John,

 

Amongst the polemic are some good and reasonable points.  Thankfully Moshe doesn’t seem  at all offended, since his contributions seem to inform, enlighten and support the discussion with a useful perspective from across the pond.  

 

The conference proceedings that I posted, seem to suggest that academics recognise many of the issues you have highlighted. A number of them may also feel disadvantaged by the more managerial elements of UK-SPEC competences, or frustrated by traditional discipline “silos”. I’m sure that the overwhelming majority are seeking to give service by means of educating others and/or contributing to research. If there is an element of self-interest, then show me any individual or group that doesn’t demonstrate self-interest.  The contribution of engineers, pursuing academic careers is immense and must remain highly valued.

 

A relevant issue is that the culture of academia shows a strong instinct to categorise and rank, leaving some such as college lecturers for example, undervalued. Factors influencing this culture such as, the nature of competition for status or other rewards also spills over into areas where senior academics are influential. These include The Engineering Council Family, Engineering Professors Council and Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK. Other countries may different structures (e.g. ABET), government advisors or just close personal relationships (e.g. shared schooling)   

 

In my experience (aka research via ethnography) the culture of most modern employment environments is slightly different. Many engineers work in relatively flat, flexible and project based structures and if the more practical engineer is best optimised for the current priority, then they lead the way and many reach seniior leadership roles.  Obviously workplace cultures aren’t all homogenous, but most engineering working environments are relatively “classless” in recent times.  Even within the Armed Forces, technical specialist groups tend towards being less conscious of rank.

 

Circa 25 years ago I approached a Professional Engineering Institution on behalf of a leading employer, to explore accrediting a graduate training scheme. One of that employer’s key priorities was to create a “performance based culture” of equal respect, flexible and interdisciplinary working. It won’t surprise you that I reported back, that I felt that the institution was a poor cultural fit and we should be very cautious about how we engaged, if at all. It seems that over the last quarter century many others have come to a similar conclusion.  

 

I found the proceedings of the academic conference interesting and was delighted that the IET was co-sponsor. I haven’t decided whether the Engineering Professors Council is a “friend or foe” of my position and I’m guessing that it is probably mixed. I’m very supportive of provision for mid-career professionals such as work-based MSc and programmes linked to Degree Apprenticeships or otherwise employer engaged.  

 

I think that we agree that undergraduate engineering syllabuses, shouldn’t be too prescriptive or narrow , although they do need to cover the fundamentals of at least one recognised discipline in a rigorous manner. Some will want to adopt a highly mathematical/scientific approach built from “principles up”, others  from “practice down” to relevant principles. The former may be more “academic” and suited to the “brightest academic minds” in their age group, but most prospective engineers would find the latter more attractive and more appropriate to their needs.

 

It is easy to find evidence of the continuum (my link was ABET referenced) in real-world careers, so the reasons for a division into “first and second class” must be sociological driven rather than performance based.  An “elite” must by definition be small in number and difficult to access. We don’t need a “Technological Elite”, we need plenty more good enthusiastic and adaptable engineers who can work well with others and lead by influence. I agree that we need a change, but not a revolution unless those with the power to change are unwilling to evolve. “Engineer Education” is very much part of that mix, but someone entering now, isn’t going to be able to exert significant influence for another twenty years.  


I can only observe the situation of our friends and colleagues in North America, but it seems that similar issues are in play with respect to this distinction between Engineers and “Technologists”.  Some of our CEng members in North America with Engineering Technology Degrees offer a good examples of why the dichotomy is often a dubious one.   

John,

 

Amongst the polemic are some good and reasonable points.  Thankfully Moshe doesn’t seem  at all offended, since his contributions seem to inform, enlighten and support the discussion with a useful perspective from across the pond.  

 

The conference proceedings that I posted, seem to suggest that academics recognise many of the issues you have highlighted. A number of them may also feel disadvantaged by the more managerial elements of UK-SPEC competences, or frustrated by traditional discipline “silos”. I’m sure that the overwhelming majority are seeking to give service by means of educating others and/or contributing to research. If there is an element of self-interest, then show me any individual or group that doesn’t demonstrate self-interest.  The contribution of engineers, pursuing academic careers is immense and must remain highly valued.

 

A relevant issue is that the culture of academia shows a strong instinct to categorise and rank, leaving some such as college lecturers for example, undervalued. Factors influencing this culture such as, the nature of competition for status or other rewards also spills over into areas where senior academics are influential. These include The Engineering Council Family, Engineering Professors Council and Royal Academy of Engineering in the UK. Other countries may different structures (e.g. ABET), government advisors or just close personal relationships (e.g. shared schooling)   

 

In my experience (aka research via ethnography) the culture of most modern employment environments is slightly different. Many engineers work in relatively flat, flexible and project based structures and if the more practical engineer is best optimised for the current priority, then they lead the way and many reach seniior leadership roles.  Obviously workplace cultures aren’t all homogenous, but most engineering working environments are relatively “classless” in recent times.  Even within the Armed Forces, technical specialist groups tend towards being less conscious of rank.

 

Circa 25 years ago I approached a Professional Engineering Institution on behalf of a leading employer, to explore accrediting a graduate training scheme. One of that employer’s key priorities was to create a “performance based culture” of equal respect, flexible and interdisciplinary working. It won’t surprise you that I reported back, that I felt that the institution was a poor cultural fit and we should be very cautious about how we engaged, if at all. It seems that over the last quarter century many others have come to a similar conclusion.  

 

I found the proceedings of the academic conference interesting and was delighted that the IET was co-sponsor. I haven’t decided whether the Engineering Professors Council is a “friend or foe” of my position and I’m guessing that it is probably mixed. I’m very supportive of provision for mid-career professionals such as work-based MSc and programmes linked to Degree Apprenticeships or otherwise employer engaged.  

 

I think that we agree that undergraduate engineering syllabuses, shouldn’t be too prescriptive or narrow , although they do need to cover the fundamentals of at least one recognised discipline in a rigorous manner. Some will want to adopt a highly mathematical/scientific approach built from “principles up”, others  from “practice down” to relevant principles. The former may be more “academic” and suited to the “brightest academic minds” in their age group, but most prospective engineers would find the latter more attractive and more appropriate to their needs.

 

It is easy to find evidence of the continuum (my link was ABET referenced) in real-world careers, so the reasons for a division into “first and second class” must be sociological driven rather than performance based.  An “elite” must by definition be small in number and difficult to access. We don’t need a “Technological Elite”, we need plenty more good enthusiastic and adaptable engineers who can work well with others and lead by influence. I agree that we need a change, but not a revolution unless those with the power to change are unwilling to evolve. “Engineer Education” is very much part of that mix, but someone entering now, isn’t going to be able to exert significant influence for another twenty years.  


I can only observe the situation of our friends and colleagues in North America, but it seems that similar issues are in play with respect to this distinction between Engineers and “Technologists”.  Some of our CEng members in North America with Engineering Technology Degrees offer a good examples of why the dichotomy is often a dubious one.