A new model of high-value engineering education

John's posting is irrelevant to this thread (ok, I often post tangentally to threads but I'm not expecting the world to change because of it!) But one point I will pick up: I would not expect any professional engineer to give their opinon on a large scale critical engineering matter on these forums. That may seem a slightly odd statement, but it is important to remember that - as I tend to put it - these foums have the status of a pub conversation. Readers have no evidence of the professional status of any poster, so making any decision based solely on advice given here would be daft. To take a recent example, I took part in a discussion on a rail safety matter to add in a bit of perspective, but would not get into a debate as to a "right" or "wrong" approach - which would actully involve many weeks or months of investigation and possibly 100s of pages of reports.


An effect of this is that we can chat all day about fusion (to take this example), but any engineers who actually know what they are talking about are unlikely to bother to get very heavily involved, like most engineering subjects there's a huge limit as to how much you can usefully say in a couple of hundred words. Of course, giving pointers to where to find specific information is great, and - to my mind - should be one of the key points of these forums. Although even then commercial considerations can make it difficult.


There are many things I can (and do ) criticise the IET for. But ever since I became a member of the IEE, the most useful aspect for me - other than getting CEng - has been the conferences and seminars it organises. These are the places to discuss weighty matters, and they are used that way. I certainly agree that there are too many aspects of the world that the IET is trying to cover which are not effectively addressed by these, and that is a problem the IET needs to address. (It has been said in the past "we do what members ask us to do" which doesn't work, organisations grow by anticipating needs their "customers" didn't even know they had. But it seems the IET's approach now is rather more proactive which is good.)


Key point: Simple explanations or justifications for just about anything - such as are found in newspaper headlines or forum postings - are both very appealing and almost always too simplistic to be of any use whatsoever. US Presidents may be able to make their decisions based on Twitter hearsay, but hopefuly engineers are a bit more professional than that 


Anyway not a discussion for this thread. Let's try to stick to education here.


Cheers, Andy

I thought that this thread was a discussion about developing people entering engineering careers. This certainly includes learning lessons from the past, when the apprenticeship model and more “vocational” academic provision from Colleges/Polytechnics was the mainstay of a largely successful national effort to produce highly skilled engineering practitioners. It is legitimate to examine the reasons why this has seemed to falter, including perhaps the contribution of attempting to align with international practice, such as via the Washington Accord.  

 

To the extent that John’s comments are relevant to this subject, I can find some measure of agreement and have tried to engage with them in that spirit. My previous post was intentionally slightly “lighter”,  since most of my contributions have been intended to offer a coherent argument for change in future.  When I stated  “Perhaps the “jealous politicians” and “closed-shop, secret society hegemonists” could be named and shamed in some form of Witch Hunt? Collective future benefit zero, but some revenge for the aggrieved.” The intention was to counsel against this type of contribution not to encourage it.

 

I’m disappointed that John’s contribution, clearly motivated by a personal grudge (legitimate or not) detracts from the subject of the thread. Barry’s comments illustrate what I’m sure many readers will feel.  I’m not qualified to comment on the legality of the comments, but would observe that the latest post feels like a “Kitchen Sink and all rant”. I can empathise with John’s feeling of injustice, but The IET wasn’t the cause and IET forums aren’t the avenue to seek redress.    

 

As I hope is obvious, a lot of thought went into many of my contributions to this thread, together with those of others including links to conference papers. I suspect that this might be deleted once the lawyers run the rule over John’s comments.  Free speech requires moderate conduct and although probably not John’s intention, his “shouting” may have the effect of suppressing it.  

I have contributed to these forums for a number of years on a voluntary basis and although I work for the IET I am not its “spokesperson”.  Initially I sought to counter inaccurate or misleading material, where I was possessed of additional information. I also tried to represent the perspective of those drawn from “IIE traditions”, support the reinvigoration of apprenticeships and academic programmes closely interwoven with work-practice. I feel that the argument is being won and the agenda has been moved, in part by government action. For Example Andy Palmer  CEO of Aston Martin supports my perspective here  http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07x6jz2 .  Examples are also offered in the podcast from other fields like finance.

 

Peter Miller’s challenge is to move forward without the smell of an “establishment stitch up”. However, we can’t reasonably expect those leading our profession to engage in a bar room brawl (to borrow Andy Millar’s analogy). We can evolve a better and fairer system by rational discussion, if we include the perspective of all who should have a valid input. Barry’s contribution illustrates that reasonable argument is listened to. But to borrow Andy’s comparison again, if this is just a rough bar full of people looking for a “punch-up” then sensible people (which I hope includes me) will find another place. 


I don’t favour state intervention, but if it took government action to grow higher and degree apprenticeships back from a very low base, then it may take more to ensure equal access to professional recognition. If we believe that what we already have is fair, then the market is broken, because most developing engineers and technicians are not seeing a benefit. I often hear from Chartered Engineers who came up “the hard way” or “the long way”, but for every one of them there are probably two or three similar others who “lost the way”, despite often successful careers in engineering and related management. The ball is in our court to do something! Perhaps we need an outsider with a successful business background to help us? 

P.S. If anyone doesn't know who Steven Cowley is, I'd strongly recommend listening to the interview with him that forms the 10th October episode of BBC Radio 4's "The Life Scientific" www.bbc.co.uk/.../b097918v (apologies, probably not available for non-UK readers). He's a very interesting and inspirational speaker, and it includes a neat summary of fusion research. Sorry Roy, I didn't mean to interrupt your discussion - we happened to post at the same time - just trying to get some balance in!

John,

If you want to discuss fusion power please start a new thread.

Thanks, Andy