This might come across as a very strange question but is it uncommon to find engineers who did not enjoy school or think highly of the schools that they attended? I have encountered numerous computing and IT types over the years who did not enjoy school or had bad experiences at school but very few electrical or mechanical engineers.
This highlights an important issue that I have commented on in other threads, sorry for any repetition. There are actually huge numbers of highly skilled and productive individuals either employed or self-employed who are “engineers”. However, Professional Institutions and regulators have mostly adopted an academic perspective to determine who is classified as a “Professional Engineer”. Although there are international variations, The International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) approach is most prevalent. This offers the designation “Engineer” to only the most highly educated, with mathematics in particular, used as the key gateway (or barrier) to access.
Someone might want to pick up a debate about the extent to which Engineers and IT Professionals in practice, use advanced mathematics in their work. The academic benchmark used for recognition as “Professional Technician” would be considered by “academic equivalence”, at or slightly lower than the admission requirement for a WA style (aka CEng) degree. However, I would suggest that perhaps only half of practicing Chartered (type) Engineers deploy anything beyond this Technician benchmark in practice? http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/4766/1/PhD%20THESIS%20-%20VOLUME%201-%20Eileen%20Goold.pdf
Maths is quite a “disciplined” and “step by step ” subject in which it is very easy to lose interest, if you miss out on, or fail to grasp key steps. Add to that a reputation for being the domain of “swots” (“nerds” in more recent parlance) or seeming to be esoteric and irrelevant beyond a basic level, many otherwise bright people inevitably develop a dislike or even phobia around maths study. I’m not seeking to downplay the value of very advanced mathematics in appropriate circumstances, or to discourage the pursuit of excellence in maths by those with an aptitude for it. However, we should at least consider the possibility that academic selection in school is “weeding out” those who potentially could be good engineers . A more vocational approach can lead to equally if not more valuable outcomes, especially for those who prefer to validate their effort with practical rather than theoretical outcomes.
I don’t claim any IT expertise, but perhaps as the different threads of this grew up, some were “industry led” with the mainstream of academic learning provision playing “catch up”? How relevant is the academic study of “Computer Science” to the “IT Types” that you describe? There does seem to be a high proportion of people who migrated into IT without formal academic preparation, but is this different to the proportion of engineers and technicians? Is there a well-defined separation between Engineering and IT? Are you comparing “Technicians” in IT with Chartered Engineers? Is IT perhaps more “performance orientated” relative to the more traditional engineering disciplines, where some academic snobbery exists?
To return to the your theme of the education system. In the UK many late career Engineers were selected (or not) by a test taken at the age of 10, into those of “good academic potential” and “the rest”. Although I didn’t take that test the “Comprehensive School” that I attended was a former “Secondary Modern” (for the rest). The education was actually reasonably OK, with good metalwork and woodwork workshops for the less academic, but the social environment was challenging. For a teenage boy in particular, success within the peer group came from rebellious, disruptive attitudes and behaviours. Thankfully drugs and gangs were slightly less dangerous than has become the case more recently in some more disadvantaged areas. However, I didn’t know anyone who had attended university and was lucky to secure a good apprenticeship at age 16. I enjoyed aspects of school and learning about anything that captured my interest, but hated being treated as child (once I was physically mature). I was close to the sack in my first year as an Apprentice as College attitudes were a bit too close to school. Luckily my employer recognised potential and with some determination and couple of lucky breaks within 10 years, I was a Head of a Department in a major industrial training establishment (IEng Registered with Management and Teaching qualifications).
I’m sorry to talk about myself, but I’m trying to answer your question. As a Company Training Manager for many years I have seen many successful career stories, both from those who did well in school and those who only “found their feet” as adults. A significant number of those who followed an apprenticeship type pathway ended up in senior management roles having progressed from Project Engineers (HNC-BSc), a few have done so via CEng, but only from (unfairly in my opinion) a disadvantaged position, unwelcome and perhaps even “stigmatised” by some in the PEI world, because they weren’t a full-time undergraduate student with a highly mathematical focus from the age of 18. By coincidence yesterday a 40 + years old senior managing engineer, described just such a recent experience to me at the hands of another PEI last week.
As I see it, all technical work roles require some combination of numeracy, literacy and contextual understanding (including experience or “practical nous”). Most experienced practitioners in a role, have an implicit understanding of approximately how these aspects might present themselves in someone else demonstrating competence or excellence. However, they tend to conflate how the attributes were gained with what they are. This is typified by a “repeat my rites of passage” approach. It may be possible in parts of IT to by-pass established rites of passage and jump straight to the leading edge of practice? If so, I would expect this to involve the risk of being “left behind” as subsequent iterations emerge. Being narrowly focused has benefits but also risks. For example there were thousands of Mining Engineers in the UK 35 years ago. Some moved into IT as that emerged.
When a generation ago there were generally far more opportunities in many parts of the country for a locally based apprenticeship, employers were used to recruiting teenagers with an element of unfulfilled potential and allowing it to develop. Graduate recruitment was mainly for those of “management potential”, with a some technical specialists where needed. Perhaps typically one graduate for every ten apprentices.
At a national level Armed Forces Technical Training took many young people who could easily have faltered following school and made them skilled professionals. However, as these options declined , university became the only viable option for many, with those who had not succeeded at school in danger of becoming NEET.
Fortunately university places were made available at modest cost (£1000 PA) with options for anyone of “average academic potential” or above, but that still leaves a lot of 18 year old potential untapped. Many employers of engineers responded by recruiting 21 year old graduates rather than 16-18 year old apprentices. As a recruiter of apprentices at the time the market actually became very “difficult”. Other downsides included the assumption that non-university attenders were of low-intelligence and the passing of “entitled” or “snobbish” attitudes down from when university attendance was more restricted. There was also a developing trend of former Polytechnics to seek academic prestige, sometimes at the expense of their more vocational traditions serving local industries. Some of the trends are described here https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/over-qualification-and-skills-mismatch-graduate-labour-market_tcm18-10231.pdf
We can’t change the past, so what matters for me is where does that leave those at school, university or in early career now. Despite our best intentions to promote STEM, are we actually deterring a significant proportion of those who may be interested in Engineering and Technology, through academically selective messages, especially in respect of higher level mathematics? Are we nurturing those who may have excellent potential to succeed in a craft trade from which a good proportion will always progress in their career to Technician, Engineer and management roles? Could we serve society better by focusing on how engineering can enable social mobility, perhaps by focusing some of our energy on “underachievers”? Are we offering role models that a young person can relate to? In university, why are we too often preparing engineering students more optimally for post-graduate study rather than employment? Why do we promote the message that someone who has studied engineering “applications” or “technology” has undertaken an “inferior" form of preparation unsuited to chartered engineer status, which is restricted to the (mathematical) elite? Are we now imposing a punitive tariff of debt on students of engineering, relative to the earning premium that many might enjoy? For example some very good MEng graduates can find themselves on the shelf, once the most selective of employers have taken their fill.
I described earlier the excellent careers enjoyed by former apprentices, who in their generation were often not “stars” in the school system. Even many of those who would not pretend to great academic ability and struggled at school have found their way via trades like Electricians (including IT installers) to enjoy a greater earnings premium than many graduates.
I would consider myself a friend of academia and enthusiast for education, but I’m frustrated at how the system seems to have become a mechanism for social selection on the basis of an unequal competition. Just a couple of weeks ago someone related to me their distress about a “nervous breakdown” suffered by their 10 year old child resulting from school tests. Engineering and Technology covers a very wide range of activities, which require different types of optimisation and expertise.
We seem to have encouraged the compulsory education system to deter many who might be capable engineers and technicians in order to create a potential academic elite cadre of engineers. Is there a better way forward, without damaging the best of what we have? I have hopes for revitalising apprenticeships, but the government seems to be attracting sustained criticism from many employers. Not another “failed initiative” please!
This highlights an important issue that I have commented on in other threads, sorry for any repetition. There are actually huge numbers of highly skilled and productive individuals either employed or self-employed who are “engineers”. However, Professional Institutions and regulators have mostly adopted an academic perspective to determine who is classified as a “Professional Engineer”. Although there are international variations, The International Engineering Alliance (Washington Accord) approach is most prevalent. This offers the designation “Engineer” to only the most highly educated, with mathematics in particular, used as the key gateway (or barrier) to access.
Someone might want to pick up a debate about the extent to which Engineers and IT Professionals in practice, use advanced mathematics in their work. The academic benchmark used for recognition as “Professional Technician” would be considered by “academic equivalence”, at or slightly lower than the admission requirement for a WA style (aka CEng) degree. However, I would suggest that perhaps only half of practicing Chartered (type) Engineers deploy anything beyond this Technician benchmark in practice? http://eprints.maynoothuniversity.ie/4766/1/PhD%20THESIS%20-%20VOLUME%201-%20Eileen%20Goold.pdf
Maths is quite a “disciplined” and “step by step ” subject in which it is very easy to lose interest, if you miss out on, or fail to grasp key steps. Add to that a reputation for being the domain of “swots” (“nerds” in more recent parlance) or seeming to be esoteric and irrelevant beyond a basic level, many otherwise bright people inevitably develop a dislike or even phobia around maths study. I’m not seeking to downplay the value of very advanced mathematics in appropriate circumstances, or to discourage the pursuit of excellence in maths by those with an aptitude for it. However, we should at least consider the possibility that academic selection in school is “weeding out” those who potentially could be good engineers . A more vocational approach can lead to equally if not more valuable outcomes, especially for those who prefer to validate their effort with practical rather than theoretical outcomes.
I don’t claim any IT expertise, but perhaps as the different threads of this grew up, some were “industry led” with the mainstream of academic learning provision playing “catch up”? How relevant is the academic study of “Computer Science” to the “IT Types” that you describe? There does seem to be a high proportion of people who migrated into IT without formal academic preparation, but is this different to the proportion of engineers and technicians? Is there a well-defined separation between Engineering and IT? Are you comparing “Technicians” in IT with Chartered Engineers? Is IT perhaps more “performance orientated” relative to the more traditional engineering disciplines, where some academic snobbery exists?
To return to the your theme of the education system. In the UK many late career Engineers were selected (or not) by a test taken at the age of 10, into those of “good academic potential” and “the rest”. Although I didn’t take that test the “Comprehensive School” that I attended was a former “Secondary Modern” (for the rest). The education was actually reasonably OK, with good metalwork and woodwork workshops for the less academic, but the social environment was challenging. For a teenage boy in particular, success within the peer group came from rebellious, disruptive attitudes and behaviours. Thankfully drugs and gangs were slightly less dangerous than has become the case more recently in some more disadvantaged areas. However, I didn’t know anyone who had attended university and was lucky to secure a good apprenticeship at age 16. I enjoyed aspects of school and learning about anything that captured my interest, but hated being treated as child (once I was physically mature). I was close to the sack in my first year as an Apprentice as College attitudes were a bit too close to school. Luckily my employer recognised potential and with some determination and couple of lucky breaks within 10 years, I was a Head of a Department in a major industrial training establishment (IEng Registered with Management and Teaching qualifications).
I’m sorry to talk about myself, but I’m trying to answer your question. As a Company Training Manager for many years I have seen many successful career stories, both from those who did well in school and those who only “found their feet” as adults. A significant number of those who followed an apprenticeship type pathway ended up in senior management roles having progressed from Project Engineers (HNC-BSc), a few have done so via CEng, but only from (unfairly in my opinion) a disadvantaged position, unwelcome and perhaps even “stigmatised” by some in the PEI world, because they weren’t a full-time undergraduate student with a highly mathematical focus from the age of 18. By coincidence yesterday a 40 + years old senior managing engineer, described just such a recent experience to me at the hands of another PEI last week.
As I see it, all technical work roles require some combination of numeracy, literacy and contextual understanding (including experience or “practical nous”). Most experienced practitioners in a role, have an implicit understanding of approximately how these aspects might present themselves in someone else demonstrating competence or excellence. However, they tend to conflate how the attributes were gained with what they are. This is typified by a “repeat my rites of passage” approach. It may be possible in parts of IT to by-pass established rites of passage and jump straight to the leading edge of practice? If so, I would expect this to involve the risk of being “left behind” as subsequent iterations emerge. Being narrowly focused has benefits but also risks. For example there were thousands of Mining Engineers in the UK 35 years ago. Some moved into IT as that emerged.
When a generation ago there were generally far more opportunities in many parts of the country for a locally based apprenticeship, employers were used to recruiting teenagers with an element of unfulfilled potential and allowing it to develop. Graduate recruitment was mainly for those of “management potential”, with a some technical specialists where needed. Perhaps typically one graduate for every ten apprentices.
At a national level Armed Forces Technical Training took many young people who could easily have faltered following school and made them skilled professionals. However, as these options declined , university became the only viable option for many, with those who had not succeeded at school in danger of becoming NEET.
Fortunately university places were made available at modest cost (£1000 PA) with options for anyone of “average academic potential” or above, but that still leaves a lot of 18 year old potential untapped. Many employers of engineers responded by recruiting 21 year old graduates rather than 16-18 year old apprentices. As a recruiter of apprentices at the time the market actually became very “difficult”. Other downsides included the assumption that non-university attenders were of low-intelligence and the passing of “entitled” or “snobbish” attitudes down from when university attendance was more restricted. There was also a developing trend of former Polytechnics to seek academic prestige, sometimes at the expense of their more vocational traditions serving local industries. Some of the trends are described here https://www.cipd.co.uk/Images/over-qualification-and-skills-mismatch-graduate-labour-market_tcm18-10231.pdf
We can’t change the past, so what matters for me is where does that leave those at school, university or in early career now. Despite our best intentions to promote STEM, are we actually deterring a significant proportion of those who may be interested in Engineering and Technology, through academically selective messages, especially in respect of higher level mathematics? Are we nurturing those who may have excellent potential to succeed in a craft trade from which a good proportion will always progress in their career to Technician, Engineer and management roles? Could we serve society better by focusing on how engineering can enable social mobility, perhaps by focusing some of our energy on “underachievers”? Are we offering role models that a young person can relate to? In university, why are we too often preparing engineering students more optimally for post-graduate study rather than employment? Why do we promote the message that someone who has studied engineering “applications” or “technology” has undertaken an “inferior" form of preparation unsuited to chartered engineer status, which is restricted to the (mathematical) elite? Are we now imposing a punitive tariff of debt on students of engineering, relative to the earning premium that many might enjoy? For example some very good MEng graduates can find themselves on the shelf, once the most selective of employers have taken their fill.
I described earlier the excellent careers enjoyed by former apprentices, who in their generation were often not “stars” in the school system. Even many of those who would not pretend to great academic ability and struggled at school have found their way via trades like Electricians (including IT installers) to enjoy a greater earnings premium than many graduates.
I would consider myself a friend of academia and enthusiast for education, but I’m frustrated at how the system seems to have become a mechanism for social selection on the basis of an unequal competition. Just a couple of weeks ago someone related to me their distress about a “nervous breakdown” suffered by their 10 year old child resulting from school tests. Engineering and Technology covers a very wide range of activities, which require different types of optimisation and expertise.
We seem to have encouraged the compulsory education system to deter many who might be capable engineers and technicians in order to create a potential academic elite cadre of engineers. Is there a better way forward, without damaging the best of what we have? I have hopes for revitalising apprenticeships, but the government seems to be attracting sustained criticism from many employers. Not another “failed initiative” please!
