What do you think about the degree awarded by the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology? Is it fully recognized by the Engineering Council?

I'm a bit more ambivalent about this. Yes, anything that offers combined industrial experience and formal education is a good thing. However Dyson do very much have a "Dyson way" of doing things, my personal bugbear is their incredible level of secrecy which I don't think is healthy for an engineering environment - but of course James Dyson would rightly claim that he has been very successful on the back of it. And I guess it's not that different to similar programmes effectively run by all branches of the military, which again will focus on a very specific cultural approach to engineering.


So personally I'm much more in favour of the "institute" side of training and education being outside any particular employer; being trained in the "Dyson way", the "Microsoft way", the "IBM way", the "3M way" or, as a large proportion of my generation were, the "Marconi way" has arguably tended not to be helpful in the long term for either the organisation or the individual - it stops new ideas and attitudes coming in.


BUT better that than nothing!


I'll admit my own biases in this (which are pretty obvious): emotionally I don't like organisations that appear to try to engineer corporate pride in their employees (or customers), I believe that if you want your employees to be proud of working for you, you have to earn that - and keep earning it. Which, to be fair, Dyson would say they are by investing in employee training. Well fine, as long as it is fully transferable to other organisations. (Incidentally I also think the reverse is true, if you want your employer to be proud of having you, you have to earn that too!)


Cheers,


Andy

I'm a bit more ambivalent about this. Yes, anything that offers combined industrial experience and formal education is a good thing. However Dyson do very much have a "Dyson way" of doing things, my personal bugbear is their incredible level of secrecy which I don't think is healthy for an engineering environment - but of course James Dyson would rightly claim that he has been very successful on the back of it. And I guess it's not that different to similar programmes effectively run by all branches of the military, which again will focus on a very specific cultural approach to engineering.


So personally I'm much more in favour of the "institute" side of training and education being outside any particular employer; being trained in the "Dyson way", the "Microsoft way", the "IBM way", the "3M way" or, as a large proportion of my generation were, the "Marconi way" has arguably tended not to be helpful in the long term for either the organisation or the individual - it stops new ideas and attitudes coming in.


BUT better that than nothing!


I'll admit my own biases in this (which are pretty obvious): emotionally I don't like organisations that appear to try to engineer corporate pride in their employees (or customers), I believe that if you want your employees to be proud of working for you, you have to earn that - and keep earning it. Which, to be fair, Dyson would say they are by investing in employee training. Well fine, as long as it is fully transferable to other organisations. (Incidentally I also think the reverse is true, if you want your employer to be proud of having you, you have to earn that too!)


Cheers,


Andy