Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 52 replies
  • Subscribers 13 subscribers
  • Views 3515 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Career advice from senior or retired engineers

Peter Brooks
The purpose of this forum is highlight information from senior or retired engineers that will provide advice to new people entering the profession. 


The recent published articles by the IET:-

"Too old to be an engineer" in the E&T July 2019 magazine

"100,000 older workers kicked out of IBM, as company craved Googles Cool image" published August 1, 2019

started me thinking about the need to communicate advice on avoiding speed bumps during one's carrier.


During my 45+ years in engineer I have been laid off twice -once when I was 28 and again at 63.

I have worked for 9 companies in three countries where 8 of those companies are no longer in existence. 

Total time out of work has not exceeded 6 weeks.

I have made three complete changes in related technology/products.


Here is an example of the advice I received early on in my career:- "The young engineer knows the rules, the old engineer knows the exceptions" -- meaning even if one thinks one knows the answer ask the senior engineer if there is better solution.


Peter Brooks MIET

Palm Bay Florida USA


 

   


Parents
  • 0
    Hello Peter,


    I share some of your scepticism, there are numerous people passing off some dodgy psychobabble as “proper science”.  Your testimony illustrates how poor design and/or workmanship can cause harm.  Poor engineering can also cause harm.  If someone carrying out a development activity produces sub optimal results, then it’s a value for money argument, engineering likewise.  When I first met Charles Margerison, I told in in plain terms that I didn’t like being stuck in a stereotypical “box” and pursued quite a sceptical line of questioning.  However, when I first experienced his tool being used, it was very useful and a few years later I trained to use it.


    I remember well my first encounter with Peter Saville , because he emphasised very strongly the mathematical basis of his work (Statistics) and (perhaps in sales mode) compared the poor validity and research base of some other tools.  I don’t know if any other reader has met him, but I would characterise him as a “type of engineer”. He recognised a need, understood the strengths and limitations of existing solutions, developed some ideas, gathered data and analysed it, continuously refined his model with fresh data and made a fortune. When he got bored of spending his money, he developed a “new and improved” model.


    Incidentally, I owe my career as do many others to Psychometric Tests.  When I applied for a technical staff apprenticeship, my school “career” wasn’t going well and I eventually only scraped my O levels (with the minimum of revision), luckily whoever wrote the school references didn’t condemn and the police didn’t prosecute    ?. Apparently I did very well in the tests (numeracy, verbal reasoning, mechanical aptitude etc) and the interviewers saw “cockiness and rebelliousness” as “confidence and independent thinking”. When much later I became responsible for these sorts of things, I have seen my own story repeated by smarter people than me.


    However, in the context of this thread I must advise any young person to pursue the low risk path of being and obedient and diligent student who gets top examination results, if you can blend some social skills and charisma into that then the world is your oyster.    ?  What I do find somewhat ironic, is that we have characterised our Chartered Engineers by “creativity and innovation”, while giving them in a “cookie cutter” (I hope that I interpreted it right?) “exam factory” education, that is more likely than not to weed out creative people.  


    Some people have found this useful and explain why I called Peter Saville “a type of engineer”  https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/engineering-design-process/engineering-design-compare-scientific-method


    This is his story (at some length) https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Peter_Saville_(psychologist).html


Reply
  • 0
    Hello Peter,


    I share some of your scepticism, there are numerous people passing off some dodgy psychobabble as “proper science”.  Your testimony illustrates how poor design and/or workmanship can cause harm.  Poor engineering can also cause harm.  If someone carrying out a development activity produces sub optimal results, then it’s a value for money argument, engineering likewise.  When I first met Charles Margerison, I told in in plain terms that I didn’t like being stuck in a stereotypical “box” and pursued quite a sceptical line of questioning.  However, when I first experienced his tool being used, it was very useful and a few years later I trained to use it.


    I remember well my first encounter with Peter Saville , because he emphasised very strongly the mathematical basis of his work (Statistics) and (perhaps in sales mode) compared the poor validity and research base of some other tools.  I don’t know if any other reader has met him, but I would characterise him as a “type of engineer”. He recognised a need, understood the strengths and limitations of existing solutions, developed some ideas, gathered data and analysed it, continuously refined his model with fresh data and made a fortune. When he got bored of spending his money, he developed a “new and improved” model.


    Incidentally, I owe my career as do many others to Psychometric Tests.  When I applied for a technical staff apprenticeship, my school “career” wasn’t going well and I eventually only scraped my O levels (with the minimum of revision), luckily whoever wrote the school references didn’t condemn and the police didn’t prosecute    ?. Apparently I did very well in the tests (numeracy, verbal reasoning, mechanical aptitude etc) and the interviewers saw “cockiness and rebelliousness” as “confidence and independent thinking”. When much later I became responsible for these sorts of things, I have seen my own story repeated by smarter people than me.


    However, in the context of this thread I must advise any young person to pursue the low risk path of being and obedient and diligent student who gets top examination results, if you can blend some social skills and charisma into that then the world is your oyster.    ?  What I do find somewhat ironic, is that we have characterised our Chartered Engineers by “creativity and innovation”, while giving them in a “cookie cutter” (I hope that I interpreted it right?) “exam factory” education, that is more likely than not to weed out creative people.  


    Some people have found this useful and explain why I called Peter Saville “a type of engineer”  https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/engineering-design-process/engineering-design-compare-scientific-method


    This is his story (at some length) https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Peter_Saville_(psychologist).html


Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines