Hmmm...the article sounds very radical and exciting but actually, to my mind (and in my experience), is only stating what the situation has actually been for the last 40 years (at least). So I wouldn't disagree with his "vision for the 21st century", but do wonder where he's been if he has only just noticed!


However, of course he's right that the western education system still at the very least appears to suggest that you get a degree and that tells you enough to be an engineer for the rest of your life, and we must change that perception - and of course it's never actually been true. (My mother was born in 1916, and we occasionally chat about the extraordinary changes that have continuously taken place during her lifetime, which are intimately connected with how engineering has developed.)


Maybe to be a bit controversial here, but I do wonder if there's an attitude problem - both inside and outside the profession - because "engineering" covers "skills" areas that change slowly, and "knowledge and innovation" areas that change extremely rapidly. The skill in making a perfect hand soldered wire joint has hardly changed in 100 years, whereas todays skills in web app development will probably be irrelevant in 10 (5?) years. It doesn't mean one is less important than another, but they have to be learned and continuously developed in very different ways. Yet even now I occasionally hear remarkably senior people, outside and (depressingly) inside the profession, talking about "learning the trade" of engineering. Some of it you can do that, and it's needed. But for most of it the trick is learning how to keep learning - running as fast as you can to stand still. That to me is what engineering - as opposed to crafting - has always been about.


On the other hand, I do really like the fact he brings in about engineering studies not allowing time for liberal arts studies. I know many people will disagree with me here, but I think it's hugely important that engineers to know more about the word than just the logic of solving engineering problems. The more you appreciate why a problem needs solving , the better your solution needs to be. But again, this isn't new, it's been a problem with engineering degrees probably since they were ever invented.


This point about automation / robotics taking away jobs in the 21st century is one I find very "flavour of the month" for making exciting alarmist articles. (And again, to my mind shows how important an understanding of one particular liberal arts subject - history - is.) I don't know what the figures are for how many job roles that existed in, say, 1968, have now disappeared, but if someone was to say that 50% have now gone I wouldn't be surprised - it would be my guess. Maybe more. This is very, very true in engineering: when I started we had secretaries, draughtspeople, print room operators, technical authors - now we have engineers with their laptops. And those laptops have simulation tools which not only (thank goodness!) take care of much of the routine calculation that we used to do, but mean that vastly more calculations can be done, for a huge range of scenarios, then would ever have been possible. This replacement of roles isn't the future - it's happened, and will keep happening.


So overall I do think it's great that these points are being made, it's hugely important that those running education and those going through it really understand what the context of their work is, but I get very frustrated with the idea that this is all only just happening, and that's it's going to affect "the engineers of the future".


Still, maybe if you're going to get people to support change you have to present problems as new problems, it's not very sexy to say "we've still got this problem with developing and retaining engineers that we've had for the last 50 years, can you help?" So perhaps saying "oh no, we've just realised that engineering is about continuous innovation and development!" or "oh no, we've just realised that sometimes new technology means that a particular job role becomes redundant!" is, pragmatically the right thing to do.


Whatever happened to all this leisure time we were promised through automation back in the 1960s???? 


Cheers,


Andy

Hmmm...the article sounds very radical and exciting but actually, to my mind (and in my experience), is only stating what the situation has actually been for the last 40 years (at least). So I wouldn't disagree with his "vision for the 21st century", but do wonder where he's been if he has only just noticed!


However, of course he's right that the western education system still at the very least appears to suggest that you get a degree and that tells you enough to be an engineer for the rest of your life, and we must change that perception - and of course it's never actually been true. (My mother was born in 1916, and we occasionally chat about the extraordinary changes that have continuously taken place during her lifetime, which are intimately connected with how engineering has developed.)


Maybe to be a bit controversial here, but I do wonder if there's an attitude problem - both inside and outside the profession - because "engineering" covers "skills" areas that change slowly, and "knowledge and innovation" areas that change extremely rapidly. The skill in making a perfect hand soldered wire joint has hardly changed in 100 years, whereas todays skills in web app development will probably be irrelevant in 10 (5?) years. It doesn't mean one is less important than another, but they have to be learned and continuously developed in very different ways. Yet even now I occasionally hear remarkably senior people, outside and (depressingly) inside the profession, talking about "learning the trade" of engineering. Some of it you can do that, and it's needed. But for most of it the trick is learning how to keep learning - running as fast as you can to stand still. That to me is what engineering - as opposed to crafting - has always been about.


On the other hand, I do really like the fact he brings in about engineering studies not allowing time for liberal arts studies. I know many people will disagree with me here, but I think it's hugely important that engineers to know more about the word than just the logic of solving engineering problems. The more you appreciate why a problem needs solving , the better your solution needs to be. But again, this isn't new, it's been a problem with engineering degrees probably since they were ever invented.


This point about automation / robotics taking away jobs in the 21st century is one I find very "flavour of the month" for making exciting alarmist articles. (And again, to my mind shows how important an understanding of one particular liberal arts subject - history - is.) I don't know what the figures are for how many job roles that existed in, say, 1968, have now disappeared, but if someone was to say that 50% have now gone I wouldn't be surprised - it would be my guess. Maybe more. This is very, very true in engineering: when I started we had secretaries, draughtspeople, print room operators, technical authors - now we have engineers with their laptops. And those laptops have simulation tools which not only (thank goodness!) take care of much of the routine calculation that we used to do, but mean that vastly more calculations can be done, for a huge range of scenarios, then would ever have been possible. This replacement of roles isn't the future - it's happened, and will keep happening.


So overall I do think it's great that these points are being made, it's hugely important that those running education and those going through it really understand what the context of their work is, but I get very frustrated with the idea that this is all only just happening, and that's it's going to affect "the engineers of the future".


Still, maybe if you're going to get people to support change you have to present problems as new problems, it's not very sexy to say "we've still got this problem with developing and retaining engineers that we've had for the last 50 years, can you help?" So perhaps saying "oh no, we've just realised that engineering is about continuous innovation and development!" or "oh no, we've just realised that sometimes new technology means that a particular job role becomes redundant!" is, pragmatically the right thing to do.


Whatever happened to all this leisure time we were promised through automation back in the 1960s???? 


Cheers,


Andy