Peter Brooks said:

Is this shortage of people willing to join these professions, due to fear of being zapped?

My personal suspicion is that it's more due to the shortage of medium / large companies that can cope with taking on apprentices. Despite the various initiatives to promote apprenticeships in recent years it's hard to see how they can succeed without large enough employers who can devote sufficient resources to supervising / training them.

Great for you.

However, these days the only way you get anywhere near a grammar school is by being top of the 11+ test because they are so oversubscribed. That means competing with many hundreds of other children who's parents have generally invested in private tutoring for the past one or two years (in some cases even more).

Less than 10% of the places are available for low income families, and that still requires achieving a specific score on the paper for which you will need to invest in some form of training to pass. In recent years we have seen content creep into the exam that is studied in secondary school. The 11+ is taken while the children are in primary school. Of course, as one of my friends pointed out, the private primary schools actually cover the 11+ content in their lessons to prepare the children for the test. But then when you have a class size of 10-15, you get through the mandatory content quicker.

Basically, unless you have parents with higher education, or the money to pay for tutoring (or at least the content in the exam that you won't be taught at school), you are unlikely to succeed. There will be exceptions of course. If you combine that with a primary that is generally failing (lack of investment you know), you have even more of a hill to climb.

Thus, when you look at the children at the local grammar school, for the most part you will find they come from privileged families or at least well educated ones.

Its also noted that a number of the applicants parents temporarily rent houses in the town whilst applying for the school, but once they have the place they move back. A few of my friends have done precisely this trick.

Hello Mark:

Yes I took the 11+ exam and came out top in my primary class of over 30.

Also had a one-on-one interview with the schools head teacher, plus pass the schools own exam.   

I was into electronics well before taking the 11+ test.

Peter Brooks

Palm Bay 

I didn't. Not that we had the 11+ when I went to school, but the secondary school was very heavily "streamed" so there effectively was an 11+ assessment to decide whether you went into the GCE (old Grammar) stream or CSE (old Secondary Modern) stream. I was at the lower end of the secondary modern stream, where maybe some students may get some mark in a CSE assuming they bothered turning up and didn't actually set fire to the exam paper. 

I was one of the very few in my year to go to university (remembering it was a rarity in those days anyway), and I suspect one of even fewer to later get a masters, two institute fellowships two charterships and two further memberships, and let's face it, two somewhat successful careers in two very different engineering industries.  

While I'm sure some people can get correctly "selected" at 11 (or indeed in the UK 16, 18, 21 or any other critical age) my experience is that a significant number don't. 

So again dragging it back onto topic  in hindsight it's no surprise that given a somewhat messy secondary education following that initial mis-selection I got a pretty awful grade in my first degree - in particular I hadn't had a good enough grounding in maths. And I see all sorts of people who for all sorts of reason go, if you like, off track in their teens / twenties (or maybe just a different track). The great thing about professional registration is that, when it works as intended, it considers your actual proven competence in your profession, not what you did or didn't do 10, 20, 30 years earlier.

(Incidentally, and possibly relevant to the discussion for the same reason, the reason I was rated so low at 11 was because I had terrible eczema on my hands compounded by, I've only recently realised, the fact I probably had and still have a level of dyspraxia. You didn't get scores at school if you couldn't write, you didn't get marks for being able to think. Industry, however, is a different game. And of course that's only one example, in recruitment and staff development I came across, and still occasionally do come across, many other causes of missed identification of engineering abilities. I'm a huge fan of education, but I don't always (i.e. very rarely) place great reliance on formal assessment of educational attainment.)

Sorry, further thought over lunch: another great thing about professional registration is that it considers and demonstrates how you work as part of an engineering team. (I was just thinking about the trivial example that I still try to avoid taking minutes at meetings if it requires handwriting, but that's fine, we have a team.) As an employer I would generally rather have somebody competent who works well in a team, compared to somebody brilliant who's impossible to work with and who has no interest in compensating for that fact (that second point is important). Employing a professionally registered engineer should give you confidence in those team working and communication skills and attributes. Again formal education doesn't often give you marks for saying "I don't know the answer to that, but I know someone who does" - but very often that's what we need. Of course occasionally we do need the brilliant person who is maybe less well rounded as an engineer, and that's fine, we can identify that from their qualifications and track record. 

Hello Andy:

I am not a team player!

One can not be a team player if one is a "keeper of secrets".

I have been in meeting locations where an armed individual follows you, when you visit the bathroom.

Going back to my grammar school experience (actually back to my third primary school, the second having been firebombed in WWII) at  that time it was an "all boys" school, which I believe solves a lot of "acting up" problems.

Peter Brooks

Palm Bay 

There are different sorts of engineering companies, depending on the type of work being done, and I can sympathize with both perspectives here, which are not really in opposition, but seem to think they are.

The school you go to may give you a push in a the right or wrong direction, but is only relevant for the first steps you take beyond it, and in engineering at least, stroking the old college tie in meetings but not actually  being competent is not a guarantee of promotion, nor I suspect was it ever in anything requiring some ability. (it may work in marketing, I'm not sure)

Research is more tolerant than development of oddball characters, especially once you have something that needs one of the three folk in the world who understand 'it' - whatever 'it' is, then someone who walks down the corridor making dalek noises and frightening the undergraduates during their day job may indeed still be an essential member of the team, even if you have to keep them away from direct contact with the customer and translate everything they say or write into plainspeak for the rest of the team.

Development however needs solid understanding, reliable repetition of similarly well-understood  tasks and methodically created easy to follow records of the design and there is a lot more of it needed than there is pure research.

I have worked with feet in both camps over the years and both 'sides' seem to view the other with suspicion, as not being 'proper' engineering, when really the division is more of a continuum.

Mike

Hello Andy:

Have you ever been involved in "team building" using Psychiatry - over here it was called "Tea grouping or encounter grouping"?

 It's like (seems to me) water boarding a person, without using water.

The group (all in one room over 3 day period) attempts to break down barriers.

It starts by asking what animal best describes yourself.

It appears to mostly attempt to break down the weakest member of the team.

In some cases that person ends up in tears after a triggered memory event.

Over the years, I went through three of them without any problems.

Peter Brooks 

Palm Bay 

Sounds awful. I've done a huge amount of work on team building (comes with the territory of running engineering teams, plus it's a major interest of mine anyway) but my approach was/is much simpler, just making sure that everyone appreciated each others' strengths in the engineering team. To deliver engineering projects you need the people who manage the paperwork, and manage the budget, and build the prototypes and first production versions, and design the production test systems, and talk to the end user, just as much as you need the people with the brilliant ideas. As I once told two members of my staff who were almost coming to blows, you don't have to like each other, you don't have to go to the pub together, but if you can't respect each other's skills and communicate effectively at a technical level then that's a problem.

Sometimes when working with EngTech/IEng/CEng applicants I do work with those - particularly with certain aspects of autistic spectrum behaviour - who do struggle to work in what might be thought of as a "team" environment. I point out to them that they don't even have to talk to other members of the team, but they must communicate with them effectively - for example by producing engineering documentation and taking in review comments on that documentation. I used to have a brilliant software engineer working for me who had issues talking to pretty much anyone in the department, and then moved to Australia anyway. It was fine, we'd send him a coding spec in the evening and next morning we'd get completed documented code. Perfectly good team playing.

For some reason I was reminded recently of the quote from Tim from the (UK) "The Office", something like: "These aren't my friends, they're just people I share the same carpet with  Monday to Friday". That's fine, which I think a lot of "corporate team building" forgets. However, equally I was discussion with a colleague this morning that post-covid we have fewer and fewer in person meetings with clients or with each other, and we were agreeing that that is causing issues. I do find it's much easier for people to gain and maintain that mutual respect for each other's abilities if there has been some element of socialising - the intra-meeting coffee break. Or to put it another way, it's much easier to dismiss someone as an idiot (which they're probably not) if you're just viewing them as their role, not as a human being. So I am a believer in some level of team building - or "conversation" to use the technical term!!!!!

I think we've strayed again, but maybe not - as above I think it's a strong aspect of professional registration to question whether "working as an island" is going to produce the best engineering. We all make mistakes, we all miss things, and we all have different competences.

I could probably write a book length post on this subject (in fact to some extent my Master's thesis was just that, and that was only a specific part of what I've looked at over the years) so I think I'd probably better stop there.

P.S. I moved into consultancy after 15 years' full time engineering management because I was just exhausted with trying to get (very, very competent) engineers to work together nicely. We were really effective at it, but my gawd it took its toll on us managing them. I did enjoy the last office reorganisation we did (by this time 95% ish of that team had been working with me for something like 12-13 of those years and knew me very well) - I just announced we were going to move office while I was on leave, so they'd all have to work out for themselves who was going to sit next to who  and who was going to sit next to the window / under the air conditioning etc etc - this time I was not going to arbitrate! The shock and horror on their faces was hilarious, of course it all worked out fine.

Hello Andy:

How can you really be a member of a team if you don't respect many of them for their actions outside work ?

Examples from my actual work experience - drug use, wife abuse, having "out of marriage" affairs and coming to work half drunk?

I also have had some upper management commit Suicide due to work stress.

Peter Brooks

Palm Bay 

P.S. I can't mention everything I have observed over my working life, as some of the individuals are still alive. 

Mark Tickner said:

However, these days the only way you get anywhere near a grammar school is by being top of the 11+ test because they are so oversubscribed. That means competing with many hundreds of other children who's parents have generally invested in private tutoring for the past one or two years (in some cases even more).

Not true for every area ... in some areas, regional authorities decimated the former grammar schools, the only ones remaining being a very small number of Royal Grammar Schools, so that the majority of people in those regions have no free grammar school provision in their area, and the only option other than comprehensive style education, even for the brightest, is scholarship to a private school (which for many Scholars still has a sizeable price tag attached).

Mark Tickner said:

However, these days the only way you get anywhere near a grammar school is by being top of the 11+ test because they are so oversubscribed. That means competing with many hundreds of other children who's parents have generally invested in private tutoring for the past one or two years (in some cases even more).

Not true for every area ... in some areas, regional authorities decimated the former grammar schools, the only ones remaining being a very small number of Royal Grammar Schools, so that the majority of people in those regions have no free grammar school provision in their area, and the only option other than comprehensive style education, even for the brightest, is scholarship to a private school (which for many Scholars still has a sizeable price tag attached).

However, as a product of comprehensive education, whose children are also a successful product of a comprehensive education, I will say that when the  system is run well, with properly managed ability-related streaming, which permits GCSE exams taken early for the top sets, and at the same time with enough options and support for those nearer the shallow end who will only come away with a few lower level qualifications as well, it can be superb and does not suffer the ' stuck with a die cast age 11' problem. Indeed as one can get booted up or down a set at almost any term end, it keeps those at the bottom of the top flight on their toes as well as giving those whose ahem, sense of industry, is delivered a bit late a chance to catch up as well.

Like any school it does need the right sort of staff, and enough of them, and that starts at the head and goes all the way through.

I would  not so politely suggest it is incorrect to look down on us 'comps' collectively as being in some way inferior to those who have passed through what I could just as well call an anachronistic and elitist system. There are certainly some poor schools, and some of those are are comprehensive, maybe more, partly because most schools are, but schools running the comprehensive model certainly do not have to be bad.

Mike.

St Martins Comprehensive Hutton near Brentwood, Essex,

BA and MA, Christchurch Oxford

PhD, University of London

Research Fellowship, University of York

First "Proper job" almost aged nearly 30, and that was in the last century.

PS

In case you cannot detect this sort of bias based on education gets my goat, I probably saw too much of it at University.

I will try to keep my further comments minimal and on topic.

mapj1 said:

Like any school it does need the right sort of staff, and enough of them, and that starts at the head and goes all the way through.

Isn't that the truth, doesn't matter whether you pay or not.

Sadly, and I know there are a lot of people working extremely hard to address this, but in some of the areas where the state grammar school system was decimated, what replaced it was not done so well.

mapj1 said:

I would  not so politely suggest it is incorrect to look down on us 'comps' collectively as being in some way inferior to those who have passed through what I could just as well call an anachronistic and elitist system.

No-one doing that, I only made an observation to a comment made. There's also a difference between state ('county') grammar and 'public (private) school'.

At the end of the day, some people prefer one type of environment, others prefer others ... parents think they know what they want for their children, but they are not the children, and therefore the strange situation that no-one actually knows 100 % what will work for a child until it's all too late.

As a young person, I would have been put off by a large [population] school of whatever type, and, being honest, would likely have absconded regularly. I still don't like huge crowds ... shopping malls are just my idea of hell on earth  ...

mapj1 said:

In case you cannot detect this sort of bias based on education gets my goat, I probably saw too much of it at University.

I guess that's just 'politics' in reality. We all have different experiences that form our opinions and positions on things.

I don't (hopefully) have bias based on where someone attained their education, but I'm happy that my high school experience worked for me, and I wouldn't also like anyone to be biased against me for that. (For the record, private school from 11 to 18, but fees paid by a scholarship scheme.)

I think we perhaps share the perspective that qualifications alone are not an answer for those in Engineering ... practical experience is king.

mapj1 said:

I will try to keep my further comments minimal and on topic.

Yes, I think it's wise not to poke the cage of the political animal, especially at the current time in the lead up to the Election. I'm seeing some disgusting things on social media platforms and am using those only sparingly at present !