This discussion is locked.

You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

You don't need practical skills to be an engineer

Hi,

Ok, that's a deliberately provocative thread title, but it's one I'm willing to defend. But let's go back a bit first...

There have been various discussions on these forums over very many years where someone says in passing statements such us "CEng now needs a Masters degree, but Master students come out with no practical skills". Of course I'm paraphrasing greatly, but I'm sure people will get the idea. Similarly I've heard the view expressed at many engineering gatherings of "our graduates come in not knowing how to solder / use a spanner / wire a plug". Now I'm sure often these statements are perfectly true for many of those entering the engineering profession, the question is whether it matters. And I'd argue that much of the time it does not, and that it's important that we debate this. (Hence this thread!)

To give my own perspective on this, my background is as an analogue audio frequency design engineer, with my postgraduate entry level jobs to this role being as a maintenance and then test engineer. Back in the 1980s I did need to dismantle, solder, and mantle again. My first development roles were based around soldering irons and test equipment. By the early '90s my analogue development team was based around modelling tools, our prototypes were surface mount, and although we used manual test equipment the amount of building / modifying we did was tiny - and ideas and the ability to play around with them were FAR more important than practical skills. Then our world went digital. Analogue modelling had improved the performance of our systems 10 fold, digital systems improved the possibilities 100 fold. The digital teams needed no practical skills whatsoever, but my goodness they did - and do - some fabulous engineering.

Of course, there is still a real world to interface this technology to. And this is where the key word in the subject of this post comes in - that word "need". We do need a proportion of engineers to have practical skills to cope with the real world interface, but we don't need every engineer to have those skills to contribute to a team. For me this is summed up beautifully by my one and only patent (sadly not renewed, eu EP2100792 (A1) if anyone's interested!). There are five of us named on it, these are:

A mathematical modeller

A DSP on FPGA implementer

An analogue electronic systems modeller / application specialist

A hardware developer

A manager / systems integrator / systems concept engineer / patent author and general herder of cats (me)

Only one of these needed practical skills. And yet this was an extraordinary engineering innovation. I'm allowed to say that as I didn't do the really clever bits, my main role was to bring the skills together and enable them - and that's the point. None of these people could have come up with the overall solution by themselves, that's why all are named on the patent.

So I would - and do - argue very strongly that an excellent engineering innovation team needs three skill sets within it:

Practical skills

Theoretical skills

Human skills

And the best teams have the best people in each of those areas, working together and respecting each other. So a mathematical modeller knows their system is "garbage in, garbage out", and works with those with application knowledge to help them refine their models. And a prototyping engineer knows their prototype is useless with no software to run on it. And they all know they will make mistakes, and will have misunderstandings, and so managing the human side of the development is vital. Working in this atmosphere of mutual respect is tremendous. Been there, done that. Working in an atmosphere of silos, sneering, one-upmanship, and inverted or verted snobbery is destructive and, I submit to the court your honour, produces poor engineering (by any measure). Been there, done that, left the company (a long time ago).

Now there is an argument, I've used it myself, that practical experience helps develop problem solving skills. And for some engineering activities I would support this. However a lot of modern engineering is based around very deep mathematical modelling, that's how we've achieved the fantastic advances in, for example, communications and data management we have over the past 20 years. So we have to accept that those involved will become abstracted from the "real world", it's then a management problem to manage the interfaces. In my present field, safety engineering, it is a reality that software engineers will implement what they are asked to implement. There's a whole other level first to define those implementation requirements correctly and thoroughly, which requires a different skill set. (And validating is a different skill again.)

So can I propose that we stop saying "engineers coming out of university with no practical skills is a Bad Thing" and similar statements - but I am very willing to support the statement "not enough engineers coming into the profession with practical skills is a Bad Thing".

Thoughts?

By the way, bizarrely my practical engineering skills are now way better than they were in my 20s when I actually needed them for work, partly due to experience, mainly unfortunately due to medical issues at the time. In fact (as one or two of my more "old school" supervisors delighted in pointing out) I was pretty cack-handed. (I just checked, cack-handed is not rude!) I'd like to pass on my appreciation to those enlightened managers who realised that my problem solving skills meant that I was valuable - they just needed to make sure that nothing I touched ever made its way to a customer! There is a VERY serious point here, I could easily have been put off engineering for life with that attitude of "you're cack-handed, therefore you're an incompetent engineer". Although I do apologise in retrospect to the The Kinks for any reliability issues in the mixing desk they bought in 1985 which I worked on rather a lot, probably the product that has gone into service which has more of my personal soldering in than any other...I did get one of my more dexterous colleagues to check it over very thoroughly before it went out!

Thanks,

Andy

Parents

0 Roy Bowdler over 7 years ago
At the risk of “over sharing”, I thought that I would tell my story of leaving school at the age of 16 to pursue an engineering career. It may not be “typical” but something similar was the common experience of many entering engineering until the 1990s.

The first year of my CEGB Apprenticeship was spent at college where practical work in mechanical fitting, using machine tools, fabrication and welding, some wiring and instrumentation. There were two academic streams with some just doing C&G “Basic Engineering Craft Studies” and some in addition doing the G* (Technicians) course. After this you chose to specialise in Mechanical (“the wooden tops”) , Electrical (“the cream”) or Instrumentation (***** potential homophobic abuse). The second year was a 3 month block ( C&G Electrical Technicians course for me) followed by 6 months at the “Plant Training Centre”. This “company college” was superb and by the time you left you knew “inside out” much of the equipment that you would encounter in a modern (nearly new) Power Station, The Head of Department (an HNC CEng) and his deputy, had frequent short sessions on the relevant theory in context for those who were interested. The only thing I didn’t already know when I did a part-time ONC the following year was calculus (apparently so beloved of CEngs). Studying on day release for a Higher Education Qualification (HNC) was less rewarding. However because there were few takers for the heavy current option, I got a lot of electronics which interested me the time, including as a hobbyist with projects from ETI & Practical Electronics magazines etc. This was probably the closest I got to computing, as the 8080A was out. I suppose the nature of my job offered little opportunity to apply mathematical theory rather than just use relevant formulae. Also the lack of time in one day, didn’t allow you to develop valuable “academic attributes” around research and communication skills. For many on the course “General Studies” was just a nuisance subject.

Having completed my Apprenticeship and HNC, I transferred to High Voltage Substation Maintenance (132-400KV). I joined IEEIE and negotiated an arrangement where I could swap my hours around to continue in part time-education. I initially hoped to do a part-time Electrical Engineering Degree but there was only one offered within 2 hours, when I inquired I was advised that “because the mathematics content of my HNC wasn’t strong enough there was no advance standing” and the course would be 5 years one-day and an evening. I requested the syllabus and went through it. I couldn’t honestly see how it would benefit me, since it just seemed to be what I already knew “with mathematical bells on” and of little relevance to my work. An older colleague was pursuing CEI/Engineering Council Exams, which seemed similar but without any teaching. I chose instead to do a two year course at my local Polytechnic for The Institution of Industrial Managers (formerly The Institute of Works Managers and now CMI). This was worthwhile with significant maths in Accounts, Economics and Operational Research (statistics). I was assured that an additional “diploma” year would guarantee MBA admission, but I needed a pause in studying to pursue other interests.

I won’t bore you with the rest on my career story, but I became IEng at 27, Chartered in the HR domain (via an MSc), A short-term cover HSE manager (IIRSM Diploma), eventually also that MBA with the OU. I realised that I had kissed goodbye to the possibility of Chartered Engineer when I didn’t do the Engineering Degree, but my IEng and membership of an Institution of “Executive Engineers” seemed just fine. Taking a UK-SPEC perspective, I only ever did a modest amount of engineering design, often “on the fly” and never needed any more maths than I had, except to decode the occasional text book.

Relevant reflections - some for debate

My early education emphasised knowledge of facts rather than analysis or the presentation of ideas/concepts

When I was making career choices, I didn’t know anyone in my social circle who had attended university and I aspired to independent adulthood, earning my own keep etc. asap. I didn’t know any entrepreneurs either, although a good friend had a successful painting and decorating business by the time he was 20 and another went straight into the family haulage firm.

My practical craft (or hand) skills were mediocre at best, but I was good at more technical work like fault-finding, which required practically applied “cleverness”

I was lucky to find a reasonably successful pathway with no route-map to guide me, but as everyone knows the definition of luck is “opportunity meeting preparedness”, I actually had to battle for opportunity and worked hard to be prepared.

I bought my first home at 21 and was head of a small department at 27, I eventually topped out one step short of Director, which I’m sure some would consider “over-promoted”.

Operations and maintenance of high value intensively used assets requires a “bias for action”, much of the time that we might call “practical”.

Perhaps research development and fundamental design begin with a “bias for analysis” first which we might call “intellectual”.

Within the “Engineering Council family” an analytical or conceptual approach is considered to be “of an intellectually higher order” or “academic”. It is therefore held in higher esteem, than a “more practical” or “vocational” approach.

Every minuscule division between every “type” of engineering practitioner usually matters to someone, whether it is part of their self-identity, sense of self-worth, immediate and wider peer group etc. Starting from that point, a social science frame of reference is often more relevant than a technical one in explaining the difference.

We are often very specialised experts until that specialism isn’t needed any more, when our answer quickly becomes “I’m sure I can get my head round that”. Demarcation was heavily defended by Trades Unions at one time. Engineering Council Institutions must explicitly not be Trades Unions , but some of the same human needs are being satisfied. Mutual solidarity can easily be mobilised by any common threat or enemy.

Engineering Council’s attempt to “modernise” into the 21^st Century by describing its registrants as being “different but equally valuable” was taken as a threat to their status by some CEng who mobilised to squash the concept. Other perceived “threats” treated similarly have included blocking suitably qualified engineers from Eur Ing and objections to other Chartered designations.

The collective desire of Chartered Engineer representatives for status is reasonable and understandable. However, the great majority of them seem confident and successful in their careers, with little need to obsess about relative status. Perhaps all we are seeing is a variation on Car Club members whingeing about Caravaners etc.? No doubt if handed they were handed reins of power Caravans would be banned on many roads during the day.

As far as I can tell without a serious research study the “status” of engineers has not advanced by a (metaphorical) millimetre in my lifetime and may have reduced, despite the academic inflation that has taken place. Perhaps a few who in move in certain social circles are more accepted? It is difficult to compare performance across different eras, Footballers being an obvious example, but given that in Engineering we are all standing on our predecessors shoulders, there isn’t a clear performance improvement either ,is there?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Reply

0 Roy Bowdler over 7 years ago
At the risk of “over sharing”, I thought that I would tell my story of leaving school at the age of 16 to pursue an engineering career. It may not be “typical” but something similar was the common experience of many entering engineering until the 1990s.

The first year of my CEGB Apprenticeship was spent at college where practical work in mechanical fitting, using machine tools, fabrication and welding, some wiring and instrumentation. There were two academic streams with some just doing C&G “Basic Engineering Craft Studies” and some in addition doing the G* (Technicians) course. After this you chose to specialise in Mechanical (“the wooden tops”) , Electrical (“the cream”) or Instrumentation (***** potential homophobic abuse). The second year was a 3 month block ( C&G Electrical Technicians course for me) followed by 6 months at the “Plant Training Centre”. This “company college” was superb and by the time you left you knew “inside out” much of the equipment that you would encounter in a modern (nearly new) Power Station, The Head of Department (an HNC CEng) and his deputy, had frequent short sessions on the relevant theory in context for those who were interested. The only thing I didn’t already know when I did a part-time ONC the following year was calculus (apparently so beloved of CEngs). Studying on day release for a Higher Education Qualification (HNC) was less rewarding. However because there were few takers for the heavy current option, I got a lot of electronics which interested me the time, including as a hobbyist with projects from ETI & Practical Electronics magazines etc. This was probably the closest I got to computing, as the 8080A was out. I suppose the nature of my job offered little opportunity to apply mathematical theory rather than just use relevant formulae. Also the lack of time in one day, didn’t allow you to develop valuable “academic attributes” around research and communication skills. For many on the course “General Studies” was just a nuisance subject.

Having completed my Apprenticeship and HNC, I transferred to High Voltage Substation Maintenance (132-400KV). I joined IEEIE and negotiated an arrangement where I could swap my hours around to continue in part time-education. I initially hoped to do a part-time Electrical Engineering Degree but there was only one offered within 2 hours, when I inquired I was advised that “because the mathematics content of my HNC wasn’t strong enough there was no advance standing” and the course would be 5 years one-day and an evening. I requested the syllabus and went through it. I couldn’t honestly see how it would benefit me, since it just seemed to be what I already knew “with mathematical bells on” and of little relevance to my work. An older colleague was pursuing CEI/Engineering Council Exams, which seemed similar but without any teaching. I chose instead to do a two year course at my local Polytechnic for The Institution of Industrial Managers (formerly The Institute of Works Managers and now CMI). This was worthwhile with significant maths in Accounts, Economics and Operational Research (statistics). I was assured that an additional “diploma” year would guarantee MBA admission, but I needed a pause in studying to pursue other interests.

I won’t bore you with the rest on my career story, but I became IEng at 27, Chartered in the HR domain (via an MSc), A short-term cover HSE manager (IIRSM Diploma), eventually also that MBA with the OU. I realised that I had kissed goodbye to the possibility of Chartered Engineer when I didn’t do the Engineering Degree, but my IEng and membership of an Institution of “Executive Engineers” seemed just fine. Taking a UK-SPEC perspective, I only ever did a modest amount of engineering design, often “on the fly” and never needed any more maths than I had, except to decode the occasional text book.

Relevant reflections - some for debate

My early education emphasised knowledge of facts rather than analysis or the presentation of ideas/concepts

When I was making career choices, I didn’t know anyone in my social circle who had attended university and I aspired to independent adulthood, earning my own keep etc. asap. I didn’t know any entrepreneurs either, although a good friend had a successful painting and decorating business by the time he was 20 and another went straight into the family haulage firm.

My practical craft (or hand) skills were mediocre at best, but I was good at more technical work like fault-finding, which required practically applied “cleverness”

I was lucky to find a reasonably successful pathway with no route-map to guide me, but as everyone knows the definition of luck is “opportunity meeting preparedness”, I actually had to battle for opportunity and worked hard to be prepared.

I bought my first home at 21 and was head of a small department at 27, I eventually topped out one step short of Director, which I’m sure some would consider “over-promoted”.

Operations and maintenance of high value intensively used assets requires a “bias for action”, much of the time that we might call “practical”.

Perhaps research development and fundamental design begin with a “bias for analysis” first which we might call “intellectual”.

Within the “Engineering Council family” an analytical or conceptual approach is considered to be “of an intellectually higher order” or “academic”. It is therefore held in higher esteem, than a “more practical” or “vocational” approach.

Every minuscule division between every “type” of engineering practitioner usually matters to someone, whether it is part of their self-identity, sense of self-worth, immediate and wider peer group etc. Starting from that point, a social science frame of reference is often more relevant than a technical one in explaining the difference.

We are often very specialised experts until that specialism isn’t needed any more, when our answer quickly becomes “I’m sure I can get my head round that”. Demarcation was heavily defended by Trades Unions at one time. Engineering Council Institutions must explicitly not be Trades Unions , but some of the same human needs are being satisfied. Mutual solidarity can easily be mobilised by any common threat or enemy.

Engineering Council’s attempt to “modernise” into the 21^st Century by describing its registrants as being “different but equally valuable” was taken as a threat to their status by some CEng who mobilised to squash the concept. Other perceived “threats” treated similarly have included blocking suitably qualified engineers from Eur Ing and objections to other Chartered designations.

The collective desire of Chartered Engineer representatives for status is reasonable and understandable. However, the great majority of them seem confident and successful in their careers, with little need to obsess about relative status. Perhaps all we are seeing is a variation on Car Club members whingeing about Caravaners etc.? No doubt if handed they were handed reins of power Caravans would be banned on many roads during the day.

As far as I can tell without a serious research study the “status” of engineers has not advanced by a (metaphorical) millimetre in my lifetime and may have reduced, despite the academic inflation that has taken place. Perhaps a few who in move in certain social circles are more accepted? It is difficult to compare performance across different eras, Footballers being an obvious example, but given that in Engineering we are all standing on our predecessors shoulders, there isn’t a clear performance improvement either ,is there?
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Cancel

Children

No Data

You don't need practical skills to be an engineer

Community Rules & Guidelines