I have a slightly different view. Much of my career was spent trying to invent new items, particularly for Broadcast Television. I helped to invent the concept of electronic graphic systems, where there is only a simulation of working for the artist, on a vast array of numbers. At the time of inception, we also decided we needed a pressure-sensitive pen (brush, knife, airbrush, etc, whatever tool the artist was using) in order to simulate real artwork. A good deal of this needed to be carried out in hardware as computers at the time were pretty slow, and doing complex maths on millions of pixels per second was well beyond them. In fact, it was way beyond mainframes too, I know because I tried.


The idea that one can invent technological solutions without understanding the limits of technology, somewhere suggested above, is in my view not possible. Take another piece of equipment which gradually became essential, the digital video tape recorder. At the time mainframe disks were a few megabytes, and datarates were pretty small. Digital video required continuous 270 megabits per second for 8-bit data. One required to be able to electronically edit the tape, sound and picture separately, in real-time. The tape consumption had to be as small as possible, and the system completely error free. Anyone could desire a digital tape recorder, but implementation was down to very few people, at Sony because they had the micro-mechanical skills required. Very few companies have attempted this project since.


I will also mention the concepts required to design integrated circuits. Can the students possibly come up with something like a mobile phone, without having any idea how to make it? I think not. A mobile phone would have been useful in 1939 as a wartime communications aid. It could be envisaged, but the result was the 19 set. It was not a telephone and was portable by two big strong men. The principle was similar to a mobile phone, a multi-band transceiver, but the implementation had to use the technology available, which was valves. I was the System Architect for an IC product by a British semiconductor company. It was to make a SOC video camera, player recorder etc. The available market looked good, there was nothing like it available. The brief required a very good idea of the technology available, the operation of television systems, storage, compression, and also the consumer angle of what a consumer might want. Could your students even approach the ideas required. I think the answer is no.


Overall I think the IET and others are doing exactly the wrong thing in the way they are trying to sell Engineering to students. To be good at Engineering requires a special kind of mind, which wants to know WHY all the time. If you want an easy career, go and be a doctor, a lawyer or something similar. The "why" is largely sorted out, you just do what you know to try to fix people. The nearest equivalent to a real Engineer is a research Scientist who designs new drugs. The way to get an interest in Engineering is to start by trying to fix things, preferably at a very young age. You will fail many times, but sometimes you will succeed. When you start to succeed more than you fail it well be time to learn how to design things. Back to square one, your designs will fail, but you will learn. Then you learn how to design better, the mathematics, the underlying technology will permeate the brain. Then you can think of new ideas, and they will be possible for you to make. 99% of people think it is all too difficult, needs too much effort, and the pay is poor. That is what you need to fight to be a real Engineer (Like Brunel who suffered all those things).

I have a slightly different view. Much of my career was spent trying to invent new items, particularly for Broadcast Television. I helped to invent the concept of electronic graphic systems, where there is only a simulation of working for the artist, on a vast array of numbers. At the time of inception, we also decided we needed a pressure-sensitive pen (brush, knife, airbrush, etc, whatever tool the artist was using) in order to simulate real artwork. A good deal of this needed to be carried out in hardware as computers at the time were pretty slow, and doing complex maths on millions of pixels per second was well beyond them. In fact, it was way beyond mainframes too, I know because I tried.


The idea that one can invent technological solutions without understanding the limits of technology, somewhere suggested above, is in my view not possible. Take another piece of equipment which gradually became essential, the digital video tape recorder. At the time mainframe disks were a few megabytes, and datarates were pretty small. Digital video required continuous 270 megabits per second for 8-bit data. One required to be able to electronically edit the tape, sound and picture separately, in real-time. The tape consumption had to be as small as possible, and the system completely error free. Anyone could desire a digital tape recorder, but implementation was down to very few people, at Sony because they had the micro-mechanical skills required. Very few companies have attempted this project since.


I will also mention the concepts required to design integrated circuits. Can the students possibly come up with something like a mobile phone, without having any idea how to make it? I think not. A mobile phone would have been useful in 1939 as a wartime communications aid. It could be envisaged, but the result was the 19 set. It was not a telephone and was portable by two big strong men. The principle was similar to a mobile phone, a multi-band transceiver, but the implementation had to use the technology available, which was valves. I was the System Architect for an IC product by a British semiconductor company. It was to make a SOC video camera, player recorder etc. The available market looked good, there was nothing like it available. The brief required a very good idea of the technology available, the operation of television systems, storage, compression, and also the consumer angle of what a consumer might want. Could your students even approach the ideas required. I think the answer is no.


Overall I think the IET and others are doing exactly the wrong thing in the way they are trying to sell Engineering to students. To be good at Engineering requires a special kind of mind, which wants to know WHY all the time. If you want an easy career, go and be a doctor, a lawyer or something similar. The "why" is largely sorted out, you just do what you know to try to fix people. The nearest equivalent to a real Engineer is a research Scientist who designs new drugs. The way to get an interest in Engineering is to start by trying to fix things, preferably at a very young age. You will fail many times, but sometimes you will succeed. When you start to succeed more than you fail it well be time to learn how to design things. Back to square one, your designs will fail, but you will learn. Then you learn how to design better, the mathematics, the underlying technology will permeate the brain. Then you can think of new ideas, and they will be possible for you to make. 99% of people think it is all too difficult, needs too much effort, and the pay is poor. That is what you need to fight to be a real Engineer (Like Brunel who suffered all those things).