The sense that something is going badly wrong in our education system grew a little stronger this week with news that
The university’s authorities decided that the department, though well-regarded for the standard of its teaching, was not viable as a going concern.
The university cited under-funding and lack of demand from students for basic sciences.
The latter is the more significant, because strong demand almost always ensures that the funding follows. The root of the problem is that not enough school pupils want to study sciences and engineering to maintain the number of departments operating across the
When perfectly good schools of science and engineering begin shutting like under-used sub-post offices the current debate about turning round our performance in these areas takes on a sharper edge.
As fast developing economies such as
And all Tony Blair’s reassuring words about the importance of technology and innovation to our national future ring increasingly hollow if the engineers and technologists of the future decide they want to be accountants, lawyers or management consultants instead.
The trouble is, you can’t force people to study anything at higher education level. They have to want to do it, even more so when they are picking up the bill in the form of long-term loans against future earnings.
Courses in pure science appear to many potential students to be demanding (true), dull (a matter of opinion), non-vocational (it depends) and leading to poorly paid jobs (arguable).
We can promote the pure sciences as fascinating in their own right (and ironically enthusiasm for popular science is growing) but the current generation of students is likely to be interested in the bottom line – where is this taking me, and how much will I earn when I get there.
Now, if all this sounds rather gloomy for the pure sciences, it could in fact present an opportunity for the engineering community to blow its own trumpet a little louder.
Demanding certainly, as vocational as you want it to be and with a range of well paid jobs at the end of it, the various incarnations of engineering seem to tick many of the boxes the pure sciences are seen (however unfairly) as leaving blank. The question is, are we getting that message across?
Andrew Lee
Editor
The Engineer & The Engineer Online
Whilst I agree with the sentiment and general message in this article, may I also draw your attention to the letter ‘In the wrong job?’ in the 13th-26th November issue. Engineering does indeed need to be blowing its own trumpet and I believe would benefit from our own ‘St. Jamie’ (comment, same edition). The popularity of programmes such as Dragon’s Den show that innovation and engineering is alive and well in the UK, but a major obstacle is indeed the industry itself. Engineers are still seen as ‘lower class’ members of the business community and the fact that many financial and pharmaceutical firms present a more prosperous and glamorous image (as cited by the examples of home working, company car, hotels, etc) means that it will always be an uphill battle. If engineering in the UK does indeed want to attract more talent and recruits, it needs to be promoted not only from the rooftops, but also from within.
Engineering needs to restrict access to the profession if it is to mimic the brutal process of fee rate protection which medics and lawyers have instituted. Whether we want that is a question that only Professional Engineers can answer.
The reason that Science is unpopular as a discipline is that Scientists have failed to protect eg the PhD as a mark of excellence. We now have schools and universities full of second rate scientific deadwood, scrabbling to generate volumes of useless papers. No surprise that bright young people are turned off by the whole idea.
I am extremely surprised and annoyed that the point in your article “engineering leads to poorly paid jobs” was quoted as arguable.
Last week I had a drink with one of my friends who is a Barclays Fund Manager, and my heart sank due to the fact that I followed a path within the field of Design Engineering.
My friend, of similar age and intelligence to myself but on four times my salary, made me aware of one of his clients, a graduate engineer who moved into finance. This client, an individual who graduated from engineering, reached 26 yrs old this week and is now fulfilling the role of ‘Credit Derivatives Trader’. The fact that he received his yearly bonus of £2.5 million (which is standard for a talented Credit Derivatives Trader) for raising £15 million of funds for his employer this year may have something to do with our youth showing greater interest in these fields rather than engineering.
Should it not be the Engineers and Physicists, such as those at the University of Georgia who have developed a diagnostic test that can detect viruses as diverse as influenza, HIV and RSV in 60 seconds or less, be the ones who receive bonuses of this size? The ground breaking research this team have achieved is not worth £15 million. It is priceless. Worth 10 fold this value and also will save thousands of lives.
It is engineers and physicists that save the environment, stamp out viruses that threaten the human race and create the future for our new generations.
Unless the field of engineering as a whole, pushes for capitalist priorities to be reviewed with much more extreme intensity, then what the hell do you expect from our youth.
Directors need to realise the worth of engineers and start putting them on the board. Then they will be seen to be logical thinking members of the team with lots to bring to the table. We are not represented at top level. This in turn keeps our remuneration low.
A lot of the responsibility has to lie with engineering employers. They want the best but are unwilling (or unable) to pay top salaries! I have come across a large number of adverts where the candidate requirements fill the entire page and the salary offered is ‘attractive’. Come on employers, – remember the saying: – if you pay peanuts……..
The constant denigration of the engineer’s status is probably most clearly displayed by the practice of adding “Engineer” to non-skilled though valuable activity. Domestic Engineer, Refuse Engineer and so on, conveying the image that anyone can be an engineer just add the word, instant accreditation. Maybe it is time to start fighting back, take a leaf out of the CORGI register, and pursue those falsely claiming what they are not. If the job is not employing a qualified Engineer then sue the organisations and users for false presentation. Unless we actively stop the misuse of the word Engineer in people’s job title we have only ourselves to blame if there is no kudos in being an “Engineer” in society today.