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.
I wrote this last evening in response to Arran’s beginning There may be plenty of truth to this but bear in mind that schools don’t actually teach social skills but I wasn’t able to post
An interesting perspective Arran, a little provocative perhaps, but with at least a ring of truth in much of it.
I have little recent direct experience of schools except for recruiting and training school leavers and being on “Investors In People” panels until about 10 years ago. However, my mother was a Junior and Infant School Teacher, who trained at Teacher Training College after the war and was stood in front of 40+ children in rubble strewn Salford by the time she was 20. Escaping to the country, being a local school teacher was an important position in the community, where she would have considered the open expression of party political affiliations “unprofessional”. In an interesting parallel with the engineering profession by the time she retired early, some would have dubbed her an “unqualified teacher”. After all if academic snobbery isn’t going to exist in education then where would it? The sociology (aka politics) of schools and academic environments is interesting and you make valid observations.
Although I went into an engineering career, some Sociology teachers who perhaps fitted your stereotype could inspire more interest than the stuffy disciplinarians in “harder” subjects, who tended to inspire rebelliousness instead. Discipline of the time emphasised physical prowess, enforced formally by corporal punishment, or within the (all important) peer group other forms of violence. What social skills that did emerge were accidental, although many would testify to the benefits of “clowning around”.
So I borrowed it and started reading it a lunch time, cue the usual “banter”. When 15 years later I enrolled on an MSc it was number one on the recommended reading list.
I’m sorry if my story seems self-indulgent, but I hope that it informs others about the influences behind my (tentative) conclusions.
Unless someone acquires fundamental numeracy and literacy early, then much of teenage education is wasted and is just “childminding”.
Testing at an early age might focus attention, but dysfunctionally also creates fear, failure and an exam factory mentality at the expense of curiosity and a love of learning.
Some young people may (perhaps due to a condition like dyslexia) struggle to gain functional literacy and numeracy, but every remedial effort should be made.
Each young person has a different talents, aptitude or potential to succeed in different ways. They will also have different motivations derived from their personality and key influences. These traits are not fixed but emergent. The system generally and individual teachers need flexibility to nurture what emerges. Parents (or equivalent) also have a role.
Engineering and Technology careers in particular illustrate well how opportunities for learning can be life-long. Regulators under the influence of academics and for bureaucratic convenience favour “deep theory first”, but experienced practitioners often illustrate a more flexible mix of applications supported by necessary and more modest theory.
A significant range of latent talents such as sport, entertainment, practical skills and entrepreneurialism for example, tend to be poorly served by school academic syllabuses.
“Social Skills” and the acquisition of social capital (aka connections) are the main reasons why people invest significant sums in private education. Academic selection and focus (e.g. Grammar Schools) can achieve similar if not higher attainment in “academic” subjects. Based on a relatively small sample of acquaintances over the years, both Eton and Millfield spring to mind as different but equally admirable?
I wrote this last evening in response to Arran’s beginning There may be plenty of truth to this but bear in mind that schools don’t actually teach social skills but I wasn’t able to post
An interesting perspective Arran, a little provocative perhaps, but with at least a ring of truth in much of it.
I have little recent direct experience of schools except for recruiting and training school leavers and being on “Investors In People” panels until about 10 years ago. However, my mother was a Junior and Infant School Teacher, who trained at Teacher Training College after the war and was stood in front of 40+ children in rubble strewn Salford by the time she was 20. Escaping to the country, being a local school teacher was an important position in the community, where she would have considered the open expression of party political affiliations “unprofessional”. In an interesting parallel with the engineering profession by the time she retired early, some would have dubbed her an “unqualified teacher”. After all if academic snobbery isn’t going to exist in education then where would it? The sociology (aka politics) of schools and academic environments is interesting and you make valid observations.
Although I went into an engineering career, some Sociology teachers who perhaps fitted your stereotype could inspire more interest than the stuffy disciplinarians in “harder” subjects, who tended to inspire rebelliousness instead. Discipline of the time emphasised physical prowess, enforced formally by corporal punishment, or within the (all important) peer group other forms of violence. What social skills that did emerge were accidental, although many would testify to the benefits of “clowning around”.
So I borrowed it and started reading it a lunch time, cue the usual “banter”. When 15 years later I enrolled on an MSc it was number one on the recommended reading list.
I’m sorry if my story seems self-indulgent, but I hope that it informs others about the influences behind my (tentative) conclusions.
Unless someone acquires fundamental numeracy and literacy early, then much of teenage education is wasted and is just “childminding”.
Testing at an early age might focus attention, but dysfunctionally also creates fear, failure and an exam factory mentality at the expense of curiosity and a love of learning.
Some young people may (perhaps due to a condition like dyslexia) struggle to gain functional literacy and numeracy, but every remedial effort should be made.
Each young person has a different talents, aptitude or potential to succeed in different ways. They will also have different motivations derived from their personality and key influences. These traits are not fixed but emergent. The system generally and individual teachers need flexibility to nurture what emerges. Parents (or equivalent) also have a role.
Engineering and Technology careers in particular illustrate well how opportunities for learning can be life-long. Regulators under the influence of academics and for bureaucratic convenience favour “deep theory first”, but experienced practitioners often illustrate a more flexible mix of applications supported by necessary and more modest theory.
A significant range of latent talents such as sport, entertainment, practical skills and entrepreneurialism for example, tend to be poorly served by school academic syllabuses.
“Social Skills” and the acquisition of social capital (aka connections) are the main reasons why people invest significant sums in private education. Academic selection and focus (e.g. Grammar Schools) can achieve similar if not higher attainment in “academic” subjects. Based on a relatively small sample of acquaintances over the years, both Eton and Millfield spring to mind as different but equally admirable?
