Preparing Engineers for Tomorrow’s Challenges

Conventional training courses will inevitably lag behind latest developments (that's nothing new), so isn't the gap covered by CPD (continuing professional development) arrangements (i.e. topping up on training education throughout a career, along with recording/logging of it).

   - Andy, 

Teach the engineering fundamentals - these don't change that fast
Then teach 'how to find out about a technology/process/skill that I don't currently understand' .  The ability to expand skills, knowledge and experience is a meta-skill that should enable students to remain up to date in their chosen fields.
Oh and promote 'curiosity' and 'hubris' so that they never believe they know everything and they are always willing to learn more. 

Al Muatasem Al Saadi said:

Engineering graduates often face a gap between what they learn in university and the skills required in modern workplaces. Industries are advancing fast, but education can lag behind,

To add to the two posts above - the whole point is that Universities should not be teaching "workplace skills" (at least not in the sense of technical skills), because these will inevitably quickly become out of date even if they are up to date when they are given (which as Andy posted above is unlikely). There is nothing new in this, for the last two hundred years (at least) technology has evolved rapidly. 

To particularly build on Jim's excellent post, students - and Universities - should be clear that a degree will not, and cannot, train anyone to be "an engineer" in their first day of work. Professional engineering is about solving problems that no-one has faced before, this requires two key attributes. One is the soft skills of how to thoroughly approach problem solving in a team environment, including how to research thoroughly, how to use the expertise of several team members in different areas, and how to ultimately make a decision as to which way to go when, typically, the data you have is incomplete. The other is the knowledge of what has gone before in the particular area you are working in, what is already known to work and not to work, what is the direction technology is moving in. Both of these are areas that are best covered (imho) by a mixture of University education (which is good at giving a wider, and relatively unbiased, view of the world) and the first few years of work experience (which is good at giving both up to date and - if you are lucky - senior staff's long term knowledge in a particular industry).

My personal experience from working with students and talking to lecturers is that sadly very often none of this is what students want to learn - they need their expectations set correctly that a degree is only the first step in a longer journey. Every other profession I can think of understands this, and expects that professionals will develop through maybe 8-10 years of undergraduate and post-graduate learning and experience. And given that expectation it probably becomes clearer what the undergraduate experience should be - less about immediate skills and techniques and more about how to find and evaluate skills and techniques and knowledge throughout your career.

Thanks,

Other Andy

These are exactly the themes which need addressing as the career landscape changes faster than the curriculum of universities.Not all careers start in large companies. . Start-ups and worth considering too..   

Join our free Start-Ups online webinar on the 10th September at 12.30 where we offer a new approach to the workspace.This event sets out how start-ups can be be a good career option for many graduates and sets out how they can be addressed, created or found.

This is a rare joint webinar between the IET and the IoP and the details are  to be found here :  https://iop.eventsair.com/bus2025 

Some Universities have Innovation Centres and Science Parks but almost all have start-ups emerging from research or start-ups being born in their Innovation Centres often with university assistance.   

Unfortunately such start-ups are usually not visible to students and participating in them is not discussed.  This is a missed opportunity as they may be of  interest to many graduates and undergraduates who can either start or be part of a start up.  . Where start-up teams are being assembled they can offer unparalleled opportunities to young talent if the process is accessible.

Start-ups are an obvious career choice which at the very least enhances a CV when it is at its thinnest, and at best delivers a high learning rate career phase which may involve unparalleled experience as well as ending up with equity very early on.  Start-ups are the seed crystals for new businesses and supply chain companies as well as being the catalyst for growth when they merge into larger companies. 

There is a well established community in start-ups which includes recruiting networks, publications and funding sources but it is not very visible. We will feature these and include online access to existing and future start-ups many of which are recruiting.  We will also feature an award winning Case Study (Crainio) which will illustrate how the process works and what the challenges are.

Do join us on the 10th Sept. for a content rich event at 12.30.  Register to attend the webinar here:  https://iop.eventsair.com/bus2025

 Dr Mark Scibor-Rylski FIET

I set up a grad scheme about 7 years ago and we've found the best ones have a few key skills:

Ability to think bigger and apply ideas. Tech changes so you need to get the theory enough to apply it rather than learning for one very specific thing. 

Background knowledge across multiple areas that are relevant like global economic understanding and imoact of legislation. We call them T shaped people as they have breadth and depth. 

Drive and resilience. 

I think you can cover some in a degree but I found that a well structured project was the best way to learn some of them. You need a safe space to fail, a really hard problem to solve, and a diverse group. Birmingham uni do some great EV battery work combining law with chemistry and materials that would be a good example of this. 

Excellent points Felicity. I would describe that approach as an apprenticeship ;-)

I think FE (Further Education) colleges and HE(Higher Education) for engineering in the UK should mandated that the tutors complete a minimum of 1 week per year working in industry.  This would allow the tutor to see what is happening in industry and bring that back into the classroom.  It also allows the tutors to advise the education system of items or ideas that could/should be added to the teaching curriculum.  

I completely agree that maintaining industrial relevance is crucial in engineering education, where technology, standards, and best practices evolve rapidly. There is already a huge disparity between the “perfect textbook solution,” typical classroom scenarios, and the reality of engineering in the field. Having tutors engage with industry could help bridge that gap, giving students a more practical and realistic understanding of the profession.

One of the underlying challenges is that many training providers, much like driving instructors, teach primarily to a standard designed to pass assessments or exams, rather than to prepare students for the unpredictability of real-world scenarios. While this approach ensures compliance and assessment success, it often leaves students underprepared for the variability and complexity of actual engineering work.

Some tutors also have limited or no recent industrial experience. While they are skilled at delivering the curriculum, and that really is a skill. This can mean students are not always exposed to the latest tools, techniques, or operational challenges. Ensuring tutors remain connected to current practices is valuable—but how this is achieved in practice is not straightforward.

There are further questions around practicality, integrity, and perception. Even with correct procedures and best intentions, there are companies and individuals who do not consistently follow protocols—safe isolation being a clear example. For companies that do maintain proper standards, hosting a tutor who only attends once a year could introduce significant administrative overhead. Systems would need to be robust enough to guarantee safety, compliance, and meaningful engagement, without creating an excessive burden.

Additionally, tutors might be hesitant if such placements feel like a “work experience” exercise rather than a professional development opportunity. For the scheme to succeed, the messaging would need to be inspirational and clearly communicate the value to both tutors and students, which would likely require an industry-wide cultural shift.

Potential solutions could include short observational placements, project-based collaborations, or structured shadowing, rather than full operational involvement. Done thoughtfully, these approaches could provide insight into current practices, allow tutors to feed back into curriculum development, and strengthen the link between education and industry—without undermining the tutors’ professional role or creating an impractical system.

Ultimately, while there are practical challenges, the principle of keeping tutors connected to industry is compelling. With careful planning, robust systems, and the right approach to communication, it could help bridge the gap between classroom theory and the realities of modern engineering, benefitting students, tutors, and industry alike.

Given that on this thread we're talking about HE, in my experience most HE engineering academics do in fact work closely with industry - that's where their funding comes from. For many (most?) of them teaching is somewhat of a part-time occupation - in fact I've known academics leave academia because they are frustrated that the pressure is on them from the university to do paying industrial work rather than the teaching they want to do! (Equally of course many others look forward to the summer months when they can get "proper work done" without those pesky students around.)

In terms of technology my experience is that HE academics are generally in fact somewhat ahead of industry (which makes sense, the whole point is that universities are researching "next-but-one" generation technology).

What I do find lacking in HE, and hence in graduates, is an understanding of industrial commercial and timescale pressures. Fortunately that's pretty easy to gain by experience.

The other big thing that can be lacking, as Felicity just touches on in her excellent post, is group experience. Academia in my experience does tend to miss the point that no-one is "an excellent engineer", everyone needs to find where they best fit into an engineering team. Personally I'd rather more time was spent during degrees on exploring group aspects of engineering projects at the expense of learning facts which will quickly become obsolete.  

In my day job we've just come to the end of this year's round of our graduate recruitment programme, which as always was very interesting. In terms of technical skills and knowledge they were all fine, they always are. What made the big difference (at least from our perspective) was how well they could show they could listen and think about and analyse and discuss problems we threw at them - and incidentally very often it was clear that these "team working" skills had come from work or team experience which often had little or nothing to do with engineering. Interesting that Felicity mentioned the "T shaped engineer" model, in these interviews I was explaining this model to the graduates, specifically that we were looking for those that were starting to show the broad top of the "T", and then once they'd found which field particularly appealed to them our post-graduate and early career training could help them build on their degree to make the deep knowledge part of the "T". What we don't want to see (and to be fair we didn't this year) is a graduate who already thinks they have that deep knowledge - they absolutely don't! And shouldn't be expected to. The best graduates I find are those that come out of their degree having discovered how little they know - and being keen to remedy this.

(For FE, which is a very different world serving a different purpose, I fully agree with Michael's post.)

Teaching engineering needs to incorporate a certain amount of curiosity in the student.  A curious engineering student will one day become a pioneering engineer.  Curiosity will also help the engineer find their niche.