Graham Kenyon:

I often wonder ... well, perhaps worry ... about this, as it does mirror my own experience, including some things being taught on the degree I did being very distant from how it's done in the real world (and on occasion, perhaps wrong).

I think that it is safe to say with confidence that university professors in mathematics and physics are the best brains in the world in their subjects, but it is questionable whether university professors in engineering are the best brains in their subject because they are rarely party to cutting edge developments in industry. Even in industrial projects carried out in conjunction with professors in engineering there are more often than not non-disclosure agreements which limits what they can publish for other professors and lecturers to read, or what they can teach to their students. The reality is, much of what professors and lecturers know is either textbook material or esoteric corners of engineering resulting from their own research. In engineering, industry and academia often go very different ways even to the point where people who work in industry rarely look at academic journals and people who work in academia rarely look at industrial engineering journals.

This leads to the following thoughts (simplified summary, definitely "generalisation" in its grossest form, each point debatable and of course individuals may fall between the cracks of this):

• Engineering is not taught on Engineering degrees; instead they teach scientific and mathematical approaches, with some including communication / management studies. The thing that's missing is the part of the toolset that Engineers use to resolve an Engineering problem in the real world.

I agree with this and think that electronic engineering degrees should be named electronic science. They also fail to sufficiently cover peripheral topics like business, legal matters, marketing, and customer focus.

• Vocational courses perhaps don't teach enough of the "theory" and "management", and perhaps leave the student to their own devices in developing their own "Engineering problem solving toolset".

The problem is that many vocational courses in Britain were designed as outlets for students of limited academic ability who were good with their hands. If more theory and mathematics is introduced then it incurs the risk that students drop out or do not take the course in the first place therefore rendering the course unviable. A similar phenomenon resulted in secondary schools that ran a GCSE electronics course but abandoned woodwork and metalwork subjects at GCSE. It was too difficult for students of limited academic ability who could have achieved a good grade in a woodwork and metalwork course.

• Natural "Maker Movement" people have the "Engineering problem solving toolset" addressed either through innate ability, or developed through experience.

One notable difference between career engineers and the maker movement is the knowledge and appreciation of technical standards. The maker movement is creative but is lackadaisical when it comes to complying with technical standards. Another concern than managers from industry have with people from the maker movement is whether they can carry out a project on time and on budget as well as on spec. These are issues that are only superficially covered by engineering degree courses so graduate engineers are likely to also have little appreciation of them.

• Graduate Engineers from the Academic Route may not have the "Engineering problem solving toolset".

Engineering degree are all about passing exams (which is 90% memorisation with no real problem solving ability) or producing assignments with artificial marking schemes where success is about pleasing professors.

Perhaps the conclusion of all this being that the education system as it is perhaps isn't set up to form "Engineers", and with the situation where it's very difficult to register as IEng and CEng without a degree, brings the whole academic formation as it is today into question.

How can we improve the situation?

The education system isn't set up to form engineers...


I have previously stated that the IET does not appear to represent every sector of electrical and electronic engineering, but is heavily biased towards defence, aerospace, railways, and power generation. Therefore membership of the IET is really only an advantage to engineers who work in these industries. Conversely, a high proportion of IET members are employed in these industries. The microelectronic, semiconductor, consumer electronics, and considerable amounts of civilian professional electronics industries are barely even represented in the IET. It is estimated that over half of all people in the UK who are eligible for IET membership are not members because they see no obvious advantage in being a member unless they are working towards chartered status.

https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/806/19424


What this means is that the IET will steadfastly hold onto the stance than an engineer is not an engineer unless they hold an accredited degree or other qualification resulting in the individual being eligible for membership. The result of this is that the IET has no interest in people working in engineering who do not hold accredited qualifications, and even less interest in the maker movement, other than telling to go and study for a degree.


Last year I discussed the teaching of STEM subjects at secondary school and Level 3:

https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/796/18271

https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/796/17852


The impression I get from the replies is that the IET could well be unaware of what STEM subjects are currently available and lacks a clear strategy to develop STEM courses at these levels. A question persists in whether engineering subjects should even be taught at secondary school and Level 3 or whether students should go down an academic route of mathematics and physics.


Has the IET evaluated the new Computer Science GCSE and A Level yet?


The maker movement does not appear to be factored into the equation by the IET. Should youngsters spend their time dabbling about with engineering outside of school or should they instead knuckle down with studies and participate in more conventional hobbies? I'm not sure if the situation has changed, but the maker movement was in my youthful days more prevalent amongst state school and home educated students rather than students who attended independent schools. There seemed to be an attitude that students from posh schools shouldn't spend time outside of school building Lego Mindstorms robots or things out of bits from broken video recorders.

Graham Kenyon:

I often wonder ... well, perhaps worry ... about this, as it does mirror my own experience, including some things being taught on the degree I did being very distant from how it's done in the real world (and on occasion, perhaps wrong).

I think that it is safe to say with confidence that university professors in mathematics and physics are the best brains in the world in their subjects, but it is questionable whether university professors in engineering are the best brains in their subject because they are rarely party to cutting edge developments in industry. Even in industrial projects carried out in conjunction with professors in engineering there are more often than not non-disclosure agreements which limits what they can publish for other professors and lecturers to read, or what they can teach to their students. The reality is, much of what professors and lecturers know is either textbook material or esoteric corners of engineering resulting from their own research. In engineering, industry and academia often go very different ways even to the point where people who work in industry rarely look at academic journals and people who work in academia rarely look at industrial engineering journals.

This leads to the following thoughts (simplified summary, definitely "generalisation" in its grossest form, each point debatable and of course individuals may fall between the cracks of this):

• Engineering is not taught on Engineering degrees; instead they teach scientific and mathematical approaches, with some including communication / management studies. The thing that's missing is the part of the toolset that Engineers use to resolve an Engineering problem in the real world.

I agree with this and think that electronic engineering degrees should be named electronic science. They also fail to sufficiently cover peripheral topics like business, legal matters, marketing, and customer focus.

• Vocational courses perhaps don't teach enough of the "theory" and "management", and perhaps leave the student to their own devices in developing their own "Engineering problem solving toolset".

The problem is that many vocational courses in Britain were designed as outlets for students of limited academic ability who were good with their hands. If more theory and mathematics is introduced then it incurs the risk that students drop out or do not take the course in the first place therefore rendering the course unviable. A similar phenomenon resulted in secondary schools that ran a GCSE electronics course but abandoned woodwork and metalwork subjects at GCSE. It was too difficult for students of limited academic ability who could have achieved a good grade in a woodwork and metalwork course.

• Natural "Maker Movement" people have the "Engineering problem solving toolset" addressed either through innate ability, or developed through experience.

One notable difference between career engineers and the maker movement is the knowledge and appreciation of technical standards. The maker movement is creative but is lackadaisical when it comes to complying with technical standards. Another concern than managers from industry have with people from the maker movement is whether they can carry out a project on time and on budget as well as on spec. These are issues that are only superficially covered by engineering degree courses so graduate engineers are likely to also have little appreciation of them.

• Graduate Engineers from the Academic Route may not have the "Engineering problem solving toolset".

Engineering degree are all about passing exams (which is 90% memorisation with no real problem solving ability) or producing assignments with artificial marking schemes where success is about pleasing professors.

Perhaps the conclusion of all this being that the education system as it is perhaps isn't set up to form "Engineers", and with the situation where it's very difficult to register as IEng and CEng without a degree, brings the whole academic formation as it is today into question.

How can we improve the situation?

The education system isn't set up to form engineers...


I have previously stated that the IET does not appear to represent every sector of electrical and electronic engineering, but is heavily biased towards defence, aerospace, railways, and power generation. Therefore membership of the IET is really only an advantage to engineers who work in these industries. Conversely, a high proportion of IET members are employed in these industries. The microelectronic, semiconductor, consumer electronics, and considerable amounts of civilian professional electronics industries are barely even represented in the IET. It is estimated that over half of all people in the UK who are eligible for IET membership are not members because they see no obvious advantage in being a member unless they are working towards chartered status.

https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/806/19424


What this means is that the IET will steadfastly hold onto the stance than an engineer is not an engineer unless they hold an accredited degree or other qualification resulting in the individual being eligible for membership. The result of this is that the IET has no interest in people working in engineering who do not hold accredited qualifications, and even less interest in the maker movement, other than telling to go and study for a degree.


Last year I discussed the teaching of STEM subjects at secondary school and Level 3:

https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/796/18271

https://communities.theiet.org/discussions/viewtopic/796/17852


The impression I get from the replies is that the IET could well be unaware of what STEM subjects are currently available and lacks a clear strategy to develop STEM courses at these levels. A question persists in whether engineering subjects should even be taught at secondary school and Level 3 or whether students should go down an academic route of mathematics and physics.


Has the IET evaluated the new Computer Science GCSE and A Level yet?


The maker movement does not appear to be factored into the equation by the IET. Should youngsters spend their time dabbling about with engineering outside of school or should they instead knuckle down with studies and participate in more conventional hobbies? I'm not sure if the situation has changed, but the maker movement was in my youthful days more prevalent amongst state school and home educated students rather than students who attended independent schools. There seemed to be an attitude that students from posh schools shouldn't spend time outside of school building Lego Mindstorms robots or things out of bits from broken video recorders.