I’m not so sure why we are so pre-occupied with rushing things and shortening the delivery model. What’s currently wrong with higher education is the notion you are “reading for a degree”.
Much of the technical content has been taken out of modern degree programmes, with students only getting 8-10 contact hours per week for their £9k+ a year. I know the world has moved on, but the degree I did 40 years ago had more than 30 hours a week of contact over three terms, including a year out in industry. It was full of technical content and we were “work ready” after four years of study.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
Experience is something that is gained over years working and studying in the sector. Not something, in my opinion, that you can gain in five minutes. All credit to NMITE for breaking the mould because the system is broken and I speak from a position of authority having taught in higher education for 17 years, the remainder of my career being in the industry in various roles spanning a career total of over 40 years.
Tim Jones
I agree with Tim Jones and, at the risk of sounding old as I approach retirement, I too did my degree nearly 40 years ago, and without doubt the single most important and beneficial part was the third year working in industry.
If you take that out, then you are compressing what was three years of hard study into two years. Not impossible with the technology advances in that period, but construction is such a tangible, tactile industry with highly dynamic teams of people that I fear missing out the industrial placement year will make graduates less industry-ready.
Darren Wisbey
There have always been tensions between academia and industry. Industry wants oven-ready, self-basting graduates – they don’t exist.
I’m finding apartment builders are engaging safety specialists to compile a fire strategy for the building stage, on new-build domestic three-to-four-storey blocks, and then on completion, the managing agents are engaging another specialist to undertake another in-depth risk assessment and adding the cost to the service charges. Surely this is an unnecessary duplication. I accept a review is necessary two years after handover, but an expensive assessment on completion is total overkill.
Many main contractors are already using proprietary software to capture this information, but due to sheer volume of the items that [are] needed to record/reconcile it has now become so unwieldy and time-consuming for site teams, that inevitably items are misrecorded or missed entirely.
If data capture is so vitally important, then each/every subcon should have dedicated onsite, full-time quality managers trained in capturing the correct info.
Sadly, in my experience, this doesn’t happen and all too often is left to the already overloaded ops managers on site.
