top up degrees (again)

[chris]

Just wondering if there are any shipping companies that would help towards the fees for a top-up degree in marine engineering, specifically the BEng at South Shields.

http://www.stc.ac.uk/content/marine-college/b-eng-marine-engineering

I imagine the fees are at least ?7,000 for the academic year, the time required to go from a fd/HND to an ordinary degree issued by Northumbria Uni.

I ask as an ETO cadet as currently there are no further tickets for ETOs equivalent to being sponsored for 2nds, chiefs etc and the top up degree seems a good way of gaining the mechanical engineering theory missing from the new ETO course and perhaps leading to some marine engineering shore side jobs in the future.

[ETwhat?]

I think the issue you will have is that putting an officer through further tickets is benifical to the company, putting an ETO through a degree that wont actually make him better at his job on ship is pointless, although will be benifical for the person,

[alistairuk]

I think the issue you will have is that putting an officer through further tickets is benifical to the company, putting an ETO through a degree that wont actually make him better at his job on ship is pointless, although will be benifical for the person,

Actually, negotiating with your company to pay for further licences is becoming increasingly difficult (based on the selection of us doing chief mates - with a variety of large companies) - with increasingly larger tie in clauses for those that do manage to persuade the company to at least partially pay for it!

[ETwhat?]

Yes so trying to get them to pay for something of no benifit will be even harder if getting getting useful licences is already 'increasingly difficult' probably the best bet is to push for things like dedicated manufacturers maint courses things like Kongsberg where its at least going to dirrectly benfit the ships you sail on

[Ducki52]

How long are the tie-in clauses? Surely being tied into a job isn't that bad of a thing?

[GuinnessMan]

How long are the tie-in clauses? Surely being tied into a job isn't that bad of a thing?

Depends on who you're with and how they are. If you're sea staff, they may not do it as it's not needed for your job. If you're shore staff, they will to a certain extent. For example, folks I'm with will pay something like 50% or 75% of all costs relating to a degree, but would tie you in for four years as it can be useful for them (updating skills, etc).

[chris]

some interesting points, thanks.

[dgbayliss]

How long are the tie-in clauses? Surely being tied into a job isn't that bad of a thing?

This is an Australian perspective so may not be applicable to other regions.

Here in Australia one of the most common terminologies is "Return Of Service Obligation" (acronym: ROSO).

When an employer provides full-funding the ROSO after completing a funded program is for the duration of sponsorship PLUS one calendar year. For a three-year pass degree the ROSO is four-years. Partial funding or partial completion of a program attracts a pro-rata form of ROSO.

A more flexible ROSO can be negotiated, but one really should consider the mutual benefit from both perspectives (employer and employee).

During my previous employment I was able to complete two degrees (one professional-degree [four-years], the other a pass-degree [three-years]). I exploited the Institutional rules related to recognition of prior-study / current-competencies (para-professional qualifications, workplace courses, life-experience etc.) in order to reduce the actual duration of completing both programs from seven-years down to four-years in total; I was able to convince my employer to fund the programs after completing one semester of study and achieving High Distinctions in all subjects (Dean's Honour). I did, however decline the funding offer after careful consideration of the Corporate Terms as to how and where I would be employed immediately following the completion of the study. I wished to remain in an operational (hands-on) position, but the employer wanted me to move into a more strategic management role. Even after declining the offer of funding, the employer formally allocated a half-day each week in order to attend lectures. (which I never used as academic scheduling is never in favour of an individual; I did however occasionally use the half-day for pre-examination study). The employer also allowed me to remain in the one geographic location for the duration of the study and hosted all work-placements that were required for on-the-job experiential-based practicums. On completion of the self-funded study I had the choice of taking the strategic management path, or remaining in my operational employment stream (I chose the operational stream and used my newly acquired knowledge, skill and abilities within a "front line" environment).

There is more to sponsorship than just the finance. Applicants should consider to value of time, geographic-stability and career-ownership.

Here in Australia we are able to reduce our taxable income by claiming job-related study expenses; but at best we can only get 30% of the expenses back.

Regards from Australia

[alistairuk]

Although having just read this http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/mgn455.pdf, it would appear as if the changes to SMART funding may be the reason that many companies who previously paid for chief mates certificates, now no longer do it! (Ie: Level 2 is no longer available).