….we should probably publish diversity reports of our elected Fellowship, Trustee board, Council etc too 

Just a thought on this, I have long thought there is (or at least may be) a diversity issue on the BoT and Council, and various committees, just not one that's usually considered: for a full time employed engineer it is VERY difficult to be part of these, just from the time commitment. It is noticeable how many of those in these positions are the self employed, retired, academics or in other positions where it is easier to make the time. Of course it's not the rule, there are many exceptions, but for those exceptions it can be (as I know from friends who have done it) very difficult.

So looking at how Council roles in particular can be made more accessible to, and hence representative of, engineers in engineering roles (who, male or female, could well have family and other commitments as well) could be very valuable. I do acknowledge that this is really difficult!

And kudos to those who do push their managers and give up other commitments so that they can do it.

Thanks,

Andy

This just popped up in another conversation this morning, and I thought it was so good and relevant I felt I had to add it in before this thread tails off:

Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg:

We need diverse representation not only so every kid can see themselves as the hero of the story, but so that every kid can understand that other kinds of kid are also the heroes of the story.

My bigger concern is, and has always been, the huge percentage of the engineering profession who do not consider the IET, or any other PEI, worth joining - there are far more engineers in the UK outside the PEIs than inside them. That suggests to me that we may well have a diversity issue ourselves, that it is possible that people who join PEIs (and remain in them) are the type of people who join PEIs, not necessarily representative of the engineering profession

i shall try and avoid trading on any of the UXBs left by previous posters.  

I am not an IET member, but I am a practicing consultant engineer, in a field for which on paper I am not very well qualified, but I am doing very well.

But rather than ask ‘why do I not join the IET ?’  perhaps try not to assume it is automatically a good thing, and we all should. 

Rather, let's ask critically what I would get from joining. 

For me it would offer a periodically drain on the bank balance, a restaurant in London I would never visit, and a set of publications I would not have time to read. It would not offer security of employment or higher wages (it is not a union) it would not offer a better career path - I am already at max capacity. Nor would it offer prestige - if the IET made statements the way the BMA does, it might be an organisation more widely heard of. 

So, I stay outside, and I suspect others make a similar calculation.

Mike.

(for the wonderers. I am male and white, state school educated, non-practicing C of E,  and a bit grumpy at times.. I think that none of that is relevant.)

Women in electronics. I retired a couple of years ago, after working as an Electronic Engineer for over 40 years. On my university course (Electrical and Electronic Engineering) there were about 50 undergraduates and all of them were male. At my retirement, I handed over my role, managing a worldwide team of application engineers for a software company, to a woman. Including her, in a team of around 15 engineers, there were two women. That's progress, but very slow. Engineering can also be “people work”. The application engineering work was just as much about written and spoken communication as it was about engineering. Female engineers, who I managed, found sometimes that customers believed they were talking to an administrator rather than an engineer. However, once those customers found they were receiving solutions to their problems, then such prejudice evaporated. Is such work overlooked by the IET? The IET seems to me to focus on the design and build aspects of engineering. Many engineers are involved directly in that. However, the complexity of modern systems means that most are developed and maintained by large teams, with many different roles in the team. Roles that involve daily face to face communication with customers are seen as rather trivial, whereas, in reality, they require both deep engineering and excellent communication skills. It's similar to the difference between a GP and a surgeon. When young people think of a doctor, many will think of a GP. When they think of an engineer, they may think of a technician (who is less qualified)  or an engineer who works alone in a lab. There are opportunities in technology for professionally qualified people with “a good bedside manner”.

Making engineering interesting!

We need to stand back from the idea the Chartered Status and a4 year M.Eng degree are the way ahead - this must put a lot of younger people off engineering as a career.

There are all of the intermediate levels EngTech / I.Eng and the fact you can be successful with out being registered in many companies IF you have the right training.

Hopefully sometime in future - the benefits of professional registration will become apparent

It always seem that the way to be an engineer is office based / design etc. it needs to be shown that engineering is a very broad area with many branches - schools need support to show ALL the variations and hopefully spark the interest at a very young age.

Also there is a need to look at how apprenticeships are built and delivered (Personally I had a 5 year apprenticeship with British Steel - luckily completed in just over 4 years due to rule changes + 3 year full time HND fast tracked into 2 very heavy years because of my apprenticeship)

We covered the range of areas - Labs, design, R&D, workshops, plants and shutdowns - which allowed us to make informed choices of areas of personal interest when making our career choice.