U.K. ENGINEERING 2016 REPORT

Having now read the report (fairly) fully, I have to say that there's nothing in the actual Recommendations (section L) I would disagree with. As discussed elsewhere, I do strongly disagree with the suggestion in the Discussion & Conclusions (and Exec Summary) that IEng / EngTech should be merged, but in the actual Recommendations is the very sensible suggestion that the PEIs and EC should "...review other grades of registration and membership." (I.e. find out why people aren't applying for IEng and EngTech, and then decide what to do about it.)


The only area where I would have liked the report to be more bullish is in the area of STEM education. It's good that it notes that current initiatives aren't working, but it's a shame that it still focuses recommendations on students rather than putting more emphasis on communicating with teachers. Until the teachers recognise that they don't understand the needs of the profession, and that it is a very viable and worthwhile option, they won't (and don't) give the institutes access to the pupils in the first place. Let alone give appropriate advice to pupils themselves.


Good to see that the report does recognise the reality that the vast majority of engineers aren't members of an institution. But take, for example, the statement "A problem of huge but uncertain dimension is the reported numbers working in engineering with no affiliation to any of the existing institutions." It needs to be much more precise as to why this is a problem (and, indeed, whether it is a problem). Without that clarity it won't be "solved".


I do like the fact that Professor Luff is very candid about the lack of time and resources available for this research.


I await with interest what happens next.


Cheers, Andy

Having now read the report (fairly) fully, I have to say that there's nothing in the actual Recommendations (section L) I would disagree with. As discussed elsewhere, I do strongly disagree with the suggestion in the Discussion & Conclusions (and Exec Summary) that IEng / EngTech should be merged, but in the actual Recommendations is the very sensible suggestion that the PEIs and EC should "...review other grades of registration and membership." (I.e. find out why people aren't applying for IEng and EngTech, and then decide what to do about it.)


The only area where I would have liked the report to be more bullish is in the area of STEM education. It's good that it notes that current initiatives aren't working, but it's a shame that it still focuses recommendations on students rather than putting more emphasis on communicating with teachers. Until the teachers recognise that they don't understand the needs of the profession, and that it is a very viable and worthwhile option, they won't (and don't) give the institutes access to the pupils in the first place. Let alone give appropriate advice to pupils themselves.


Good to see that the report does recognise the reality that the vast majority of engineers aren't members of an institution. But take, for example, the statement "A problem of huge but uncertain dimension is the reported numbers working in engineering with no affiliation to any of the existing institutions." It needs to be much more precise as to why this is a problem (and, indeed, whether it is a problem). Without that clarity it won't be "solved".


I do like the fact that Professor Luff is very candid about the lack of time and resources available for this research.


I await with interest what happens next.


Cheers, Andy