of apprenticeship. It is as important to establish an intellectual framework as it is to establish practical ones, as the intersection of theory and practice will lead to the best outcomes for all parties involved in apprenticeship delivery.

Andrew Bolt is a degree apprentice on the Tech Industry Gold standard, working at STFC and studying at Anglia Ruskin University. As someone who has been an apprentice since 2016, he has had the time to reflect and evaluate the current experience.