Following on from the UK Engineering Report 2016 (and the discussion of same in this forum) and the adequacy or not of current efforts to educate and train, and to encourage the registration of our future engineers, I am intrigued about a “new model in technology and engineering” (NMiTE http://www.nmite.org.uk ). It is a new University that is to focus on the teaching of engineering. In a recent press release, it says: “At NMiTE we believe that engineering education can be different. We’re here to unlock the creativity and drive of Britain’s next generation – the Passioneers – the designers and builders, problem solvers and innovators who will shape our future. We’re establishing a new model of high-value engineering education: Creating a beacon institution to help address the engineering skills shortage that threatens to hobble the UK’s ability to compete globally. With a new approach to learning – based on real-world problem solving and the blending of high quality engineering, design, liberal arts and humanities with communication and employability skills targeted at the growth sectors of the future. Located on a new and different type of campus – designed for inspiration, collaboration and a deep connection to the global community. And reinforced by an innovation ecosystem of global corporations & SME entrepreneurs, coupled with global universities, not just to invest, but to contribute knowledge and expertise – with New Model students at its centre. We’re shaping an institution to create and deliver 21st century engineers – catalysts for innovation and change – a new model generation of emotionally intelligent entrepreneurs, innovators, employees and leaders for the future." Two things strike me as very different about this proposition: Its motto is “no lectures, no exams, no text books” (!). It plans to be very practically-based, largely conducted within real industry. Apparently, it will also have no departments, no faculties, no tenure, no Council. Instead, it’ll have “ teaching teams designed around the delivery of our unique engineering and Human Interaction curriculum ” (developed by an impressive, international, and overwhelmingly academic array of advisors and partners). It’s located in the city of Hereford (admittedly partly a personal one as a resident of Herefordshire for over 30 years). It is a city by virtue of its cathedral but it is one of the smaller cities in the UK with a population of just over 50k, and is in England's first or second most rural county (depending on how you rank it). Hereford’s engineering heritage is largely unremarkable as it is known more for its agricultural and food output (beef, potatoes, strawberries, apples, cider(!), beer, etc.) and of being home to the UK's elite special forces regiments. It has engineering history in munitions production from during WWII and it's current engineering association is with food production, double-glazing, Morgan chassis and JCB cab manufacture, insulation material forming, and that’s largely it. So, not the most obvious choice to base a new Advanced Engineering University then! The NMiTE project has been described (The Times 6 th Sep 2016) as “ at worst an intriguing experiment and at best an innovative template that traditional universities might learn from”. What do you think? As an aside, I have seen nothing of NMiTE in these forums or indeed on the IET website – yet, apparently (and quite rightly) the IET has been an advisor/contributor/supporter. As a footnote, I would very much like to reach out and connect with any IET members/fellows that are/have been involved in NMiTE with a view of my getting involved too.

This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

A new model of high-value engineering education

Following on from the UK Engineering Report 2016 (and the discussion of same in this forum) and the adequacy or not of current efforts to educate and train, and to encourage the registration of our future engineers, I am intrigued about a “new model in technology and engineering” (NMiTE http://www.nmite.org.uk). It is a new University that is to focus on the teaching of engineering.

In a recent press release, it says:

“At NMiTE we believe that engineering education can be different.
We’re here to unlock the creativity and drive of Britain’s next generation – the Passioneers – the designers and builders, problem solvers and innovators who will shape our future.

We’re establishing a new model of high-value engineering education:

Creating a beacon institution to help address the engineering skills shortage that threatens to hobble the UK’s ability to compete globally.

With a new approach to learning – based on real-world problem solving and the blending of high quality engineering, design, liberal arts and humanities with communication and employability skills targeted at the growth sectors of the future.

Located on a new and different type of campus – designed for inspiration, collaboration and a deep connection to the global community.

And reinforced by an innovation ecosystem of global corporations & SME entrepreneurs, coupled with global universities, not just to invest, but to contribute knowledge and expertise – with New Model students at its centre.

We’re shaping an institution to create and deliver 21st century engineers – catalysts for innovation and change – a new model generation of emotionally intelligent entrepreneurs, innovators, employees and leaders for the future."

Two things strike me as very different about this proposition:

Its motto is “no lectures, no exams, no text books” (!). It plans to be very practically-based, largely conducted within real industry.

Apparently, it will also have no departments, no faculties, no tenure, no Council. Instead, it’ll have “teaching teams designed around the delivery of our unique engineering and Human Interaction curriculum” (developed by an impressive, international, and overwhelmingly academic array of advisors and partners).

It’s located in the city of Hereford (admittedly partly a personal one as a resident of Herefordshire for over 30 years).

It is a city by virtue of its cathedral but it is one of the smaller cities in the UK with a population of just over 50k, and is in England's first or second most rural county (depending on how you rank it). Hereford’s engineering heritage is largely unremarkable as it is known more for its agricultural and food output (beef, potatoes, strawberries, apples, cider(!), beer, etc.) and of being home to the UK's elite special forces regiments. It has engineering history in munitions production from during WWII and it's current engineering association is with food production, double-glazing, Morgan chassis and JCB cab manufacture, insulation material forming, and that’s largely it. So, not the most obvious choice to base a new Advanced Engineering University then!

The NMiTE project has been described (The Times 6^th Sep 2016) as “at worst an intriguing experiment and at best an innovative template that traditional universities might learn from”.

What do you think?

As an aside, I have seen nothing of NMiTE in these forums or indeed on the IET website – yet, apparently (and quite rightly) the IET has been an advisor/contributor/supporter.

As a footnote, I would very much like to reach out and connect with any IET members/fellows that are/have been involved in NMiTE with a view of my getting involved too.

0 Former Community Member over 7 years ago in reply to Chris Pearson

Ref Cheong
Tsoi

“Cheong
Tsoi

I read your
posts.

Would it be more relevant
if you apply for CEng thru Nuclear Institute with your past
experience in Nuclear engineering instead of IEE/IET where more
suitable for traditional electrical/electronic
engineers?”

Thank you Cheong, you have
made an honest reply.

However you will not have
the knowledge of the history of these UK PEIs and IET in
particular.

Briefly I joined ITEME from
a European R&D reactor where I was transfered to from MoD
UK.

I returned to the UK where
I became a lead engineer in another R&D nuclear project, I was
invited to help run, ITEME as a committee member. I pushed for amalgamation
of all UK PEIs to try and make an umbrella organisation
which would cover all schools of
engineering.

On this project my name was
plagiarised and illegal work was carried out in my name. I reported
the incident, but the project was so politically and financialy
tied to the EU, that I was dismissed, denigrated and had to leave
the country. The UK administration was just scarred to defend
me.

ITEME went on to create IIE
which created the idea of engineering & technology, we
amalgamated with the IEE to form IET.

IET is meant to be an
Institute for all
branches of PEIs.

I agree with your opinion
IET: IEE/IET where more suitable
for traditional electrical/electronic engineers?

In fact the UK has no PEI suitable for
only traditional electrical/electronic engineers?

I applied to this same
R&D project to return to nuclear engineering and to return to
my home land.

I was told that I had to be
Chartered Engineer, and that they did not respect IET as a
mechanical - nuclear PEI. They would only recruit
CEng I Mech E.

I applied to the then
Nuclear Institute, they were in a poor shape and had no active nuclear engineers
(they broke up and went scientific just after my complaints to
their CEO). The GM of Nuc Inst was a teacher who had cleaned up
a 5KW R&D
nuclear teaching reactor. This work is called DAD. On the reactor I
have just analysed and programmed for DAD, the teaching reactor was
not even studied as it was not considered as a nuclear DAD problem,
it could be put into a simple nuclear container ( this applies to
all small R&D reactors).This person found all the excuses
possible to not accept my CEng candidature. I had been a member of
Nuc I before he arrived there.

I applied to I Mech E and
had the same treatment – 5 applications for CEng , Two Master
thesis written and approved – no CEng because I do not have
sponsors.

Sponsors are illegal in
France and all the people I contacted for sponsorship refused
because they do not agree with the UK CEng system – it is simply
corrupt.

I have sent my complaint to
the CEO, President and head of membership IET . I was rebuffed.
They are turning a blind eye as they are on campaign which does not
concern UK PEs.

They are as scared of the
truth as the UK Administration. Reply below.

I am now retired, but on
call to consult on the next big UK Nuc Reactor, it will not be a
UK project!

I agree with certain people
on this blog,

It is time for an audit and
change in IET and ECUK.

What we need is
Professional Registration of all trained Professional
Engineers – one UK system for UK attached PEs

Secondly one PEI covering
all branches of Engineering and Technology, which was our aim
in ITEME and many progressive minor PEIs in the 80s.

As for IEng CEng just
call them PE and add the suffixes they wish : Consultant, Expert,
BA, BSc, Hons, MA, MSc, MEng but not MBA this is
management.

With all respect, you have
a name that sounds Chinese, no offence, I trained the head of the
Chinese EPR project now building a UK EPR, he told me that they
qualified more engineers in china each year than there were people
in France!

Imagine if they all joined
IET.

We need a membership of IET
for non UK professionals; the UK has one great big problem BREXIT and it needs a
new sort of engineer to engineer BREXIT future.

Engineers need to
communicate and work together worldwide but not under todays
archaic systems, it is your generation that has to guide and
lead.

John Gowman -
MIET

PJ

IET Management reply to my
signaling of corruption at executive level, (this
week).

I am sorry to hear that
you are disappointed with the IET’s present day attitude to
Professional Engineers who are apprentice trained, or have
HNC’s/BSc’s.

When assessing engineers
for professional registration at IEng or CEng level, the IET adhere
strictly to the Engineering Councils guidance, and specifically the
UK-SPEC competency framework.

This assessment method
requires the Institution to assess members competence based on a
combination of their educational qualifications and work based
learning to determine which category of professional registration
best suits their experience.

With regard to your
comments on the IETs denigration of IEng members, I assure you that
the IET hold all our members in the same regard, and do not
discriminate between our IEng and CEng registered
members.

The number of IEng
registered Members has been steadily increasing over the last 5
years, and we continuing to do all we can to support and encourage
its growth.

As a professional PEI, we
are not in a position to comment about your thoughts on Fusion
lobbying.

E&T magazine is
editorially independent within the IET and E&T’s editorial
policy allows a variety of views to be expressed in its pages but
it is not endorsing Fusion
lobbying.

The IET is a
multi-disciplinary Institution, with over 165,000 members
operating in all areas of Engineering and Technology.

I hope this has addressed
your concerns, and thank you for your continued support of the
Institution and the engineering
profession.

Head of
Membership The IET
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 7 years ago in reply to Chris Pearson

Ref Cheong
Tsoi

“Cheong
Tsoi

I read your
posts.

Would it be more relevant
if you apply for CEng thru Nuclear Institute with your past
experience in Nuclear engineering instead of IEE/IET where more
suitable for traditional electrical/electronic
engineers?”

Thank you Cheong, you have
made an honest reply.

However you will not have
the knowledge of the history of these UK PEIs and IET in
particular.

Briefly I joined ITEME from
a European R&D reactor where I was transfered to from MoD
UK.

I returned to the UK where
I became a lead engineer in another R&D nuclear project, I was
invited to help run, ITEME as a committee member. I pushed for amalgamation
of all UK PEIs to try and make an umbrella organisation
which would cover all schools of
engineering.

On this project my name was
plagiarised and illegal work was carried out in my name. I reported
the incident, but the project was so politically and financialy
tied to the EU, that I was dismissed, denigrated and had to leave
the country. The UK administration was just scarred to defend
me.

ITEME went on to create IIE
which created the idea of engineering & technology, we
amalgamated with the IEE to form IET.

IET is meant to be an
Institute for all
branches of PEIs.

I agree with your opinion
IET: IEE/IET where more suitable
for traditional electrical/electronic engineers?

In fact the UK has no PEI suitable for
only traditional electrical/electronic engineers?

I applied to this same
R&D project to return to nuclear engineering and to return to
my home land.

I was told that I had to be
Chartered Engineer, and that they did not respect IET as a
mechanical - nuclear PEI. They would only recruit
CEng I Mech E.

I applied to the then
Nuclear Institute, they were in a poor shape and had no active nuclear engineers
(they broke up and went scientific just after my complaints to
their CEO). The GM of Nuc Inst was a teacher who had cleaned up
a 5KW R&D
nuclear teaching reactor. This work is called DAD. On the reactor I
have just analysed and programmed for DAD, the teaching reactor was
not even studied as it was not considered as a nuclear DAD problem,
it could be put into a simple nuclear container ( this applies to
all small R&D reactors).This person found all the excuses
possible to not accept my CEng candidature. I had been a member of
Nuc I before he arrived there.

I applied to I Mech E and
had the same treatment – 5 applications for CEng , Two Master
thesis written and approved – no CEng because I do not have
sponsors.

Sponsors are illegal in
France and all the people I contacted for sponsorship refused
because they do not agree with the UK CEng system – it is simply
corrupt.

I have sent my complaint to
the CEO, President and head of membership IET . I was rebuffed.
They are turning a blind eye as they are on campaign which does not
concern UK PEs.

They are as scared of the
truth as the UK Administration. Reply below.

I am now retired, but on
call to consult on the next big UK Nuc Reactor, it will not be a
UK project!

I agree with certain people
on this blog,

It is time for an audit and
change in IET and ECUK.

What we need is
Professional Registration of all trained Professional
Engineers – one UK system for UK attached PEs

Secondly one PEI covering
all branches of Engineering and Technology, which was our aim
in ITEME and many progressive minor PEIs in the 80s.

As for IEng CEng just
call them PE and add the suffixes they wish : Consultant, Expert,
BA, BSc, Hons, MA, MSc, MEng but not MBA this is
management.

With all respect, you have
a name that sounds Chinese, no offence, I trained the head of the
Chinese EPR project now building a UK EPR, he told me that they
qualified more engineers in china each year than there were people
in France!

Imagine if they all joined
IET.

We need a membership of IET
for non UK professionals; the UK has one great big problem BREXIT and it needs a
new sort of engineer to engineer BREXIT future.

Engineers need to
communicate and work together worldwide but not under todays
archaic systems, it is your generation that has to guide and
lead.

John Gowman -
MIET

PJ

IET Management reply to my
signaling of corruption at executive level, (this
week).

I am sorry to hear that
you are disappointed with the IET’s present day attitude to
Professional Engineers who are apprentice trained, or have
HNC’s/BSc’s.

When assessing engineers
for professional registration at IEng or CEng level, the IET adhere
strictly to the Engineering Councils guidance, and specifically the
UK-SPEC competency framework.

This assessment method
requires the Institution to assess members competence based on a
combination of their educational qualifications and work based
learning to determine which category of professional registration
best suits their experience.

With regard to your
comments on the IETs denigration of IEng members, I assure you that
the IET hold all our members in the same regard, and do not
discriminate between our IEng and CEng registered
members.

The number of IEng
registered Members has been steadily increasing over the last 5
years, and we continuing to do all we can to support and encourage
its growth.

As a professional PEI, we
are not in a position to comment about your thoughts on Fusion
lobbying.

E&T magazine is
editorially independent within the IET and E&T’s editorial
policy allows a variety of views to be expressed in its pages but
it is not endorsing Fusion
lobbying.

The IET is a
multi-disciplinary Institution, with over 165,000 members
operating in all areas of Engineering and Technology.

I hope this has addressed
your concerns, and thank you for your continued support of the
Institution and the engineering
profession.

Head of
Membership The IET
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 7 years ago in reply to Chris Pearson

Ref Cheong
Tsoi

“Cheong
Tsoi

I read your
posts.

Would it be more relevant
if you apply for CEng thru Nuclear Institute with your past
experience in Nuclear engineering instead of IEE/IET where more
suitable for traditional electrical/electronic
engineers?”

Thank you Cheong, you have
made an honest reply.

However you will not have
the knowledge of the history of these UK PEIs and IET in
particular.

Briefly I joined ITEME from
a European R&D reactor where I was transfered to from MoD
UK.

I returned to the UK where
I became a lead engineer in another R&D nuclear project, I was
invited to help run, ITEME as a committee member. I pushed for amalgamation
of all UK PEIs to try and make an umbrella organisation
which would cover all schools of
engineering.

On this project my name was
plagiarised and illegal work was carried out in my name. I reported
the incident, but the project was so politically and financialy
tied to the EU, that I was dismissed, denigrated and had to leave
the country. The UK administration was just scarred to defend
me.

ITEME went on to create IIE
which created the idea of engineering & technology, we
amalgamated with the IEE to form IET.

IET is meant to be an
Institute for all
branches of PEIs.

I agree with your opinion
IET: IEE/IET where more suitable
for traditional electrical/electronic engineers?

In fact the UK has no PEI suitable for
only traditional electrical/electronic engineers?

I applied to this same
R&D project to return to nuclear engineering and to return to
my home land.

I was told that I had to be
Chartered Engineer, and that they did not respect IET as a
mechanical - nuclear PEI. They would only recruit
CEng I Mech E.

I applied to the then
Nuclear Institute, they were in a poor shape and had no active nuclear engineers
(they broke up and went scientific just after my complaints to
their CEO). The GM of Nuc Inst was a teacher who had cleaned up
a 5KW R&D
nuclear teaching reactor. This work is called DAD. On the reactor I
have just analysed and programmed for DAD, the teaching reactor was
not even studied as it was not considered as a nuclear DAD problem,
it could be put into a simple nuclear container ( this applies to
all small R&D reactors).This person found all the excuses
possible to not accept my CEng candidature. I had been a member of
Nuc I before he arrived there.

I applied to I Mech E and
had the same treatment – 5 applications for CEng , Two Master
thesis written and approved – no CEng because I do not have
sponsors.

Sponsors are illegal in
France and all the people I contacted for sponsorship refused
because they do not agree with the UK CEng system – it is simply
corrupt.

I have sent my complaint to
the CEO, President and head of membership IET . I was rebuffed.
They are turning a blind eye as they are on campaign which does not
concern UK PEs.

They are as scared of the
truth as the UK Administration. Reply below.

I am now retired, but on
call to consult on the next big UK Nuc Reactor, it will not be a
UK project!

I agree with certain people
on this blog,

It is time for an audit and
change in IET and ECUK.

What we need is
Professional Registration of all trained Professional
Engineers – one UK system for UK attached PEs

Secondly one PEI covering
all branches of Engineering and Technology, which was our aim
in ITEME and many progressive minor PEIs in the 80s.

As for IEng CEng just
call them PE and add the suffixes they wish : Consultant, Expert,
BA, BSc, Hons, MA, MSc, MEng but not MBA this is
management.

With all respect, you have
a name that sounds Chinese, no offence, I trained the head of the
Chinese EPR project now building a UK EPR, he told me that they
qualified more engineers in china each year than there were people
in France!

Imagine if they all joined
IET.

We need a membership of IET
for non UK professionals; the UK has one great big problem BREXIT and it needs a
new sort of engineer to engineer BREXIT future.

Engineers need to
communicate and work together worldwide but not under todays
archaic systems, it is your generation that has to guide and
lead.

John Gowman -
MIET

PJ

IET Management reply to my
signaling of corruption at executive level, (this
week).

I am sorry to hear that
you are disappointed with the IET’s present day attitude to
Professional Engineers who are apprentice trained, or have
HNC’s/BSc’s.

When assessing engineers
for professional registration at IEng or CEng level, the IET adhere
strictly to the Engineering Councils guidance, and specifically the
UK-SPEC competency framework.

This assessment method
requires the Institution to assess members competence based on a
combination of their educational qualifications and work based
learning to determine which category of professional registration
best suits their experience.

With regard to your
comments on the IETs denigration of IEng members, I assure you that
the IET hold all our members in the same regard, and do not
discriminate between our IEng and CEng registered
members.

The number of IEng
registered Members has been steadily increasing over the last 5
years, and we continuing to do all we can to support and encourage
its growth.

As a professional PEI, we
are not in a position to comment about your thoughts on Fusion
lobbying.

E&T magazine is
editorially independent within the IET and E&T’s editorial
policy allows a variety of views to be expressed in its pages but
it is not endorsing Fusion
lobbying.

The IET is a
multi-disciplinary Institution, with over 165,000 members
operating in all areas of Engineering and Technology.

I hope this has addressed
your concerns, and thank you for your continued support of the
Institution and the engineering
profession.

Head of
Membership The IET
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 7 years ago

Dear John,

I read your posts.

Would it be more relevant if you apply for CEng thru Nuclear Institute with your past experience in Nuclear engineering instead of IEE/IET where more suitable for traditional electrical/electronic engineers?

Just my thought for sharing!
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 7 years ago in reply to Chris Pearson

Moshe,

If
only we had a UK system with correct QA and no PEER review and
Sponsorship references such as you describe in the
States.

The
problem is strictly UK. Your ideals will be blocked by the UK CEng
lobby.

The
problem I am revealing is the closed shop Peer Review and
membership sponsoring . This is subjective and controlled by a
Luddite contigent that refuses change inorder to maintain a
restrictive practice.

Your
arguments show ideals foreign to the grass roots UK CEng
system.

As
for elitist master – CEng, Roy has given some good
reasoning.

Of
course we need experts, you and I are experts, they should be
recognized and approved.

But
an expert in one domain is not an expert elsewhere. Everytime I
have changed my expertise in one domain to follow advancing
technology I have had to gain new expertise and learning. Much of
this is not available in University. For Special techniques and
DAD, I have worked with experts who evolved with the technologies
and formed university professors. I have had world experts work for
me free, just to be part of our development.

The
President of the Institute of Instrumentation came to help me in
the early mornings when we were developing Tritium
Technology.

CEng
as is the scientific PhD is a statement of expertise in one very
restricted discipline. It is not a key to open doors to all
domains.

CEng
should be a limited elite controlled recognised grade.

Engineers should be
recognized , they can add the prefix or suffix BA, BSc MIET, MA,
MEng MSc etc (MBA is management and not our domain).

Sorry
Roy, you should have been CEng years ago your, MA gave you other
recognition.

Moshe
I agree but the UK C Eng will not accept your
arguments.

“Now we have our
diplomas, we have to learn a discipline”
Professional =
Education + Training + Experience”

More than 2,000
professionals from academia, industry, and government carry out
every aspect of ABET accreditation.

They know their
profession’s dynamic and emerging workforce needs and review
academic programs to ensure they provide the technical and
professional skills graduates need to
succeed. Directly involves
faculty and staff in self-assessment and continuous quality
improvement processes.
ABET accreditation
criteria are developed by technical professionals, members of
35 member societies. Each society dedicates volunteers to perform
program reviews related to its professions. Coming
from academic, industrial and
governmental backgrounds,

-- I think
Universities in order to stay relevant and graduate Engineers
capable to enter the workforce with current update knowledge and
formation.
I agree with you that
the process needs to be dynamic to address current
and future developments.

You live in a more
democratic country. The UK is not democratic and is a Royalty. That
is why USA is a democracy.

Roy,

My opinion is that the
practice of professional engineering will be best served by
engaging of all those who have met a threshold standard of
professional capability and commit to professional standards. It
also seems reasonable that within the regulated community the term
“Engineer” should be allocated to those at degree level, in line
with other professions. The term “Technician” should be allocated
to professional practice that is distinctively valuable by its more
practical nature and which can be carried out successfully with
good technical understanding, but without necessarily deploying
graduate level knowledge attributes.

I therefore suggest that it
is time for some fresh strategic thinking, with the objectives of
greater engagement and overall collective quality, not elitism and
personal advantage. Contributions like those made at this
conference can only help and may stimulate progress, but without
strategic momentum and in the UK voluntary context at least, real
understanding of the market, it is only interesting talk, not
(overdue) progress.

Once
again you have put forward a good observation.

Moshe
is in the States, he is in another regime, even if he is UK
qualified and registered, his conditions are not ours, and his
observations are very much global. We have a strictly UK
problem.

I and
many others are in Europe, but we are controlled and restricted by
the UK PEIs and legislation even if we have no democratic rights.
No vote. We are ignored by our PEIs – The President of IET came to
France, he had neither the politeness or the inclination to meet
the MIET French Community.

Again
IET France has a joint Expat, UK PEI and other interested
Technology meetings now published under the IET French
community.

It is
a good example of cooperative communication, not possible today in
the UK.

You stated - Some will
want to adopt a highly mathematical/scientific approach built from
“principles up”, others from “practice down” to relevant
principles.

I have to admit that I
have not done much free lance mathematics for over 30 years. It is
basically forbidden when one uses codes; now codes are computerised
so you just fill in the boxes.

To use many codes, you
need to have at least a master in that
discipline.

In the days of
engineering R&D, engineers wrote programs in FORTRAN or alike,
most programs were time demanding and the results were doubtful or
dangerous. On the Fusion program engineers were banned from using
computers for this very same reason.

This math’s myth needs
to killed.

Yes our engineering
pioneers used maths and if time dependent, they used calculus. Even
Napoleon (a sort of engineer) said to one of his engineering
generals - Use calculus against the English.

No; maths is not an
engineering necessity, understanding it, using it in codes and
seeing how our codes were formed is necessary. Using mathematical
proven models is a necessity.

I have just completed
one of my most interesting assignments two years after I should
have retired. I created a team of physicists, mathematicians and
mentored a Master student who presented a world first in nuclear
engineering. We were a team, none of us could have worked alone. My
mathematician colleagues said that they had made the choice – maths
, just maths; my physicist colleagues said that well, they could do
the maths and some of the engineering, but could not do all at
once; they said physics – just physics. I understood the physics,
the maths and led the engineering. No way would I go back to doing
other specialists’ work. We gave all our efforts to our Master
Student for his passport to the future.

This said, you train,
learn and chose a path that later is difficult to
leave.

I would not trust an
engineer that was dabbling in mathematics.

I have taken over
engineering design offices where people were dabbling in other
domains, there was a total mess made of the engineering support
documents that had home grown maths equations, and corrupted IT
copies passed on from project to project. I cleaned out the whole
archive and called in experts to re-establish the companies guide
specifications and to make incorruptible IT mathematical
models.

Dabbling with geometry,
algebra, matricies, FEA, is one thing rewriting Montecarlo is
another.

At University, student
engineers spend a lot of time just doing maths is this because the
professors do not understand engineering?

My best professor at Uni
turned round one day, to say that he would have really enjoyed to
be in our seats, but he had to work for a living. He had never been
to university. He was a UK leading materials expert. Another asked
me what I did for a living and then jokingly said “ do you want to
swop jobs.

Roy you have a sensible
proposition

- the practice of
professional engineering will be best served by engaging of all
those who have met a threshold standard of professional capability
and commit to professional standards.

Once achieved register
them as Professional engineers. Then if they want to be expert
specialists, guide them to CEng but not for elite protectionist
status.

Blogging is a drug - I
do not want to get intoxicated.

For those that are
interested in Engineering & Technology, there are E&T blogs
with practical information on our kaleidoscope of technologies;
most have been visited by only a handful of MIETs. A bit like PhDs,
most are viewed , apart from the jury , on average three times in a
the authors life time.

John
Gowman

Garanti
sans virus. www.avg.com
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 7 years ago in reply to Chris Pearson

Moshe,

If
only we had a UK system with correct QA and no PEER review and
Sponsorship references such as you describe in the
States.

The
problem is strictly UK. Your ideals will be blocked by the UK CEng
lobby.

The
problem I am revealing is the closed shop Peer Review and
membership sponsoring . This is subjective and controlled by a
Luddite contigent that refuses change inorder to maintain a
restrictive practice.

Your
arguments show ideals foreign to the grass roots UK CEng
system.

As
for elitist master – CEng, Roy has given some good
reasoning.

Of
course we need experts, you and I are experts, they should be
recognized and approved.

But
an expert in one domain is not an expert elsewhere. Everytime I
have changed my expertise in one domain to follow advancing
technology I have had to gain new expertise and learning. Much of
this is not available in University. For Special techniques and
DAD, I have worked with experts who evolved with the technologies
and formed university professors. I have had world experts work for
me free, just to be part of our development.

The
President of the Institute of Instrumentation came to help me in
the early mornings when we were developing Tritium
Technology.

CEng
as is the scientific PhD is a statement of expertise in one very
restricted discipline. It is not a key to open doors to all
domains.

CEng
should be a limited elite controlled recognised grade.

Engineers should be
recognized , they can add the prefix or suffix BA, BSc MIET, MA,
MEng MSc etc (MBA is management and not our domain).

Sorry
Roy, you should have been CEng years ago your, MA gave you other
recognition.

Moshe
I agree but the UK C Eng will not accept your
arguments.

“Now we have our
diplomas, we have to learn a discipline”
Professional =
Education + Training + Experience”

More than 2,000
professionals from academia, industry, and government carry out
every aspect of ABET accreditation.

They know their
profession’s dynamic and emerging workforce needs and review
academic programs to ensure they provide the technical and
professional skills graduates need to
succeed. Directly involves
faculty and staff in self-assessment and continuous quality
improvement processes.
ABET accreditation
criteria are developed by technical professionals, members of
35 member societies. Each society dedicates volunteers to perform
program reviews related to its professions. Coming
from academic, industrial and
governmental backgrounds,

-- I think
Universities in order to stay relevant and graduate Engineers
capable to enter the workforce with current update knowledge and
formation.
I agree with you that
the process needs to be dynamic to address current
and future developments.

You live in a more
democratic country. The UK is not democratic and is a Royalty. That
is why USA is a democracy.

Roy,

My opinion is that the
practice of professional engineering will be best served by
engaging of all those who have met a threshold standard of
professional capability and commit to professional standards. It
also seems reasonable that within the regulated community the term
“Engineer” should be allocated to those at degree level, in line
with other professions. The term “Technician” should be allocated
to professional practice that is distinctively valuable by its more
practical nature and which can be carried out successfully with
good technical understanding, but without necessarily deploying
graduate level knowledge attributes.

I therefore suggest that it
is time for some fresh strategic thinking, with the objectives of
greater engagement and overall collective quality, not elitism and
personal advantage. Contributions like those made at this
conference can only help and may stimulate progress, but without
strategic momentum and in the UK voluntary context at least, real
understanding of the market, it is only interesting talk, not
(overdue) progress.

Once
again you have put forward a good observation.

Moshe
is in the States, he is in another regime, even if he is UK
qualified and registered, his conditions are not ours, and his
observations are very much global. We have a strictly UK
problem.

I and
many others are in Europe, but we are controlled and restricted by
the UK PEIs and legislation even if we have no democratic rights.
No vote. We are ignored by our PEIs – The President of IET came to
France, he had neither the politeness or the inclination to meet
the MIET French Community.

Again
IET France has a joint Expat, UK PEI and other interested
Technology meetings now published under the IET French
community.

It is
a good example of cooperative communication, not possible today in
the UK.

You stated - Some will
want to adopt a highly mathematical/scientific approach built from
“principles up”, others from “practice down” to relevant
principles.

I have to admit that I
have not done much free lance mathematics for over 30 years. It is
basically forbidden when one uses codes; now codes are computerised
so you just fill in the boxes.

To use many codes, you
need to have at least a master in that
discipline.

In the days of
engineering R&D, engineers wrote programs in FORTRAN or alike,
most programs were time demanding and the results were doubtful or
dangerous. On the Fusion program engineers were banned from using
computers for this very same reason.

This math’s myth needs
to killed.

Yes our engineering
pioneers used maths and if time dependent, they used calculus. Even
Napoleon (a sort of engineer) said to one of his engineering
generals - Use calculus against the English.

No; maths is not an
engineering necessity, understanding it, using it in codes and
seeing how our codes were formed is necessary. Using mathematical
proven models is a necessity.

I have just completed
one of my most interesting assignments two years after I should
have retired. I created a team of physicists, mathematicians and
mentored a Master student who presented a world first in nuclear
engineering. We were a team, none of us could have worked alone. My
mathematician colleagues said that they had made the choice – maths
, just maths; my physicist colleagues said that well, they could do
the maths and some of the engineering, but could not do all at
once; they said physics – just physics. I understood the physics,
the maths and led the engineering. No way would I go back to doing
other specialists’ work. We gave all our efforts to our Master
Student for his passport to the future.

This said, you train,
learn and chose a path that later is difficult to
leave.

I would not trust an
engineer that was dabbling in mathematics.

I have taken over
engineering design offices where people were dabbling in other
domains, there was a total mess made of the engineering support
documents that had home grown maths equations, and corrupted IT
copies passed on from project to project. I cleaned out the whole
archive and called in experts to re-establish the companies guide
specifications and to make incorruptible IT mathematical
models.

Dabbling with geometry,
algebra, matricies, FEA, is one thing rewriting Montecarlo is
another.

At University, student
engineers spend a lot of time just doing maths is this because the
professors do not understand engineering?

My best professor at Uni
turned round one day, to say that he would have really enjoyed to
be in our seats, but he had to work for a living. He had never been
to university. He was a UK leading materials expert. Another asked
me what I did for a living and then jokingly said “ do you want to
swop jobs.

Roy you have a sensible
proposition

- the practice of
professional engineering will be best served by engaging of all
those who have met a threshold standard of professional capability
and commit to professional standards.

Once achieved register
them as Professional engineers. Then if they want to be expert
specialists, guide them to CEng but not for elite protectionist
status.

Blogging is a drug - I
do not want to get intoxicated.

For those that are
interested in Engineering & Technology, there are E&T blogs
with practical information on our kaleidoscope of technologies;
most have been visited by only a handful of MIETs. A bit like PhDs,
most are viewed , apart from the jury , on average three times in a
the authors life time.

John
Gowman

Garanti
sans virus. www.avg.com
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 7 years ago in reply to Chris Pearson

Moshe,

If
only we had a UK system with correct QA and no PEER review and
Sponsorship references such as you describe in the
States.

The
problem is strictly UK. Your ideals will be blocked by the UK CEng
lobby.

The
problem I am revealing is the closed shop Peer Review and
membership sponsoring . This is subjective and controlled by a
Luddite contigent that refuses change inorder to maintain a
restrictive practice.

Your
arguments show ideals foreign to the grass roots UK CEng
system.

As
for elitist master – CEng, Roy has given some good
reasoning.

Of
course we need experts, you and I are experts, they should be
recognized and approved.

But
an expert in one domain is not an expert elsewhere. Everytime I
have changed my expertise in one domain to follow advancing
technology I have had to gain new expertise and learning. Much of
this is not available in University. For Special techniques and
DAD, I have worked with experts who evolved with the technologies
and formed university professors. I have had world experts work for
me free, just to be part of our development.

The
President of the Institute of Instrumentation came to help me in
the early mornings when we were developing Tritium
Technology.

CEng
as is the scientific PhD is a statement of expertise in one very
restricted discipline. It is not a key to open doors to all
domains.

CEng
should be a limited elite controlled recognised grade.

Engineers should be
recognized , they can add the prefix or suffix BA, BSc MIET, MA,
MEng MSc etc (MBA is management and not our domain).

Sorry
Roy, you should have been CEng years ago your, MA gave you other
recognition.

Moshe
I agree but the UK C Eng will not accept your
arguments.

“Now we have our
diplomas, we have to learn a discipline”
Professional =
Education + Training + Experience”

More than 2,000
professionals from academia, industry, and government carry out
every aspect of ABET accreditation.

They know their
profession’s dynamic and emerging workforce needs and review
academic programs to ensure they provide the technical and
professional skills graduates need to
succeed. Directly involves
faculty and staff in self-assessment and continuous quality
improvement processes.
ABET accreditation
criteria are developed by technical professionals, members of
35 member societies. Each society dedicates volunteers to perform
program reviews related to its professions. Coming
from academic, industrial and
governmental backgrounds,

-- I think
Universities in order to stay relevant and graduate Engineers
capable to enter the workforce with current update knowledge and
formation.
I agree with you that
the process needs to be dynamic to address current
and future developments.

You live in a more
democratic country. The UK is not democratic and is a Royalty. That
is why USA is a democracy.

Roy,

My opinion is that the
practice of professional engineering will be best served by
engaging of all those who have met a threshold standard of
professional capability and commit to professional standards. It
also seems reasonable that within the regulated community the term
“Engineer” should be allocated to those at degree level, in line
with other professions. The term “Technician” should be allocated
to professional practice that is distinctively valuable by its more
practical nature and which can be carried out successfully with
good technical understanding, but without necessarily deploying
graduate level knowledge attributes.

I therefore suggest that it
is time for some fresh strategic thinking, with the objectives of
greater engagement and overall collective quality, not elitism and
personal advantage. Contributions like those made at this
conference can only help and may stimulate progress, but without
strategic momentum and in the UK voluntary context at least, real
understanding of the market, it is only interesting talk, not
(overdue) progress.

Once
again you have put forward a good observation.

Moshe
is in the States, he is in another regime, even if he is UK
qualified and registered, his conditions are not ours, and his
observations are very much global. We have a strictly UK
problem.

I and
many others are in Europe, but we are controlled and restricted by
the UK PEIs and legislation even if we have no democratic rights.
No vote. We are ignored by our PEIs – The President of IET came to
France, he had neither the politeness or the inclination to meet
the MIET French Community.

Again
IET France has a joint Expat, UK PEI and other interested
Technology meetings now published under the IET French
community.

It is
a good example of cooperative communication, not possible today in
the UK.

You stated - Some will
want to adopt a highly mathematical/scientific approach built from
“principles up”, others from “practice down” to relevant
principles.

I have to admit that I
have not done much free lance mathematics for over 30 years. It is
basically forbidden when one uses codes; now codes are computerised
so you just fill in the boxes.

To use many codes, you
need to have at least a master in that
discipline.

In the days of
engineering R&D, engineers wrote programs in FORTRAN or alike,
most programs were time demanding and the results were doubtful or
dangerous. On the Fusion program engineers were banned from using
computers for this very same reason.

This math’s myth needs
to killed.

Yes our engineering
pioneers used maths and if time dependent, they used calculus. Even
Napoleon (a sort of engineer) said to one of his engineering
generals - Use calculus against the English.

No; maths is not an
engineering necessity, understanding it, using it in codes and
seeing how our codes were formed is necessary. Using mathematical
proven models is a necessity.

I have just completed
one of my most interesting assignments two years after I should
have retired. I created a team of physicists, mathematicians and
mentored a Master student who presented a world first in nuclear
engineering. We were a team, none of us could have worked alone. My
mathematician colleagues said that they had made the choice – maths
, just maths; my physicist colleagues said that well, they could do
the maths and some of the engineering, but could not do all at
once; they said physics – just physics. I understood the physics,
the maths and led the engineering. No way would I go back to doing
other specialists’ work. We gave all our efforts to our Master
Student for his passport to the future.

This said, you train,
learn and chose a path that later is difficult to
leave.

I would not trust an
engineer that was dabbling in mathematics.

I have taken over
engineering design offices where people were dabbling in other
domains, there was a total mess made of the engineering support
documents that had home grown maths equations, and corrupted IT
copies passed on from project to project. I cleaned out the whole
archive and called in experts to re-establish the companies guide
specifications and to make incorruptible IT mathematical
models.

Dabbling with geometry,
algebra, matricies, FEA, is one thing rewriting Montecarlo is
another.

At University, student
engineers spend a lot of time just doing maths is this because the
professors do not understand engineering?

My best professor at Uni
turned round one day, to say that he would have really enjoyed to
be in our seats, but he had to work for a living. He had never been
to university. He was a UK leading materials expert. Another asked
me what I did for a living and then jokingly said “ do you want to
swop jobs.

Roy you have a sensible
proposition

- the practice of
professional engineering will be best served by engaging of all
those who have met a threshold standard of professional capability
and commit to professional standards.

Once achieved register
them as Professional engineers. Then if they want to be expert
specialists, guide them to CEng but not for elite protectionist
status.

Blogging is a drug - I
do not want to get intoxicated.

For those that are
interested in Engineering & Technology, there are E&T blogs
with practical information on our kaleidoscope of technologies;
most have been visited by only a handful of MIETs. A bit like PhDs,
most are viewed , apart from the jury , on average three times in a
the authors life time.

John
Gowman

Garanti
sans virus. www.avg.com
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Former Community Member over 7 years ago in reply to Chris Pearson

Moshe,

If
only we had a UK system with correct QA and no PEER review and
Sponsorship references such as you describe in the
States.

The
problem is strictly UK. Your ideals will be blocked by the UK CEng
lobby.

The
problem I am revealing is the closed shop Peer Review and
membership sponsoring . This is subjective and controlled by a
Luddite contigent that refuses change inorder to maintain a
restrictive practice.

Your
arguments show ideals foreign to the grass roots UK CEng
system.

As
for elitist master – CEng, Roy has given some good
reasoning.

Of
course we need experts, you and I are experts, they should be
recognized and approved.

But
an expert in one domain is not an expert elsewhere. Everytime I
have changed my expertise in one domain to follow advancing
technology I have had to gain new expertise and learning. Much of
this is not available in University. For Special techniques and
DAD, I have worked with experts who evolved with the technologies
and formed university professors. I have had world experts work for
me free, just to be part of our development.

The
President of the Institute of Instrumentation came to help me in
the early mornings when we were developing Tritium
Technology.

CEng
as is the scientific PhD is a statement of expertise in one very
restricted discipline. It is not a key to open doors to all
domains.

CEng
should be a limited elite controlled recognised grade.

Engineers should be
recognized , they can add the prefix or suffix BA, BSc MIET, MA,
MEng MSc etc (MBA is management and not our domain).

Sorry
Roy, you should have been CEng years ago your, MA gave you other
recognition.

Moshe
I agree but the UK C Eng will not accept your
arguments.

“Now we have our
diplomas, we have to learn a discipline”
Professional =
Education + Training + Experience”

More than 2,000
professionals from academia, industry, and government carry out
every aspect of ABET accreditation.

They know their
profession’s dynamic and emerging workforce needs and review
academic programs to ensure they provide the technical and
professional skills graduates need to
succeed. Directly involves
faculty and staff in self-assessment and continuous quality
improvement processes.
ABET accreditation
criteria are developed by technical professionals, members of
35 member societies. Each society dedicates volunteers to perform
program reviews related to its professions. Coming
from academic, industrial and
governmental backgrounds,

-- I think
Universities in order to stay relevant and graduate Engineers
capable to enter the workforce with current update knowledge and
formation.
I agree with you that
the process needs to be dynamic to address current
and future developments.

You live in a more
democratic country. The UK is not democratic and is a Royalty. That
is why USA is a democracy.

Roy,

My opinion is that the
practice of professional engineering will be best served by
engaging of all those who have met a threshold standard of
professional capability and commit to professional standards. It
also seems reasonable that within the regulated community the term
“Engineer” should be allocated to those at degree level, in line
with other professions. The term “Technician” should be allocated
to professional practice that is distinctively valuable by its more
practical nature and which can be carried out successfully with
good technical understanding, but without necessarily deploying
graduate level knowledge attributes.

I therefore suggest that it
is time for some fresh strategic thinking, with the objectives of
greater engagement and overall collective quality, not elitism and
personal advantage. Contributions like those made at this
conference can only help and may stimulate progress, but without
strategic momentum and in the UK voluntary context at least, real
understanding of the market, it is only interesting talk, not
(overdue) progress.

Once
again you have put forward a good observation.

Moshe
is in the States, he is in another regime, even if he is UK
qualified and registered, his conditions are not ours, and his
observations are very much global. We have a strictly UK
problem.

I and
many others are in Europe, but we are controlled and restricted by
the UK PEIs and legislation even if we have no democratic rights.
No vote. We are ignored by our PEIs – The President of IET came to
France, he had neither the politeness or the inclination to meet
the MIET French Community.

Again
IET France has a joint Expat, UK PEI and other interested
Technology meetings now published under the IET French
community.

It is
a good example of cooperative communication, not possible today in
the UK.

You stated - Some will
want to adopt a highly mathematical/scientific approach built from
“principles up”, others from “practice down” to relevant
principles.

I have to admit that I
have not done much free lance mathematics for over 30 years. It is
basically forbidden when one uses codes; now codes are computerised
so you just fill in the boxes.

To use many codes, you
need to have at least a master in that
discipline.

In the days of
engineering R&D, engineers wrote programs in FORTRAN or alike,
most programs were time demanding and the results were doubtful or
dangerous. On the Fusion program engineers were banned from using
computers for this very same reason.

This math’s myth needs
to killed.

Yes our engineering
pioneers used maths and if time dependent, they used calculus. Even
Napoleon (a sort of engineer) said to one of his engineering
generals - Use calculus against the English.

No; maths is not an
engineering necessity, understanding it, using it in codes and
seeing how our codes were formed is necessary. Using mathematical
proven models is a necessity.

I have just completed
one of my most interesting assignments two years after I should
have retired. I created a team of physicists, mathematicians and
mentored a Master student who presented a world first in nuclear
engineering. We were a team, none of us could have worked alone. My
mathematician colleagues said that they had made the choice – maths
, just maths; my physicist colleagues said that well, they could do
the maths and some of the engineering, but could not do all at
once; they said physics – just physics. I understood the physics,
the maths and led the engineering. No way would I go back to doing
other specialists’ work. We gave all our efforts to our Master
Student for his passport to the future.

This said, you train,
learn and chose a path that later is difficult to
leave.

I would not trust an
engineer that was dabbling in mathematics.

I have taken over
engineering design offices where people were dabbling in other
domains, there was a total mess made of the engineering support
documents that had home grown maths equations, and corrupted IT
copies passed on from project to project. I cleaned out the whole
archive and called in experts to re-establish the companies guide
specifications and to make incorruptible IT mathematical
models.

Dabbling with geometry,
algebra, matricies, FEA, is one thing rewriting Montecarlo is
another.

At University, student
engineers spend a lot of time just doing maths is this because the
professors do not understand engineering?

My best professor at Uni
turned round one day, to say that he would have really enjoyed to
be in our seats, but he had to work for a living. He had never been
to university. He was a UK leading materials expert. Another asked
me what I did for a living and then jokingly said “ do you want to
swop jobs.

Roy you have a sensible
proposition

- the practice of
professional engineering will be best served by engaging of all
those who have met a threshold standard of professional capability
and commit to professional standards.

Once achieved register
them as Professional engineers. Then if they want to be expert
specialists, guide them to CEng but not for elite protectionist
status.

Blogging is a drug - I
do not want to get intoxicated.

For those that are
interested in Engineering & Technology, there are E&T blogs
with practical information on our kaleidoscope of technologies;
most have been visited by only a handful of MIETs. A bit like PhDs,
most are viewed , apart from the jury , on average three times in a
the authors life time.

John
Gowman

Garanti
sans virus. www.avg.com
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Andy Millar over 7 years ago

Hi Roy,

Thanks for posting the link to the conference papers (I've only just picked that up) - I've got some long train journey's next week so I'll print this out for an interesting read!

Thanks, Andy
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel
0 Roy Bowdler over 7 years ago

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.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

A new model of high-value engineering education

Community Rules & Guidelines